That would make for a good thread, but I'm too tired~
The discussion escalated into a trashy flame war. Here's basically my argument, presented in my wiki of a sandbox:

Timeline


TL;DR: I have a good reason to believe that AJ actually is set in 2025 and DD in 2026, contrary to (oh, how I love that) popular belief.

---

Last edited by Sligneris on Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:47 pm, edited 12 times in total.

Okay, aside from the first link not really seeming to work, I don't get what the problem is... AJ takes place 7 years after T&T. What timeline? What's the point of this discussion? Mistakes in terms of age not updated? Trying to figure out the exact birthdates? Exactly what? And who cares when their birthdays are?

C-A

---

The "Who cares about that?" doesn't really concern me ; P I care, and that's enough for me to put effort into it.

Also, fixed the first link.

---

Assuming I understand your theory correctly...

You claim it's fully consistent with all profiles and time gaps, but that's not actually true.

Gumshoe is 32 in the non-flashback cases of AAI, but he's 26 in AAI-4. According to your theory, he should be 25 then (7 years younger, like Kay, Badd and Manny Coachen). Likewise, Franziska is 19 in the present, but 13 in AA1-4.

Misty Fey was 46 in 1-4, but 49 in T&T. According to your theory, she should be 48 in T&T.


Also, when do you put Diego's poisoning? If it's 2012, Diego's age in the report doesn't match his age in 3-4; if it's 2013, Dahlia's age doesn't match Iris and Dahlia's ages in other cases.


And in case I don't understand your theory correctly, then you should probably explain it here properly instead of linking to a wall of text.

Yeah. I mean, I still don't quite get the problem. Or theory. Or what this has to do with AJ when there's talk about AAI, which takes place before AJ.

C-A

---

Actually, you did understand my theory correctly. And, thank you. Lack of proper counter to my arguments on the wikia was driving me crazy, really. This is precisely what I needed to actually have something to discuss with, instead of repeating myself over and over...

Now, that there are these profiles disproving my theory of all of the profiles being fully consistent with that year reference... It finally stops being terribly annoying and starts to get interesting. I'll post later on the matter.

---

I haven't read much of the wiki discussion, but I think I know what the problem is, because it's something that has been bothering me for a while.

Basically, if you pay attention to all the ages and dates, you'll notice that by the end of AJ and DD, Phoenix, Pearl and Edgeworth should be one year older than what is written in their court record profiles.

One way to solve this problem is to assume that, rather than the ages being wrong, the "7 years ago" is wrong (and should be 6 years, putting AJ in 2025 instead of 2026). But then it creates a new contradiction with Trucy's age (and with the ages given during the MASON part, but I'm more willing to ignore those).

I think the theory here is an attempt at finding a way of calculating the ages that can solve all the inconsistencies within the ages and dates.
I've tried something like that before without much success, but I'm open to new theories.

This is what I've been going with. Change Trucy from 8 to 9 and ignore the MASON records as a whole, and everything else falls neatly into place. Phoenix did say to think of the investigation through MASON as a "game". What he really meant by that can be open to interpretation.

---

Huh... I would honestly like to see it written in a somehow clearer way, because that wall of text isn't all that readable.

---

Well, according to my idea, ages in Mason System actually refer to ages in 2018, so that much really fits right in.

Since Larry, Elise and Sahwit seem to be special cases, we might consider them as such - as a result, unlike all the other characters, we will be able to establish their exact birthdays.

Sahwit has his birthday before March 27.
Misty had her birthday before Feb. 7
Larry had his birthday between March 15 and April 2.
Lotta had her birthday between Mar. 23 and April 5

Other birthdays remain unestablished, due to strictly following that year reference. Kinda simplistic explanation, but I can't say the ones used on the wiki are much better, huh...

Phoenix's explanation is literally "since Larry is year younger, we can also Phoenix became a year younger"...



Uh... really? I have to explain...? Again...?

---

You're being horrendously hypocritical here. As far as I can see, it's you who's failed to understand the wiki's system even after it's been explained to you. As I demonstrated on the wiki, the underlying logic of your system and the current system is exactly the same. It's just the years in the absolute that are different. Jozerick's post "refutes" both systems. And if anyone's wondering why I'm being perhaps looser in this thread than on the wiki: the misreading of the age reckoning page is really unsettling. These accusations based on misunderstandings are beginning to piss me off. I don't know how the "Phoenix and Payne" section could be read as anything other than proposing two different approaches. As any reader would see from Phoenix's actual page, 1992 has won out (though "really" should be 1992-1993 if the double-year approach is taken to its full conclusion, but even then he'd be a year older than Larry).

I've been pretty blunt on the wiki already, but at this point, I have to wonder if you're not just trying to justify your dislike of the editors on the wiki. This doesn't even have to be on purpose, since people are really prone to seek evidence that confirms their biases. I don't see any other explanation for you continuing to act like the victim of a witch hunt. I explained to you multiple times why it's ultimately a matter of opinion whether we go with 2016, 2017, or 2016-2017, the minor strengths and weaknesses of each option, and why ultimately it doesn't even matter that much, especially when there are (imo) more pressing matters like actually giving content to certain pages.

I'd really rather not come off like the bad guy here, but as this keeps dragging on, you're giving me fewer and fewer options. No one's going to roll over and submit to your priorities or way of thinking just because you're ignorant of other people's priorities or ways of thinking. The wiki simply lacks regular editors, and while I can't fully explain why that is, it does explain the presence and influence of people who are difficult to deal with both on the editing front and on the discussion front. More than that, though, not very many people care about "the timeline" even if they are regular editors.

Anyway... if Jozerick's post is true, there's something incredibly funky going on in the AAI games as far as profiles go. Penny Nichols is 18 in 1-3, correct? I confirmed her to be 20 in AAI2 (the fan translation, but I doubt it would screw around with ages). Similarly, Gumshoe's age doesn't change from 1 to 2, but Larry's does. So it seems either the AAIs are inconsistent with themselves now <.< or there's actually a deeper system that the profile writers are going with. If they're secretly giving people birthdays now, they have to have done it more recently, say starting with AAI1.

Huh? I am hypocritical? I'm sorry, in that case. I just can't really picture the whole image of whatever the "Age reconing" is trying to say. Apollo Justice takes place in both 2025 and 2026, despite everything being listed as 2026? Dual Destinies in 2027, which blatantly contradicts everything from the original trilogy, which allowed us to establish years in the first place?

Doesn't even listing DL-6 as anything but 2001, like you did back on the wiki going straight against the canon material?

Actually, I started doubted Jozerick's points myself. The point about Misty does seem to hold true (although I do have yet to see that one in the game), I honestly can't tell if it wasn't the fan translation's doing. Like I said, these can be handled similarly to said special cases.

If it wasn't, then I'm currently in process of displaying my own point, and as far as I understand it, the other users' point from the wiki and show,

Also, like I said again - how does the fact that some people don't care matter to the discussion? I don't care about what some scientist are doing while performing their research and experiments, but that doesn't make said scientist write just anything in their notes - that's exactly the same.

---

What, you don't believe me? I can try to provide screenshots if you want...
In any case, I've never played the fan translation of GK2 if that's what you're talking about. The GK2 ages I've given come from the JP version.


I believe they've been giving individual birthdays to characters since the beginning.

Phoenix, Miles and Larry were supposed to be in the same grade, yet in 1-4 Larry was 1 year younger than the other 2. (And I'm not going to believe he skipped a grade). This implies that Larry has his birthday later than the other 2.

For the record, in Japan, school year starts in April. So I think the grade is determined by the age at the beginning of April. So Larry being 1 year younger in 1-4 meant that Phoenix and Miles's birthdays were somewhere between April and December, while Larry's birthday was somewhere between January and March.
(With that reasoning, Larry getting a year between AAI (middle of March) and GK2 (beginning of April) makes perfect sense).

And there's also Misty's and Dahlia's cases, so it's not just the AAI games.


You didn't address Gumshoe and Franziska's situation...
Besides, it seems strange to ignore birthdays for all characters except a few arbitrarily chosen. I'd rather go with a more consistent theory.

I'd too, really. But, there doesn't seem to be one. These "arbitrarily chosen" are the only ones that make sense, don't they?

I mean, assuming we do start trying to count birth dates for all characters, we get situation like Edgeworth being 20 in Feb. 2012 and 25 in Apr. 2018 and many, many others. I'd gladly do what it says on the wiki and assume he wasn't quite 20 in T. Beginnings, but to me it feels like pushing it. I'm pretty sure I would rather go for a different treatment of the years (which are calculated fully by fans, after all), than what we have stated clearly in the Court Record.

That being said, Larry being year younger than Phoenix and Miles might be explained by him starting education being a year younger altogether. That really doesn't cause any critical contradiction given the fact that is year younger than Edgeworth in Decemeber, and that, according to what you said, he turns 26 between May and April 2019, while Edgeworth is about to turn 27 the same exact year.

---

Last edited by Sligneris on Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

(I think you mean "25 in 2018" or "26 in 2019")

But, no, we don't.

3-5 takes place in February 2019.
3-4 takes place "6 years ago" compared to 3-5.
3-4 also takes place in Fabruary.

Therefore 3-4 takes place in 2013, and I really don't see why everyone seems to think otherwise. There's no contradiction with Edgeworth's age.

There's more evidence for that: Gumshoe and Franziska's age in AAI-4.

AAI-4 takes place "7 years ago" compared to AAI-3 (March 2019).
But AAI-4 takes place in September: they're 6 months apart. Therefore "7 years ago" is actually either 6.5 or 7.5 years ago.
Considering Gumshoe and Franziska are 6 years younger, it can only be 6.5 years ago. Therefore AAI-4 takes place in 2012.

If you try to figure out the birthday of each character, the only problems are the aforementioned Phoenix-Pearl-Edgeworth at the end of AJ-DD.

(Misclicked, it was 25.)

To be honest, that's what I thought myself at first. I changed my mind only after inventing that "year reference" system, which would treat Bridge to the T. as a part of 2018 "group".

The problem that is created with your interpretation, is Edgeworth being clearly stated to have started his prosecuting career 4 years before PW:AA. It's true that I kind of neglect that, while talking about the "seven years ago", however pretty much all of the profiles from Apollo Justice and Dual Destinies support my theory.

(Pearl's age on the site is listed wrong, btw. It's 17, not 16. Not to mention, that with the theory that Dual Destinies takes place in 2027, she'd be 18...)

However in T. Beginning's case, he's 20, 4 years before he's 24, so there goes the evidence in the form of profiles...

---

I don't understand the problem.
In case 1-2, September 2016, Gumshoe says Edgeworth became a prosecutor "4 years ago".
In AAI-4, September 2012, Edgeworth was a prosecutor.
It matches.

Phwwwwh... Actually, implications are hilarious.

>Perfect winning streak for 4 years
>Didn't really win a single case during the whole first year of his career.

Well, I'm working on a better presentation of my point now. You can see it here.

What I'm thinking most about now, is these "special cases" you mentioned (I think I need another table, these just won't fit in...) and characters who debuted in the AAI series. Also, whether or not I should concede... I would gladly do, but that would move whole "T. Reminiscence - T. Memories" block and most likely cause even more contradictions.

---

Okay, I won't comment on competing timeline systems, but here's how I think this 'contradiction' starting in GS4 came about.
'Seven Years Ago' was quite simply chosen for its symbolism. 7 years in the Wilderness, Gant 7777777 etc.

Then they just added 7 years to everyone's age, Phoenix etc. Probably didn't even think about 'when' people's birthdays supposedly were and any conflicts.
Were they deliberately leaving it vague, or did they (belatedly?) realise a contradiction had been created?

Then in The MASON itself we don't get dates at all but just '7 Years Ago' and 'Present Day'. The entire thing is surreal and ambiguous. It's clear whatever happens in MASON didn't happen 'exactly' 7 years ago (as in, not on the exact day 4-4's in world events occurred but exactly 7 years earlier, or so we assume). ALL the characters just keep going on about 'Seven years ago' throughout the game in a quite unnatural manner.

So this leads to the question, maybe we could see the data in the Profiles as somehow 'inaccurate' or 'an approximation'. As in, like the MASON itself, the Profile Viewer could be some weird piece of technology in the GS world or otherwise, with approximate ages rather than literal ones. Or at least, the data shown in the MASON itself (and perhaps GS4 generally) can be viewed this way.

---