GK Contradictions (spoilers)

Post by **Croik** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:24 am

Once the game is out this will be the thread for naming and discussing contradictions, just like in the other sections. As a reminder, this does not count things like sprite glitches, typos, or "How can someone be that stupid?"

Please tag your spoilers and label them by case.

Post by **Croik** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:46 pm

Okay, finally our first contradiction!

Spoiler: Case 3

Post by **Ryu-kun** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:02 pm

Thanks!

Post by **Croik** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:21 pm

Since I just finished case 2 for the second time here's something I wondered about...

Spoiler: Case 2

osaka_dahlia · Post by **osaka_dahlia** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:05 pm

Croik wrote:Since I just finished case 2 for the second time here's something I wondered about...

Spoiler: Case 2
Wakana killed Akbey before the plane stopped for an hour in Seihou, that much is proven. But if cargo was being taken on and off the plane at that point, why didn't she dump the body? It was in Seihou that her cohorts loaded the fake statue into the hold, wasn't it? Couldn't they have helped her smuggle the body out? If the syndicate was as far reaching as the game wanted us to believe, there should have been someone or some way to get rid of a nosey Interpol agent.

Or did I miss interpret something?

Well, the simple explanation is the writers probably didn't think about it XD
But at one point,

Spoiler:

That's about the most logical explanation I can come up with, given what we're told in-game.
Hope that made sense ^^;

Post by **Croik** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:21 pm

Spoiler: case3

76_trombone · Post by **76_trombone** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:13 pm

Spoiler: .Case 4/T&T Case 5

crouton · Post by **crouton** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:23 pm

76_trombone wrote:
Spoiler: .Case 4/T&T Case 5
Phoenix talks about how Manfred Von Karma is "long gone from this world" but he appears in GK. Sorry if this is explained in the game I've not played it yet.

Spoiler: GK Case 4

Brawldud · Post by **Brawldud** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:59 pm

I thought his case against Mia was his first...?

Robin Goodfellow · Post by **Robin Goodfellow** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:16 pm

Brawldud wrote:I thought his case against Mia was his first...?

Spoiler: AI-4

UltraSaint4121 · Post by **UltraSaint4121** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:28 am

Question!

Spoiler: AAI-5

Post by **Croik** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:42 pm

UltraSaint4121 wrote:Question!
Spoiler: AAI-5
This probably isn't really a contradiction, however, Badou wanted to shoot and kill 'Shiina' beacause of her betrayal etc? Then why was he aiming down at her leg? (looking at the screenshot where Rou apprehends her, it would have got her just below the knee, had Rou not got in the way) I'm pretty sure Badou is a good shot (being a firearms proficient detective for 7 years) and if he wanted to kill her he could have done so easily by aiming at her body/head?

Also, If someone was holding someone else hostage would it not be safer to kill the hostage-taker outright, rather than risking Kay's life by trying to apprehend 'Shiina' by shooting her leg?
Then again, I am just basing this on the Case descriptions page, so I may have misinterpereted it and Badou may not have wanted to kill her after all?

Spoiler:

phoenixwrightmaster · Post by **phoenixwrightmaster** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:41 pm

http://www.court-records.net/charagk-return.htm#karma
here you read that von karma is in GK 60 years old. but as the game plays around T&T is he than not 67?

Capybara · Post by **Capybara** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:54 pm

phoenixwrightmaster wrote:http://www.court-records.net/charagk-return.htm#karma
here you read that von karma is in GK 60 years old. but as the game plays around T&T is he than not 67?

Spoiler:

Post by **Croik** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:07 pm

To people who have not actually played the game yet, please don't offer contradictions.

Percei · Post by **Percei** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:01 am

Croik wrote:
UltraSaint4121 wrote:Question!
Spoiler: AAI-5
This probably isn't really a contradiction, however, Badou wanted to shoot and kill 'Shiina' beacause of her betrayal etc? Then why was he aiming down at her leg? (looking at the screenshot where Rou apprehends her, it would have got her just below the knee, had Rou not got in the way) I'm pretty sure Badou is a good shot (being a firearms proficient detective for 7 years) and if he wanted to kill her he could have done so easily by aiming at her body/head?

Also, If someone was holding someone else hostage would it not be safer to kill the hostage-taker outright, rather than risking Kay's life by trying to apprehend 'Shiina' by shooting her leg?
Then again, I am just basing this on the Case descriptions page, so I may have misinterpereted it and Badou may not have wanted to kill her after all?

Spoiler:
I think maybe he aimed for the leg so there'd be less of a chance of him accidentally hitting Kay. Or if he did hit her by mistake, it wouldn't be fatal.

Spoiler:

Tomoshibi Amatsu · Post by **Tomoshibi Amatsu** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:58 pm

Spoiler: case 5

Post by **Croik** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:42 am

Tomoshibi Amatsu wrote:
Spoiler: case 5
Case 5 really screwed up the timeline for me. I'm sure it's supposed to take place after T&T, but Edgeworth's speech before the choice of whether to present the evidence or not. Asking what is law, what is justice. About what a prosecutor should be. It seems to point that AAI really happens between Ace Attorney and Justice For All as this seems like the most logical time that Edgeworth's views changed.

It's probably not a contradiction at all, but I thought it was interesting to bring up at least.

Spoiler:

Tomoshibi Amatsu · Post by **Tomoshibi Amatsu** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:04 am

Croik wrote:
Tomoshibi Amatsu wrote:
Spoiler: case 5
Case 5 really screwed up the timeline for me. I'm sure it's supposed to take place after T&T, but Edgeworth's speech before the choice of whether to present the evidence or not. Asking what is law, what is justice. About what a prosecutor should be. It seems to point that AAI really happens between Ace Attorney and Justice For All as this seems like the most logical time that Edgeworth's views changed.

It's probably not a contradiction at all, but I thought it was interesting to bring up at least.

Spoiler:
The timeline for the game is actually very specific. It has to be the March right after T&T. Edgeworth's mini-speech in case 5 was was just them revisiting the moral dilemma faced by all lawyers: whether to follow the law by the letter, or place the truth above all else. I don't think it's evidence that Edgeworth was actually wavering in the philosophy he taught Phoenix in 2-4.

Spoiler:

Post by **Croik** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:37 pm

Tomoshibi Amatsu wrote:
Spoiler:
Well it seemed that way at first considering his mini speech began with him saying that he chose not to follow the path of Von Karma, and that he rejected Yatagarasu's method. Honestly I would think that by the end of T&T Edgeworth would know what to do instead of having a moral dilemma. It just seems to me that the only time he would really have one would be between the time he left in Ace Attorney and when he returned in Justice For All.

I know it was all for drama, but it just seems weird considering everything he taught Phoenix about striving for the truth. It just seemed very OOC to me in a way.

Spoiler:

Tomoshibi Amatsu · Post by **Tomoshibi Amatsu** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:07 pm

Croik wrote:
Spoiler:
I disagree, I thought it was very in character. As someone who has already rejected the idea of "Get someone guilty by any means necessary" it would be very strange if he didn't feel some conflict over having to use illegal evidence against Carnage.

Spoiler:

Post by **Croik** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:00 am

Tomoshibi Amatsu wrote:etc etc

...I'm sorry if that seems weird or anything.[/spoiler]

Spoiler:

Tomoshibi Amatsu · Post by **Tomoshibi Amatsu** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:19 am

Croik wrote:
Tomoshibi Amatsu wrote:etc etc

...I'm sorry if that seems weird or anything.[/spoiler]

Spoiler:
No, I totally understand what you're saying, but I think you're being a little too hard on Edgeworth. In every case the circumstances are a little different, and they deserve to be analyzed separately. Sure Edgeworth has declared that it is the truth that matters most, but if he didn't have that slight hesitation when it came to the method, he would be no better than Yatagarasu. In the end it was only a short moment of indecision.

I think if you didn't allow for Edgeworth to have those short moments of doubt, his character would flatten out pretty fast.

Spoiler:

jonathanrp · Post by **jonathanrp** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:50 pm

Spoiler: case 4

Maybe its just a different courtroom?

Percei · Post by **Percei** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:49 pm

Spoiler: Case 4

jonathanrp · Post by **jonathanrp** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:53 pm

Percei wrote:
Spoiler: Case 4
No, it's called a retcon, they completely ignored the fact that the courtroom looked like it did in PW1-3 and changed it to look like the AJ courtroom, which isn't bad, as I personally like the AJ Courtroom Better

Spoiler: AJ Case 4

Post by **Lunaria42** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:18 pm

jonathanrp wrote:
Percei wrote:
Spoiler: Case 4
No, it's called a retcon, they completely ignored the fact that the courtroom looked like it did in PW1-3 and changed it to look like the AJ courtroom, which isn't bad, as I personally like the AJ Courtroom Better

Spoiler: Refers to GK case four
What about the flashback case in aj? That uses the original courtroom

Spoiler: GK Case 4

rydus65 · Post by **rydus65** » Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:40 pm

Tomoshibi Amatsu wrote:
Croik wrote:
Spoiler:
I disagree, I thought it was very in character. As someone who has already rejected the idea of "Get someone guilty by any means necessary" it would be very strange if he didn't feel some conflict over having to use illegal evidence against Carnage.

Spoiler:
But technically haven't Phoenix and Edgeworth done it before? I mean look at case 1-5. Sure they used evidence law to get Gant, but they still used evidence they acquired illegally. After all I wouldn't say that breaking into Gants safe was legal, but that didn't seem to phase either of them then.

Then in 2-4 I may be misinterpreting it, but it seemed to me Edgeworth was saying that finding and proving the truth is the most important thing. At the time I know he meant that it's more important than a non-guilty verdict, but I feel he meant it in an overall sense as well. I'm not saying that Edgeworth shouldn't be conflicted, but Edgeworth knew who was guilty, and knew he had the means to prove the truth. So it just seems weird to me that Edgeworth would waver in his convictions especially if it meant letting the criminal get away. It just doesn't seem like post 2-4 Edgeworth, but I guess that's because I see Edgeworth as the kind of person who wouldn't waver after his enlightenment.

I'm sorry if that seems weird or anything.

Spoiler:

jonathanrp · Post by **jonathanrp** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:08 am

rydus65 wrote:
Tomoshibi Amatsu wrote:
Croik wrote:
Spoiler:
I disagree, I thought it was very in character. As someone who has already rejected the idea of "Get someone guilty by any means necessary" it would be very strange if he didn't feel some conflict over having to use illegal evidence against Carnage.

Spoiler:
But technically haven't Phoenix and Edgeworth done it before? I mean look at case 1-5. Sure they used evidence law to get Gant, but they still used evidence they acquired illegally. After all I wouldn't say that breaking into Gants safe was legal, but that didn't seem to phase either of them then.

Then in 2-4 I may be misinterpreting it, but it seemed to me Edgeworth was saying that finding and proving the truth is the most important thing. At the time I know he meant that it's more important than a non-guilty verdict, but I feel he meant it in an overall sense as well. I'm not saying that Edgeworth shouldn't be conflicted, but Edgeworth knew who was guilty, and knew he had the means to prove the truth. So it just seems weird to me that Edgeworth would waver in his convictions especially if it meant letting the criminal get away. It just doesn't seem like post 2-4 Edgeworth, but I guess that's because I see Edgeworth as the kind of person who wouldn't waver after his enlightenment.

I'm sorry if that seems weird or anything.

Spoiler:
Don't forget Phoenix using the ear medicene to trick Furio Tigre.

Hmm ... Bringing up gant makes me think

Spoiler: 1-5

Tap · Post by **Tap** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:58 am

I was working on my AAO Fan game which has Himiko as the main character when I did her profile and realized something. Her age is contradictory.

The main site says she is 22. I can't be bothered playing The Departed Turnabout but...

Spoiler:

Can anyone solve this?

Post by **Lunaria42** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:28 am

Ptapcc wrote:I was working on my AAO Fan game which has Himiko as the main character when I did her profile and realized something. Her age is contradictory.

The main site says she is 22. I can't be bothered playing The Departed Turnabout but...

Spoiler:
If she is 22, then that makes her having a younger sister impossible. We know that she had a younger sister who died 10 years before Case 4. But Yuuko was working at the Cordopian Embassy so she had to be at least 16. If Kazura is 22 in Case 4, minus 10, that would be 12 then Yuuko has to be 11 and younger which can't be true. Of course, Kazura's age could be a glaring contradiction that Badou picked up on but I haven't played Case 4 in a while, so I've forgotten.

Can anyone solve this?

Spoiler:

Tap · Post by **Tap** » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:47 am

Lunaria42 wrote:
Ptapcc wrote:I was working on my AAO Fan game which has Himiko as the main character when I did her profile and realized something. Her age is contradictory.

The main site says she is 22. I can't be bothered playing The Departed Turnabout but...

Spoiler:
If she is 22, then that makes her having a younger sister impossible. We know that she had a younger sister who died 10 years before Case 4. But Yuuko was working at the Cordopian Embassy so she had to be at least 16. If Kazura is 22 in Case 4, minus 10, that would be 12 then Yuuko has to be 11 and younger which can't be true. Of course, Kazura's age could be a glaring contradiction that Badou picked up on but I haven't played Case 4 in a while, so I've forgotten.

Can anyone solve this?

Spoiler:
I think it's implied that she was lying about that entire incident. There never was a sister. I'm not sure if that's correct, but I think I remember reading that somewhere on the site.

....

EDIT: I've figured out the reason why I was confused. I forgot something so simple.

Spoiler:

Sanguine · Post by **Sanguine** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:36 pm

Spoiler: AJ Case 3 & AAI Case 2

Post by **Nose** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:48 pm

Spoiler: response

UberWill · Post by **UberWill** » Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:50 pm

Sanguine wrote:
Spoiler: AJ Case 3 & AAI Case 2
In the ending scenes of case 2 in AAI, Franziska mentions that she isn't working on the smuggling ring by herself and she mentions that she has a partner in investigation, which "will be clear to you later on" or something like that.
Anyhow, we can safely acknowledge that she is talking about Romein LeTouse, in AJ Case 3, where he is on a secret mission - surprise surprise - regarding smuggling ring from Borginia to outer world, and was shot later on. How is this possible, though? Nor Edgeworth or Franziska know that he'd be shot or he WAS shot, and - in fact - it should not be known by them. After all, they don't appear a single time in AJ Case 3, Edgeworth isn't in charge of prosecuting and Franziska has gone to Germany for good.
Is my view of the timeline twisted, or is this a contradiction right here?

Spoiler: Case 2

Post by **Bad Player** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:35 am

Sanguine wrote:
Spoiler: AJ Case 3 & AAI Case 2
In the ending scenes of case 2 in AAI, Franziska mentions that she isn't working on the smuggling ring by herself and she mentions that she has a partner in investigation, which "will be clear to you later on" or something like that.
Anyhow, we can safely acknowledge that she is talking about Romein LeTouse, in AJ Case 3, where he is on a secret mission - surprise surprise - regarding smuggling ring from Borginia to outer world, and was shot later on. How is this possible, though? Nor Edgeworth or Franziska know that he'd be shot or he WAS shot, and - in fact - it should not be known by them. After all, they don't appear a single time in AJ Case 3, Edgeworth isn't in charge of prosecuting and Franziska has gone to Germany for good.
Is my view of the timeline twisted, or is this a contradiction right here?

Spoiler:

Anyway, this isn't really a contradiction, but rather an alternate situation:

Spoiler: case 3

Hope that came out semi-coherently :oops:

Prosecutor Manella · Post by **Prosecutor Manella** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:11 pm

I just finished AAI. Fantastic game.

First of all, answering a certain spoiler based on sisterhood...

Spoiler: MASSIVE AAI-5 Spoiler, Do NOT read if you wish to complete the game spoiler free

Anyway, some problems...

Spoiler: AAI-1 & 3

Spoiler: AAI-5

Spoiler: AAI-4 & Franzy in general

Post by **Bad Player** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:39 pm

Prosecutor Manella wrote:
Spoiler: AAI-1 & 3
Edgeworth claims this was the first time the two were in contact, and while Edgey and Sportsman may not have talked, Sportsman did state his full name, and then apprehend Lance, who Edgey had spent that entire last chapter going after. It is extremely unlike Edgey, and a total break in character, that he did not make a mental note of Sportsman's peculiar attitude after he talked to Lance, making it tres weird he treats Sportsman as a total stranger in AAI-1.

Spoiler: AAI 1 thru 3

Post by **Croik** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:52 pm

Bad Player wrote:
Spoiler: AAI 1 thru 3
Well, Edgey had gone through two murders and a kidnapping by that point, and it was the middle of the night, and Jaques was there for about 5 seconds. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that Edgey was really tired and just didn't remember him.

Spoiler:

Post by **Bad Player** » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:02 pm

Croik wrote:
Bad Player wrote:
Spoiler: AAI 1 thru 3
Well, Edgey had gone through two murders and a kidnapping by that point, and it was the middle of the night, and Jaques was there for about 5 seconds. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that Edgey was really tired and just didn't remember him.

Spoiler:
But Edgeworth did recognize him. When they meet in AAI he says, "You're that prosecutor..." So he remembered his face at least, if not his name.

Spoiler: