So I'm sure just about everyone has seen this video before. If you somehow haven't...give it a watch (one NSFW word).

Funny, right? Probably because it resonates with any longtime Ace Attorney player. We've all gotten to some point in nearly every game where we just can't figure out what the contradiction is. Or, even more frustratingly, there will be a point where we spot another contradiction, and it simply isn't the one the game wanted us to point out. We end up losing a big portion of our penalty bar on a single question, and, well, that basically forces us to get every single question for the rest of the case right on the first try or have to reload a save. And while reloading a save isn't too bad for most games, it's just annoying with Ace Attorney. There's no additional challenge or sense of accomplishment of getting a question right after missed guesses in the same way that there's a sense of accomplishment from beating, say, a difficult boss after a lot of deaths. There's a limited number of answers; you'll have to get it right eventually. Simultaneously, losing 40-60% of your penalty bar on a single question/testimony can be quite demoralizing because it means you have to play almost absolutely perfectly to avoid resorting to the unsatisfying save/reloading. In other words, we need a system that allows for a player to get stuck for a bit on any single question/testimony without ultimately sentencing them to the reload save screen.

So here's the broad proposal that I would like to see happen in the fantasy world where I'm somehow the director of Ace Attorney. For every cross examination that the player performs perfectly (i.e. only pressing what needs to be pressed and only presenting what needs to be presented), the player will receive 20% of the penalty bar or one of the five exclamation points/whatever's being substituted for exclamation points back.

If anyone's still with me and wants to hear the full explanation, here it is. I believe that the difficulty of Ace Attorney games should be balanced so that the average longtime player can beat most cases without having to reset the game, since there's no satisfaction gained from simply guessing until one finds the right answer. Dual Destinies was the first game where that was really the case, but it largely accomplished that by giving some pretty heavy handed hints, which diminishes the sense of accomplishment. SoJ was nowhere near as over the top with the hints, but simultaneously suffered from a few frustrating questions itself. The last four cases all had some questions where I felt that I was penalized somewhat unfairly; either for a question that could have a number of different answers or for some answer that really took a leap in logic to get. This is, unfortunately, the reality with logic based games. Some answers that seem obvious to developers won't be for some players, regardless of how experienced they are. And that kinda sucks, because it means that most players will inevitably get stuck on one question, lose a lot of their health bar, and then essentially be forced to save scum in order to get through the rest of the case.

In other words, we need a system that allows for a player to get stuck on any single question/testimony for a bit without ultimately sentencing them to the reload save screen. Simultaneously, though, I don't think giving someone a point back simply for answering a question right is particularly good design either, largely because that would be incredibly broken, but beyond that it's not a reward for doing anything spectacular. It's simply doing what you're supposed to do; answer the question correctly. This method rewards the players who figure things out immediately instead of needing additional information, or, in the case of testimonies that require some pressing, rewards the players who know where to ask.

This also introduces an element of risk and reward into the game as well; you could just press everything in a testimony to get more information, or you could take a chance on a question to try and get some more breathing room. It could lead for some interesting strategic moves as well; perhaps someone is moderately certain they've got the right evidence with 2 exclamation points left, but isn't entirely sure and has to decide whether to take a chance on something they're only fairly certain about or press to try and get more info while giving up the chance to get more life back. Could make for some interesting strategic choices on the player's side.

The final benefit is that I think it reflects what the penalty bar is actually supposed to represent; the judge's confidence or patience. It makes no sense for an attorney to make some mistakes at the start, and then proceed to argue things perfectly for the rest of the case, and have the judge be just as short on patience then as he was at the start. Pointing out contradictions without mindlessly questioning everything would, realistically, increase someone's confidence in the attorney, and while Ace Attorney's court system has certainly never been realistic, I feel that the ability to lean a bit more towards realism in one of the more annoying aspects of cases would be a positive.

---

You bring up some good points, but I'm not sure the solution you offer will be that effective. To a casual player who's just playing the game for the story, it could work and even adds to the realism of the circumstances. To a veteran player who aims for the most efficient blind run, it encourages them to do what they usually do.

But then you have the players (like me) who like to press everything and purposely pick wrong answers just to see what's in store. These kinds of players undoubtedly suffer the most from the resetting problem, as they so easily lose all five marks. Fortunately, what DD introduced, aside from the two save files, which are gracious gifts already, is a Godsend: being able to reload to the exact question where you lost your last mark and return with the full set. I'd say this already does well to address, even if it doesn't solve, the save-scumming issue. In this case, getting a game over isn't too bad.

What I'd encourage the developers to try in a later game is granting the player the option to skip the game over sequence altogether. (I know it's short and to the point, but after the 30th time, the B button doesn't seem to work fast enough.) After all, unless they add something worth seeing to the game over other than the judge announcing the verdict, it's gonna be the same across all the games.

That said, the system you suggest may be implemented for an "easy mode" to the game, where the MCs are awarded points back to their bars/sets for successfully reaching a particular point in the trial. After all, if the bar can be restored after completing Psyche-lock sequences, it can work for in-trial examinations or at least for story purposes.

And then there can be an impossible mode where you only have one point through the whole episode before the judge goes whammy on your hienie. Also, hard Psyche-locks are back where you don't know if you have all the evidence when you meet them.

Speaking of Psyche-locks, they really ought to do something about how ditching one of these results in having to go through the whole thing again. It's less of an offender in DD and SoJ because they're so straightforward, but even they haven't helped with this.

And while we're on game mechanics, let's give Apollo's Perceive the ability to fast-forward through text on repeat attempts.

---

I think we're approaching the issue from two different standpoints; yours seems to be concerned almost exclusively with efficiency and not wasting the player's time, whereas I'm more focused on trying to balance the difficulty of the game for people who want a fair challenge on their first playthrough. The problem isn't that having to restart the case or sit through a game over screen is a time sink; it's more of just the frustration of getting a game over that you feel like you didn't deserve.

Other people might certainly approach it in different ways, but at least for me and my group of AA playing friends, our initial playthroughs are all simply attempting to get through with as few mistakes as possible. It's not so much about getting through the case as quickly as possible; it's about thinking through things and figuring the puzzles out without making too many mistakes. A "game over" is basically the game telling you "you made too many mistakes." What I'm largely trying to do is alleviate from the frustration of getting inevitable game overs for the people who approach the initial playthrough route with some degree of seriousness.

One thing I'd honestly be interested in trying out is removing the penalty system altogether. While that does sound like removing the last bit of challenge from the game, it seems to me that if everyone is already assured of finding the correct answer eventually without the need for any skill involved, then we might as well waste as little of people's time as possible and just skip the pretense of a meaningful fail state.

---

I know where you're coming from, since I did mention a change in difficulty via modes. I'm just saying the current system already alleviates problems with save-scumming and the original difficulty should remain as another option for those who prefer it that way.

Perhaps it'd be simpler for them to instate "weaker" penalties to allow more room for error. The AAI games felt easier and more smoothly transitioned in that regard. Any hand-holding to it is due to the script and mystery design itself, rather than mechanics.

And while we're on the subject of balance, there should be a challenge mode for others who don't mind the frustrations.

I object to the removal of game overs altogether. It kills any tension to the trials that can otherwise add to the experience. Not to mention, I would like if they added in more game overs so they're more diverse.

---

You lost me at "pressing only what needs to be pressed".

The game shouldn't punish you for information gathering. Its the reason many people hate Moe's testimony and even then I used a save so I could experience every quality gem he had to offer.


Pressing is great, don't penalise it

---

I'm not saying that we should penalize people for pressing; punishing a player for gathering information is a terrible idea on all accounts and a miserable way for raising the stakes. I'm saying we should reward the players who can figure things out without needing to collect a bunch of extraneous information.

In other words, if you want to press everything, then have at it. The game under my proposed change wouldn't treat you any differently than it does now.

---

I'd certainly advocate making this optional; let it be turned off in the options like consultation. A weaker penalty bar could work too.

I do agree that trials are more tense, although I'm not sure that's due to the possibility of a fail state. A game over as a mechanic only makes things tense in other video games because it threatens to undo a level of progress to that point. But in Ace Attorney, as long as we can save our game, a game over never means anything more than a momentary annoyance and perhaps a bruise to our egos, and the latter is gone once you've been forced to reset already. No progress is undone by a game over in Ace Attorney because we're right back where we were, and we've already narrowed down the list of things that are not the answer.

Think of it this way; imagine a boss fight in a standard video game, except you can save at any point during the fight. The tension of a possible game over would be almost nonexistant since, well, you can easily just go back to right before you died and be sure to not make the mistake that got you killed. In other words, the game over itself isn't threatening as a mechanic (nor should it be; if the game made you redo a whole bunch of stuff you'd already done, that would be incredibly annoying).

So all that Ace Attorney's game over can be is threatening as a story mechanic; the fact that, at least until we hit restart, we failed someone and sentenced them to prison (or worse). And since resets are such an accepted part of the game, I'm not sure that Ace Attorney benefits from that either. If you fail so many times, the thought of failing again doesn't carry as much weight.

I'd wager that the tension in trials simply comes from the game's atmosphere itself; the same way that a fight scene in a movie can be tense even if you know the good guy is going to win. This is just a theory; I may be entirely wrong, but it's something I'd like to at least test out with an option in a game at some point and see for myself.

---

It's true it isn't the game overs that induce a sense of tension. It's a multitude of factors, but a major one is the emotional investment into the story and the characters. I know how pointless the game overs seem, which is why I prefer the next games to offer more to their game overs.

It doesn't have to be much. The bad endings they offer are already engaging enough on their own and offer a lot of free speculation. Granted, because the game overs are going to be used over and over again, most of the time there isn't really anything to specify. But at least some reaction from the characters to make it seem less like it's copy-pasta would help relieve players about making mistakes and getting that game over.

Now, they don't really add or subtract any to the difficulty, but are major improvements to an otherwise stale system.

But again, I believe the best way to implement the restoration of the life bar is to do so when the story dictates, not after doing the bare minimum for a speed run or whatnot. I've seen it work in fan games where it happens.

---

How about the life bar actually being what it was supposed to be... A credibility bar? It starts at 50%, and if you make mistakes, it will decrease, and when it hits 0%, the trial is over.
The further you get in the case, (thus the more successful Objections and Take That's you do), you more your credibility increases, up to a max of 100%.
I also imagine the credibility will fluctuate if Phoenix can't explain something or comes up with some crazy theory, even if that is part of the scripted storyline
Then, the characters, particularly the Judge and the Prosecutor will react differently depending on your remaining credibility. They'll be very harsh and doubtful if you're at 10%, making you really feel that pressure of not messing up any more, whereas if you're at 100%, at least the Judge will sound more cooperative, making you feel like you're actually doing a good job.
That also means that going along with crazy theories will seem more risky than usual...

How's that?

---

This sounds like an interesting idea, although I do have a major issue with it. If there are scripted drops in credibility, that could result in a player who had made some mistakes getting an unfair game over. That said, there is a possible solution. In the case of a scripted penalty dropping your credibility to zero, the game still lets you play on, but in a "sudden death" sort of way, in that a single mistake will give you a game over. It's not perfect, but it addresses a major gameplay flaw in your suggestion.

---

I really like that, actually. Capcom, please read this thread.

---

Yeah, I had thought of that, though I didn't address it, sorry. I was thinking of it not being able to drop below 10% through scripted drops.
But what you say is actually also a really cool idea! It might just be a bit too confusing for some players... "Huh? My credibility is 0%, why am I still allowed to go on? Is the game glitched?"

---

I was thinking it could play out similarly to if you fail a Psyche-Lock in JFA or T&T, where when you try again, it shows you with a tiny sliver of the bar left, maybe 1%.

---

Yeah, that could work. Well, here's to hoping Capcom will implement something like this!

---