Oh man, Psyche Locks. Isn't the general rule to ignore them until you can't go any further? I remember that case, just trying to wing a lock with Miney.
Out of nowhere,
So, I heard you were in a massive car accident! What was that like?
I actually thought the defendant was pretty cheeky. He reminded me a little of Derek Zoolander I guess. Out of the 'oddball' innocent clients, he's probably my favorite. It's probably the cards he fires at everything that moves.
In this case as well, the true culprit committed MURDER over something that was completely, and utterly beyond the control of their intended victims.
Regina is just a fluffy headed moron. There was no intent to kill, and it was not blatantly obvious the pepper bandana was dangerous.
Oh yeah, and fucking awesome cameo by Edgeworth in royal blue. Talk about a disguise.
Again, I'm not seeing this theme of Phoenix forced to confront the hardened realities of the legal system with the GUILTY getting off of the hook. Everyone convicted thus far has completely deserved their verdict.
And the Jammin' Ninja? Best fiction within fiction hero EVER.
If you don't have the necessary evidence to break a psyche lock the game warns you after you back down from one and usually tells you when you talk to them next that you got it this time...but not always.
So, cool points on the FA-BULOUS case.Again, I'm not seeing this theme of Phoenix forced to confront the hardened realities of the legal system with the GUILTY getting off of the hook. Everyone convicted thus far has completely deserved their verdict.
Avoiding spoilers, it's generally accepted that JFA only really picks up in case 4.
Personally, I thought psyche-locks made investigations a lot more interesting. You really had to figure out what was going on and what people were hiding, instead of just going through every dialog option and examining everything funny-looking. Going back to play the first game recently, I found the investigations felt too rote and simplistic.
I actually thought the defendant was pretty cheeky. He reminded me a little of Derek Zoolander I guess. Out of the 'oddball' innocent clients, he's probably my favorite. It's probably the cards he fires at everything that moves.
In this case as well, the true culprit committed MURDER over something that was completely, and utterly beyond the control of their intended victims.
Regina is just a fluffy headed moron. There was no intent to kill, and it was not blatantly obvious the pepper bandana was dangerous.
Oh yeah, and fucking awesome cameo by Edgeworth in royal blue. Talk about a disguise.
Again, I'm not seeing this theme of Phoenix forced to confront the hardened realities of the legal system with the GUILTY getting off of the hook. Everyone convicted thus far has completely deserved their verdict.
And the Jammin' Ninja? Best fiction within fiction hero EVER.
Acro might not have been justified, I mean, he committed murder, but I think it's at least fair to say that he was sympathetic.
Psyche-locks made investigation more interesting, but at the cost of making the court cases less interesting.
You already had everything figured out because of the psyche locks. There was none of the "oh shit, oh shit I'm going to court and I have no idea how to put this together" of the first game.
It's why the fourth case is far and away the best in game two - it's the only one to recapture that feeling.
Psyche-locks made investigation more interesting, but at the cost of making the court cases less interesting.
I dunno, 2-4, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-5 all seemed pretty interesting to me despite the psyche-lock thing. You still made a lot of actual discoveries in court during those cases, and the psyche-locks didn't give away a lot of the big secrets.
I agree they were misused at times, but I think 2-2 and 2-3 are uninteresting on their own merits.
I'm more bothered by how it compares to how the system does and doesn't work in Apollo Justice. Out of court, wouldn't it work more or less the same way as the psyche-locks, with Apollo being able to tell when the person is lying about something? In-court, wouldn't psyche-locks work the same as Apollo's observations, except without the stupid tell hunt?
I could understand not using the psyche-locks in court, because suddenly spitting out that the witness is hiding something with no way of justifying it would look incredibly stupid. But then Apollo starts doing it, and gets away with it.
I'm more bothered by how it compares to how the system does and doesn't work in Apollo Justice. Out of court, wouldn't it work more or less the same way as the psyche-locks, with Apollo being able to tell when the person is lying about something? In-court, wouldn't psyche-locks work the same as Apollo's observations, except without the stupid tell hunt?
I could understand not using the psyche-locks in court, because suddenly spitting out that the witness is hiding something with no way of justifying it would look incredibly stupid. But then Apollo starts doing it, and gets away with it.
The thing I really disliked about the perception system was that it killed the "working things out" aspect. With the psyche-locks, you still have to build a rough idea of what happened from the evidence so you know what to present when. The perceptions have no real connection to the evidence, so you as a player don't have to work out what they're lying about or solve the mystery. You just have to spot the difference in their animation.
I agree that it would have been better if used outside of court. It doesn't really make sense in the courtroom environment.
They actually started to do that in the later games. You start a case and no one has died yet. You go do a regular thing and then everything goes to shit.
Yeah, I know, but that's what I mean. It's always involved by the end.
LBD_Nytetrayn on
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
Okay, so as spoiler free as possible, I have a question to ask.
I know Justice for All case 4 has two endings. What I want to know, is if the point of no return is the
End of the first day of the trial. Where you have to either press Andria or go instantly for a not guilty verdict. I went for Not Guilty and got chewed out by Edgeworth. I think De Killer just wants the Not Guilty verdict, but I'm unsure about the day one thing.
Okay, so as spoiler free as possible, I have a question to ask.
I know Justice for All case 4 has two endings. What I want to know, is if the point of no return is the
End of the first day of the trial. Where you have to either press Andria or go instantly for a not guilty verdict. I went for Not Guilty and got chewed out by Edgeworth. I think De Killer just wants the Not Guilty verdict, but I'm unsure about the day one thing.
I'm pretty sure the point of no return is (spoiler as to where it occurs, not what it is)
literally the very last thing you're asked in the entire case.
Okay, so as spoiler free as possible, I have a question to ask.
I know Justice for All case 4 has two endings. What I want to know, is if the point of no return is the
End of the first day of the trial. Where you have to either press Andria or go instantly for a not guilty verdict. I went for Not Guilty and got chewed out by Edgeworth. I think De Killer just wants the Not Guilty verdict, but I'm unsure about the day one thing.
There is no point of no return. The two endings are if you can figure out the very last evidence presentation correctly or not.
Okay, so as spoiler free as possible, I have a question to ask.
I know Justice for All case 4 has two endings. What I want to know, is if the point of no return is the
End of the first day of the trial. Where you have to either press Andria or go instantly for a not guilty verdict. I went for Not Guilty and got chewed out by Edgeworth. I think De Killer just wants the Not Guilty verdict, but I'm unsure about the day one thing.
There is no point of no return. The two endings are if you can figure out the very last evidence presentation correctly or not.
I thought the point of divergence was
when you're asked if you want to push for a guilty or not guilty verdict. If you go for guilty, Engarde goes to jail but you lose the case; if you go for not guilty, you win, he goes free, but De Killer promises to hunt him down and kill him. Granted, I haven't played that case in a couple years.
Okay, so as spoiler free as possible, I have a question to ask.
I know Justice for All case 4 has two endings. What I want to know, is if the point of no return is the
End of the first day of the trial. Where you have to either press Andria or go instantly for a not guilty verdict. I went for Not Guilty and got chewed out by Edgeworth. I think De Killer just wants the Not Guilty verdict, but I'm unsure about the day one thing.
There is no point of no return. The two endings are if you can figure out the very last evidence presentation correctly or not.
I thought the point of divergence was
when you're asked if you want to push for a guilty or not guilty verdict. If you go for guilty, Engarde goes to jail but you lose the case; if you go for not guilty, you win, he goes free, but De Killer promises to hunt him down and kill him. Granted, I haven't played that case in a couple years.
I could always go check GFAQs but because I am lazy I will go with what I remember:
Because I am a dick I went with Not Guilty, at which point Matt EnGarde freaks out and starts yelling that he is guilty. I assumed that it is similar enough to our justice system that when someone confesses, they are officially pronounced guilty, thus both endings are the same.
Remember when I said "the ending never happen"? That was a reference to the two endings.
If you fail at...one of the last steps, I forget. I think you have to present a profile and an item and link them, if you mess up, Phoenix becomes this lawless hobo who wanders the streets
Okay, so as spoiler free as possible, I have a question to ask.
I know Justice for All case 4 has two endings. What I want to know, is if the point of no return is the
End of the first day of the trial. Where you have to either press Andria or go instantly for a not guilty verdict. I went for Not Guilty and got chewed out by Edgeworth. I think De Killer just wants the Not Guilty verdict, but I'm unsure about the day one thing.
There is no point of no return. The two endings are if you can figure out the very last evidence presentation correctly or not.
I thought the point of divergence was
when you're asked if you want to push for a guilty or not guilty verdict. If you go for guilty, Engarde goes to jail but you lose the case; if you go for not guilty, you win, he goes free, but De Killer promises to hunt him down and kill him. Granted, I haven't played that case in a couple years.
It doesn't matter what you answer there, although the choice is thrown back at you during the ending (I think, this might just be a "whatever you chose defines you as a lawyer" sort of deal with no actual dialogue change).
If I remember right the divergence happens at the last piece of evidence you present.
You can either present proof that De Killer did it and get En Garde off the hook, or you can present proof that En Garde was going to try and blackmail De Killer, which makes En Garde confess.
Awesome, awesome case. A few very random moments but otherwise the best case in the series other than, 1-4.
I, personally, think the best thing for Phoenix's character development as a Lawyer is the ending I got (naturally).
Phoenix, before the evidence arrives, gives in and tries to get a Not Guilty for Maya's sake. Then the evidence arrives. Wright and Edgeworth team-up and present evidence to De Killer that Engarde betrayed him. De is outraged and breaks his contract, setting Maya free. Trapping his enemy, Phoenix shirks his duty as a traditional Lawyer. It is not for him to blindly defend a client, it is not his place to cover his defendant's crimes, and in a thrill of panic, Engarde agrees with that assessment.
Von Karma of course, raises the point that winning and losing should be the ONLY concern for Defense and Prosecution Lawyers. They should not break trust with their clients. Wright and Miles know differently, their loyalty is not to a client, but to the truth. This reflects Edgeworth's own character growth, and explains why again and again he has helped Phoenix 'win' cases that earlier in his life he would have slammed shut with Guilty verdicts. Likewise, Phoenix has stood in Edgeworth's shoes and now knows what it is like to do his duty to a client he knows is guilty. However, it is only by these two extremes clashing that the truth can be found. Like a hammer and anvil.
This theme is echoed by the relationship between De Killer and Engarde. De placed trust between client and executor as sacred, however when that trust was broken, he was no longer any obligation to serve his master. The assassin was not loyal to a man, he was loyal to the creed.
Taken that way, I think the game makes a very powerful statement to me. And I honestly wish the real world would reflect a small bit of this 'truth' if you will. In a perfect world.
The only BS parts of the case were things that made sense in retrospect, but things got so muddled on the second or third day of trial it was hard to keep track of, like
Adrian's fingerprints when Killer claimed she was his client.
That being said, I only had to random mass guess about three times or so, including the investigation. Very much to the credit of the game to make things not too difficult, but certainly not easy either.
Is the third game about the same difficulty wise as the others?
Awesome, awesome case. A few very random moments but otherwise the best case in the series other than, 1-4.
I, personally, think the best thing for Phoenix's character development as a Lawyer is the ending I got (naturally).
Phoenix, before the evidence arrives, gives in and tries to get a Not Guilty for Maya's sake. Then the evidence arrives. Wright and Edgeworth team-up and present evidence to De Killer that Engarde betrayed him. De is outraged and breaks his contract, setting Maya free. Trapping his enemy, Phoenix shirks his duty as a traditional Lawyer. It is not for him to blindly defend a client, it is not his place to cover his defendant's crimes, and in a thrill of panic, Engarde agrees with that assessment.
Von Karma of course, raises the point that winning and losing should be the ONLY concern for Defense and Prosecution Lawyers. They should not break trust with their clients. Wright and Miles know differently, their loyalty is not to a client, but to the truth. This reflects Edgeworth's own character growth, and explains why again and again he has helped Phoenix 'win' cases that earlier in his life he would have slammed shut with Guilty verdicts. Likewise, Phoenix has stood in Edgeworth's shoes and now knows what it is like to do his duty to a client he knows is guilty. However, it is only by these two extremes clashing that the truth can be found. Like a hammer and anvil.
This theme is echoed by the relationship between De Killer and Engarde. De placed trust between client and executor as sacred, however when that trust was broken, he was no longer any obligation to serve his master. The assassin was not loyal to a man, he was loyal to the creed.
Taken that way, I think the game makes a very powerful statement to me. And I honestly wish the real world would reflect a small bit of this 'truth' if you will. In a perfect world.
That was very well written. Especially the limed part.
Posts
Out of nowhere,
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
In this case as well, the true culprit committed MURDER over something that was completely, and utterly beyond the control of their intended victims.
Regina is just a fluffy headed moron. There was no intent to kill, and it was not blatantly obvious the pepper bandana was dangerous.
Oh yeah, and fucking awesome cameo by Edgeworth in royal blue. Talk about a disguise.
Again, I'm not seeing this theme of Phoenix forced to confront the hardened realities of the legal system with the GUILTY getting off of the hook. Everyone convicted thus far has completely deserved their verdict.
And the Jammin' Ninja? Best fiction within fiction hero EVER.
Avoiding spoilers, it's generally accepted that JFA only really picks up in case 4.
Personally, I thought psyche-locks made investigations a lot more interesting. You really had to figure out what was going on and what people were hiding, instead of just going through every dialog option and examining everything funny-looking. Going back to play the first game recently, I found the investigations felt too rote and simplistic.
Not to mention the plot holes psyche locks brought about when people started to hold secrets or lie outright and you couldn't tell.
Regina Berry, while ditzy and annoying, has one of my favorite themes in the entire series.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
I think I see very quickly where case four is going.
I like what I see so far.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
You already had everything figured out because of the psyche locks. There was none of the "oh shit, oh shit I'm going to court and I have no idea how to put this together" of the first game.
It's why the fourth case is far and away the best in game two - it's the only one to recapture that feeling.
I dunno, 2-4, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-5 all seemed pretty interesting to me despite the psyche-lock thing. You still made a lot of actual discoveries in court during those cases, and the psyche-locks didn't give away a lot of the big secrets.
I agree they were misused at times, but I think 2-2 and 2-3 are uninteresting on their own merits.
I could understand not using the psyche-locks in court, because suddenly spitting out that the witness is hiding something with no way of justifying it would look incredibly stupid. But then Apollo starts doing it, and gets away with it.
The thing I really disliked about the perception system was that it killed the "working things out" aspect. With the psyche-locks, you still have to build a rough idea of what happened from the evidence so you know what to present when. The perceptions have no real connection to the evidence, so you as a player don't have to work out what they're lying about or solve the mystery. You just have to spot the difference in their animation.
I agree that it would have been better if used outside of court. It doesn't really make sense in the courtroom environment.
Yeah, I know, but that's what I mean. It's always involved by the end.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
If I recall correctly Apollo Justice wasn't really going to be related to Phoenix Wright so much but upper management forced it in or something?
The only respect he EVER gets is when he starts punking bitches on the stand. Otherwise...
I know Justice for All case 4 has two endings. What I want to know, is if the point of no return is the
I'm pretty sure the point of no return is (spoiler as to where it occurs, not what it is)
So no worries there for a while. :P
It never happen
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
There is no point of no return. The two endings are if you can figure out the very last evidence presentation correctly or not.
F-U-C-K...
I thought the point of divergence was
Everything else is just a non-standard game-over.
Right up there with...
"Foolish fool spouting foolish
foolishness, just as I expect
of a foolish fool such as you!"
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
I could always go check GFAQs but because I am lazy I will go with what I remember:
Maybe I remember wrong though.
Remember when I said "the ending never happen"? That was a reference to the two endings.
Actually quite prescient.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
It doesn't matter what you answer there, although the choice is thrown back at you during the ending (I think, this might just be a "whatever you chose defines you as a lawyer" sort of deal with no actual dialogue change).
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Awesome, awesome case. A few very random moments but otherwise the best case in the series other than, 1-4.
I, personally, think the best thing for Phoenix's character development as a Lawyer is the ending I got (naturally).
Von Karma of course, raises the point that winning and losing should be the ONLY concern for Defense and Prosecution Lawyers. They should not break trust with their clients. Wright and Miles know differently, their loyalty is not to a client, but to the truth. This reflects Edgeworth's own character growth, and explains why again and again he has helped Phoenix 'win' cases that earlier in his life he would have slammed shut with Guilty verdicts. Likewise, Phoenix has stood in Edgeworth's shoes and now knows what it is like to do his duty to a client he knows is guilty. However, it is only by these two extremes clashing that the truth can be found. Like a hammer and anvil.
This theme is echoed by the relationship between De Killer and Engarde. De placed trust between client and executor as sacred, however when that trust was broken, he was no longer any obligation to serve his master. The assassin was not loyal to a man, he was loyal to the creed.
Taken that way, I think the game makes a very powerful statement to me. And I honestly wish the real world would reflect a small bit of this 'truth' if you will. In a perfect world.
That being said, I only had to random mass guess about three times or so, including the investigation. Very much to the credit of the game to make things not too difficult, but certainly not easy either.
Is the third game about the same difficulty wise as the others?
The whole game is more like that.
*sigh*
Anyway, it's out of context, but I just heard that the new guy Godot says at one point, "A cornered fox is more dangerous than a jackal!"
Is that true?
Because that's freaking awesome if it is.
That was very well written. Especially the limed part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_B-0deoRfg&feature=related
You need to watch this vid after finishing the third game and see how many people you can recognize/name during your first viewing: