|
Post by blackdrazon on Jun 7, 2010 19:33:23 GMT -5
' Having been drafted as an Interpol lawyer set to meet with the victim, she is put in charge of the prosecution on the case and serves primarily as your opponent. She will throughout the rest of the game as well, usually serving as your assistant (or vice versa).Confusingly worded. If she's your opponent, why is she your assistant? I can sort of blame the twists in this sentence on the edits I made to remove sections that talked about how weird Chapter 5 actually goes between you and Franziska (what with her insisting you're her assistant and the game continuing to play as though nothing has changed, which I felt was a lost opportunity). I feel the sentence is still technically correct, but for the sake of clarity: "[...] primary as your opponent. She also appears in cases 4 and 5, but in those cases she is more-or-less your assistant." Surprisingly, given that they were in the same sentence together, "travelling" is also the British spelling. I'm Canadian (and so is my MS Word dictionary) so I habit of running with whichever country's spellings hit the page first, so it's possible I was not consistent. Thanks!
|
|
ult
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by ult on Nov 11, 2015 17:20:45 GMT -5
Are we going to update it with the 5 or so games that came out since the article was last updated? I know at least a couple people that would probably be interested in doing it.
|
|
|
Post by feotakahari on May 26, 2016 23:10:09 GMT -5
There are a few issues with the character descriptions. Most notably, Sal Manella has Edgeworth's description, and Vera Misham and Jacques Portsman have their pictures swapped.
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Sept 26, 2016 6:20:39 GMT -5
Was just re-reading this article today and I had an issue right off the bat, with the second paragraph:
When it was first released in English, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney was classified as a "lawyer sim", but that's not entirely true. Phoenix is a defense attorney whose job it is to defend witnesses on trumped-up murder charges. But thankfully, you don't need any prior legal knowledge, because the game world kind of makes up its own rules anyway. The entire court system consists of bizarre rules that only work because it's a video game - defendants are guilty until otherwise proved innocent, cases can last no longer than three days, and your clients can be found guilty if you annoy the judge too often. On that note, the Judge is hardly impartial - he's easily swooned by attractive female witnesses or intimidated by brute force. If you answer a question incorrectly or provide incorrect evidence, he'll penalize you, which will eventually end the game. The entire world is set up so it's working against you, and it's not easy.
The author seems unaware that the Phoenix Wright games are based on Japan's actual court system and that the game's designer was actually a defense attorney who was using these games as a commentary on how silly the court system actually is--and in particular how easy it is to get convictions because the system is so effed up. It's not really "designed to facilitate a game" (though that helps) as much as "game happened to be the perfect form for the commentary to take."
This reminds me that I once read about PC games based on Perry Mason (who is very much like an American version of Phoenix Wright, invented almost a century earlier by novelist Erle Stanley Gardner and famously played by Raymond Burr on television). There was supposedly a computer game of him, and it would be interesting to see if it makes the same changes to courtroom proceedings that Ace Attorney does.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Sept 26, 2016 10:00:09 GMT -5
I think at the time this was written, we were unaware of how the Japanese court system worked (this was posted back when the first game was translated into English on the DS). But I think a lot of that paragraph still stands, especially the time limit and the whole "judge deciding that the defendant is guilty if you bother them" (i.e. the whole life bar thing).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 12:02:17 GMT -5
The author seems unaware that the Phoenix Wright games are based on Japan's actual court system and that the game's designer was actually a defense attorney who was using these games as a commentary on how silly the court system actually is--" Curious as to where you're getting that information from. His page on Wikipedia only mentions that he's been a game designer, and that he joined Capcom in 1994. Not saying it's not possible, but Japanese people, especially back then, don't typically switch careers as radically as that.
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Sept 26, 2016 19:53:15 GMT -5
I remember it being mentioned in some anime reviewer's review of the Phoenix Wright movie (which a friend forced me to watch and which is what got me onto this series). I forget where that reviewer said he got the info tho, but I'm pretty sure he cited a source.
Come to think of it though, he could've been talking about the Japanese court system in general and making reference to a completely different person just to show how much the games mirror Japanese courtrooms, or talking about someone related to the movies.
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Oct 19, 2016 3:47:37 GMT -5
Hey guys, a correction to what I said earlier.
The review I mentioned was called Animenia and was for the Ace Attorney movie. I had misremembered it as saying one of the game designers was a lawyer, but in fact he says no such thing--he simply mentions that the series reflects what Japan's legal system is like and proved his point by referencing one of its most prominent defense attorneys (whose name I already forgot), who had a sterling record of.... five victories in like thirty years.
So yeah, no actual lawyers worked on the game. I just misremembered something I heard.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Oct 21, 2016 17:19:11 GMT -5
Hey guys, a correction to what I said earlier. The review I mentioned was called Animenia and was for the Ace Attorney movie. I had misremembered it as saying one of the game designers was a lawyer, but in fact he says no such thing--he simply mentions that the series reflects what Japan's legal system is like and proved his point by referencing one of its most prominent defense attorneys (whose name I already forgot), who had a sterling record of.... five victories in like thirty years. So yeah, no actual lawyers worked on the game. I just misremembered something I heard. Yeah, from what I read on the subject Japanese police work is pretty much built around making suspects sign confessions, and not always through ethical means. The issue of a trial is usually a foregone conclusion. If anyone's interested, the movie Confessions of a Dog is all about that and definitely worth a watch.
|
|