I apologize in advance for the following, wherein I prove without a doubt that I have no actual idea how a court works. I didn't want to just make another generic long post that everybody would just skim anyway, and I was feeling a little "creative" so I decided to make this, which everybody will just skim anyway.
Bailiff: All rise for the Honorable Judge Beardy McCueball.
Judge: Bailiff, I told you to stop calling me that. *Sigh* Anyway, we are gathered here for the case of Taxman v. Level 5/Capcom. Let's make it snappy; I have a hot date tonight. Plaintiff, please make your opening statement.
Plaintiff: Your Honor, today we will conclusively show that the defendants created a section of a videogame so dangerous that it caused my client to experience severe mental and emotional injury. This will become clear as we proceed through the trial. The game's trial, not this one.
Judge: A videogame, you say? My grandkids play those doodads! And it's about trials? I do say, I'm quite excited to hear of this! Defense, your opening statement please.
Defense: Your Honor, the plaintiff's claims are baseless. Professor Layton Vs. Phoenix Wright is a delightful adventure filled with hilarious characters and boundless charm. We intend to demonstrate this using the plaintiff's own opinions! My clients are liable for nothing more than making a great video game!
Judge: Very well. Let us begin the proceedings. Plaintiff
Plaintiff: Only one witness shall be required for this trial, your Honor. We call the victim himself, Taxman, to the stand!
Audience: *Rabble rabble*
Plaintiff: Mr. Taxman, I
Taxman: Just Taxman, please.
Plaintiff: I'm sorry?
Taxman: Mr. Taxman is my father. Just call me Taxman, thank you.
Plaintiff: *massages temple and sighs* Taxman, regarding Professor Layton Vs. Phoenix Wright, would you say that the game in question is a good one?
Taxman: *shrugs* I don't know, I haven't finished it yet. I hear some unsavory things about the way it wraps up.
Plaintiff: *massaging intensifies, begins mumbling curse words to himself* Would you say that the part you have played so far is good?
Taxman: Yeah! I mean I guess
Plaintiff: You guess?
Taxman: I mean, like Have you ever had a sandwich where you're eating it and you discover most of the way through that there's something wrong with it? Like, you said no pickles and there is one, or there's a hair in there or something like that? Some people would just take that thing out and keep eating without any problems, while others would find it super gross and throw the rest away. It depends on the type of person.
Plaintiff: And which kind of person are you?
Taxman: I'm kind of in the middle, I guess. I think I would take out the unsavory item and keep eating, but I would feel significantly worse about the part I had already ate. Like, who knows how many other hairs were in there? And I'd been much more leery about eating the rest of the sandwich too.
Plaintiff: I see. Then perhaps we should start with the first bite. How did you feel going into the case?
Taxman: I was excited and hopeful, but pensive. There were a lot of questions and concerns about the game's direction. I could see some landmines that the game might step on. The first case was fantastic and gave me very little reason to believe that they would step on any of these landmines, but people make mistakes. Luckily, a lot of my concerns were addressed rather quickly.
Plaintiff: Can you give an example?
Taxman: Well, one of my biggest fears was that this game would be far too Layton-centric. The dude is just so good at everything, and it makes it hard for me to connect with him. Also, as a son of an archaeology professor, I can say without reservation that he is perhaps the most inaccurate depiction of a professor of archaeology that I've ever seen. Even worse than Indiana Jones.
Plaintiff: Is that so?
Taxman: Yeah, if they want him to really seem like an archaeology professor, they should show him drinking. A lot. Having been around them all my life, I'm pretty sure that's almost all archaeologists do. Also, he should have a beard and be spending hours looking at hundreds of small pottery shards while listening to Rolling Stones songs. Anyway, I was worried that he would basically overshadow Phoenix. Phoenix is one of my favorite characters in pretty much anything, but, at least before AA5, somebody with the chutzpa of a wet paper bag could waltz in and out-confidence him. That's what happened in a lot of ways in the first trial. Layton just showed up and started usurping Phoenix's role in the game. Even when it was Phoenix's time to find a contradiction, Layton would look at him with this face that made it look like he already knew the answer and was just waiting for Phoenix to catch up. I found it kinda annoying, really. At first, it looked like Layton's ascendancy might continue, as the Storyteller was going to take out one of the Ace Attorney characters, but then they pulled a fast one on me and turned Layton into gold. It was a great idea. It made the case be about him without it all being about him, if you know what I mean. Phoenix got his chance to shine figuratively, while Layton got his chance to shine literally.
Plaintiff: Yes, quite. Were there any other questions that you had that you were hoping to see resolved?
Taxman: Yeah. One thing that I kept puzzling over was the Storyteller and what his whole deal meant. I didn't really get an answer to that, but I got some more stuff to think about. There's a lot of weird shit going on with that guy. I mean, it seems like he's literally a murderer, but everybody loves him. The question I believe they want me to think is "Is the Storyteller murdering people by writing that somebody dies within the Story?", and I do think that, but more so I think "Does is matter if he's really doing it or not?" I mean, think about it like this. Let's say I give you a gun. This gun looks real, but it is a Nerf gun that shoots little foam bullets. You don't know this, and somehow never realize it. You think that it's a real gun that can really kill things. Now let's say you go and try to shoot the judge with this gun-
Judge: PLAINTIFF, HOW COULD YOU! BAILIFF, ARREST THIS MAN!!!
Plaintiff: Your Honor, he merely meant it hypothetically Please stop glaring at me. Witness, please continue without talking about shooting anybody here, thank you.
Taxman: Okay, so let's say you try to kill your neighbor with this Nerf gun. You go ahead and shoot him or her, but obviously they're unhurt. Should you be tried with a crime? If not for your utter incompetence, there would be a person dead. Is that something criminal? It sure feels like it to me.
Plaintiff: *Sigh* How does this relate to the topic at hand?
Taxman: So, there's no direct proof so far that the Storyteller's writings actually cause events. Layton himself calls them "predictions", indicating that he believes that there is perhaps correlation but not causation. But what matters to me is that the Storyteller himself believes that his writings become real, or at least that is the public face he puts forward. He speaks and behaves as if his action of writing something into the Story is tantamount to making it happen. So when he writes that a witch is going to harm somebody, he is, at least in his mind, literally murdering somebody. Is that enough to charge him for something? I mean, he literally stands in front of Layton and Luke and is all like "Watch, I'm killing your friends right now!" I'm having trouble getting over that. This is some Mafia boss-level shit.
The thing that bugs me the most is the thought processes of the villagers. Its plain that the villagers worship this guy. Its also made clear from the way they thank him for all the good things that happen that they believe him to be at least partially responsible for these events. So why dont they blame him for all the bad things? Hes still writing them! Either he makes it happen or he doesn't. Maybe they explain this away later, but there's some serious inconsistency here.
Defense: Objection! Your Honor, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to this case.
Judge: I am inclined to agree. Plaintiff, what is the purpose of this line of questioning and the ramblings it is creating?
Plaintiff: Your Honor, in order to understand the magnitude of the injury, it is necessary to set a baseline for the victim's mental and emotional state prior to the start of the chapter, as well as to understand the changes in that state in the events prior to the moment in question. That is what I am attempting to establish, should the witness stay on topic for once.
Judge: I see... Objection overruled. Plaintiff, did you have any more questions to ask about the witness's pre-trial state?
Plaintiff: I'm honestly afraid to ask any more.
Judge: Very well, the defense may now cross-examine the witness.
Defense: Witness, in the affidavit your wrote several weeks ago, you said, and I quote,
Taxman: Well, he asked about concerns. I wasn't concerned about those things. I liked them before, and I love them now.
Defense: Interesting. What do you like about the magic in this story? One might expect that a magical world where anything could happen would lead to frustration.
Taxman: Some people like to outsmart mystery shows and games. They want to figure it out before the answer is revealed. I'm kind of the opposite; I want to be outsmarted. I want to be shocked and surprised. I like twists. It's the biggest reason that I loved AA5 so much. Non-main characters in this series are not always the most fleshed out people. Some repeaters like Gumshoe get more depth over time, but in general I often see what I call "single-quirk" character design. It's something that I noticed about a lot of anime and manga I would read. The formula basically was "take generic person, add one quirk" and you're done. Like, "oh, she's a normal high school girl, but her thing is that she is a glutton." I see it in Ace Attorney games enough that I've kind of gotten used to it. Like Mr. Eldoon or that one cowboy cop. Once you've answered the question "what's their gimmick?" you basically know 90% of their character. So when I first saw Bobby Fulbright I said "oh, he's a justice freak, got it" and dismissed him as a character. The game made me like him more as it went on, but I never really thought of him as much more than my initial first impression. So when it turned out he was the killer the entire time, I was flabbergasted. It's like the writers intentionally played into the cliché a little to encourage me to dismiss him as a 2D character. I felt like I had been played, and it was incredible.
Capcom has managed to surprise me with some kind of twist in most of the trials in the series. Some of them are really memorable and some aren't so hot, but they're there and I appreciate that the creators try their best. But as the games have gone on, I've started to get this feeling like the writers are running out of good ideas for their scenarios. AA4 and 5 more than anything have really brought this impression. Stuff like the rotating building in AA5 made me think that they're starting to reach for ways to create new setups. That's what makes the magic system so good. It opens the cases up in a way that allows for a huge amount of new possibilities. The writers can create crazy, elaborate setups that catch me off guard in ways that normal universes can't. A single word can completely flip a case on its head in ways that I can't predict because I don't know all there is to know about magic. Normal murder scenarios like the first trial feel fresh again because I can't just take everything for granted.
But at the same time, there are rules that prevent all of this from feeling too much like the writers just pulling something from their asses to get themselves out of a corner. The way the magic staves limit the witch to only two spells helps set up important limitations that keep me from feeling like the writers are trying to attempt an "it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit" every trial. The fact that each spell has specific limitations and must also be spoken aloud is also crucial. It's a fantastically designed system, because it allows magic to become a component of the game's logical structure. If any contradiction could just be invalidated with "yeah but magic could have done it" then there would be no game.
Defense: What of the trial system itself? It is a bit of a departure from the Ace Attorney style that you are used to.
Taxman: I saw a lot of potential after the first case, but it was the second case that showed me that the developers saw even more potential in the new design than I did. I love how the characters can play off of each other in a way that the normal Ace Attorney games don't allow. In the standard setup, you have the defense, that specific game's prosecutor, the judge, and a witness, and that's it. This multi-witness setup allows for a much more dynamic style that can really generate some fun times. I think it was when Emeer was being questioned by himself, and the bard was there as well just because it was funny, that I realized that they really knew what they were doing. That's the kind of gag that you can't have in a standard game in the series. It's good that such levity is in there too, given the whole "burn the witches" theme. The game needs all the humor it can get.
Defense: You seemed to be enjoying the darkness of the game before. Has that changed?
Taxman: I still like it in general. I love witch trial idea. Let's be real here the trials in every Ace Attorney game are basically witch trials. You could be defending a blind 4-year-old girl with polio from the charge of bashing a bodybuilder to death with a large, heavy sledgehammer in the bathroom of an adults-only stripclub at 3AM and the judge will still declare her guilty if you can't somehow find the real murderer.
Judge: Well somebody's gotta take the rap! I don't make the rules here!
Taxman: This game feels almost like an admission of the level of bullshit that Ace Attorney defense lawyers have to put up with. I appreciate the honesty, really. It also really pumps me up to go against the odds like this. The whole system is against you, and the villagers are out for blood. It's delightfully hostile.
But I can't deny that it has started to wear on me a bit, much like it wore on the characters in this trial. About two thirds of the way through, I had a very strong feeling that the person we were "hunting" was going to turn out of be innocent of killing anybody, but I knew that she was going to die anyway because that's how it works in these trials. I'm never really saving people, I'm just swapping an innocent person with a more-guilty person, and this time there was no "more-guilty" person. At some point towards the end, I wrote down in my notes "I feel like a monster" and that was awesome the first time but it's getting less appealing as the game goes on.
Defense: And that's why you're happy for the humor this game has? It defuses your misgivings?
Taxman: In a lot of ways, yeah! I haven't laughed this hard in forever! All those little touches, like when Phoenix points towards the camera in this one dramatic scene Layton's statue moved as well, like he did in the previous trial. I was confused but then I noticed that Luke and Espella were squatting down and turning him! I was so caught by surprise that I started laughing so hard I dropped my 3DS! Then there's the other little details that really pushed everything towards greatness, like the parrot witness callback, or Luke being a hostile witness. I can feel so much love and creativity coming from this game, it makes it hard not to enjoy it even while we're burning people alive. And of course there's Emeer
I get the feeling that some people hate Emeer. I can't understand those people. I mean, look at him!
Defense: Your Honor, practically everything the witness has said has directly disproven the plaintiff's claims. Concerns were largely mollified and he seems to love nearly everything about the game. I submit that this trial is a waste of everybody's time and that the case should be dismissed immediately.
Judge: I tend to agree. Plaintiff, you have one last chance to convince me that there is any merit here before I rule in the defense's favor.
Plaintiff: Your Honor, while it might seem pointless at this time, there is one important subject that we have yet to hear about that will change the way you consider everything we have just heard. I request that the witness be allowed to speak on the end of the trial.
Judge: Very well, I will allow this one last testimony. If I am not thoroughly convinced, I will dismiss all of the plaintiff's allegations and you will be having a long chat with the Bar Association. Understood?
Plaintiff: Perfectly. Witness, if you would, please talk about how the trial ended.
Taxman: Sigh Okay. Everything was great. I knew that they were going to pull a "he actually cared about her and wasn't actually going to betray her" twist on Jean Greyerl. It was pretty obvious that it was coming because that would be the most emotional path to take. But they executed it superbly even though I knew it was coming. The writing was good, the voice acting continued to be on point I might have
Judge: Speak up please, my ears aren't what they used to be!
Taxman: I said I might have teared up a little, alright? Men can cry too, you know! It was really sad! And by the end I was really torn because we all knew that they were going to kill her regardless. And then Espella vindicated my thoughts by reciprocating them. It was nice to see somebody in the game be broken down by this system as much as I was. I didn't expect Espella to die. I thought somebody would appear to save her. Maybe some big twist where Layton somehow shows up and he wasn't gold all along. I don't know. I just didn't expect that.
Judge: Didn't expect what?
Taxman:
Plaintiff: Your Honor, here is a transcript of the relevant section.
Judge: Thank you Let's see here
Taxman: I KNOW RIGHT?!?!?! EVERYTHING WAS SO GOOD AND THEN IT FELL OFF A CLIFF SO HARD THAT I FEEL PHYSICAL PAIN. I've been playing games since 1995, and I have never in my life played a game that went from great to appalling in the span of 5 seconds like this did. It was soooooooo hamfisted. She changes her mind in like 2 seconds because of the lamest argument! It was so unconvincing! And then they expect me to go along with killing off Maya?!?! There's no way that she's really dead. You can't kill off a character that important in a spin-off. It's just not within the bounds of possibility. I don't see how anybody could think that they would actually kill her off and not call bullshit. And the way they got her to "die", where she just basically "clumsy's" her way to death! It was so forced! Now Phoenix is going to be all whiny and we all know Maya is going to come back to life by the end anyway.
I feel betrayed by this game and the developers. They spent all this time and effort building up a great case, and then out of nowhere they just stomped all over it, took a giant dump on it, and set it on fire! I don't know if I even want to keep playing anymore. It hurts just to think about it. I feel empty *Witness curls up into fetal position and begins rocking back and forth while moaning pitifully*
Plaintiff: Your Honor, this is the crux of our case. We charge that the defendants created a product that transitions from fantastic to terrible so suddenly, and with such force, that my client is currently suffering from an extreme case of mental and emotional whiplash. We ask for the full damages laid out in our filing.
Judge: Yes, this is truly terrible. My own neck hurts a little just from reading that. I see no reason to further prolong this trial. I award full damages to the plaintiff: the plaintiff has full rights to bitch and complain about this game on any and all online forums from this point forward. Case dismissed.
Bailiff: All rise for the Honorable Judge Beardy McCueball.
Judge: Bailiff, I told you to stop calling me that. *Sigh* Anyway, we are gathered here for the case of Taxman v. Level 5/Capcom. Let's make it snappy; I have a hot date tonight. Plaintiff, please make your opening statement.
Plaintiff: Your Honor, today we will conclusively show that the defendants created a section of a videogame so dangerous that it caused my client to experience severe mental and emotional injury. This will become clear as we proceed through the trial. The game's trial, not this one.
Judge: A videogame, you say? My grandkids play those doodads! And it's about trials? I do say, I'm quite excited to hear of this! Defense, your opening statement please.
Defense: Your Honor, the plaintiff's claims are baseless. Professor Layton Vs. Phoenix Wright is a delightful adventure filled with hilarious characters and boundless charm. We intend to demonstrate this using the plaintiff's own opinions! My clients are liable for nothing more than making a great video game!
Judge: Very well. Let us begin the proceedings. Plaintiff
Plaintiff: Only one witness shall be required for this trial, your Honor. We call the victim himself, Taxman, to the stand!
Audience: *Rabble rabble*
Plaintiff: Mr. Taxman, I
Taxman: Just Taxman, please.
Plaintiff: I'm sorry?
Taxman: Mr. Taxman is my father. Just call me Taxman, thank you.
Plaintiff: *massages temple and sighs* Taxman, regarding Professor Layton Vs. Phoenix Wright, would you say that the game in question is a good one?
Taxman: *shrugs* I don't know, I haven't finished it yet. I hear some unsavory things about the way it wraps up.
Plaintiff: *massaging intensifies, begins mumbling curse words to himself* Would you say that the part you have played so far is good?
Taxman: Yeah! I mean I guess
Plaintiff: You guess?
Taxman: I mean, like Have you ever had a sandwich where you're eating it and you discover most of the way through that there's something wrong with it? Like, you said no pickles and there is one, or there's a hair in there or something like that? Some people would just take that thing out and keep eating without any problems, while others would find it super gross and throw the rest away. It depends on the type of person.
Plaintiff: And which kind of person are you?
Taxman: I'm kind of in the middle, I guess. I think I would take out the unsavory item and keep eating, but I would feel significantly worse about the part I had already ate. Like, who knows how many other hairs were in there? And I'd been much more leery about eating the rest of the sandwich too.
Plaintiff: I see. Then perhaps we should start with the first bite. How did you feel going into the case?
Taxman: I was excited and hopeful, but pensive. There were a lot of questions and concerns about the game's direction. I could see some landmines that the game might step on. The first case was fantastic and gave me very little reason to believe that they would step on any of these landmines, but people make mistakes. Luckily, a lot of my concerns were addressed rather quickly.
Plaintiff: Can you give an example?
Taxman: Well, one of my biggest fears was that this game would be far too Layton-centric. The dude is just so good at everything, and it makes it hard for me to connect with him. Also, as a son of an archaeology professor, I can say without reservation that he is perhaps the most inaccurate depiction of a professor of archaeology that I've ever seen. Even worse than Indiana Jones.
Plaintiff: Is that so?
Taxman: Yeah, if they want him to really seem like an archaeology professor, they should show him drinking. A lot. Having been around them all my life, I'm pretty sure that's almost all archaeologists do. Also, he should have a beard and be spending hours looking at hundreds of small pottery shards while listening to Rolling Stones songs. Anyway, I was worried that he would basically overshadow Phoenix. Phoenix is one of my favorite characters in pretty much anything, but, at least before AA5, somebody with the chutzpa of a wet paper bag could waltz in and out-confidence him. That's what happened in a lot of ways in the first trial. Layton just showed up and started usurping Phoenix's role in the game. Even when it was Phoenix's time to find a contradiction, Layton would look at him with this face that made it look like he already knew the answer and was just waiting for Phoenix to catch up. I found it kinda annoying, really. At first, it looked like Layton's ascendancy might continue, as the Storyteller was going to take out one of the Ace Attorney characters, but then they pulled a fast one on me and turned Layton into gold. It was a great idea. It made the case be about him without it all being about him, if you know what I mean. Phoenix got his chance to shine figuratively, while Layton got his chance to shine literally.
Plaintiff: Yes, quite. Were there any other questions that you had that you were hoping to see resolved?
Taxman: Yeah. One thing that I kept puzzling over was the Storyteller and what his whole deal meant. I didn't really get an answer to that, but I got some more stuff to think about. There's a lot of weird shit going on with that guy. I mean, it seems like he's literally a murderer, but everybody loves him. The question I believe they want me to think is "Is the Storyteller murdering people by writing that somebody dies within the Story?", and I do think that, but more so I think "Does is matter if he's really doing it or not?" I mean, think about it like this. Let's say I give you a gun. This gun looks real, but it is a Nerf gun that shoots little foam bullets. You don't know this, and somehow never realize it. You think that it's a real gun that can really kill things. Now let's say you go and try to shoot the judge with this gun-
Judge: PLAINTIFF, HOW COULD YOU! BAILIFF, ARREST THIS MAN!!!
Plaintiff: Your Honor, he merely meant it hypothetically Please stop glaring at me. Witness, please continue without talking about shooting anybody here, thank you.
Taxman: Okay, so let's say you try to kill your neighbor with this Nerf gun. You go ahead and shoot him or her, but obviously they're unhurt. Should you be tried with a crime? If not for your utter incompetence, there would be a person dead. Is that something criminal? It sure feels like it to me.
Plaintiff: *Sigh* How does this relate to the topic at hand?
Taxman: So, there's no direct proof so far that the Storyteller's writings actually cause events. Layton himself calls them "predictions", indicating that he believes that there is perhaps correlation but not causation. But what matters to me is that the Storyteller himself believes that his writings become real, or at least that is the public face he puts forward. He speaks and behaves as if his action of writing something into the Story is tantamount to making it happen. So when he writes that a witch is going to harm somebody, he is, at least in his mind, literally murdering somebody. Is that enough to charge him for something? I mean, he literally stands in front of Layton and Luke and is all like "Watch, I'm killing your friends right now!" I'm having trouble getting over that. This is some Mafia boss-level shit.
The thing that bugs me the most is the thought processes of the villagers. Its plain that the villagers worship this guy. Its also made clear from the way they thank him for all the good things that happen that they believe him to be at least partially responsible for these events. So why dont they blame him for all the bad things? Hes still writing them! Either he makes it happen or he doesn't. Maybe they explain this away later, but there's some serious inconsistency here.
Defense: Objection! Your Honor, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to this case.
Judge: I am inclined to agree. Plaintiff, what is the purpose of this line of questioning and the ramblings it is creating?
Plaintiff: Your Honor, in order to understand the magnitude of the injury, it is necessary to set a baseline for the victim's mental and emotional state prior to the start of the chapter, as well as to understand the changes in that state in the events prior to the moment in question. That is what I am attempting to establish, should the witness stay on topic for once.
Judge: I see... Objection overruled. Plaintiff, did you have any more questions to ask about the witness's pre-trial state?
Plaintiff: I'm honestly afraid to ask any more.
Judge: Very well, the defense may now cross-examine the witness.
Defense: Witness, in the affidavit your wrote several weeks ago, you said, and I quote,
We've heard your opinions on the Storyteller, but you strangely neglected to mention magic or the trial system. Why not?
Taxman: Well, he asked about concerns. I wasn't concerned about those things. I liked them before, and I love them now.
Defense: Interesting. What do you like about the magic in this story? One might expect that a magical world where anything could happen would lead to frustration.
Taxman: Some people like to outsmart mystery shows and games. They want to figure it out before the answer is revealed. I'm kind of the opposite; I want to be outsmarted. I want to be shocked and surprised. I like twists. It's the biggest reason that I loved AA5 so much. Non-main characters in this series are not always the most fleshed out people. Some repeaters like Gumshoe get more depth over time, but in general I often see what I call "single-quirk" character design. It's something that I noticed about a lot of anime and manga I would read. The formula basically was "take generic person, add one quirk" and you're done. Like, "oh, she's a normal high school girl, but her thing is that she is a glutton." I see it in Ace Attorney games enough that I've kind of gotten used to it. Like Mr. Eldoon or that one cowboy cop. Once you've answered the question "what's their gimmick?" you basically know 90% of their character. So when I first saw Bobby Fulbright I said "oh, he's a justice freak, got it" and dismissed him as a character. The game made me like him more as it went on, but I never really thought of him as much more than my initial first impression. So when it turned out he was the killer the entire time, I was flabbergasted. It's like the writers intentionally played into the cliché a little to encourage me to dismiss him as a 2D character. I felt like I had been played, and it was incredible.
Capcom has managed to surprise me with some kind of twist in most of the trials in the series. Some of them are really memorable and some aren't so hot, but they're there and I appreciate that the creators try their best. But as the games have gone on, I've started to get this feeling like the writers are running out of good ideas for their scenarios. AA4 and 5 more than anything have really brought this impression. Stuff like the rotating building in AA5 made me think that they're starting to reach for ways to create new setups. That's what makes the magic system so good. It opens the cases up in a way that allows for a huge amount of new possibilities. The writers can create crazy, elaborate setups that catch me off guard in ways that normal universes can't. A single word can completely flip a case on its head in ways that I can't predict because I don't know all there is to know about magic. Normal murder scenarios like the first trial feel fresh again because I can't just take everything for granted.
But at the same time, there are rules that prevent all of this from feeling too much like the writers just pulling something from their asses to get themselves out of a corner. The way the magic staves limit the witch to only two spells helps set up important limitations that keep me from feeling like the writers are trying to attempt an "it's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit" every trial. The fact that each spell has specific limitations and must also be spoken aloud is also crucial. It's a fantastically designed system, because it allows magic to become a component of the game's logical structure. If any contradiction could just be invalidated with "yeah but magic could have done it" then there would be no game.
Defense: What of the trial system itself? It is a bit of a departure from the Ace Attorney style that you are used to.
Taxman: I saw a lot of potential after the first case, but it was the second case that showed me that the developers saw even more potential in the new design than I did. I love how the characters can play off of each other in a way that the normal Ace Attorney games don't allow. In the standard setup, you have the defense, that specific game's prosecutor, the judge, and a witness, and that's it. This multi-witness setup allows for a much more dynamic style that can really generate some fun times. I think it was when Emeer was being questioned by himself, and the bard was there as well just because it was funny, that I realized that they really knew what they were doing. That's the kind of gag that you can't have in a standard game in the series. It's good that such levity is in there too, given the whole "burn the witches" theme. The game needs all the humor it can get.
Defense: You seemed to be enjoying the darkness of the game before. Has that changed?
Taxman: I still like it in general. I love witch trial idea. Let's be real here the trials in every Ace Attorney game are basically witch trials. You could be defending a blind 4-year-old girl with polio from the charge of bashing a bodybuilder to death with a large, heavy sledgehammer in the bathroom of an adults-only stripclub at 3AM and the judge will still declare her guilty if you can't somehow find the real murderer.
Judge: Well somebody's gotta take the rap! I don't make the rules here!
Taxman: This game feels almost like an admission of the level of bullshit that Ace Attorney defense lawyers have to put up with. I appreciate the honesty, really. It also really pumps me up to go against the odds like this. The whole system is against you, and the villagers are out for blood. It's delightfully hostile.
But I can't deny that it has started to wear on me a bit, much like it wore on the characters in this trial. About two thirds of the way through, I had a very strong feeling that the person we were "hunting" was going to turn out of be innocent of killing anybody, but I knew that she was going to die anyway because that's how it works in these trials. I'm never really saving people, I'm just swapping an innocent person with a more-guilty person, and this time there was no "more-guilty" person. At some point towards the end, I wrote down in my notes "I feel like a monster" and that was awesome the first time but it's getting less appealing as the game goes on.
Defense: And that's why you're happy for the humor this game has? It defuses your misgivings?
Taxman: In a lot of ways, yeah! I haven't laughed this hard in forever! All those little touches, like when Phoenix points towards the camera in this one dramatic scene Layton's statue moved as well, like he did in the previous trial. I was confused but then I noticed that Luke and Espella were squatting down and turning him! I was so caught by surprise that I started laughing so hard I dropped my 3DS! Then there's the other little details that really pushed everything towards greatness, like the parrot witness callback, or Luke being a hostile witness. I can feel so much love and creativity coming from this game, it makes it hard not to enjoy it even while we're burning people alive. And of course there's Emeer
I get the feeling that some people hate Emeer. I can't understand those people. I mean, look at him!
Oh Emeer, you rascal! I love you so much! Look at you, stealing body parts from crime scenes and hiring personal bards to follow you around to sing about how awesome you are! At first I thought that he was going to be a silly one-shot character, but now that they've introduced him in more than one trial, I'm going to be outraged unless he's in every single one. I'm thinking of building a shrine to him in my basement. He's my soul animal.
Defense: Your Honor, practically everything the witness has said has directly disproven the plaintiff's claims. Concerns were largely mollified and he seems to love nearly everything about the game. I submit that this trial is a waste of everybody's time and that the case should be dismissed immediately.
Judge: I tend to agree. Plaintiff, you have one last chance to convince me that there is any merit here before I rule in the defense's favor.
Plaintiff: Your Honor, while it might seem pointless at this time, there is one important subject that we have yet to hear about that will change the way you consider everything we have just heard. I request that the witness be allowed to speak on the end of the trial.
Judge: Very well, I will allow this one last testimony. If I am not thoroughly convinced, I will dismiss all of the plaintiff's allegations and you will be having a long chat with the Bar Association. Understood?
Plaintiff: Perfectly. Witness, if you would, please talk about how the trial ended.
Taxman: Sigh Okay. Everything was great. I knew that they were going to pull a "he actually cared about her and wasn't actually going to betray her" twist on Jean Greyerl. It was pretty obvious that it was coming because that would be the most emotional path to take. But they executed it superbly even though I knew it was coming. The writing was good, the voice acting continued to be on point I might have
Judge: Speak up please, my ears aren't what they used to be!
Taxman: I said I might have teared up a little, alright? Men can cry too, you know! It was really sad! And by the end I was really torn because we all knew that they were going to kill her regardless. And then Espella vindicated my thoughts by reciprocating them. It was nice to see somebody in the game be broken down by this system as much as I was. I didn't expect Espella to die. I thought somebody would appear to save her. Maybe some big twist where Layton somehow shows up and he wasn't gold all along. I don't know. I just didn't expect that.
Judge: Didn't expect what?
Taxman:
Plaintiff: Your Honor, here is a transcript of the relevant section.
Judge: Thank you Let's see here
Judge: What what is this? This is atrocious!
Taxman: I KNOW RIGHT?!?!?! EVERYTHING WAS SO GOOD AND THEN IT FELL OFF A CLIFF SO HARD THAT I FEEL PHYSICAL PAIN. I've been playing games since 1995, and I have never in my life played a game that went from great to appalling in the span of 5 seconds like this did. It was soooooooo hamfisted. She changes her mind in like 2 seconds because of the lamest argument! It was so unconvincing! And then they expect me to go along with killing off Maya?!?! There's no way that she's really dead. You can't kill off a character that important in a spin-off. It's just not within the bounds of possibility. I don't see how anybody could think that they would actually kill her off and not call bullshit. And the way they got her to "die", where she just basically "clumsy's" her way to death! It was so forced! Now Phoenix is going to be all whiny and we all know Maya is going to come back to life by the end anyway.
I feel betrayed by this game and the developers. They spent all this time and effort building up a great case, and then out of nowhere they just stomped all over it, took a giant dump on it, and set it on fire! I don't know if I even want to keep playing anymore. It hurts just to think about it. I feel empty *Witness curls up into fetal position and begins rocking back and forth while moaning pitifully*
Plaintiff: Your Honor, this is the crux of our case. We charge that the defendants created a product that transitions from fantastic to terrible so suddenly, and with such force, that my client is currently suffering from an extreme case of mental and emotional whiplash. We ask for the full damages laid out in our filing.
Judge: Yes, this is truly terrible. My own neck hurts a little just from reading that. I see no reason to further prolong this trial. I award full damages to the plaintiff: the plaintiff has full rights to bitch and complain about this game on any and all online forums from this point forward. Case dismissed.
