Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

 

* When did Phoenix acquire the ability to transport evidence across space and time? In the last case of Apollo Justice, {{spoiler|when you have the ability to look in both the past and the present to see the evidence that Phoenix has collected, Phoenix presents evidence that he can't possibly have at the time he presents it, and draws conclusions based on knowledge he will have in the future. For example, the picture of Trucy's mother that you get from Valant Grammarye? You use it to break Zak's Psyche lock SIX MONTHS EARILER! I should probably stress that you get the picture after Zak DIES! And then there's the whole thing with Vera. How does "seven years ago" Phoenix have any clue that the bottle on the desk could possibly be Vera's good luck charm? If it was in the present, I would be fine with it, but our Phoenix hasn't seen that bottle before in his life. Also, why does "seven years ago" Phoenix know to suggest Kristoph as Vera's secret client? He has no reason to suspect Kristoph at that time, not until the events seven years later, when he sees that bottle of nail polish in Kristoph's cell? It boggles the mind!}}

** Phoenix has a few things going for him... one, he's a freaking badass. Two, he's become accustomed to weird crap happening around him. Three, a few of those things (like the {{spoiler|nail polish}}) could have been pieced together with the evidence at hand. In fact, I'd say that the only reason you HAVE to present the future one in that case is so {{spoiler|so that you have to talk to Kristoph and see his bitchin' Black Psych-Locks}}.

** OK, so how about when you talk to {{spoiler|Brushel about Thalassa? When you talk to Brushel after the death of Drew, he tells you about Thalassa's first husband, and Phoenix admits he didn't know about him. Flashback to him breaking Zak's Psyche-lock, six months earlier, and he's talking about Thalassa's first husband as if he'd known it all along!}}

** He's a massive jerk? {{spoiler|He possibly shoots his wife, steals his partner's future, rejects a perfectly competent defense attorney because he can't play poker, abandons his child, promising to come back but never does, and then when he shows up 7 years latter, not to see his child or apologize, but to play poker! That he cheats at!}} Gah! What a jerk!

*** You are quite adept at taking things out of context and twisting facts. {{spoiler|1. Zak (possibly) shoots his wife ''on accident'' and regrets it. 2. He inherited the magic techniques from Magnifi; it's not his fault his partner is basically screwed without them. 3. Zak's "competent defense attorney" is a terrible human being, which he discovered through poker. 4. Zak would have gone to Trucy had he not been killed. 5. He shows up seven years later mainly to ensure Trucy's inheritance of Magnifi's techniques. Poker was secondary. You've got a point about him abandoning Trucy, but that's it.}}

***** It's not his fault that he completely ignored context and canon in favor of a memetic, yet wrong, interpretation of events? Right.

** Being a jerk is one thing, but having no sense of self-preservation is another.

** Phoenix has taken on plenty of prodigy prosecutors during his time, namely Edgeworth, Godot, and the von Karmas who are all presumably better than Klavier (and more experienced when Phoenix faced them). He's confident in his skills and I think mentions that Klavier is just the new "prodigy" that the prosecution office is selling. As stated, Klavier is a rock star who just got his first hit and is getting his ego boosted further by the fact that the prosecutor's office is praising him as a prodigy and putting him against Wright, probably the best defense attorney in the "US." Gumshoe didn't seem that cocky to me but rather more playfully edging Wright on. Wright is his rival in the courtroom (although they have worked on the same side many times) and Gumshoe wants to get his win.

** As for Klavier, I think that the {{spoiler|"tip" Kristoph gave him explains his behavior pretty well.}}

 

* Isn't Lamiroir meant to be {{spoiler|a native English speaker?}} If that's the case, why was she unable to find {{spoiler|a better term for the ventilation shaft grate than 'some kind of small window?'}}

** Probably as a joke, or...her methods might be considered to be unconventional to the police force.

*** It's explained that she was about to become a crime scene tech, but she failed the examination.

 

* In 4-4, which is just as full of this as 3-5, how did {{spoiler|Kristoph Gavin}} know so much about the case? He was in solitary confinement, and even though he does get some news from the outside world, Spark Brushel said (or at least implied) several times that nobody had taken Drew Misham's death to press yet. I know {{spoiler|his little brother is the prosecutor, but 1) the recess wasn't long enough for Klavier to be able to brief Kristoph about the case, and 2) based on Klavier's behavior during the first part of the trial and early on in the second, it doesn't seem like he'd be particularly trusting of his dear brother.}} The fact itself that he knew so much about the case when he testified should have been proof enough to point the finger of justice at him.

** Why would {{spoiler|Kristoph}} need to be convicted by a jury when he was already convicted earlier? In any case, I believe the Jurist System was created because it was too easy to get the innocent sent to jail.

** The two problems - too easy to convict the innocent, too hard to convict the guilty - are inextricably linked. Some cases in the series go as far as saying outright that no matter how conclusively you prove the defendant's innocence, if you don't [[The Perry Mason Method|identify and prove the real culprit]], the defendant will be found guilty anyway. Cases where it's said "nobody will find him/her Not Guilty, not now" are a departure from the core logic of the game's setting, and don't seem to be thought through.

**** The court also has absurdly high standards of evidence required to convict anyone other than the defendant. If you doubt this, check up on 2-1, when the Judge says that if Phoenix can't prove the witness's motive the defendant will be found guilty even though the only piece of evidence the prosecution still has that could implicate her implicates the witness just as much. So basically, as the Judge puts it: "Common citizens have something called common sense" which is otherwise completely absent from the court.

 

*** But then shouldn't Apollo know who {{spoiler|Thalassa}} is and that Trucy is {{spoiler|his sister}}?

**** There is evidence that Apollo recognizes {{spoiler|Thalassa}} on some level. Think back to what he thinks when he meets {{spoiler|her}} during {{spoiler|case 3}}:

**** ...suggesting that there's a faint degree of familiarity, say, if he'd {{spoiler|last seen her when he was very young}}. As for Trucy, well, if {{spoiler|the shooting}} happened when they were both relatively young, then {{spoiler|Zak and Magnifi probably didn't let their personal lives mingle very much after that}}...

** This troper was confused by the entire idea that {{spoiler|Apollo doesn't know who Troupe Gramarye is even though they are his family}}, so I looked back in the game. Here is the story: {{spoiler|Thalassa, part of the troupe, married another performer. She went off with him for a year and had Apollo. Her husband died, she gave up the baby for adoption, came back to the troupe and pretended nothing happened. She then married Zak and had Trucy before getting shot when Trucy was around four.}}

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Games/Headscratchers]]

[[Category:Headscratchers]]

__NOTOC__