History Headscratchers / AceAttorney

15th Aug '17 4:35:53 PM jamescamera
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* This is connected to the above one and is also to do with the fandom, but it's a more general question: What's "Ace Attorney logic" exactly? I keep seeing people whip that phrase out, as though Ace Attorney is apparently prone insane logic. Can someone please explain where why people seem to have the idea that Ace Attorney runs on some sort of [[MoonLogicPuzzle Moon Logic]]?

to:

* This is connected to the above one and is also to do with the fandom, but it's a more general question: What's "Ace Attorney logic" exactly? I keep seeing people whip that phrase out, as though Ace Attorney is apparently prone to insane logic. Can someone please explain where why people seem to have the idea that Ace Attorney runs on some sort of [[MoonLogicPuzzle Moon Logic]]?Logic]]? I know this is sort of objective in a way, but I personally really don't see it one bit.
15th Aug '17 4:33:55 PM jamescamera
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* This is connected to the above one and is also to do with the fandom, but it's a more general question: What's "Ace Attorney logic" exactly? I keep seeing people whip that phrase out, as though Ace Attorney is apparently prone insane logic. Can someone please explain where why people seem to have the idea that Ace Attorney runs on some sort of [[MoonLogicPuzzle Moon Logic]]?
6th Aug '17 3:08:50 AM nowaymanguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** There's a weird habit through the games of treating the habit of the BigShoutOut rather flippantly. A lot of the time the games portray them as stated above, as though they're GameplayAndStorySegregation. This is even seen with "Objection!" a lot, where a character has quite clearly shouted it out yet the way it's portrayed makes it seem like they just interrupted the proceedings without saying a word, or an attorney will follow on their objection with something that'd be incredibly redundant/odd sounding given the objection, such as "Objection! I-I object to that!". At other times though, it's portrayed as not being game and story segregation, as someone asks "w-who was that 'objection' just now?", or some such, and clearly the attorneys are raising actual objections. When applied to the other shout outs including "Take that!" it just becomes too confusing to even warrant thinking about too much. Personally I'd just assume that they're not actually saying it if a situation makes it pretty obvious the character wouldn't actually do as such. Basically just apply a bit of common sense to it.
5th Aug '17 7:55:42 PM polymath
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It's as is stated above. There has never been any indication in any of the games that all murders, or even that all first degree murders, are punished with the death penalty, and in fact there's been a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I can only assume that this misconception arises from a combination of exaggerated word of mouth, with false memories, and people for some reason having no concept of similes & figure-of-speeches (aka, people taking statements like "their life will end", or, "their life is in my hands" ridiculously literally). That and, as shown above, a misinterpretation of what the Judge meant, or completely false memory on what he actually said, in the Stolen Turnabout. He specifically said that murder is a "capital crime, worthy of capital punishment", when explaining how murder is, obviously, much more serious then theft. Which is nowhere close to remotely implying that murder is anywhere close to always punished with death. All that means is that as far as the law is concerned, murder is a capital crime and so _can_ be punished with death if need be.

to:

** It's as is stated above. There has never been any indication in any of the games that all murders, or even that all first degree murders, are punished with the death penalty, and in fact there's been a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I can only assume that this misconception arises from a combination of exaggerated word of mouth, with false memories, and people for some reason having no concept of similes & figure-of-speeches (aka, and use of figure-of-speeche (i.e., people taking statements like "their life will end", or, "their life is in my hands" ridiculously literally). That and, as shown above, a misinterpretation of what the Judge meant, or completely false memory on what he actually said, in the Stolen Turnabout. He specifically said that murder is a "capital crime, worthy of capital punishment", when explaining how murder is, obviously, much more serious then theft. Which is nowhere close to remotely implying that murder is anywhere close to always punished with death. All that means is that as far as the law is concerned, murder is a capital crime and so _can_ *can* be punished with death if need be.



**** They may simply have been given a slap on the wrist in the form of a lecture, as the students who committed perjury was doing so in an effort to keep someone who wasn't guilty from being prematurely committed.
** Perjury is, yes, a crime but it's also one that's very hard to prove in most instances, as it typically requires establishing that the defendant ''knowingly'' gave false testimony. The actual murderers and accomplices may well be charged with (and convicted of) perjury off-screen, but convicting unhelpful witnesses would be trickier, and typically their testimony is needed to nail the true guilty party, so it wouldn't be surprising if they were offered immunity in exchange for turning state's evidence. The [=AA=] series is pretty ... lax about the rules of testimony to begin with, so applying Western (especially American) legal codes to the games is a recipe for a headache.



*** The detectives, from what I know, are the ones with access and permission to the laboratories (i.e. the CSI-level stuff like DNA and trace analyses) and a Prosecutor doing that stuff himself would yield inadmissible evidence. After the initial investigation with a prosecutor is over, the Detective is technically a neutral party and is able to help out anyone involved with the case at hand.

to:

*** The detectives, from what I know, are the ones with access and permission to the laboratories (i.e. , the CSI-level stuff like DNA and trace analyses) and a Prosecutor doing that stuff himself would yield inadmissible evidence. After the initial investigation with a prosecutor is over, the Detective is technically a neutral party and is able to help out anyone involved with the case at hand.
4th Aug '17 1:21:39 PM nowaymanguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It's as is stated above. There has never been any indication in any of the games that all murders, or even that all first degree murders, are punished with the death penalty, and in fact there's been a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I can only assume that this misconception arises from a combination of exaggerated word of mouth, with false memories, and people for some reason having no concept of similes & figure-of-speeches (aka, people taking statements like "their live will end", or, "their live is in my hands" ridiculously literally).

to:

** It's as is stated above. There has never been any indication in any of the games that all murders, or even that all first degree murders, are punished with the death penalty, and in fact there's been a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I can only assume that this misconception arises from a combination of exaggerated word of mouth, with false memories, and people for some reason having no concept of similes & figure-of-speeches (aka, people taking statements like "their live life will end", or, "their live life is in my hands" ridiculously literally). That and, as shown above, a misinterpretation of what the Judge meant, or completely false memory on what he actually said, in the Stolen Turnabout. He specifically said that murder is a "capital crime, worthy of capital punishment", when explaining how murder is, obviously, much more serious then theft. Which is nowhere close to remotely implying that murder is anywhere close to always punished with death. All that means is that as far as the law is concerned, murder is a capital crime and so _can_ be punished with death if need be.
4th Aug '17 1:12:59 PM nowaymanguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** No. Only certain murders. This is proven by Sirhan Dogen who, despite being an assassin who has killed countless people, has not been executed and is not on death row. It's likely that very few murders are the death penalty\.

to:

** No. Only certain murders. This is proven by Sirhan Dogen who, despite being an assassin who has killed countless people, has not been executed and is not on death row. It's likely that very few murders are the death penalty\.penalty.
** It's as is stated above. There has never been any indication in any of the games that all murders, or even that all first degree murders, are punished with the death penalty, and in fact there's been a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I can only assume that this misconception arises from a combination of exaggerated word of mouth, with false memories, and people for some reason having no concept of similes & figure-of-speeches (aka, people taking statements like "their live will end", or, "their live is in my hands" ridiculously literally).
2nd Aug '17 1:35:55 PM nowaymanguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** I grant you it's not the strongest case the prosecution's ever had in the series, but there's a little more then just that. There was also the fact that Juniper was the only one with the chance to reactivate the bomb. And I'm going to assume that considering the nature of the case; namely that it was an act of domestic terrorism which took place during a trial for another act of domestic terrorism, after the courthouse itself just got partially destroyed, that they were pretty damn eager to get the culprit convicted as fast as humanly possible. Although I admit it's not the most solid the prosecution's case has ever been. We can argue semantics over individual cases until the cows come home though, my original point was that in most cases at least, the suspect is the most obvious suspect, not to mention the person who most of the initial evidence actually points to.
31st Jul '17 12:08:38 PM NNinja
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Case against Juniper was basically this: Prosecution claimed that she decided to blow up a courtroom on a whim, because her teacher was an asshole who framed her two months earlier and then she almost died in an explosion and the guy she's in love with was seriously injured, and all the evidence they have is that she once touched a tail which MIGHT come from a toy the bomb was inside of. Does this really look like a strong case?
13th Jul '17 4:13:15 AM nowaymanguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** There isn't, I don't think. I think we just have to accept that that's another factor of the game's ludicrous legal system and move on lest we tie ourselves in knots trying to explain it.


Added DiffLines:

** There actually is such a thing as conflict of interest, since it's brought up on a number of occasions (some of which have been stated by previous tropers just above). The issue comes with how lax they seem to be on following them. Presumably it exists in some form, although it seems like it's the job of the prosecution/defense to actually bring it up and claim that the conflict is at play. Klavier brings it up specifically for Lamiroir, and Lamiroir herself even questions it when it comes to being a jurist for Vera's trial. In the latter instance Phoenix loopholes it (she wasn't involved in the "development" of the case specifically so it's technically fine), and in the former the court accepts that it is conflict of interest.
12th Jul '17 12:47:12 PM nowaymanguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** I never understood the issue with Nine Tails Vale myself. Even if you don't take into account the entire "AU where Japanese culture flourished" thing, there's places like Nine Tails Vale in our ''real world Ameirca''. Maybe not quite so distinctive in it's own culture, but it wouldn't look that out of place in a place like Little Tokyo, as some sort of tourist spot. The same thing with the rakugo theater in Turnabout Storyteller, it'd definitely fit in a place like that. In an AU version of L.A where that kinda thing has flourished even more so then real life, it seems completely reasonable that those kinda places could exist as their own full locations. And the thing with Tenma Taro was clearly brought over from Japan, by the immigrants who ended up founding the village, incidentally. I never understood why it was so exaggerated myself either. Perhaps this comes from having recently played ''VideoGame/YoKaiWatch'' though, in which the entire attempt to act like it takes place in America despite so very obviously taking place in Japan really IS as glaring as a sore thumb. It gives you an appreciation for how subtly Ace Attorney actually did do it when you see something like that.


Added DiffLines:

*** I'll give you Serenade for the case against Machi being flimsy (that was actually supposed to be the point of the episode though), but I don't see how Juniper's charge in Countdown is that flimsy all things considered.
This list shows the last 10 events of 332. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.AceAttorney