Talk:Ace Attorney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Adventure games task force.
This article is supported by the Visual novels task force.


Udon will be publishing an AA artbook in Oct. [1]

Based on my own experiences with their Okami artbook, this may help a number of the characters and games' development sections. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiiware 5th chapter[edit]

In the sources provided, there is no mention of a planned 5th chapter to be added to the WiiWare title. Unless I've horribly misread something, I think this line should be removed. noskap (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not good with formatting so I am not cofertable to add myself but these two source should easily sufffice to confirm that the fifth chapter will be added. [[2]] [[3]]-- (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest release (Infobox)[edit]

Is this referring to the main series (and obviously re-releases such as the Wii) or does it include spin-offs, such as Ace Attorney Investigations which has just come out? The template page itself is a little unclear. --Addict 2006 03:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First release[edit]

I think that should say 'Gyakuten Saiban'. Is there a reason it doesn't? SuperSonicTH (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


The information on the manga adaptions is abismally poor... Can't someone fix that? The information is clearly out there. If nothing else, the Japanese version of this page has a lot more. (I know enough japanese to know that ...but not to clearly understand what information it is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Article for inclusion - will get to later myself if necessary[edit]

[4] - comparing Japan's justice system with the games' version. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Court Records Link[edit]

I think the link should be removed, the website seems to have been compromised. Whenever I go there, my computer starts downloading a file called "courtrecords.exe". We don't want someone clicking it and getting a virus attack. --PoW —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be OK now. Perhaps there was some tempory problem since I'm not getting a download.-- (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

15 Games?[edit]

The reference listed for there being 15 games appears to count the ports as separate entities. Is this count really all that useful? It all just seems really misleading, and doesn't seem to match the language used in discussing other series.

Besides the original Ace Attorney game (which has that Episode 5 DLC as separate content), the various ports of the games are basically identical. As far as I know, that would put the total number of games at . . . 6 (3 Phoenix Wright, 1 Apollo Justice, and 2 Miles Edgeworth, one of which remains only in Japanese), plus the two future games listed.

Oh, and one more thing. 15 doesn't even make sense if you count all the ports. There are the originals on GBA (3), plus their versions on DS, Wii, iOS, and Windows (12 more). Then there are the Apollo Justice and Edgeworth games (3), and the count is already too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the source that is linked, the ports on the Wii, iOS, and Mobile were delivered as one game with all three packaged in. So that's 3 on the GBA, 3 DS ports, 1 Wii port, 1 iOS port, 1 mobile port, 3 Windows ports, 2 unique DS games, and PL vs. AA on the 3DS soonish. That adds up to 15.
Then again, that is forgetting the unlocalized GK2... And the Android version... And GS5. Perhaps it is better to just say 6 unique games, plus 2 future games, or maybe just say 8. Just need to find a source that says that... Blahmoomoo (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm at least glad to see there was a reason for the current count (I didn't realize it included future games). However, it's still wrong: even if the Wii versions are considered separate from the GBA and DS versions, they were *not* delivered as one game (I don't have a reference besides checking the WiiWare service itself, which is where I bought two of the games in the first place). I'm not sure if the iOS and mobile versions are packaged the same way or not. Anyway, I will also look for a reference with a more reasonable count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Even if we counted all the ports we should say something like 15 releases to make it more clear that we are not talking about 15 separate/unique games.-- (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Iwata Asks dev source[edit]

Iwata brings all the devs to the yard and they're like "it's better than yours". Axem Titanium (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I want to say to "localize fan". The American(English speaker) does not seem to show respect for the original.[edit]

Do you insult an original Japanese version? Does Wikipedia remove the original Japanese name?

English name is localize name. You(localize fan) insult an original Japan version. (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I haven't written those articles, but I'm sure nobody meant to insult the Japanese version. Rather, most English speakers only played the English (or French, Italian, German, etc) versions, and so it came naturally for them to write the characters' English names. I agree with you, though, the characters' Japanese names should absolutely be mentioned in the "plot" sections.--In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Court System[edit]

The following section reads more like a political advocate's blurb, rather than talking about the game itself. I am considering removal but would like opinions.

The court system in the Ace Attorney games is strongly influenced from the civil law inquisitorial system of Japan as opposed to adversarial system of common law countries. The online game magazine The Escapist penned an article about the game and criticism of Japanese legal system. [3] According to the article, in Japan, being convicted of a crime once legally accused is almost certain, and many defense attorneys may never win an acquittal throughout their career and prosecutor are able to use questionably-obtained testimony and misstatements towards their behalf.[3] On the other hand, an academic article written by J. Mark Ramseyer of Harvard Law School and Eric B. Rasmusen of Indiana University [1], it is argued that this is due to the fact that inquisitional system use judges who sit on scores of cases a year to decide verdict, which make the outcome very predictable and, as a result, Japanese prosecutors only charge suspects whose chance of conviction is near absolute, which explains the 99% conviction rate in Japan, as opposed to an 88% conviction rate in the U.S. Moreover, in Japan, confession of guilt cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt. Only confession of guilty secret, that is, information only the guilty could have known such as a confession regarding the murder weapon, the location of the body, or the method of the crime, is admissible as evidence. This make confession as highly reliable evidence of guilt as innocent cannot make such confession even under torture. The magazine further erred by stating that Japan reintroduced its own jury system, not used since 1943.[3] This is factually incorrect: Japan introduced a lay judge system, whereby judges actively inquisition evidence presented from both defense and prosecutor. (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There is definitely some coat-racking going on in that paragraph, but the whole thing shouldn't be removed, as the fact that the game is based on the Japan's inquisition system (which is far different from typical courts in English-speaking countries). I'll edit out the opinion parts. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
We are not supposed to delete content/opinion simply because it is something one dislike. Otherwise, some people will try to delete contents sourced from Fox news for being coat-racking. And in this instance, the source is an academic article written by someone specialised in Japanese legal system which has higher verifiability than an online magazine. Anyhow, what Japan recently introduced is a "lay judge" system. This is categorically not a jury system as the Escapist claims. Either we should removed the whole section or that we should let the both sides of the contents stand so factual errors of Escapist can be corrected. Also, highlighting that an online game magazine is not as reliable as an paper written by legal scholars is not coat racking. It is merely giving proper weight to the degree of verifiability.
Anyhow, what is a (online) game magazine doing trying to paint a court system of a developed countries as a system akin to a North Korea. A common sense would indicate that a developed countries is unlikely to function with such a corrupt system as described by Escapist. Is it some sort of inbuilt prejudiced against non white countries? Why is it hardly mentioned that most inquisitive legal system such as ones in France and Germany also have near absolute conviction rate. (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not an issue of something being disliked - it's call coatraking - using one platform to introduce POV about another (even if the POV is well-intended). We do not need to have a critical review of the Japanese court system in an article about the Ace Attorney games, only a fundamental understanding that the court system in game is a partial reflection of the Japanese court system. The Escapist article does have some opinion, but here we're focused on the fact the courts are known to be predominately "guilty until proven innocent", and hence why Phoenix or whoever the protagonist is always seems against he rocks to the prosecution. Thus, the summary of the Escapist article avoids some of the opining that the article actually goes into. We don't need to talk about conviction rates or comparisons to anything else - just that the AA system is based on - but not exactly - the Japanese system. That type of discussion is better on a page about comparing various legal systems or the like. There is one thing I might add in that the scholarly article does note that the success rate is generally high because they only accuse people when they have a very strong case against them, as compared to the US or other countries where "innocent until proven guilty" allows for weak reasons to arrest that can be easily defended against in court. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, have you actually read the article by Escapist? Vast portion of the article is nothing about the game but instead about how corrupt and rotten Japanese legal system is. It is, as you says, using a silly cartoon game as a platform to introduce poorly informed POV about Japanese legal system. I agree that we do not need to have a critical review of the Japanese court system in an article about a game but the section, until I corrected it did. As I said previously, the content from the Escapist article should be deleted, or their POV should be corrected by something far more reliable. Also, your last section is incorrect. You says "where innocent until proven guilty allows for weak reasons to arrest". You should have said "weak reason to "charge", not arrest. Arrest is made for the purpose of criminal investigation and is a separate from court proceeding. Plus, are you implying that Japan as well as other continental legal system does not have "innocent until prove guilty"? No wonder Escapist editor gave go ahead to such biased article. Is there some sort of inbuilt prejudice that place like Japan must have kangaroo court system? I never seen an article of similar vain written about, say, German court system where the conviction rate is also near absolute. Vapour (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Escapist article gets opinionated too. That's not what we're including. The point of this is 1) Japan has a different, inquisitional court system that most English readers aren't familiar with but forms the basis for AA, 2) it has a high acquisition rate that, per the scholarly paper, is a function of prosecutions only bringing forward cases they sure they can win and 3) these two issues are reflected in the games by having the player, as the defense attorney, to be seemingly on the ropes throughout the case with everything weighted against him. We don't need to say any more, which is what the former text went into too much. Whether this is a fair court system or how it compares to other countries, is not an issue to discuss here. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
So, why are you trying to keep the content from Escapist article? The whole article is indeed about Japanese legal system being unfair and you are editing the contents from the Escapist to be something else. As I said, I'm either for deleting the whole area entirely or allowing Escapist's biased but still verifiable content to stand as long as it is put in proper place. Vapour (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The Escapist article factually states the game is based on the Japanese court system, in setting up the rest of the opinion piece. We are not using the rest of the opinion piece, just the fact that the game is based on the Japanese court, and then later, how because of the near-100% conviction rate, that the game exaggerates courtroom behavior. Are we including how the Escapist considers the Japanese system unfair? No, that would be improper. This is a completely appropriate use of a source as long as we only use the parts that don't introduce POV into this. Just because the Escapist article overall is an opinionated piece, it still sets out factual claims that are not opinionated that can be used. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree, if we are only using the particular article for factual statements it contains I don't see a problem. I also agree with trimming the courtroom section since a lot of the info there was had more to do with analysis of the Japanese court system itself than the series. The text retained gives enough context to explain why the court system would seem so different to many Western players.-- (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request some other sources than the paper by the Escapist for the court system. Some scholarly citations would be nice. JuliusSimplus (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There's already a scholarly citation. If you want more sources, maybe you should try finding more yourself? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 14:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A racist and localization supporter.[edit]

The writing and excellent localization are the stars of the show in Phoenix Wright. The Phoenix Wright franchise is remarkably silly in the original Japanese, but the English translation takes it to a new level.

Does the localization fan think that English version is superior to an Original Japanese version?

I am Japanese Ace Attorney fan. Does a racist support a localization version? (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this has to do with the Wikipedia article, nor what racism has to do with appreciating the Ace Attorney localizations. IDVtalk 23:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I observed "Ace Attorney forum" of the English zone and thought that a racist supported localization. They kick Japanese culture and Japanese chief character. If English version is superior to an edition in Japan, reflect it for an article. (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is not meant to imply that one version was better than the other. You're reading too much into it. The English localization is being used as the basis for the article because this is, y'know, English Wikipedia. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 00:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)