Discussion VisualNovel / PhoenixWrightAceAttorneyDualDestinies

I don't see how several examples from Call-Back are actual examples. First off:

• When Hugh O'Conner reveals his bandaged hand, Athena hopes it's just ketchup. ^{Give up?} Think back to when Phoenix first gets a hint towards Godot's colorblindness.

This one I think is really stretching it. Firstly, it happens the other way around in the game the example is referring to (characters think it's blood when actually it's ketchup); and secondly, I don't see plot relevance here.

Second example:

• Apollo still very much likes to practice his "Chords of steel".

Asked in Ask The Tropers and someone agreed with me that character habits carrying on from a previous work are not Call Backs.

Third example:

• The Leitmotif for Apollo's Perception is still a remix of Cross Examination 2007.

First off, I think it's Continuity Nod at best, because it isn't a plot development or a gameplay mechanic. And secondly, I'm thinking this may be Recurring Riff.

Am I the only one whose kind of worried that the new setting means that were never going to get the answers to everything that got left hanging at the end of dual destinies

This example is causing natter. Could someone sort it out, please?

• Broken Aesop: Case 3 is all about decrying the notion of the end justifying the means, and claims that working within the system, according to the rules, results in a more legitimate victory. However, in case five, due to the failure of her legitimate attempts to retry the UR-1 trial, Aura Blackquill takes hostages and demands the retrial happen on her terms. Not only does she actually get what she wants, but the Phantom gets caught and everyone lives happily ever after. Granted, Aura does get jail time, and she was doing it to keep her own innocent brother from being executed—case 3 was mainly about going to ridiculous lengths for nothing but petty victory, but it could be misconstrued against going against the moral of case 3. And the fact that Phoenix and Edgeworth both recognize her crime as helpful to the cause and even APOLOGIZE to her for the mistakes of the law (instead of the opposite) just makes it even worse.
  • But it gets worse than that. When you actually think about it, the aesop of Case 3 completely and utterly contradicts the mindset of the main and secondary characters in the entire Ace Attorney series, because they always aim to find the truth by all means neccesary. Aura Blackquill kidnapping Trucy and others is just the latest addition in a long list of unethical, amoral, or even downright illegal actions the characters took since the very first game in order to prove a person innocent (or guilty, in the Investigations games): Mia blackmailing Redd White in second case of the first game to get him to confess the truth, Phoenix and Edgeworth pressing a 9 year old kid to relive a painful moment until he broke down in tears to get more info during the third case, Maya interrupting a trial in the fourth case to press Lotta so the trial wouldn't end too soon, Edgeworth not caring if Adrian Andrews commits suicide as long as she confesses something in the second game, Edgeworth taking Phoenix's place in one of the trials of the third game and even manipulating it thanks to Franziska so no one would notice, Trucy Wright staging being kidnapped thanks to Mr Hat in Apollo Justice to get Apollo out of a tight spot, Robin and Hugh commiting perjury in order to save Juniper, Athena blaming them on trial for a crime they didn't commit...and the list goes on. True, some of those instances are acknowledged as wrong or unlawful, but even then the games tend to either handwave them as quirky acts from the characters or never even mention them; and they always recognize that those were the only way to solve certain problems. All things considered, the only two differences between those who think that the end justifies the means in "the Dark Age of the Law" and the Ace Attorney heroes are that the latter don't use forged evidence (which isn't the only illegal thing you can do on a trial) and that they don't think just about winning, but about defending the innocent and exposing the truth; but that still means that they see those ends as noble or important enough to justify their means, as Edgeworht even claimed on the second Investigations game. In the end, the moral of Case 3 shouldn't be "The end doesn't justifies the means" as much as it should be "The end doesn't justifies using forged evidence, since it corrupts the truth. Anything else, however, as long as it helps to bring the truth to the light, is fair play."
  • Actually, according to some people, this thinking is not bad, it is more like it depends on the people who applied the philosophy of "the end justifies the means". It's more like Value Dissonance though.
    • True, but even if one could make a case that using such mentality could be helpful, it still means that the ideal given by Case 3 (the end DOESN'T justifies the means, working within the limits imposed by the law) is in direct contradiction with the overall mentality and methods of the main heroes, so, either they are wrong but it's never stated, or the moral of the Case 3 is wrong.

Why is it that people aren't letting me edit in the redirect from Main to Visual Novel? It's going to happen anyway, so I don't see the point in it getting taken out.