MDA and Fun of The ace attorney series (Original Trilogy)
The ace attorney series puts you the shoes of rookie defense attorney Phoenix Wright. Your job is to first collect evidence in point-and-click adventure sections. You will then transition into trial sections where you listen to testimonies, point our inaccuracies with your collected evidence, and prove your client’s innocence. In this review, I will be focussing only on the trial sections.
The game aims to give the player fantasy and narrative of being a larger than life lawyer. Someone capable of coaxing the truth from witnesses, proving their client’s innocence, and somehow finding out who the real killer is by the end of the trial. For this to work, the game must create a constant narrative flux between encountering problems, finding a solution, and feeling triumphant. Despite the game being a linear story that loops around when you make a wrong answer, the game achieves the fantasy using 2 mechanics.
- Contrived and Cartoonish narrative
Your clients are almost always guilty until proven innocent. Their guilt is often proved using a knife with their fingerprints, or simply being the only person at the scene. The judge is willing to dismiss any alternative explanation and is often threatened by the prosecutor. This means that any breakthrough the player makes in court has to be substantial, and any progress in the narrative feels satisfying. The rigged court system also means that any narrative progress can be wiped out by the prosecutor. Most of the game’s tension occurs when you present a successful argument. Then the prosecutor will look at you with a smug face, and present a counter-argument that the judge immediately buys into. Thus, the game manages to bounce around between crisis and triumph.
This is also supported with over the top animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV8sjRTiWC8
2. The cross-examination system.
In most detective games, you are given a few choices of dialogue to progress forward. These choices often give away the answer to the mystery or allow the player to brute force their way. This leads to the player feeling like they are choosing the most obvious choice and not doing any deductive reasoning. This game circumvents this problem by increasing the possibility space. After each witnesses’ testimony, you are given the chance to question them in a cross-examination. To point out a contradiction you must select the contradictory statement as well as the evidence that contradicts the testimony. Given that one testimony is 7–8 sections long and each game has around 20 pieces of evidence. It is impractical to brute force the solution. Presenting evidence also makes sure that the clues are berried in a wall of description. This means that all decisions require thought and deliberation.
A more detailed analysis can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwV_mA2cv_0
