Phoenix Wright Ace Attourney - are they really THAT good?

[Nuka]

I have seen those games hyped all over the internet, and I have all games in my  enormous 3DS and Vita backlog which is standing still since im playing normal VN's on tablet.. But with the release of the new PW game, I got reminded that I havent played them yet.. I have played the very first case of the first game (triology) and didnt really get into it that early, but I guess it gets better since it gets theese super high scores?

So, from you guys with the same gaming taste as me (visual novels, interesting story), is this a game I wont be able to put down if I give it a fair chance again?

[Soulless Watcher]

It's not for everyone, if you played through an entire case (even if it was the first one ever) and felt absolutely nothing.... don't bother. You needn't torture yourself over something that just isn't for you.

[DarkZedge]

I haven't really played them but for what I've seen it didn't look like my kind of thing but people do say it's great. As with anything else it has it's own crowd, those who love it and those who do not.

If you dislike it then don't try to force yourself to play it.  

[Riku]

If you liked DanganRonpa, you should give it a chance. The first case is easy in each game to introduce the game. At least try the second case to know if you really don't like it.

Personally, Ace Attorney is my favorite series of VNs/Games. No game is my favorite, but the series as a whole is. I love the cases who have awesome turnabouts and the humour of the series.

If you only liked the story of DanganRonpa, you may not like it. But if you liked the trials in DanganRonpa, Ace Attorney is a more complete version with better trials. The main difference being the tone of the story.

That said, the truly awesome cases are mostly the last one of each game, and a few others.

[Makudomi]

null

[Darklord Rooke]

3 hours ago, Makudomi said:

They're pretty entertaining mysteries, but I must admit as a diehard fan that the first and second cases of the first game lack one very important component:

They both reveal the murderer at the outset of the chapter rather than allowing the player to piece together the crime and discover that themselves.

So does Columbo, which is one of the greatest detective series ever created. Shows like Columbo use the 'inverted mystery form', where the viewer/reader knows the murderer and method of murder and the interest is in the catching of the criminal. Often impossible crimes (sometimes locked room mysteries) are employed, so even though the reader knows who the murderer is, it seems impossible for that person to have committed that crime. In short it's often an intellectual exercise and a battle of wits scenario.

These types of mysteries need to be exceptionally carefully crafted and Columbo stands above every other show in that regard. 

This type of format by itself isn't a 'negative', it all depends on how it's done. 

[Mr Poltroon]

Rooke showed up before I did, but my point is the same.
On the topic of 'revealing the murderer': It's a good mindset to come into the series aware that "who did it" is not often nearly as important a question as "how did they do it" and "how do I prove it". These games are quite indeed more about battling with the prosecution and the witnesses so as to prove and discover how things went down.
Often enough you'll come across cases where the culprit is quite obvious, sometimes even through a simple process of elimination. If you get disappointed every time you think "the culprit was so obvious" you'll get disappointed quite often in this game.

[Makudomi]

null