I think it should be noted of the bat that this post by me will include spoilers for both games. Despite what some reviews on other sites might claim(Gamespot for example), these two games are closely linked and build upon one another thematically.
How about a little refresher course about the first game? Essentially trials worked like this: you found a client, gathered evidence and then proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not them that committed the murder. Although to claim otherwise would be outrageously stupid if this was a 'real' murder, in the context of the game it made sense because you 'believed' in your client. This trust between client and attorney, that you have to believe them no matter what happens, is perhaps the most important theme for fully understanding the second game. This is not the say that the trials are formulaic or dull, it's just that they all essentially follow this model. However, since the second game builds upon it, I think it very important to note.
Phoenix Wright 2 starts out with two trials that are eerily akin to those that were in the first game. These are 'refreshers' for the themes laid in the foundation of the first game. The game designers had to put these in simply because this game will be played by some that have not played the first. It is sad that they would do so, and because of that the game must offer some way for its themes to be fully realized. One must not dismiss the trials, but consider their importance in this context rather than ignorantly claim that they are 'retreads' or somehow unimportant for the overall narrative.
However, trial three of game 2 is when they start dropping the simplicity(or cliche ridden) nature that was in the previous trials. Acro, ultimately the antagonist of the case, is not 'pure evil'; he did the murder on accident and lived with the guilt that came from it. Unlike every villain in game one and all those preceding him, Acro was not just an enemy that must be overcome, he was someone that had to live with the problem of accidentally inflicting harm on someone. This theme of guilt even when one thinks they are doing the right thing is even further explored in trial four. The main point is that Acro was not 'pure evil'.
Trial four of the second game is when it all starts to hang out. Your client was innocent; this was almost a proven point that you logically worked from to prove who did the crime. Although they try and trick you early on, this is not the case with this one. Matt is 'pure evil' like the other opponents that you faced, but now he is your client. This is the main reason that this game is a game instead of a book(some have argued that this game shouldn't even exist). Hopefully one grows slightly fond of the characters that are in the game up to this point, by necessity you must interact with them. In doing so, the game hopes to make you, 'Phoenix', wrecked with the moral difficulty of defending a guilty and clearly evil individual. A book or movie, while being able to explore this issue, would be in a much more difficult situation for making the same connection between the fiction and the real world of the player. That connection, by necessity, is already there with this game(even more so if one played the first one).
The game, by placing you in the difficult situation of defending a 'pure evil' individual, also turns many of the conventions of the two titles on their head. Phoenix Wright does not read his law books, he is not actually too familiar with the rules governing court conduct. However, he is a master bullshit artist. In the game this is called 'bluffing', but we know what they really mean by that. You basically make a minuscule point seem outrageous by proportion, find more evidence, and then find your [clearly innocent] client to be a good person. However, by having this trial so thematically different, the game begins to show how your tactics, although being able to do good, can be wrong practices in the hand of an evil individual.
The game also creates a curious parallel between Phoenix/Edgeworth and Matt Enguarde/Juan Corrida. Both character groups have rivalries because of their profession and they let this dominate them(consider too the costumes of the Samurai and Ninja in relation to the lawyer's suits). Ultimately this rivalry is shown to be a destructive force between and Matt/Juan, and obviously the same could be said of Phoenix/Edgeworth. That is, the two sides of the law should not see themselves as enemies, but rather they should consider one other as aspects of a larger whole: justice. Justice necessarily entails the finding of The Truth, which the game holds at a premium. Personal differences and squabbles should come to an end when a more important goal is within site. However, there is more that can be garnered from the comparison than that. Consider the publicized life of Matt/Juan and their egotistical nature. Phoenix/Edgeworth, if one follows the dialogue closely, also have a rivalry that, apparently, is popular in the paper.
Phoenix, if one follows his personal thoughts, does think himself superior to some of the people that he comes in contact with. If we are to assume that Matt/Juan are evil--which is a fair comparison--then what of Phoenix/Edgeworth? The game, ultimately, gives Phoenix/Edgeworth the chance to rise from their own ashes and redeem themselves. However, the point still does remain that a lawyer, in thinking themselves the ruler of The Truth(like Matt in trial 4), might become obsessed with their own power. The lesson imparted is not so easy to ignore.
The game, by placing you in the difficult situation of defending a 'pure evil' individual, also turns many of the conventions of the two titles on their head. Phoenix Wright does not read his law books, he is not actually too familiar with the rules governing court conduct. However, he is a master bullshit artist. In the game this is called 'bluffing', but we know what they really mean by that. You basically make a minuscule point seem outrageous by proportion, find more evidence, and then find your [clearly innocent] client to be a good person. However, by having this trial so thematically different, the game begins to show how your tactics, although being able to do good, can be wrong practices in the hand of an evil individual.
The game also creates a curious parallel between Phoenix/Edgeworth and Matt Enguarde/Juan Corrida. Both character groups have rivalries because of their profession and they let this dominate them(consider too the costumes of the Samurai and Ninja in relation to the lawyer's suits). Ultimately this rivalry is shown to be a destructive force between and Matt/Juan, and obviously the same could be said of Phoenix/Edgeworth. That is, the two sides of the law should not see themselves as enemies, but rather they should consider one other as aspects of a larger whole: justice. Justice necessarily entails the finding of The Truth, which the game holds at a premium. Personal differences and squabbles should come to an end when a more important goal is within site. However, there is more that can be garnered from the comparison than that. Consider the publicized life of Matt/Juan and their egotistical nature. Phoenix/Edgeworth, if one follows the dialogue closely, also have a rivalry that, apparently, is popular in the paper.
Phoenix, if one follows his personal thoughts, does think himself superior to some of the people that he comes in contact with. If we are to assume that Matt/Juan are evil--which is a fair comparison--then what of Phoenix/Edgeworth? The game, ultimately, gives Phoenix/Edgeworth the chance to rise from their own ashes and redeem themselves. However, the point still does remain that a lawyer, in thinking themselves the ruler of The Truth(like Matt in trial 4), might become obsessed with their own power. The lesson imparted is not so easy to ignore.
I would like to thank Objection.net for the last picture and for continuing the near cult like following that Phoenix Wright has. Over at Penny Arcade they(Tycho) have a similar point to the one that I was ultimately trying to get at. These games do have better writing than your average game, and they do have better conceived characters than more popular titles. The problem is that some people cringe at the thought that these games do not allow you to 'play a game' but, rather, offer more of an interactive story. Vagueness aside, I think it a crime that interface is trumping substance. Until people are willing to disavow graphics or presentation entirely and simply look at the text(game), I think that there will be a problem for the industry as a whole.
0 comments:
Post a Comment