Jump to content

Talk:Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Trials and Tribulations/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Gyakuten Saiban 3

Gyakuten Saiban 3 needs to be redirected and merged into this article to follow the format used by the articles on the first two localized games in the series. Froo 08:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The format used by the other two games was adopted ONLY AFTER the games were released. And tell me - do you have a source to show that all of the plot and characters from GS3 will be exactly the same in the English version? No. So adding in GS3's content is 100% original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

However, Capcom has discussed said game at a conference. Here a link to a press release. http://www.capcom.com/BBS/showthread.php?t=13523 Make of it what you will. DarzieP83.71.2.89 13:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quite possible that there may be a plot change in the game, but given the past two games, it's very unlikely beyond changes needed for localization (eg facts that cars drive on the left in States, left in England in a case for PW2, while flipped around in GS2). If merging must be done (and I don't see much harm in that), I recommend that the plot/character section start with "These are based on the Japanese version of the game" so that if the US version is drastically different, it can be filled it separately. However, for the most part, GS3 and PW3 will be the same game, and thus, should be in the same article. --Masem 13:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is GS3. The first case is the same, Godot is in it, the first two games were the same as their Japanese counterparts sans cultural differences, and there is no reason to think it will be terribly different. Arguing otherwise is simply being foolishly foolish. --Guess Who 14:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So how willing would you be to bet your life that it would have no noticeable changes? The game isn't even OUT yet, we can NOT have a complete story guide for it! For Heaven's sake, we waited for JfA to come out before merging GS2. Settle down. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The first two games were identical to the Japanese versions, minus some minor cultural changes. The chances of this game being so radically different that it would require a seperate article are near-zero. It's GS3 with an Americanized title and the plot has to tie into the previous games and GS4. Games with wild differences in the game have their American and Japanese titles merged into the same page (i.e. [[1]])Froo 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
It's an unreleased game. It should not have content that implies a released game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I will bet you my life that the game has no major plot differences from Gyakuten Saiban 3. Seriously. Regardless, it IS a released game. It's a port of Gyakuten Saiban 3, just like AA was a port of GS1 and JfA was a port of GS2. This is like saying Sonic Adventure DX and Sonic Adventure are two totally different games. The point is, the characters are the same, the first case is the same, the first two games were the same, and there's no evidence that this will be different. --Guess Who 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't need ANY evidence to say that it will be different. The problem here is that YOU lack evidence to show that it will be the same. To say it will be is original research. You'd have to omit all character names besides preexisting characters and characters whose names have been announced at the very least. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
By your standard, we'd have Mario_Strikers_Charged and "Mario Strikers Charged Football" as different articles, since they could be potentially different games. It's clearly not a tenable policy, and therefore, it violates WP:IAR. Froo 07:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference between this and Sonic Adventure lies in that one was an enhancement of the other, whereas in GS3's case this is the first time the game will have an official translation (as well as potentially having additional content). GS3 and PW3 should remain separate as we cannot be sure of the content the localisation will have in relation to the Japanese original. Case in point: Look at GS1. 190.49.1.118 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
... I just listed all the evidence that shows it's the same, but here we go!
Screenshots from case 1, showing that, like in GS3, the first case has young Phoenix involved in a murder with Young Mia Fey as his lawyer, Grossberg as Mia's co-council, Chinami (now Dahlia) as a witness, and Winston Payne as the prosecutor. That's pretty familiar.
Capcom press release saying that they are bringing it from Japan, naming Godot as the main prosecutor, and describing that the story involves the "past" (Young Mia cases) and "present" (Phoenix cases). It also names it as the third installment in the series from Japan.
Official trailer, featuring music from the third game, showing scenes from GS3 with Godot at the end of the trailer.
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice for All were both direct translations of their Japanese counterparts with few changes besides cultural and linguistic differences.
On the note about how we couldn't use English names and Japanese names, the Gyakuten Saiban 3 page already does this.
GS:YG/PW:AA's extra content was a tie-in to the then-upcoming Gyakuten Saiban 4, and was present in its DS Japanese release. Outside of that, PW:AA was simply an enhanced remake of GS1. JfA had no new content and indeed was no more than a remake of GS2. With GS4 released and JfA being a direct port, there's no reason to expect an added case, especially since GS3 had a fifth case already. --Guess Who 20:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh good christ.
Just because JFA had no additional content doesn't mean T&T won't.
More to the point, we are well aware it is a localisation of GS3. This has already been established. This is not about whether they are the same game. This is not a discussion concerning the content of the games, it is regarding the two articles being merged.
JFA wasn't merged into GS2 until the DS port was released. The same should happen with T&T and GS3. Once T&T is released, the content from GS3 should be merged into it, at which point the primary article should be T&T due to western localisations taking precedence.190.49.1.118 21:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If they are the same game, I fail to see why there is any question over if the main content of the game will be the same. The localizations thus far have been highly faithful to the originals and there is no reason to believe that has changed. --Guess Who 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
...What are you talking about? I've been SAYING to merge GS3 into TaT when TaT is OUT. It's an unreleased game, you can NOT verify that it will be all the same. It's original research to say that "the first two games were largely the same, so this game MUST be the same". - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I linked to all that other crap. --Guess Who 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, logic dictates that would be the case, but evidence does NOT equal proof. (Surely any fan of the game series would already know that, but...)190.49.1.118 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh you mean you're saying that (TaT != GS3 + English Localization + DS controls) evaluates to true?
Why don't we all just chill out and include a link to Gyakuten Saiban 3, leaving it at that? I'll admit this argument's really silly (and that I'm against LttP, personally), but it's a somewhat valid complaint and, honestly, I don't feel like egging the issue on. A link to GS3 guarantees access to all that juicy spoilerific info that everyone's dying to include, while removing any doubt that that pertains to the Japanese version of the game and not necessarily the English one - and we'd just merge it in September when everything can be verified.
Of course, I don't exactly get why we have to go blurting out "original research" when it's pretty much common sense, but again, I'm more keen on finding a compromise here. -Shadow Hog 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, common sense is not a reliable source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"It's an unreleased game. It should not have content that implies a released game." Actually, no. It's a port. Ports are never given new articles. Hell, sometimes remakes aren't given new articles. I also think it's stupid that Gyakuten Saiban 3 isn't even linked to on the page, and it's not part of the AA series category. It's a fact that TaT is a port of GS3, so in the very least the two articles should be connected in some way. --Impossible 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion

If this is a big deal, how about just redirecting Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations to Gyakuten Saiban 3. Just make a note that Trials and Tribulation is a localization and when the game is released, moved it to its localized title. Jonny2x4 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's bad, too. The game is verifiably in development and is set to release in the US in a matter of months. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
But it's still not released yet, and any article on it would be, as you have said before, original research. *PW music plays* Isn't that RIGHT?--Zxcvbnm 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard Proof the game is a Port

Here's some more hard proof... Capcom's press release says they're bringing the game to North America. “Ace Attorney has developed an avid, devoted fan base in both Japan and North America,” said Jack Symon, director, brand marketing, Capcom Entertainment. “Trials and Tribulations is being brought to North America due to the strong demand from fans for another epic courtroom battle.” [2] Ergo, it is a port of GS3. They cannot bring something to North America that does not exist already.

I really feel the whole argument against merging the pages is absurd. Do we have a separate article for every language dub/sub of every upcoming movie since they might change things (and often have cut differences between regions)? Do the director's cuts of movies get completely different pages (i.e. the Lord of the Rings movies, which have some totally different sequences than the originals)? Should we have two separate articles for the US and UK versions of [Revolver[3]] which have completely different tracklistings?

It is a valid point that the information from the other article isn't sourced for America... but there are no cited sources for the GS3 information either. We could always merge the pages and delete the unsourced info in question if some people want to be obtuse about things.Froo 07:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the game's official trailer lists copyright dates of 2004 and 2007, further implying that this is the same game, just localized for the US market. [4].Froo 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Because wiping out information because it lacks sources would be objected to, especially since it's sourcable information. And are you incapable of reading? I task you to find a single instance in time where I suggested that GS3 and PWAATaT coexist AFTER ITS RELEASE. Also, how is that similar? You're using different regions versus a game that wasn't a "simple port" (as it needs to be reworked to have microphone support, touch support, and dual screen support). - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say, that I think that the majority of people here think it should be merged. That means that arguments like this are superfluous, because it isn't a hugely contested idea. It seems only ALttP who thinks it shouldn't. Anyways, thats just my personal opinion and I do think they should be merged. The press release itself says that it's a DS port, whats to argue about?

EDIT: Ok, that may not have been nice, Sorry about that :( I didn't mean it that way. I think that if we can't come to a descision, then we should ask the Mediation Comittee to help. It's what they're for anyway :) -Gerkuman/Gerkinman TNG

The only thing that could be DONE would be to either not even add content and make an article worse solely for the sake of redirecting it, or put original research on this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You fucking idiot, don't post spoilers. Is it your fucking mission to ruin the game for everyone? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm just trying to prove it to you that what this game is. How would that make any articles worse if you just merge the two articles like the previous games and update it with the english names? :\ Erik Destler 20:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you this fucking stupid? I NEVER SAID THAT GS3 WASN'T THIS GAME!! So to prove it, you fucking ruined any purpose of me playing this game. See anything completely and utterly fucking retarded about that? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not completely implied. Please stop going crazy about it. There is tons of reasons to play this game. I read the sixth harry potter book knowing fully well who dies. I played JFA knowing fully well who was the murderer in Case 4. Did I enjoy JFA? Thoroughly. It takes a true fan to enjoy something no matter what. :\ I apologize for my incorrect assumption. However, there was no need to flip out. Erik Destler 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I loathe it when people post spoilers. I've already been spoiled to several facts of TaT, and I was no more polite with people who don't understand that you do not post spoilers for Phoenix Wright, simply because they deserve to be yelled at. I'd never implied that I ever played this game, so at what point do you even get that I have? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I interpreted it, I assumed you had. And I assumed incorrectly, like you assumed me of being bad fan. I said I apologized, now you're just drawing this out. You loathe me? Aw, that's nice of you. However, it's happened. And it's over with. You can either continue to whine about this immaturely, or you can accept the fact and play the game nonetheless like a true fan. Now, can we please get back on discussion? Erik Destler 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A true fan keeps spoilers to himself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't we move on already...? What's to be done? We can't really... bleach your memory or anything. --'Ivan 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, judging on your thoughts of the plot changing, how do I know they didn't change it ^_^; Erik Destler 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cute. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am flattered. But no thanks. ^_^ Erik Destler 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cute as well. But forget it, I'm done with this article. I'm not going to try to maintain policy or quality if it's going to ruin plot points for Phoenix Wright. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not. Tragically, I pressed save too soon. And you saw it. :[ No more key details will be said, if it makes you happy :[[[[[[ Erik Destler 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I love how you tried to act as if those personal attacks never happened. lol. :( Erik Destler 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I slashed them. If I wanted to pretend that they never happened, I'd have deleted them. Slashing means that I take them back, but do not pretend that they never happened. Please end this discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that there has been enough discussion on the subject, and it's time to merge the articles. Unless someone can provide a good reason not to that hasn't been discussed, then the discussion is over.

I agree with that. There appears to be a consensus to merge the articles now. Froo 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Merges are lovely. Erik Destler 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you haven't proven that the plot summary for Gyakuten Saiban 3 would be completely true in TaT's article? WP:OR. No matter how vast the consensus is, you can't do something that violates policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that AA:T&T at least includes the entire story of GS3, since the past 2 games have been exact copies. They wouldn't just make a completely different game with the same characters. So, even if T&T has extra content, they should be merged anyways. QED. Plus, if I'm wrong, we can always revert changes. Therefore, shut your piehole and stop trolling this talk page.--Zxcvbnm 22:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You always know who's wrong when a Wikipedian tells someone that they're a troll for citing policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Was AA merged with Gyakuten Saiban 1? As we know, AA had added content, and since there is no GS1. PWAA Article includes info about GS1, like when it was originally released and etc. So, why not do the same thing? - Erik Destler 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Because this is unreleased. When JfA was released, GS2 was redirected. We should not treat TaT as a released game. At this point, there are no reliable sources to confirm the facts of the plot for the DS version. And you know what they say - "Verifiability over truth". If we cannot show it's true, we cannot say that it is true. Articles have been deleted for their notability not being verifiable, I don't see why this article's plot section is so much more special. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just what's not verifiable about the plot? Erik Destler 01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That it won't change. Common sense or precedence doesn't become a reliable source. What if there was an element of the plot that made no sense to English audiences, requiring them to change it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure there's nothing that doesn't make sense to English audiences, other than puns. However, nothing plotwise would be changed. I cannot think of anything whatsoever about any of the plots of the cases that would have to be changed for American Audiences. Has that happened before? o_O; Erik Destler 01:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, for instance, the Pokémon anime's English version lacked an episode which was considered too confusing to American audiences, because it would not make sense to them.
Anyhow, as long as the truthfulness of the information can be called into question for the DS version, it should not be a redirect. The only time it should be a redirect is when it's released or announced for release in Japan. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
After discussing this with Croik, webmaster of Court Records, Neither she or I can come up with anything at all that would have to be fixed, plotwise. However, I can see from your point of view. As unlikely as it may be, it's still possible. However, from my own experience and from asking around, I haven't been able to come up with anything.. Erik Destler 01:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
But we don't have separate articles for the English and Japanese versions of the Pokemon series. I think that sets a fairly good precedent that translations do not get separate articles. Can you cite any examples apart from the Gyakuten Saban 2 / Justice for All example? Considering even the rather extensive Gamecube remake of Resident Evil does not have a separate article, it seems ridiculous to demand a separate article for what is only a port and a translation. --Micpp 05:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gyakuten Saiban 2 page redirects to Justice for All. The precedent has been set, why is this even a discussion? Demaar 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you care? The fact that you never read a single instance where I said that Gyakuten Saiban 2 was redirected AFTER JfA was released shows that you never actually read the discussion. I established precedence to redirect GS2, but NOT before the game is released! - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Your argument about the plot potentially changing doesn't really make a difference. If there are localisation changes then they can be listed in an appropriate section. It's happened before on other game articles. Guess I should more than skim discussions in the future though, heh. Demaar 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The only changes are the localizations, which is basically all the references and etc. An example would be "You're the Man now, doll" or the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air theme recited by Moe. However, those are not crucial to plot and would have nothing to do with the actual game's plot. Other than that, I can think of nothing plotwise that could possibly be changed. Erik Destler 21:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What about the change in timezones in AA? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I would not consider that a plot change since they both depict the same event, a difference in time zones expalaing why the murderer had the time wrong when he allegedly saw the body. I personally believe that calling this a plot change since they did not use the exacat same times is going a little far. --65.95.17.29 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If we had used the timezone difference of the JP version, it would have been incorrect. We can't just assume that every plot point of GS3 will remain the same. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think your missing the point. There still does not appear a plot change because the main plot point time zone difference is still intact. --65.95.17.29 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As are you. If there exists potential of a plot change, we cannot assume that there will be none.
That's kind of splitting hairs really. Pointing out the differences and tossing a "this game is under development" disclaimer at the top and everything's hunky dory --121.45.202.186 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't know the differences yet. It could potentially be something more substantial, so we cannot assume that every plot detail will be the same. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Consider this, Final Fantasy V Advance at one point was in development, so at one point they could have rewritten the plot. But I don't believe there was a seperate page for that alone up until the point of release. In fact I'm pretty they just made a mention of it on the main FFV page. As a better example I believe Final Fantasy VI Advance had a re-translation with plot differences and that STILL was on the same page as the main Final Fantasy VI page. Final Fantasy II for PSP could potentially have some plot changes but I don't see a seperate page dedicated to that. Even if there ARE plot differences in the localization of TaT is it so much of a bother to add a 'Differences in Localization' section? Wariofan63 03:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, since we don't know if there will be differences yet besides names, we can't! But the fact remains that it cannot be shown that there WILL not be differences. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Quick question for those that know: did the original Gyakuten Saiban: Yomigaeru Gyakuten have its own Wikipedia page before it was released? Even ignoring localisation changes, it was billed as being a remake of the original Gyakuten Saiban title. Maybe instead of JFA and its localisation being the precedent to look to, GS:YG (pre-PW:AA announcement) should be? Demaar 18:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

It looks like the debate won't be ending any time soon. We basically have ALttP saying that merging would break the original research rules, and that the other pages didn't merge and other people stating that ALttP has misinterpreted the rules and that the article should merge. I think then we should use the Request for Comment feature to see what the people who haven't been to this page think should happen. I would like to say though, we have a majority of people who think it should merge, but that isn't a consensus. So, should we RfC? EDIT: We might as well do It anyway, I think. It wouldn't do us any harm -Gerkuman/Gerkinman TNG 12:47 19 April 2007 (UTC DST)

Request for Comment: Would merging be Original Research?

This is a dispute about wheither merging the Gyakuten Saiban 3 article with it's English localisation, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney before the localisation is out would be Original Research 11:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • The format used by the other two games was adopted ONLY AFTER the games were released. And tell me - do you have a source to show that all of the plot and characters from GS3 will be exactly the same in the English version? No. So adding in GS3's content is 100% original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is quite possible that there may be a plot change in the game, but given the past two games, it's very unlikely beyond changes needed for localization (eg facts that cars drive on the left in States, left in England in a case for PW2, while flipped around in GS2). --Masem 13:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The first two games were identical to the Japanese versions, minus some minor cultural changes. The chances of this game being so radically different that it would require a seperate article are near-zero. It's GS3 with an Americanized title and the plot has to tie into the previous games and GS4. Games with wild differences in the game have their American and Japanese titles merged into the same page (i.e. [[5]])Froo 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Moreover, the game's official trailer lists copyright dates of 2004 and 2007, further implying that this is the same game, just localized for the US market. [6].Froo 07:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • You also did not bring up the simple fact that you don't tell people plot details of an unreleased game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Unreleased? Then what do you think the Japanese were buying and playing in 2004?
  • If nothing else, merge the articles for consistency, since the first two games only have one article each, and from what I gathered from the screenshots and trailer, this is going to ported in the exact same way, and there's no reason to assume any different. Chiphead 18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is idiotic. Someone needs to bring this issue forward to the English translator in charge of the game, and verify if there is going to be a significant plot change from the original to the port. -Anonymous 3:35 PM, 20 April 22 2007 (UTC)

If it helps any, Nintedno Power has this to say in it's July 2007 issue:
         "Like the previous two titles, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trials and Tribulations is a DS-enhanced adaptation of a Japan-exclusive GBA game."

And then goes on to say stuff about what Fans of the games should expect, stuff thats returning, and other various stuff. Thewhole ting is on page 19.(Mario66 22:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

I think we can go ahead with this merger

This is heavely supported and A Link to the Past (the main opponent) bowed out on the 20th and has not posted here since that time. If there are not any new substintial objections soon I think we should get this merger done. --67.68.155.33 02:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So what's happening? Is this going ahead or what? Demaar 17:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fake cover art

It was fanmade You can find it here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.69.209 (talk • contribs)

I see.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the official cover is now out. I didn't add it, but someone did. Wow, that was quite fast. By the way, we won the argument. :D Erik Destler 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Old article content

Since a Japanese release has been confirmed, shouldn't the rest of the old article's content be merged in to this one? --Guess Who 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone fixed the picture so that it will stay

I don't understand how these Copyright tags work. Here's the image. Thanks Duhman0009 12:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine they keep taking it down, because the article uses the US title. They're probably waiting for an official US boxart to match the article, while that boxart is for the Japanese version. Although I can't imagine why they wouldn't at least keep the Japanese boxart in the image collection. 71.77.31.113 18:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Acually it was removed by a bot for lacking copyright info. I doubt that being Japanese had anything to do with it. It was also only being removed once.
-I added a copyright tag. I think its better to put the logo for the english version in the infobox until the official US boxart comes out though. Anyway, just include the url of the site you downloaded the image from, and it should be safe. Saying got it during a google search isn't enough. --BD Third 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mareka's name

Mareka's name has been confirmed in the trailer. The members of Court Records have confirmed it with desisive proof. So put her name back. -Unsigned

If you are talking about Amasugi Mareka the English name was not removed as far as I can tell. --67.68.153.37 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed again. PUT IT BACK!!!!!!!!!

Actually it has never been removed and that be verified by reading the history. Are you sure that you are not accidently checking the returning character section and missing the new character section? If not you may be reading an old version of the page from a time before the name was added and you may need to clear your cache. If you don't know how go here Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. --70.81.121.145 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

NA release date delayed

Apparently, Capcom delayed this game to October 23. Sources for the delayed release updates can be seen at GameStop's page. In other words, Japan is getting this 2 months before us. :( 71.77.31.113 01:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Other sources are saying that the release date hasn't changed. I don't have proof, but still, keep an eye on this.
Capcom and Nintendo still say September. —Typhlosion 21:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
While Capcom and Nintendo still both say September 2007, Gamefaqs.com, GameStop.com, and GameSpot.com ALL say October 23. 71.77.31.113 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Since when could we trust a retailer as opposed to...I don't know, the developer and publisher?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
GameSpot and GameFAQs changed their listed dates based only on the GameStop page; before they both listed the release date as September 4th. —Typhlosion 19:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

According to THIS card, the release date IS IN FACT October 23, 2007. 71.77.31.113 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

http://i13.tinypic.com/4tpvmzs.png - Posted by user 'Officer 1BDI' on Court-Records.net forums.
As from what I've heard, this was something given out from the Comic-Con 2007. I think it would be best to trust whatever is on Capcom's website, because they are the ones who made it. Really, I'm happy as long as it comes out! MalwareSmarts 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Character's description in case 5

I've added Morgan Fey to the list of returning characters. She "appears" in case 5, but in a different light. -Unsigned

Try not to refer to the games as "GS" outside of the intro. I know it was the original Japanese name, but you have to remember that this is the English wiki. Furthermore, I know spoilers are going to end up in the case descriptions, but could we try to keep them out of the character descriptions? -Unsigned

I agree since the description for Elise would certainly spoil the game for those who wants to read brief character descriptions while playing the game. Luckily, I have the DS import and beated the game before reading the descriptions on wiki. However, if I haven't, I would be damn pissed to read the brief character descriptions and I find out about one of the character's hidden past.

As such, I have taken the liberty to edit Elise Deauxnim's description since I feel that it is too much of a spoiler and should only be mentioned in the case description. Keep in mind that her mystery was present since the first game.

I mean if Iris's connection to Phoenix isn't revealed in her character description, why should Elise Deauxnim?

True, Godot's description can be considered a spoiler, but I think Capcom didn't do a lot to hide his true identity. By the time you start case 4, you realize who Godot is. I think his secret identity is more of a secret Capcom wanted to keep from Phoenix Wright as oppose to the ppl playing the game.--Doomzaber 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I would say that by the current WP:SPOILER policy that it is unecessary to hide Elise's true identity, but specifically since this game does not yet have a wide American release, I think this may make sense to include this information up front UNTIL the game is released stateside. --Masem 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessary mean to hide her identity, but just to not include it in the character description, much like how someone written Iris's character description with no mention of her being Dahila's twin and that it was she who actually dated Phoenix Wright during his relationship with Dahila. I mean, the case summaries seems to include everything, so if one were to know about teh character, they can check the case summaries. --76.199.139.8 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comic Con

Some names have been confirmed at comic con, like the victim of case 1 and Dahlia's last name. Whoever is removing it stop. I can tell this is going to end up like the Mareka Controversy. -Unsigned

Winston Payne

It might be merely a tiny change, but I have altered the section on Winston Payne. It previously stated that he is not seen during the 'present' time period of the game (In other words, the Phoenix cases), but he can clearly be seen later on in the second case, prosecuting in a different courtroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.207.105 (talk) 18:34, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Significant cuts in plots/characters

I proposed the same for the first game but didn't get much response, so I'll propose it here.

By the general new approach for notability in fiction and writing about fiction, all 3 current PW articles (and I haven't checked the 4th, same goes for it there too) are way too plot and character heavy. Particularly for this game, where there's more an overarching plot for the entire game, it's not even the major details of the cases that are important, just how they fit together.

My suggestion is that for all the PW games, we ditch the case summaries (a list of cases with a one sentence blurb about the general tone of the case is fine), and we should move all the characters to a separate series character page (for all 4 games), with only identification of the absolute major characters on the individual pages (in this case, for PW3, that would be Phoenix, Maya, Mia, Edgeworth, and Godot) for comprehension of the plot.

As it is, even with a proper reception section (which obviously can't be written yet) the plot of the article is way too excessive for a fictional work and has undue weight on the article. --Masem 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely second this. There is a massive plot spoiler in Godot's character description without any warning. I'm going to remove this spoiler, at least for now, since it doesn't serve any other purpose.Vash Aurion 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vash Aurion (talk • contribs)

Agreed. The game is mostly text, so typing out paragraphs about a single case diminishes the value of the work itself. Besides, summaries are available on fansites (particularly Court Records). -K2JMan 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Filler cases!?

The use of the term 'filler cases' in the article is surely unacceptable. Isn't it?! In other news, I think the whole page could do with a good work-over. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Australian release date?

Can someone please put the real Australian release date up for this game, as it hasn't been released yet. Many Aussies want to know when this game is coming out, so if someone could find it out and put it on... thanks. Irishawthorne (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hondobou

Does anyone have any information on the Kaoru Hondobou who is listed on Kaoru disambig? I found Kaoru Oba listed, but this seems very different from Hondobou, are they the same or different characters? If the same could someone remove the improper spelling? If different, could someone add her to Ace Attorney characters and direct the name to it? Tyciol (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion on slimming Plot section

I've just finished copy editing the article. It's hard to improve the plot section, because it seems to have been written by somebody who played the game, and without knowledge of the storyline, it's tough to fix it up very well.

The content there is unsourced, and I'm wondering if the best way wouldn't be to cut most of the section (whittle it down to a brief description of the overall story arc). At any rate, I don't feel comfortable taking down the copyedit tag until this is addressed. --Moralis (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Title naming discussion

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney:_Revenge_of_the_Colons. Your input is appreciated! Axem Titanium (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney_–_Trials_and_Tribulations/Archive_1&oldid=1261627231"