I find the game, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice for All,
DISAPPOINTING.
Justice for All or JFA for short, was a game with incredibly large shoes to fill. As the direct sequel to the acclaimed Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, JFA had to have create an overarching storyline that connected back to the first, an interesting set of cases that depending on the director's choice should be as hard or harder than the cases present in AA1, as well as new gameplay mechanics. If one or multiple of these were not present the game would undoubtably be a massive let-down... Unfortunately, Justice for All is exactly that, a let-down. The sequel responsibilities were not upheld and thus this game tumbles around like a lawyer who doesn't know how to law-yer.
If that bad joke wasn't obvious enough, let's talk case 1, the tutorial. As a direct sequel to AA1, JFA had the choice to either not have a tutorial or have one. If you add a tutorial, then the game has to be designed around potential newcomers in mind, rather than fans of the first title. To do this effectively you would need to introduce all the major players, the main mechanics, and most importantly: a overarching narrative that DOES NOT require playing AA1. Case 1 is an immediate downward dip to mediocrity as the case starts with Phoenix getting smashed on the skull into amnesia. Yes, amnesia... Because instead of showing off their narrative game design muscles again, they opted for a very safe sequel approach. If Phoenix doesn't know how to be a lawyer, guess we gotta teach him again! hardy har har! ...I would've much preferred if instead of amnesia to present a tutorial, they relied more on a gameplay driven structure. The case opens by giving most of the evidence and moving straight into a first cross-examination, it would've been far more wise to instead use the cross-examination as a means to drop the potential new player in a safe playground of sorts where mistakes aren't punished so they could begin to understand the rules that make up the game. Of course, this is assuming that the person playing is new, instead of a returning one. I would wager that if there was NO tutorial instead of one, it would've been for the game's benefit. Especially considering just how much of a sequel it is. This is showcased exceptionally well at the very end of case one where it ends in a very obvious statement that is completely pointless if you have not played AA1. With AA1 knowledge, the statement still feels off but that's by design, not an accident in writing. The game rarely pushes this overarching narrative in most of the cases, but each time it does it ultimately reflects negatively on the experience. This issue stems from a variety of places such as characters, difficulty, and player-narrative dissonance.
Let's start with difficulty, out of the four cases in JFA (compared to AA1's five), case 1 is as much a pushover as a tutorial case should be. The rest of the cases are around the difficulty of case 4 from AA1, if not slightly harder. Not a single one breaches case 5, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing or incorrect. Originally AA1 only had four cases, so being on par or slightly higher makes sense right? No, it doesn't. AA1's cases increment in difficulty as the game goes on, but never feel over-bearing in any way. JFA is the opposite, starting easy and immediately busting to levels where it is expected that one has played the original game. If that's expected, why the tutorial? I harp on this point a lot because it really sets the tone of how little thought was put into this game. With case 1 as is, case 2 should be a teaching ground for the new mechanics as well as a case to prepare players to start thinking critically, but not forcing too much effort by giving the player a nibble. That's how it was done in AA1 after all. However, it all goes down the drown from the get-go. Case 2 opens like any other Ace Attorney case, with a little nibble of plot. However, just like Cases 3 and 4 of AA1, the nibble does not give away the ending which contrasts AA1's case 2 which does. Ok, so it wants to be a sequel while baiting new players too, I will leave that book closed now. However, the game does more against it's favor when it comes to returning players as well. Case 2 introduces a brand new mechanic to the game that tries to improve on the good intentions of AA1's great game design style fusion. Psyche-locks are basically mini court-testimonies that occur when you talk to someone and they either are hiding something or lying. In this way, the continued fusion of Trial and Investigation gameplay styles is enhanced, however I believe the change to be faultily designed. One of the smallest things about a court case in AA1 is that while it had a good few testimonies to go through and much evidence to mull over, if you made it through the session, even if their was no resolution, you would get all of your mistakes gauge back... JFA FUCKED IT UP. Psyche-locks bring the courtroom-exclusive mistakes gauge into the open air, and irreversibly change how a player plays. The mistake gauge no longer refills itself for free until the very end of the case for the next one. However, with if you solve a Psyche-lock you will regain some lost parts of the gauge (I will refer to as pips). Most importantly is that you do not know how many pips you will gain from a Psyche-lock. So if you are down a lot from a trial session you might hope for big money only to be shafted with nothing. And worse is if you end an investigation with fewer pips. Any less than full is getting a court stacked against your favor. Even if this is an intended design decision to make a whole case feel like it has more weight than the prior game it does not stack up against the arguably erroneous design of the Psyche-lock minigame itself. You cannot fail a Psyche-lock by design, however, you can lose all but one pip regardless of attempts or previous pips had or whatever. The one main issue is that to solve a Psyche-lock can require evidence that you don't have. In this fashion, the game flat-out lies to you by acting like it is similar to a witness testimony in court. You can in fact show-up with not enough evidence at no fault of your own, leading to failed attempts to crack what might be the next lead in the investigation. Some Psyche-locks may even be locked behind other people's Psyche-locks, leading to more evidence based shenanigans that does nothing but bait a failing player into a warped save-scumming mindset. In this way the game is baiting the unknowing player to play like a dirty freak instead of a good, forward-thinking, puzzle-solving Samaritan.
Difficulty is of course only one facet of this game's failings, while it may be the biggest other problems seep into this grotesque boredom belly without a player's notice. Most particularly is characters and music. These critiques are perhaps a little more up to reader discretion than I would otherwise intend but I promise it is for good reason. For one, the music in Justice for All is really depressing mixed bag. There are a fair few tracks that hold water and a good amount at that, but an equal amount that range from a let-down to genuinely irritating. The same also goes for characters in all honesty. Most of the time, the two are in tandem as well. Many times an annoying character would appear with the most annoying tracks and I would immediately turn my sound off it was so bad. I literally started listening to the soundtrack of AA1 in place of JFA because I was getting so upset at the utter downgrade present in track quality. And the characters are exactly the same way with a few minor exceptions. These exceptions are of course the main characters! ...Kinda. Unlike AA1 where everyone has to be introduced, players are fully expected from the on-set to know Phoenix Wright, Miles Edgeworth, Mia and Maya Fey, and most importantly, the prosecutor of case 4 of AA1. With no knowledge of anyone before hand, the game places them in front of you and says "please clap"! Most importantly of all, is the knowledge and understanding of Phoenix Wright and Miles Edgeworth as characters. If you have digested AA1, then the story of JFA is slightly-baffling. It is partially a reminder and redo of the completed AA1 story arcs! The only part that isn't has to do with case 4's narrative and gameplay structure which is what almost elevates this game back into the limelight.
Case 4 is JFA's final case, and with it, the game's last and only trick. At the beginning of the case, the player is given what is assumed to be an obvious task with a hideously difficult mountain to overcome for it. However, as the case progresses more and more onward, things shift so much so that the characters and the player must question the game itself, the characters intentions, the overarching narrative, the end goal, and most importantly, our own client. This case uses it's pure unique story-beats ideas to drive home the main story of this entry in Ace Attorney: the goal of a trial is to find the truth, not an outcome. This is Justice for All's attempt at the AA1 case 5 game-solving pants-pissage. Unfortunately, I have to conclude that it simply does not do it like its predecessor. The main problem with this attempt is that the cases leading into case 4 simply don't offer enough unique charms on their own to be deserving of a case 5 pants-piss. Why? Because case 2 and 3 feel more like dirty rehashes of AA1 case 4 then true solid standalone cases. The pieces of this attempt almost line-up, but the game plays it way too safe and ultimately makes the cases leading into 4 feel samey rather than distinct. And when I say it's close, I really mean it!! With no spoilers I can say that most major elements are reused for the case 4 moment, but the elements themselves don't feel unique enough to properly create a moment worthy of a game-ending case.
And now the most troubling issue with Justice for All, player-character dissonance. A point I continue to pursue with my original AA1 review is that the game's intended design philosophy is that of complete player-character immersion. This is still the true goal of Ace Attorney as a game I do believe. However, I chose the word dissonance with much dismay. Many moments in this game are plagued with a such mental stretches that make me wonder if Phoenix is simply guessing like I am, or if he knows more than he is telling the player. These moments riddle cases 2 through 4 all over. Or at the least, they do in the first halves of cases. Most second-halves have an equally bad opposite problem! You know everything and now you have to work with Phoenix to play catch-up in the court! The constant mental-gymnastics required to get everyone else on the player's page diminishes any and all potential for a unique narrative gaming experience, tarnishing the great claims to fame that Ace Attorney 1 held. The absolute worst moment of complete and utter bad faith player-character dissonance in the game is in case 4's second half. Without ever explaining it as a possibility, not just in JFA but in AA1 as well, the player has to make an incredible leap in logic to re-understand how the pressing mechanic works during a testimony. For two instances in the entirety of these two games, you have to press a statement, then press the prior statement to proceed the trial. A player who fully understands what is supposed to be shown but simply is conditioned by the utter lack of feedback from all previous cases and trials and individual testimonies to continue pressing every statement will be served their greatest sense of anti-accomplishment yet. If ruining the ability to immerse as Phoenix is bad enough, then completely destroying any chance of potential character to player control is what spells disaster for this title.
All in all, Justice for All commits the cardinal sin of never ever living in a vacuum regardless of timeframe. Having to follow up AA1 is incredibly hard, especially considering the great shoes that have since been unfilled. At the core, Justice for All is not a bad game, but it is an incredibly laughable follow-up. With a complete fail at player-character immersion, a story that attempts a lot but ultimately fails to follow through, and a game that steps on the tried and true game design of the past, Justice for All is the worst sequel possible for AA1. Perhaps if valued independently of the first, Justice for All would be seen for its incredible attempts at all of these things, instead of the shattered remains of old fulfilled ones.
DISAPPOINTING.
Justice for All or JFA for short, was a game with incredibly large shoes to fill. As the direct sequel to the acclaimed Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, JFA had to have create an overarching storyline that connected back to the first, an interesting set of cases that depending on the director's choice should be as hard or harder than the cases present in AA1, as well as new gameplay mechanics. If one or multiple of these were not present the game would undoubtably be a massive let-down... Unfortunately, Justice for All is exactly that, a let-down. The sequel responsibilities were not upheld and thus this game tumbles around like a lawyer who doesn't know how to law-yer.
If that bad joke wasn't obvious enough, let's talk case 1, the tutorial. As a direct sequel to AA1, JFA had the choice to either not have a tutorial or have one. If you add a tutorial, then the game has to be designed around potential newcomers in mind, rather than fans of the first title. To do this effectively you would need to introduce all the major players, the main mechanics, and most importantly: a overarching narrative that DOES NOT require playing AA1. Case 1 is an immediate downward dip to mediocrity as the case starts with Phoenix getting smashed on the skull into amnesia. Yes, amnesia... Because instead of showing off their narrative game design muscles again, they opted for a very safe sequel approach. If Phoenix doesn't know how to be a lawyer, guess we gotta teach him again! hardy har har! ...I would've much preferred if instead of amnesia to present a tutorial, they relied more on a gameplay driven structure. The case opens by giving most of the evidence and moving straight into a first cross-examination, it would've been far more wise to instead use the cross-examination as a means to drop the potential new player in a safe playground of sorts where mistakes aren't punished so they could begin to understand the rules that make up the game. Of course, this is assuming that the person playing is new, instead of a returning one. I would wager that if there was NO tutorial instead of one, it would've been for the game's benefit. Especially considering just how much of a sequel it is. This is showcased exceptionally well at the very end of case one where it ends in a very obvious statement that is completely pointless if you have not played AA1. With AA1 knowledge, the statement still feels off but that's by design, not an accident in writing. The game rarely pushes this overarching narrative in most of the cases, but each time it does it ultimately reflects negatively on the experience. This issue stems from a variety of places such as characters, difficulty, and player-narrative dissonance.
Let's start with difficulty, out of the four cases in JFA (compared to AA1's five), case 1 is as much a pushover as a tutorial case should be. The rest of the cases are around the difficulty of case 4 from AA1, if not slightly harder. Not a single one breaches case 5, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing or incorrect. Originally AA1 only had four cases, so being on par or slightly higher makes sense right? No, it doesn't. AA1's cases increment in difficulty as the game goes on, but never feel over-bearing in any way. JFA is the opposite, starting easy and immediately busting to levels where it is expected that one has played the original game. If that's expected, why the tutorial? I harp on this point a lot because it really sets the tone of how little thought was put into this game. With case 1 as is, case 2 should be a teaching ground for the new mechanics as well as a case to prepare players to start thinking critically, but not forcing too much effort by giving the player a nibble. That's how it was done in AA1 after all. However, it all goes down the drown from the get-go. Case 2 opens like any other Ace Attorney case, with a little nibble of plot. However, just like Cases 3 and 4 of AA1, the nibble does not give away the ending which contrasts AA1's case 2 which does. Ok, so it wants to be a sequel while baiting new players too, I will leave that book closed now. However, the game does more against it's favor when it comes to returning players as well. Case 2 introduces a brand new mechanic to the game that tries to improve on the good intentions of AA1's great game design style fusion. Psyche-locks are basically mini court-testimonies that occur when you talk to someone and they either are hiding something or lying. In this way, the continued fusion of Trial and Investigation gameplay styles is enhanced, however I believe the change to be faultily designed. One of the smallest things about a court case in AA1 is that while it had a good few testimonies to go through and much evidence to mull over, if you made it through the session, even if their was no resolution, you would get all of your mistakes gauge back... JFA FUCKED IT UP. Psyche-locks bring the courtroom-exclusive mistakes gauge into the open air, and irreversibly change how a player plays. The mistake gauge no longer refills itself for free until the very end of the case for the next one. However, with if you solve a Psyche-lock you will regain some lost parts of the gauge (I will refer to as pips). Most importantly is that you do not know how many pips you will gain from a Psyche-lock. So if you are down a lot from a trial session you might hope for big money only to be shafted with nothing. And worse is if you end an investigation with fewer pips. Any less than full is getting a court stacked against your favor. Even if this is an intended design decision to make a whole case feel like it has more weight than the prior game it does not stack up against the arguably erroneous design of the Psyche-lock minigame itself. You cannot fail a Psyche-lock by design, however, you can lose all but one pip regardless of attempts or previous pips had or whatever. The one main issue is that to solve a Psyche-lock can require evidence that you don't have. In this fashion, the game flat-out lies to you by acting like it is similar to a witness testimony in court. You can in fact show-up with not enough evidence at no fault of your own, leading to failed attempts to crack what might be the next lead in the investigation. Some Psyche-locks may even be locked behind other people's Psyche-locks, leading to more evidence based shenanigans that does nothing but bait a failing player into a warped save-scumming mindset. In this way the game is baiting the unknowing player to play like a dirty freak instead of a good, forward-thinking, puzzle-solving Samaritan.
Difficulty is of course only one facet of this game's failings, while it may be the biggest other problems seep into this grotesque boredom belly without a player's notice. Most particularly is characters and music. These critiques are perhaps a little more up to reader discretion than I would otherwise intend but I promise it is for good reason. For one, the music in Justice for All is really depressing mixed bag. There are a fair few tracks that hold water and a good amount at that, but an equal amount that range from a let-down to genuinely irritating. The same also goes for characters in all honesty. Most of the time, the two are in tandem as well. Many times an annoying character would appear with the most annoying tracks and I would immediately turn my sound off it was so bad. I literally started listening to the soundtrack of AA1 in place of JFA because I was getting so upset at the utter downgrade present in track quality. And the characters are exactly the same way with a few minor exceptions. These exceptions are of course the main characters! ...Kinda. Unlike AA1 where everyone has to be introduced, players are fully expected from the on-set to know Phoenix Wright, Miles Edgeworth, Mia and Maya Fey, and most importantly, the prosecutor of case 4 of AA1. With no knowledge of anyone before hand, the game places them in front of you and says "please clap"! Most importantly of all, is the knowledge and understanding of Phoenix Wright and Miles Edgeworth as characters. If you have digested AA1, then the story of JFA is slightly-baffling. It is partially a reminder and redo of the completed AA1 story arcs! The only part that isn't has to do with case 4's narrative and gameplay structure which is what almost elevates this game back into the limelight.
Case 4 is JFA's final case, and with it, the game's last and only trick. At the beginning of the case, the player is given what is assumed to be an obvious task with a hideously difficult mountain to overcome for it. However, as the case progresses more and more onward, things shift so much so that the characters and the player must question the game itself, the characters intentions, the overarching narrative, the end goal, and most importantly, our own client. This case uses it's pure unique story-beats ideas to drive home the main story of this entry in Ace Attorney: the goal of a trial is to find the truth, not an outcome. This is Justice for All's attempt at the AA1 case 5 game-solving pants-pissage. Unfortunately, I have to conclude that it simply does not do it like its predecessor. The main problem with this attempt is that the cases leading into case 4 simply don't offer enough unique charms on their own to be deserving of a case 5 pants-piss. Why? Because case 2 and 3 feel more like dirty rehashes of AA1 case 4 then true solid standalone cases. The pieces of this attempt almost line-up, but the game plays it way too safe and ultimately makes the cases leading into 4 feel samey rather than distinct. And when I say it's close, I really mean it!! With no spoilers I can say that most major elements are reused for the case 4 moment, but the elements themselves don't feel unique enough to properly create a moment worthy of a game-ending case.
And now the most troubling issue with Justice for All, player-character dissonance. A point I continue to pursue with my original AA1 review is that the game's intended design philosophy is that of complete player-character immersion. This is still the true goal of Ace Attorney as a game I do believe. However, I chose the word dissonance with much dismay. Many moments in this game are plagued with a such mental stretches that make me wonder if Phoenix is simply guessing like I am, or if he knows more than he is telling the player. These moments riddle cases 2 through 4 all over. Or at the least, they do in the first halves of cases. Most second-halves have an equally bad opposite problem! You know everything and now you have to work with Phoenix to play catch-up in the court! The constant mental-gymnastics required to get everyone else on the player's page diminishes any and all potential for a unique narrative gaming experience, tarnishing the great claims to fame that Ace Attorney 1 held. The absolute worst moment of complete and utter bad faith player-character dissonance in the game is in case 4's second half. Without ever explaining it as a possibility, not just in JFA but in AA1 as well, the player has to make an incredible leap in logic to re-understand how the pressing mechanic works during a testimony. For two instances in the entirety of these two games, you have to press a statement, then press the prior statement to proceed the trial. A player who fully understands what is supposed to be shown but simply is conditioned by the utter lack of feedback from all previous cases and trials and individual testimonies to continue pressing every statement will be served their greatest sense of anti-accomplishment yet. If ruining the ability to immerse as Phoenix is bad enough, then completely destroying any chance of potential character to player control is what spells disaster for this title.
All in all, Justice for All commits the cardinal sin of never ever living in a vacuum regardless of timeframe. Having to follow up AA1 is incredibly hard, especially considering the great shoes that have since been unfilled. At the core, Justice for All is not a bad game, but it is an incredibly laughable follow-up. With a complete fail at player-character immersion, a story that attempts a lot but ultimately fails to follow through, and a game that steps on the tried and true game design of the past, Justice for All is the worst sequel possible for AA1. Perhaps if valued independently of the first, Justice for All would be seen for its incredible attempts at all of these things, instead of the shattered remains of old fulfilled ones.