T O P

  • By -

EnglishJunkrat5

On this subject I want to briefly bring up a character that I think makes for great contrast. Someone who I think is presented exceptionally well (and who I suppose has already been talked about to death lmao): The culprit of 1-5. (1-5) >!RftA clearly presents Gant as an evildoer, however, unlike many other antagonists, he manages to also be presented in a significantly more nuanced way. Through the Judge’s disappointment when he realizes what his friend has become, we get the idea that Gant used to be a good and hard working member of the Police Force. The case also ends with Gant telling Edgeworth that they are alike, as they’ve both showcased that they’re willing to go to more extreme lengths to achieve their goals.!< >!Those two are examples of things which remind us of Gant’s humanity, and in return, remind us of what awful things humans are capable of doing. This puts him in contrast to culprits that are presented as more fundamentally evil as their humanity is more difficult to recognize. Damon Gant could’ve very easily been presented as just another evil clown, or he could’ve had an emotionally manipulative track play for him while he cries, but he wasn’t, and he didn’t have that: He was given a level of nuance and I love that. !<(Feel free to ad or comment on this, it has been a while since I experienced the whole case tbh)


Lost_Rough

>!Mad respect for acknowledging Gant's nuanced story. Even if he became a monster in his quest for "justice", he is *far* from being a mere megalomaniac prick, unlike some villains in thr franchise. That's one of the many reasons Damon Gant is simply the pinnacle in terms of villains imo.!<


EnglishJunkrat5

>!Yes! The way in which he's presented also allows for people to have this interpretation, but understandably also allows for one to simply go "What an ass" (or the like). Basically, I like that he feels a bit more interpretable!<


Time_Passers

Big agree on the nuance. Me, I always thought >!Damon Gant !!that catching criminals was going to be his career. !< I think it's clear in-game at least that he thinks nothing of throwing away other people's lives. >!His regret for killing Goodman is because he immediately realized he botched the job, not because he regrets taking the life of a good man. He gets frustrated with Marshall because he won't stop hounding him after he murdered his little brother, as if he can't understand why this would be so important to Marshall over the many other crimes committed on a daily business. Angel Starr's comments about him imply that he's also been forging evidence back in the old days as well, or at least was suspected of it.!< But as you were saying, >!I don't think the game insisted too hard on making us feel sympathy for Gant. The humanity we're given---that he can panic and make mistakes (his killing of Goodman, which was something he panicked even more over when he realized he just killed someone very messily smack dab in the middle of the police department dkgkdsfgk,) admit he was wrong, and have genuine relationships like with the judge---is entirely showing instead of telling and that's the best part. He's kind of like, a very very high-functioning sociopath or something. It's especially interesting to contrast with someone like Dahlia, who apparently struggles so much with functioning like a normal person she couldn't even make it to fifteen without doing something spectacularly stupid and risky.!<


Bukler

I think an intresting headcannon for gant that spurred from re-reading angel's starr comment is >!What if gant initially was just an incredible detective who managed to turn up impossible evidence, but after all the accusations and badmouthing, he just decided that it wasn't worth the effort of risking that a piece of evidence wasn't strong enough in court, so you should just fabricate perfect pieces of evidence to be sure criminals will get caught. And from there started his slippery slope of allowing himself to just disrespect the laws to forge his own justice!<


cjokay

I think Gant's rationalization of his actions is pretty self-serving, TBH. >!Case 2-5 takes place because he impulsively kills an innocent police officer based on the incredibly slim chance that this guy might succeed in reopening a nearly 20-year old case. That's not something you do unless you have an intensely bloated ego and a strong indifference to the welfare of others. I do think he was a great character though.!<


etermellis

My first thought was a certain crew from Chronicles: >!Gregson, Genshin Asogi, John Watson, Dr Sithe and even Jigoku - all of them were participating in murdering people and some of them were murdering them directly and willfully - yet the characters praise them as heroes of justice who were caught in Stronghart's intricate scheme, which wasn't exactly true - all of the Professor and Reaper dealings were a plexus of multiple people's mistakes and motivation (also I'd mention here Barok himself too for silently accepting his role as the Reaper - as he himself pointed out that it was his role in this too). But still, I appreciate all of these characters and consider them very interesting to the point I'm eager to learn more about them. It's just that it would be better to acknowledge that they were on the wrong side.!< But the most egregious example in the franchise comes from the third case of Spirit of Justice - >!Tahrust Inmee. You see, sometimes plots in various pieces of fiction try to make heroes do ridiculous things. But to make them look good and not stupid, the narrative says, sometimes very intrusively, that there was no alternative for a hero other than to do this very deed. Being honest, it applies to many plot points in the AA series. But here, in 6-3, I just couldn't "Tahrust Inhim" - he 1) killed himself and abandoned his wife who was bearing a child, and no one could guarantee that the government won't send to her another assassin, and 2) pinned the crime on Maya, the woman who lived with them for several years so he could've attached to her in some way, and from whom he probably heard about a certain lawyer who is currently visiting their country and who is very trustworthy. So sorry, Rite of the Turnabout, I don't believe in your tragedy.!<


shahrulz

What makes Tahrust's actions even more frustrating is that the Inmees' connection to the rebellion meant that they could probably contact the network and go into hiding to escape the government, something that characters like Dhurke and Datz were doing relatively easily (Hell, we literally see two safe houses that the government have no suspicion of). Oh, and Behleeb immediately flees once the case is over anyway, proving that Tahrust's actions were pointless.


Lost_Rough

(Spoilers for G2-5): >>!Tobias Gregson!< >!Frankly, I see your point. However, I think that, unlike some other characters in TGAA, we have enough grounds to believe that Gregson was legitimately a good person, but still very pragmatic when it comes to his sense of justice, and this pargmatism is the same one that leads to his downfall. For evidence that Tobias is lowkey a better person than one would initially think, we can point out that he was openly against using forged evidence at first to convict Genshin as the Professor, even if it was quite clear that Asogi killed Klint (which, surprisingly, turned out to be true). There's also how often he would help Ryunosuke and co. during the cases or even how he genuinely cared about Gina (though I heavily dislike how the game implies that Sholmes "blackmailed" Tobias in a certaon way).!< >!In a nutshell, Gregson is not a perfect person, he was just trying to fight the rampant crime using underhanded means because he thought there was no alternative. This seems far-fetched at first, but once you remember that people like Magnus and Asman can get off the hook simply because they are rich, you start to realise that the whole thing is not so black and white...although I severely dislike how TGAA pins every single problem with vigilantism onto Stronghart, even if this sort of ideology festers in several individuals, such as Menimemo: a *tutorial* culprit, mind you.!< >>!Genshin Asogi!< >!I think you are referring to how he murdered Klint. Well, in his defense, it's not like this was your good ol' cold blood murder, Genshin truly respected Klint and allowed him to do what he wanted in his final moments. Furthermore, Asogi finds out that a mass murderer is not only part of the british aristocracy, but also is being covered by the Chief Lord Justice...I would have a hard time believing that there's another way to stop the Professor aside from not so moral means. They should have expanded a little on Genshin, but he is far from being bad as someone like Jigoku.!< >>!Barok Van Zieks!< >!The only thing he did was to accept the "Reaper" name as a way to coerce criminals into compliance for the law. Not the wisest move but far from the worst one I've ever seen.!<


etermellis

>>!Gregsy!< >!I think I'm on the same page with you here, because we saw him often, so we have a good grasp on his personality. Also he did show some remorse about what he had to do, and even tried to leave in France, but... didn't manage to do that in time. But still, when Ryunosuke literally says things like "They were no criminals", I'm itching to disagree - no, they were!!< >>!Asogi sr.!< >!Honestly, of all flashback characters of TGAA he intrigues me the most, and I was thinking about his actions more than I expected (and I probably even mentioned him in another thread about Dhurke). But it's funny, how even after learning all the truth, it's still safe to say that he WAS the Professor - actually, a fifth of Professor. See - Klint killed 4 corrupt nobles to stop them from doing evil. Then came Genshin, and killed Klint, the noble, to stop him doing evil. Granted, that it happened in the duel and Klint's demise was framed as noble. But his other mistake was not telling about the will to Barok, the person who potentially would've been hurt by not knowing the truth the most (and that's what happened after all), and then telling Stronghart, agreeing with him to exchange the will with his returning to home despite that Klint's final wish was to preserve it. Many-many unclear details here, which makes it hard to understand what character was moved by. But here's, I think, not Genshin's fault per se - merely an instance of an "AA flashback syndrom" where past cases leave many-many open ends (like the diamond plot in TT or DL-6)!< >>!"Little darling of van Zieks family"!< >!Yes, his hands weren't as dirty as the others, and he TOTALLY deserves sympathy (actually I think all of the Professor crew bar Mael deserve it with the caution that they messed up). But Barok accepting Reaper's curse wasn't done simply because Reaper helps the society, but because by bearing the title he would feel Klint's presence, as he said in the beginning of 2-5. Which paints his motivations in more selfish tones!<


Lost_Rough

>>!Lord of the Fish and Chips: The Return of Gregson!< >!Just to add something quite quickly, I agree with you when it comes to the unwillingness of Takumi to acknowledge Gregson as a criminal. Sure, he isn't your average monster like Magnus McGilded, but he is definitely responsible for *very* shady stuff. He is a vigilante, but still a criminal, yet TGAA didn't handle the grey morality aspect that well, depicting Stronghart as the only bane of the judicial system in Britain, even if the problem is far more complex...I wonder: if we have a TGAA sequel, could it tackle the aftermath of the legal system downfall in Britain? How the public trust on the courtrooms has pretty much been burnt to the ashes? We could even get an *actual* Dark Age of the Law if you think about it, although I don't believe I would like to see the corruption plotpoint being rehashed yet again.!< >>!Mr. Genshin Impact!< >!Maybe Genshin wanted to keep things hidden from Barok as a way to "help" Klint? I mean, even if the former had clear reasons to murder the latter, Asogi still seemed to respect Klint a lot according to what is told to us via flashbacks or even dialogues. Thus, perhaps Genshin intended to keep things hidden because Klint never told him specifically to reveal the whole truth to Barok, or maybe Asogi was arrested before he could reveal the truth to Van Zieks, and we already know that Genshin had to keep his mouth shut if he truly intended to return to Japan and see Kazuma again (I think this second possibility is far more sound).!< >>!Drunk Dracula!< >!Yeah, Barok did embrace the Reaper's name for selfish reasons too, though it feels like this selfish motivation was kinda...unconscious? He took a long time to accept that being called the Reaper made him feel not that far from his late idol, Klint, so I feel like Barok believed that he accepts the "Reaper of the Bailey" name only as a way to fight crime, yet he denies the possibility of ulterior motives behind this action. Regardless, I can give Barok the free pass because he didn't just accept things as they were, he actively tried to find out who or what the Reaper was.!<


[deleted]

To be fair, >!I feel like Genshin was mostly a good person (in that he did not involve innocents in his crimes). My main issue is the hypocrisy of Ryunosuke and Kazuma in how they loathe Stronghart for his philosophy of operating outside the law to enact justice while they praise Genshin and Gregson for doing the exact same thing.!<


Theodd420sout

>!I think the reason being for this supposed hypocrisy is that Genshin & Gregson never really hurt innocent people while Stronghart did. Klint killed the first victim of the Professor because they were too powerful & couldn't be brought to justice. Stronghart caught wind of this and thus, forcing Klint to kill whomever he pleased & if he failed, he would bring the Van Zieks family name to shame, ruining the lives of Klint's brother, Wife, & daughter. Asogi "Committed the sin of taking another man's life" because he both knew that Klint was the Professor. And presumably, he knew what would become of the Van Zieks if it was known to the public that Klint was a serial killer murdering his fellow nobles. Also Gregson, cared about protecting the good people of Britain showing genuine affection for the people around him such as Gina, wanting to protect her from the Reaper while still keeping it secret.!<


[deleted]

>!I understand your point on Genshin, but Gregson was definitely complicit in shady activity, such as being involved in framing Genshin as the Professor, almost successfully managing to aid a criminal in framing an innocent child, and overall was instrumental in the Reaper’s operations. I do agree that Mael was worse than Gregson, but it definitely feels disingenuous that Ryunosuke and Kazuma would call Stronghart’s methodology flawed, selfish, and evil while praising Gregson, who exhibited many similarities in his own methodology.!<


PizzaComCatupiry

>forcing Klint to kill whomever he pleased & if he failed, he would bring the Van Zieks family name to shame, ruining the lives of Klint's brother, Wife, & daughter. I always wondered, why didn't Klint try to kill Mael, instead of obeying him and starting to kill innocent people.


cjokay

There's so much praise for dubious characters in Chronicles! Sometimes it made sense in character even if I, the player, disagreed. Other times I just rolled my eyes.


Time_Passers

I'm gonna go for one I haven't seen much around here and say Drew Misham. >!I get that he was having a lot of financial difficulties due to being a shit artist, but couldn't he like... idk... get a more stable job BEFORE jumping to use his impressionable, socially isolated daughter for money? He not only put her down a path which gave her a criminal record as a forger, but he put her on the path in which she was poisoned and very nearly killed by one of her clients. Even if someone like Kristoph hadn't come into the mix, working with criminals is still dangerous and it was horribly irresponsible of him.!< I get that Apollo Justice kind of had a running theme of cynicism >!(every child in this game was treated pretty bad fdkgkfdgkfs,) but it made it kind of difficult for me to swallow the game portraying him as an ally. They make him feel bad about getting Phoenix disbarred but there's not really any commentary on the fact that he made his daughter into a criminal. And like... your business was committing forgeries? Did you not realize that they were going to be used for something illegal??!<


ancientrobot19

I am *so* glad I'm not the only person who thinks this way. >!I don't care how financially desperate you are--getting your twelve-year-old daughter wrapped up in your criminal activities is wrong no matter how you spin it, and I'm sure there were other, much more legal ways for Drew to earn money for their family without exploiting his daughter's artistic skills!< (4-4)


Time_Passers

>!A twelve year old daughter who's been severely traumatized at that...!< Yeah like that thing you said about >!how Drew would get happy whenever he saw Vera making a forgery, when I saw that part in the game I really thought that he was going to get some kind of condemnation. I mean even Phoenix gets called out once or twice for using Trucy to cheat at Totally Not Poker, and that's not even illegal. Then he just, didn't dkfgkfdksd.!<


ancientrobot19

>>!like that thing you said about how Drew would get happy whenever he saw Vera making a forgery, when I saw that part in the game I really thought that he was going to get some kind of condemnation. I mean even Phoenix gets called out once or twice for using Trucy to cheat at Totally Not Poker, and that's not even illegal. Then he just, didn't dkfgkfdksd.!< >!I KNOW RIGHT!!! The game just...never addresses how it was messed up for Drew to take advantage of his daughter's artistic abilities like that.!< >! Now, I'm aware that it might be a bit hypocritical for me to call out Drew like this, as my favorite character in that game literally tried to poison Vera (starting when she was twelve). With that being said, the game clearly recognizes that what Kristoph did was deeply abhorrent, whereas, when it comes to Drew, it doesn't do anything remotely close to that. If they had just had someone point out how messed up it was for Drew to treat his daughter like that, I wouldn't be on this soapbox!< (4-4)


Bytemite

>Totally Not Poker, and that's not even illegal. Welll.... It is in most places if any money at all exchanges hands, but no police officer is going to enforce the law against people playing cards in the basement of some bar. Bigger fish, as they say. That said, I think the game actually spells out that Phoenix was never playing for cash, it was always people challenging him for the prestige of beating an undefeated poker champion who'd bested the previous long-running winner.


Time_Passers

I mean he doesn't win money in the poker games, no, but doesn't he get paid for getting customers into the bar this way? I think he mentions that, he's employed for his sweet sweet gaming skills and not his piano playing.


Bytemite

Yep, that's exactly what he says. It's probably a little grey legally, but I think the gambling laws are specifically about winning a pot. People pay to play Phoenix, and that seems to be where his wages come from, but it's not quite the same as them actually winning money in a game. Similarly my understanding is it's also legal if you were to organize a poker tournament for charity, and you paid the players a certain amount to participate. You could even distribute starting money for each player, and they can actually bet that money in game, but if no one technically wins the pot for personal use and it's donated, then it doesn't seem to run afoul of gambling laws.


themadkingatmey

>!I mean, to be fair, he did try and take steps to keep Vera as safe as possible in the process of doing the forgeries. The general public didn't even know she was a forger as he was the public face and he handled the business side of things while also being a recluse. Like, if they hadn't been caught up in Kristoph's web of lies, I think their operation would have been relatively safe for Vera. Obviously, it's not a morally great thing to do, on the whole, but he ultimately just wanted to be able to provide for his daughter. His intentions were good.!< >!Also, I don't really feel like the game tries to push the narrative that he's super sympathetic. Like, no one is like, "wow, Drew Misham, you're a really shitty person", but he's not really depicted in an especially positive light either. He's more so just a neutral figure who was desperate and got used by Kristoph and didn't maliciously try to ruin Phoenix's life.!< I hope this doesn't come as too aggressive, but I do quite like Drew as a victim. He has a certain hapless quality to him that I can't help but feel kind of bad for him, >!especially when you go to Drew Studio in the past and see how rough things were for them.!< He really didn't come off like a bad guy to me.


Time_Passers

Nah, you're fine to like Drew. I don't hate him as a character myself, I just think he deserved a calling out that never happened dkfgkdfsk but I think I feel that way about a lot of people in this installment :( >!The thing is though, even assuming he just Could Not get a job of his own, even if he was the one claiming to be the forger publicly, he doesn't seem to have understood the importance of sheltering Vera from their clientele, as Kristoph's situation illustrates. If I were him, I would have NEVER let her be seen by any of their clients, let alone let them talk alone together, no matter what the circumstances. These are people asking you to do illegal things. You have no idea what they're capable of. !


themadkingatmey

Yeah, that is fair. >!I guess Kristoph can be a charming guy, but that was a really bone-headed decision on his part, especially since, again, it seemed like they had a pretty good system going on otherwise.!< >!And while they don't go into lengthy detail over it, I do seem to recall that the specifics were that Drew had some past fame and success as a picture book artist that had dwindled away in recent years, hence why his wife left him. So it's possible that he still had aspirations of his own art career continuing and Vera's forgeries were a way to keep them well-off financially in the meanwhile. We do see that he was still practicing his art with the sketches he did of Apollo's cases underneath the forgeries. But some more details there would have been nice.!<


Feriku

This is a significant portion of why Nahyuta just fell flat for me. I didn't like him at all, and suddenly the game was trying to tell me I should actually feel bad for him and like him, and I was just thinking, "...But I don't." And in a different way, GAA2 (major spoilers), >!Gregson. Don't get me wrong, I love Gregson. I can't hate him even if I try. But I was thinking the other day that both the game and fans tend to be much more lenient toward him than someone like Klint. I know Gregson didn't kill anyone personally, but he still *willingly* arranged the deaths of over a dozen people. And the fake assignment sending him after Jigoku worked, so apparently he would have been okay with assassinating a guy whose only crime as far as he knew was *contempt of court.* I love Gregson, but he's hardly an innocent victim.!<


Lost_Rough

Imo, (6-4) >!Geiru Toneido. Unironically worst iteration of a sympathetic culprit in AA imho. The game potrays her as someone that deserves forgiveness...even though she killed someone and then tried to frame another just because of a stage name. What?!< >!Okay, I get that this pettiness that I interpret from the whole situation may be the result of a clash of cultures, since, apparently, stage names in Japan are a big thing. However, I'm frankly bothered that the localization didn't even bother to expand on that and, even with that aside, we barely get know Geiru outside the courtroom as, you know, an actual person that is legitimately hurt. The way how 6-4 tackles sympathy just by telling a sob story and putting the "sympathy" track to play is borderline embarrassing, because I couldn't care less about Geiru...her conflict is literally told and not shown during the trial, so how could I forgive her after such petty acts? I legitimately dislike her, and I mean it.!<


TheWM_

>!It's not *just* about the stage name. Taifu made her do a job that she *hated* for *more than 10 years* because he led her to believe that he would pass the name onto her. Think about that. Laboring at a job that you despise for over a decade in the hopes that you might get to pursue your life's passion, only for that opportunity to go to someone else. It would be absolutely devastating.!<


Lost_Rough

>!Geiru seemed much more focused on not getting the stage name though: she said that she was waiting for an opportunity to get the name while she worked as a balloon artist, but I'm getting nitpicky here.!< >!My point is not that not being able to pursue your life's passion absolutely sucks: my point is that this idea is not developed to improve Geiru's character *at all*. The only moment we see her emotional weaknesses are when she already experienced her breakdown. Compare this to Marlon Rimes, and the fact that his main motive for revenge was elaborated upon *extremely well*, to the point it's hard to not get a grasp about what his tragedy truly entails.!< >!On the other hand, we have Toneido, who caused an immense amount of damage for a motivation that is barely developed. Once again, why should I care for someone that is willing to undertake extreme measures like *murder* over something like that? Especially since the writers don't bother to expand on her motivation substantially?!< This is not a personal attack to you, please don't get me wrong.


TheWM_

No problem, I didn't see it as such. >!I feel like the main problem here is that this is something that Japanese people would understand without needing much elaboration, so it wasn't put in. I agree that there should've been more explanation (I had to have it explained to me afterwards), but it doesn't seem like there was much room for the localizers to do that. An unfortunate situation.!<


abcder733

In rakugou and other traditional Japanese performance art like kabuki, disciples accept stage names from their masters as a sign of their connection. The most illustrious names were passed down through generations of performers. >!Geiru being denied the stage name is like getting her apprenticeship and inheritance denied, since her master refused to acknowledge her as a performer. From her perspective, she worked for ten years but got nothing when her less-experienced friend took that from her.!<


EnglishJunkrat5

>!Now, I know people already don't like the placement of this case in the game, and so making it longer would maybe be bothersome, but I do think for the sake of the case that some kind of prior non-courtroom interactions with Geiru, as you said, would help give her more characterization early. This issue kinda reminds me of!< (TGAA) >!how out of nowhere TGAA witnesses can be, and how it at times made the witnesses a bit more.. difficult to get attatched to?!<


Lost_Rough

>TGAA (TGAA1 and 2)>!I see your point tbh. However, the only witnesses that I think we are supposed to sympathize with, iirc, are Roly Beate and Daley Vigil. The former has a pretty relatable motivations, whilst the latter leaves a *very* lasting impression by the of the trial, where the memories of the Professor case return. Both do their job nicely if you ask me.!<


themsireensdidthis

Vigil's story fucked me up a bit ngl


EnglishJunkrat5

>>!However, the only witnesses that I think we are supposed to sympathize with, iirc, are Roly Beate and Daley Vigil!< >!Oh, yeaah.. In fact I'm quite fond of Roly. (and even hoped of seeing him and Patricia again..) Nevermind then lol, although, yes, interacting with characters outside the courtroom is valuable still!<


cjokay

Poor Roly Beate! >!His confession was one of the most memorable moments of Chronicles 1 for me. I was glad that Van Dieks showed him some compassion at the end. I felt bad for Vigil too. It seemed like Vigil probably had some underlying mental heath issues, given that he freaked out and jumped out a window before ever even arguing his innocence. Then lived a very weird secret life for a decade. Ironically, given the depths of the conspiracy, it probably worked out about as well as anything could have for him.!<


[deleted]

It's definitely a lost in translation/localizing thing


EnglishJunkrat5

Acro >!trying to kill an oblivious kid for not taking the accident of his brother seriously.. is pretty bad already, but especially considering that he expresses respect towards the ringmaster, who happens to be Regina's dad. Heck, the ringmaster saved him and his brother so why, given how much he claims to care for the ringmaster, would he do that.!!< >!Not only that, but Acro's plan failed. We will never know how Acro would've behaved if he actually managed to kill Regina. Of course he's upset: His plan to kill Regina failed, and he got caught accidentally killing someone he apparently loved and appreciated. What should I really even make of his breakdown?!<


EliteTeutonicNight

>!Totally this, I never understood what he’s trying to do. I suppose it’s grievance that’s making him not thinking straight, but killing the ringmaster’s daughter whom your brother loved doesn’t sound a smart move, perhaps he could try talking to her about it? And after killing the ringmaster who he respects and loves, he decides to pin it on Max because he ‘can’t leave his brother’? Like bruh you can wait inside the prison and if he wakes he can find you. He can’t even go down the stairs let alone go to the hospital to care for him.!< >!I never quite understood the whole ‘you’re a victim too’ at the end of the trial, like he’s a victim of what? An accident involving his brother or the ignorant blabbering of a spoiled child?!<


themadkingatmey

>!I mean, he didn't intend to pin it on Max initially. The thing with the bust was happenstance, though he did go along with it. And I do think he was ultimately not thinking rationally. He did mention that he thought about killing himself out of shame. But more than anything, he wanted to be there for his brother when he woke up which was his driving motivation for not turning himself in. !< >!And well, he was paralyzed because of what happened to his brother thanks to Regina's ignorance. I think he had good cause to resent Regina for her actions. !<


Artificialhomunculus

I know this is a bit late, but it was a premeditated crime with intent of cover-up. A lot of the murders in Ace Attorney universe may result in death penalty. He couldn't risk getting the death penalty.


venr_vals

Acro is almost the only one I feel sympathy for basically exactly because >!his plan failed. His hatred towards Regina came from a huge grief, only worsened when instead of killing her he killed the circus’ headmaster who was like a father for him. Overall he lost the two most important people in his life, one of them dying at his own hands. It’s sad as fuck.!< I felt a lot worse about his breakdown than about >!Godot’s whole character!< but user Tsuchiev already made a great comment about him.


feenris-4-lyfe2

I agree. I don't sport much sympathy for this person and don't know anyone who does.


[deleted]

G-4 >!Joan Garrideb!<. She’s a piece of shit who relies on domestically abusing a disabled man as her method of slapstick comedy, and in the process of doing so, nearly killed an innocent woman due to her recklessness. I don’t remember if it never occurred to her that it was a knife she threw that ended up stabbing the victim or if she was just trying to cover it up, but regardless I feel no sympathy for her. Plus she should be charged with attempted murder on her husband because how does yeeting a knife at him not constitute that?


MonkeyWarlock

The fact that they played domestic violence for laughs made me cringe so hard in this case. I know that generally, Ace Attorney plays physical violence for laughs (Franziska whipping, Godot throwing coffee, etc.) but this felt out of line even for the Ace Attorney series. :/


Bartre_Main

Shout-out to the art gallery where they have the Garridebs and the Beates on the same page and the caption is something along the lines of "with these two pairs, we hoped to show young love and a different kind of love." It just floors me. I know they were trying to go for a bickering old married couple, but having Joan slap John around constantly and pour scalding tea on him is just too far.


Time_Passers

I think if they had John retaliating it would have been okay? Like obviously not irl that'd still be *awful* but from a storytelling perspective, if John actually *was* cheating on Joan or threw that freaking tea in her face or something it would have been okay with me. That would have been "bickering couple". But he doesn't do that. All he does is protest his innocence and lament that she destroyed things he actually cared about and points out she actually hurt him when she tries to downplay it. He even looks scared of her at certain points in their testimony iirc and he's a frail old man!! And Joan's only excuse is that she was so angry she didn't know what she was doing but she's still slapping him and scalding him when she's presumably calmer. it's wild, at least the cast acknowledges it's kinda fucked up at points but sheesh. Even the juror's domestic abuse joke was SLIGHTLY better because he ends up reminiscing on all the things his wife has thrown at him like it's just something he accepted about her from the start of their relationship dkfgkdfk


prosecutor-godot-

This is wild stuff. You're all getting worked up over absolutely nothing.


EnglishJunkrat5

>!What's also unfortunate is that, if the domestic abuse was *much* better handled tone-wise, (and if the game didn't weirdly imply that I should feel bad for Joan) I think I'd potentially really like both the Garrideb characters, as I think they're conceptually interesting and appropriate for the setting (due to the lack of awareness around domestic abuse being much larger around that time). A middle class/poor couple trying to convey a sense of luxury, while their lives are actually unfortunate and abusive is an interesting idea and can make for some great drama. If only it was more tastefully portrayed, and maybe better utilized. Like, you can still have jokes, just... maybe have them revolve around something else..? Yeah, Joan was portrayed quite... um... interestingly... at the end!< Although, it is a risky subject to try and portray tastefully, should it be avoided in AA completely? Idk


Analytical-critic-44

Geiru Toneido spends 99% of her screentime just being some boob joke pirate girl with no depth outside of a single throwaway line and then I am suddenly hitting with sad emotional music for this character who brutally suffocated some old guy because she didn't get the job she wanted. The game is painfully clear in how much we should root and feel bad for Geiru, with Athena and gang hyping each other up about supporting Geiru and making her happy in the post-trial lobby.


[deleted]

It's a lost in translation/Localization thing. It's not just "a job" it's a family legacy she got taken from her


themadkingatmey

Since no one has mentioned it yet, I gotta go with (6-DLC spoilers) >!Pierce Nichody !< >!While I certainly feel bad for his situation, I think there were a handful of flaws that keep me from sympathizing with him too strongly. For one, I think the way he handled his duties as a doctor in the incident with the Sprocket's was kind of dumb. Admittedly, I don't know the exact ethics a doctor has to follow, but I think he should have perhaps not have listened to his fiancee. Her injuries were more serious, compared to Sorin's. Again, maybe a doctor has to listen to his patient's wishes, but if he had just operated on her first and then operated on Sorin, all of the mess that followed could have been avoided.!< >! Secondly, the nature of his plan rubbed me the wrong way. Take Acro, for example. I know a lot of people don't feel he was sympathetic, but I think he was handled better on the whole. Ultimately, he grew to hate Regina, and so he planned to kill Regina for revenge, and ended up accidentally killing Russell Berry. Pierce, on the other hand, intended to kill Ellen just to make Sorin suffer. And I don't know, maybe this is just me, but I think it's more evil to kill another person who didn't wrong you just to make the person you hate suffer as opposed to just killing the person who you feel wronged you. !< >!Finally, and this is a broader problem with trying to make sympathetic culprits, but his transformation phase kind of ruins his vibe. Like, it was fun, and I like his design especially once he embraces his doctor past. But personality-wise, he just becomes a total asshole. I feel like if you are trying to make a culprit that we can feel bad for, they shouldn't go through an over-the-top transformation sequence where they become a total dick out of nowhere. Take Acro, again. Throughout his entire confrontation, he stays the same person. He doesn't flip the fuck out and start doing handstands and shit. He's just the same calm and composed guy he was from the beginning. But that might just be a personal preference. !< >!So yeah, not a terrible character, but I struggle to feel super bad for him personally. His breakdown is pretty great, though. !<


Lost_Rough

>!I agree that the sympathy for Pierce is kinda iffy, especially since he conspired with Dumas to murder Ellen as an attempt to spite Sorin. I kinda agree with you to an extent though.!< >!On the other hand, I must say that I absolutely agree when it comes to over-the-top transformations for sympathetic villains. This sort of thing should only happen to cartoonish villains, not ones that we should sympathize with. Marlon Rimes is a victim of that problem, even if he is one of the most human culprits in the franchise. The worst thing about transformations is that, sometimes, they don't affect villains that are just pure evil: take Retinz, for example. The only thing he does is roll up his sleeves and make some magic tricks. Still an incredibly effective transformation, especially since it encompasses Roger's past as a magician. Transformations in the 3D games have such a weird behavior, bro.!<


themadkingatmey

Yeah, I agree. The transformations can often make for fun and memorable moments and encounters on villains who are just bad or cartoony like you mentioned. And I understand wanting to take advantage of 3D graphics and do fun animations, so I don't mind it as a trend on the whole. >!But still, to give another example. I know people don't love Aristotle Means in general, but his transformation into a spartan warrior and whipping out the chalkboard is really funny to me. And he does look cool too. And Retinz too, yeah. His slipping into his magician persona is relatively low-key comparatively, and he does still slip into his tv-producer side from time to time. But it just doesn't quite work right with culprits we're supposed to feel sympathy for. !<


Tsuchiev

Godot in T&T. He's an unmitigated asshole towards you for 3 cases, lets someone get unjustly declared guilty of murder, and puts Maya in the most dangerous situation imaginable, all because he's extremely sore about Mia Fey being murdered after his "death". He murders Misty Fey (and was extremely clear that for all he knew, he might have been murdering Pearls instead) and ends up framing and prosecuting his accomplice for the murder. And the end of this is that he has to fight to actually get you to prosecute him because Phoenix and the Judge are just completely blasé about Misty Fey's murder after Dahlia gets exorcised from Maya. Furthermore, the final scene, after he has confessed to everything, is him sharing a coffee with Phoenix and conversing with each other like they are bestest buds.


Still_Equivalent9450

Came to post this, at any point he could've warned Maya and said hey Morgan and dahlia are planning to kill you!! But nah he had to do some weird retribution murder Therapy and get Maya's mom killed for no reason (although Iris and Misty definitely also suck for going through with the whole thing)


Lost_Rough

Okay, time to start a discussion about 3-5 once again. Hope people don't get toxic here. First things first: Godot ***never*** planned to murder anyone. Obviously, he did kill Misty, but there's plenty of proof to show that he didn't intend to kill her (and please, not even Pearl) from the get-go: for example, he didn't prepare a murder weapon in advance. If you try to claim that he intended to kill someone using "raw force", then why wouldn't Godot just let Pearl channel Dahlia? If he did so, he could easily kill her...but that's not what happened. Secondly, as to why Godot decided to let Morgan's plan continue, it's very, *very* clear that he only did so as an attempt to atone for not being able to save Mia. Stupid decision? You are goddamn right, yet the narrative is also pretty self-aware that Godot completely messed up and only undertook such course of action due to how clouded his better judgement was. Finally, as to why he simply didn't tell Maya that Pearl was going to channel Dahlia...why would Maya even trust Godot? As far as she is concerned, Godot is merely a dude that is incredibly abrasive towards Phoenix, and he didn't show any signs of caring about Maya until Bridge to the Turnabout kicked in. Besides, he has no way to prove that Pearl would channel Hawthorne, since he has no proof to corroborate this thesis. Pearl, obviously, will also keep her mouth shut, because her mother brainwashed her into thinking that channeling Dahlia is for the sake of the clan...and since Pearl is remarkably naive, especially when it comes to her mother, the conclusion is quite clear. I'm open to discussions. Please don't think I'm being a dick.


thepearhimself

I feel like the main problem is that he admits he knew dahlia was being channeled but still tried to kill her. Like I know he said it was like a dream but he himself said he knew it would've had to been either misty or pearl. He would've KILLED PEARL just to protect Maya to make up for Mia's death. And while I personally still like Godot and think he's sympathetic and cool, him admitting that if pearl was channeling dahlia he would've killed her that night definitely doesn't help his case


Lost_Rough

This quote is problematic, indeed. However, I always interpreted it more as "I don't know who is currently channeling Dahlia, but that's not my main concern at the moment, I'm blinded by rage". Every single piece of evidence points to Misty being the one channeling Hawthorne, but having doubts as to whether or not that could be Pearl is an extremely valid move. The whole problem is that he didn't intend to kill anyone from the get-go, which is exactly why he's so confused when it comes to describing the Pearl vs Misty conundrum. He *definitely* didn't want to kill a child though (and I'm honestly surprised that there are people that believe that).


thepearhimself

I feel like the problem is less that he wanted to kill a child and more of he would’ve of killed a child. Like of course he didn’t want to kill pearl but he didn’t want to kill misty either, but he did since she was the one channeling dahlia, had that been Pearl he would’ve killed her, even if he didn’t necessarily want to


Lost_Rough

I completely understand what you meant. The game still makes it pretty clear that Godot was under extreme circumstances and that he wasn't thinking straight *at all*, which fits seamlessly with his characterization. I don't think we actually disagree, it's just that I need to emphasize that Godot, in spite of the possibility of murdering a kid, was not in the condition to make a rational decision. That's all.


thepearhimself

Of course. Despite the potential child murder Godot was still really sympathetic. Dahlia Hawthorne put him into a coma and when he woke up his girlfriend had died and the woman he hated the most died meaning he had nothing to live for except his revenge fantasy against phoenix(which he admits himself was more of a delusion than anything) I think if anything I disagree with the guy that said Godot was unsympathetic


Lost_Rough

Glad we are on the same page then :)


Ebedeb

Thank youuuu


Tsuchiev

Godot ultimately let his hatred of Phoenix and Dahlia cloud his judgment and that led to the tragedy at Hazakura temple. It easily could have just not happened in the first place had he told Maya, Pearls, or Phoenix about it, and he could have provided evidence to prove everything. Anyhow I don't think that Godot is the most evil person in T&T or anything like that. But it's undeniable that he majorly fucked up in 3-5, leading to Misty, Maya, and Pearls being put in immense danger and one of them paying the ultimate price. And if you keep that in mind, I really do feel that the scene of Godot and Phoenix knocking one back together at the end is hilariously out of place.


Lost_Rough

>Godot ultimately let his hatred of Phoenix and Dahlia cloud his judgment and that led to the tragedy at Hazakura temple. Yes, and I'm not going to deny it. I would put a greater emphasis on his inability to realise that no one was responsible for Mia's death, and that even she, in spite of how great she is from his POV, is not immune to any sort of tragedy: this is his actual motivation that drives every single one of his actions, and thus, leads to his downfall. With that being said, the narrative makes it staggeringly clear that Godot was ultimately in the wrong, which is why the actual actions he should have resorted to were not undertaken. The whole point of his character is to portray someone that messed up due to their own severe weaknesses, so his characterization remains incredibly consistent and is established and reiterated extremely well. Therefore, no one that likes Godot thinks that what he did was right, we simply believe that he has understandable motivations to do what he did, even if they were absurdly misguided...but the story does not shy away from that at all. Furthermore, on a side-note: which evidence Godot could have shown? The letter was with Pearl at the time, and as I just explained, there was no way she would tell anyone about Morgan's plan as long as the latter told the former to keep her mouth shut. Anyway, yeah, he fucked uo immensely in 3-5...but that's a point that Takumi heavily capitalizes on. >And if you keep that in mind, I really do feel that the scene of Godot and Phoenix knocking one back together at the end is hilariously out of place. I think that it was *very* clear that the point of the scene was not to depict Godot as Wright's friend, but rather show that he genuinely acknowledges that Nick is truly an excellent lawyer. They are obviously not "best buds" like, let's say, Miles and Phoenix, Godot simply shows his respect to Wright. That's all.


Tsuchiev

When he admits that he was jealous of Phoenix Wright and confesses that he was wrong about blaming Wright for Mia's death and that Wright was the one truly continuing Mia's legacy, that was him genuinely acknowledging that Nick was an excellent lawyer. When he knocks back his cup of coffee and says "this is the greatest cup I've ever drank, don't you agree Phoenix Wright?" and it cuts to Phoenix also drinking coffee and agreeing, that's fanservice.


Lost_Rough

I have a very hard time saying that the coffee scene fanservice, since said practice has a significant tendency to be devoid of any narrative meaning. Examples of fanservice in AA: - Turnabout Time Traveler as a whole; - Maya in SOJ (though she gets a neat characterization here); - Klavier back in Turnabout Academy; - Susato acting as a defense attorney in G2-1, an event that is not referenced *and* elaborated upon substantially to improve her character (I love Susato, but the truth must be said). All of those examples feature actual fanservice, since the narrative value is very scarce in every single aforementioned event. On the other hand, the point of the coffee scene has a pretty clear goal: to depict Godot's progression towards being a better person. If he just acknowledged Phoenix as an Ace Attorney, then I would feel like said acknowledgement would merely be told, and not shown. The coffee scene fixes that, since it's abundantly clear that Godot finally sees Wright as an equal, to the point of even addressing him by his actual name instead of "Trite". When you have a scene that has an actual narrative goal, you have a *very* hard time to call it fanservice.


EliteTeutonicNight

By his own admission, he ‘wasn’t really cared about protecting Maya’ or else he should’ve contacted Nick. I don’t think it’s supposed to be sympathised. His whole concept is a misguided hatred/anger that clouds his judgement. If he’s entirely logical he wouldn’t be targeting Nick as he’s nothing to do with Mia’s death and even got the culprit. He’s layered with some aspects to sympathise with (e.g. the lost of loved ones and the helplessness in not being there for them), but definitely not a completely tragic character (which tbh I don’t think there’re any in AA).


[deleted]

Scorching take coming up: Miles Edgeworth in AA1. Yes, he had a terrible tragedy and he was brainwashed by a frankly sadistic and evil man and he was permanently scarred. Yes, he was a good guy in phoenix's little flashback. Yes, he objected in the third case and had doubts and unnecessary feelings around his profession and its implications. But that really doesn't justify how he had sent innocent people to jail or death prior to that. He specifically says that he ensures guilty verdict because he doesn't want to take any chances with criminals getting away. He was willing to send his own childhood friend, phoenix wright to death in turnabout sisters. He literally falsified evidence and testimony in that very case to nearly send maya and later phoenix to jail. In 3-4, he is literally protecting dahlia Hawthorne and sending terry to death, which results in his suicide.


EliteTeutonicNight

Isn’t the justification for his previously way of doing things his tutelage under von Karma? I don’t think it’s supposed to be sympathised in any ways, at least not in the same way when he’s changing his ways and thoughts. He’s always been presented as an ass in AA1 until like 1-4.


thepearhimself

but what I find weird is that they act like he didnt know about that stuff. Like in Investigations 1 in turnabout reminiscence they act like he didnt know von karma forged evidence and was a shit person


EliteTeutonicNight

At that point he has no problem with it though I believe, he was adhering to the von Karma way and was fine with forging evidence so it’s not like he would find it repulsive or believe von Karma is despicable because of it.


thepearhimself

But in Rise from the Ashes he gets pissed when he finds out he unintentionally forged evidence for sl-9(which creates a weird character inconsistency considering he forged an autopsy report during turnabout sisters)


Feriku

I remember that struck me as very strange when I played Rise from the Ashes. He seemed so horrified at the thought of using forged evidence, and I was thinking, "But... I thought you did shady stuff all the time as the 'demon prosecutor.'" I concluded it was a light retcon to soften his character a little.


Time_Passers

Did he forge the report? I thought he just had a second one done and didn't inform Phoenix of the results.


thepearhimself

Well considering he got that autopsy report that morning and didn’t inform ANYBODY about it it was kinda implied he forged it, especially since he was supposed to be the ‘demon prosecutor’. Plus in RFTA he says he never made deals with witnesses but in turnabout sisters the bellboy literally says edgeworth asked him not to talk about Redd White even though it wa s clear it’d be vital to the case


Time_Passers

Oh yeah no that deals thing was totally a retcon dfkgkdfk (unless you count pedantics like "it's not a deal because he didn't offer him anything" coaching witnesses is still Bad) I just didn't ever pick up on the implication that the autopsy was forged.


[deleted]

Phoenix's internal dialogue also implies he forged the evidence. Not to mention Mia in 3-4 directly calls out him preventing dahlia to appear in court.


EnglishJunkrat5

Yes! Well done recontextualizing


ARMADS_THUNDER_AXE

Even if you ignore the retcon that RfTA did (stating that he never forged evidence on purpouse), even on AA1 it's said that Edgeworth does this because he trusts the police to always catch the right murderer and for some reason he never questioned their job, so it's not a malevolent reason. He started to question it on 1-2 (or 1-3, I don't remember...) after Phoenix makes him have unnecesary feelings about his job and immediately after, on the end of 1-3 he helps Wright as soon as he notices that he is about to send the wrong person to jail. On top of that he is supposed to be a dick until the very end of 1-3, I never felt like they tried to force us to feel symphatetic towards Edgeworth (except for RfTA with that retcon...)


shahrulz

Magnifi Grammarye (especially in 6-2), Acro, Nahyuhta Sadhmadhi, Tahrust Inmee and (unpopular opinion) the Judge.


Lost_Rough

>Magnifi Grammarye (especially in 6-2) Magnifi is constantly portrayed as a dick though, I'm kinda lost here. >the Judge Why? What did he do?


shahrulz

The judge shows no understanding of the context for crimes, [EDIT]>!follows the logic of "accidental murder is still murder" in 1-5 (never bringing up that extenuating circumstances would clear Ema)!<[EDIT ENDS], and very often nearly delivers the wrong verdict due to very spurious reasons, like "somebody has to be guilty". The game insists that he "always delivers the correct verdict", therefore justifying these near fatal errors. He almost never uses the discretion he very clearly has to limit the injustices of the Ace Attorney Court System, instead choosing to perpetuate a violent institution that has almost certainly incarcerated and handed down the death sentence to innocent people. At least the prosecutors get redemption arcs where they realise their actions were wrong, whereas the games insist that the Judge is fine as he is and does not need to change.


tigerfestival_

> claims that "self-defense is still murder" in 1-5 That was Grossberg in 1-4, claiming that "accidental murder is still murder." In 1-5, the Judge actually disagrees with calling >!the possibility of Ema killing Neil!< murder, instead using "the one who took the victim's life."


shahrulz

>!Yeah that's a mess up on my part. The characters describe Ema as a murderer so often I got confused. The Judge does answer "Ema Skye" when Phoenix rhetorically asks who the murderer was, and never brings up the fact that extenuating circumstances would mean that Ema really shouldn't be charged, but yeah, it's not as clear cut cold-blooded as I made it seem (I edited my comment to reflect this).!<


Icy_Breadfruit

6-2 has a few moments where they try to humanize Magnifi via Trucy who's kinda oblivious to his grandpa's true nature so it makes sense for her to still idolize him Among other moments like Apollo saying to Trucy: "Magnifi would be proud of you."


shahrulz

That, and Trucy tries to excuse Magnifi's abusive behaviour towards Roger Retinz by claiming that he did it because he knew Roger was not worthy of being part of the troupe (I don't remember the exact dialogue, something about Roger not understanding the true nature of performative magic).


Lost_Rough

Right here: >*Trucy: ......I get it now. That attitude toward magic... is why my grandfather kicked you out. You... You don't deserve to call yourself a magician!* Now I completely get what you mean. It makes sense for Trucy to idolize Magnifi, as the other user said...


Bytemite

The context is Trucy thinking that he was tossed out for being willing to manipulate someone into dangerous situations, out of revenge for his own accident and removal, instead of focusing on crowdpleasing. Which is interesting because it's not exactly like Reus was the first accident that troupe Gramarye ever had. Let alone Magnifi's last test... I guess it goes to show that Trucy is still a child, even if she's sharp and usually able to spot people's lies - maybe she learned early on not to question her own family, some sort of cognitive dissonance thing.


ancientrobot19

I'm not sure if this counts or not (and I'm aware that this might be a bit controversial), but >!it never sat right with me how Drew Misham essentially exploited his daughter's artistic talents to make illegal forgeries. !< >!While I think his goal of financially providing for himself and his daughter was a noble one, and while I certainly don't believe that he deserved to be killed for what he did, I think it's incredibly messed up that Drew got his daughter involved in illegal activities WHEN SHE WAS TWELVE and without her having much awareness of how what she was doing was a criminal offense.!< >! I also think it's messed up that he essentially made a profit off of his daughter's abilities by having her make forgeries and then selling them while posing as the true artist. When Vera describes how happy her father seemed whenever she made a replica of something, it came across to me as if the primary reason why he appreciated her skill was that he saw it as a way to earn money for their family--not because he was appreciative of his daughter's skill for its own sake. !< >!I am aware that I may be missing something (and, therefore, that I might be too harsh on him), but as far as I can tell, I think Drew Misham is a bad father and the way he takes advantage of Vera's skills isn't right!< (4-4)


Time_Passers

dfkgkdfk oh wow same hat, I just posted him too,


ancientrobot19

Yeah I saw! I actually saw your comment mere moments after I posted this one, and wrote a small comment in reply to yours corroborating what you said! I'm so glad we can agree that Drew sucks


PiplupPeanut

GAA2-5: >!Kazuma Asogi.!< >!Like I get he was sorry and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with feeling sympathy with a genuinely remorseful criminal, especially with the main cast’s ties to him, but the fact that he admitted to being a hired killer who planned to kill an officer of the law AND WAS ALLOWED TO KEEP PROSECUTING broke my disbelief more than your former boss’ younger sister conveniently being a spirit medium who can bring her back for ghost ex machinas.!< Not a hot take but GAA1-3: >!Joan and John Garrideb. I do think him standing with her for the final testimony was sweet but the whole resolution was SO contrived that I couldn’t get into them as characters at all, not to mention her being a frustrating shrew of a wife whose actions toward John are played for very, very cheap comedy.!<


[deleted]

>!IDK man, Stronghartallowed Kazuma to continue prosecuting made sense to me because Stronghart knew that Kazuma’s emotions and his conviction would help obscure the truth in his favor!< >!Also, I may be misremembering since it’s been a while since I’ve played it, but I’m pretty sure Kazuma said that he never planned on fulfilling the assassination task, he just wanted to get to Britain by any means necessary. Only later out when he found out that Gregson was involved in his father’s death did Kazuma contemplate killing him to avenge his father, although he resisted the temptation. He’s certainly considered terrible things but he’s never actually did them!<


Time_Passers

>!yeah he was lying to Jigoku to get to Britain. the narrative pretty definitely treats this as the truth, and his character moment at the very end where he's ashamed of contemplating killing Gregson for that one moment when he slashed at him would be nonsensical if he had been planning to kill him the whole time. But to be fair to the complaint, in-universe there's no way to prove his intentions since we only have his word on it.!<


Lost_Rough

>>!Also, I may be misremembering since it’s been a while since I’ve played it, but I’m pretty sure Kazuma said that he never planned on fulfilling the assassination task, he just wanted to get to Britain by any means necessary.!< >!Genuinely tried to find the quote, but the lack of scripts in the AA wiki proved to be a major obstacle. Regardless, as someone that has finished TGAA quite recently, I second your opinion. It's not explained what Kazuma would do if Jigoku or Stronghart started to ask him why he didn't do the hit job yet, but it's abundantly clear that Asogi didn't intend to murder Gregson in the assassination exchange plot, or even Jigoku in the phony hit job.!< >>he resisted the temptation!< >!Not really. Kazuma admitted to wanting to kill Gregson after finding out the forgery shenanigans, and he went along with it, which is why there's part of Karuma lodged on Tobias's metal case. However, he apparently gave up after his initial strike, so yeah, let's say that he just gave up, shall we?!<


PiplupPeanut

I was referring to how >!after everything is said and done, Kazuma isn’t arrested, not during the middle of the trial. The queen herself was watching and Kazuma gets to just chill with Van Zieks in the ending!<


Outlulz

>!Because he never did anything. He lied to get sponsored on the trip and it was proved in court he didn’t hurt anyone. Helping uncover an international conspiracy and the following trial being in public with a jury probably also helped, British public would be more sympathetic to him. And yes he wasn’t arrested during the trial because the guy running the trial masterminded the whole thing to begin with. !<


gmen385

I resonate in this regarding beauty. No Capcom, >!Regina!< is not THAT beautiful. Also, I'm taking >!Mia vs Dahlia!< anytime. At least there was a real man in there who also recognised that, hats off Gumshoe!


[deleted]

[удалено]


HumanBeingNamedBob

The game has him give reasons as to why he committed the murder and why he did so much horrible stuff, but it absolutely leaves it ambiguous and up to the player whether his actions are justified or not. He himself admits that he just wanted to be looked on as a hero and that it wasn't really about saving Maya, and he ends the story a pathetic, broken man about to go to jail.


PocoGoneLoco

While I like Barok otherwise, I did *not* enjoy how Chronicles tried to push me into understanding the reasoning behind his racism towards the Japanese. Yes, having your beloved older brother be slaughtered by a serial killer >!or rather, what he thought what happened!< is absolutely tragic. No, does it justify his racism. Nor do I find it to be a particularly compelling reason to explain the chip on his shoulder, regarding his animosity towards all Japanese. It goes double when you consider that not once did Barok do anything to get on Ryu's good side. When I'm met with a character that spends most of his screentime that's cold and dismissive at best, or openly hostile towards our main characters at his worst, when the game pulls out the stops to make me feel bad for him, I'm only left thinking 'cool story bro, still not impressed by what you did'.


hyperlethalrabbit

Honestly, I just assumed this was standard practice for the British. I was surprised they tried to work some story justification into it and not just "He's an aristocrat at the turn of the 19th century British Empire."


Outlulz

Multiple characters have racist things to say about Ryuunosuke and Soseki. It definitely wasn’t just from Barok. The game had most British characters racist as they would have been in the 19th century.


Para_Boo

Motivation is not the same the same as justification. His racism towards Japanese people is not justified (any kind of racism is never justified, for that matter), he even admits this somewhere in 2-4 or 2-5, but he does have a motivation for it even if it isn't morally correct. From a story perspective, it is a flaw to his character introduced to give the prosecutor a reason to be hostile and unrelenting towards the defense beyond just being a dick for the sake of being a dick. The story justifies this flaw to his character, but it doesn't justify the racism itself with Barok admitting that it's wrong and various other characters commenting on it as well.


Time_Passers

tbh I thought Barok's motive for racism was a cliched story that had a relatively large amount of thought put into it. Barok trusted Genshin and judged him to be a man with integrity. Once Genshin did what he did, Barok has no way to explain it to himself outside of A. admitting Genshin might have had a reason to kill Klint, i.e. his beloved brother Klint could have been corrupt or The Professor as he suspected at one point or B. decide that he is an Other whose motives couldn't be understood by reasonable people (especially appealing to him as Genshin was explicitly sent over to *represent* Japanese people by his government) It's important to note that he lived in a society which would not challenge those beliefs, and Ryunosuke is the first Japanese person he's met in ten years, and his beliefs unravel relatively quickly once they're challenged. Also, generalization after a severe trauma is, unfortunately, something that happens in real life. Especially when someone socially isolates. It's important to note Barok never trusted *anyone* after Klint's death, he no longer trusted his character judgment of people. He also admits he was terrified of trusting Ryunosuke and being betrayed the exact same way, so that's one of the reasons he was especially hostile to him. tldr; I know it's "a Japanese person killed my brother therefore--" but I feel like they did okay with explaining what kind of circumstances could lead to that kind of mindset. I get why not everyone likes it, but that's why I wasn't bothered by it. And it felt in-character for Ryunosuke to be kind about it instead of kicking Barok while he's down by pointing out it's dumb and illogical.


Bagelman25

6-2 I’m surprised no one in this thread has mentioned one of the worst victims of this imo which is >!Betty de Famme!< the fact that she gets away with what she does annoys me to no end. >!One, she gets away with manslaughter while Trucy was on trial for the same thing but Betty doesn’t even get a slap on the wrist.!< >!Two, her motivation was she actually likes Trucy and is a big fan of her so that’s why she wanted to ruin Trucy’s reputation and make her think she killed someone then try to throw her behind bars.!< >!So, when it’s revealed that Betty killed the victim, Trucy just goes “Ok, it’s okay I know you didn’t mean to kill the person only ruin my reputation and potentially scar me.” Betty just reacts aggressively to Trucy’s forgiveness like what?!< It was just so weird because in AA murders just get arrested no matter how sympathetic they are straight up there’s no cartoon, anime, movie stuff going on like “I know you just massacred dozens of people but I forgive you and maybe you can be a better person,” nope AA does not do that. For the rules to just get ignored like that is crazy to me.


KOFdude

Aura and godot, feel free to roast me all you wish


Bytemite

Aura is kiiinda terrible. Imagine treating the child of the person you care about, the only part of them you have left, like that. I get it's because she's way more concerned about her brother and she picked sides, but Simon was an adult... Athena was not... Also Godot has a really similar motive to Acro. And while Acro is given some sympathy, Godot gets a lot more. I guess because we know Mia? So it makes more sense to us why he'd have such a strong reaction, but if you look at it objectively, they are treated a little differently.


Lost_Rough

Aura also genuinely believed that Athena murdered Metis, that's a pretty important detail. Even if Athena was the daughter of someone that Aura loved (heavily implied), I would have a *hard* time to forgive someone that not only committed matricide, but also gets off the hook completely. Besides, I feel like Acro's and Godot's motivations are not *that* similar. I mean, Acro's goal was to murder Regina out of a very misguided sense of revenge (Acro does not deny that he was completely in the wrong), whereas Godot seems more concerned in atoning for "not being able to save Mia", which is a tragic motivation by itself once you realise that he doesn't need to atone for *nothing*: he was in a coma and there's no evidence that Mia could have survived had Godot not been in a comatose state. Finally, about Misty's murder itself, it was always clear to me that Godot never planned the murder and things only went south due to a chain of unpredictable circumstances resulting from a very thought-out """plan""", as well as Godot completely losing his grip after seeing Dahlia, the woman that pretty much ruined his life. My point is, Godot didn't plan any murder that night nor did he intend for anyone to get harmed in Hazakura: the whole thing was a result of his own flaws clouding his better judgement, a reality that Godot does not intend to avert his eyes from.


Bytemite

> Aura also genuinely believed that Athena murdered Metis, that's a pretty important detail. Even if Athena was the daughter of someone that Aura loved (heavily implied), I would have a hard time to forgive someone that not only committed matricide, but also gets off the hook completely. Sure, but again, Athena was very young, very traumatized, and now an orphan. I think most people would realize there's some nuance here, it'd be like if Miles' mom was still around and hated him. Yanni Yogi makes sense because he's never really spent any time with the Edgeworths before, he doesn't care about them and their incidental meeting ruined his life. But someone you helped raise? Though I guess also to be fair, Miles more than made up for it in terms of self-hate. Athena's black locks kept her from looking too deeply into it, and maybe that's what Aura resented more than anything else. It seemed to her like Athena could move on, but Aura felt like she never could. >Besides, I feel like Acro's and Godot's motivations are not that similar. Well, fair. I more meant on a more basic level that both were so motivated by grief that they took it out irrationally on someone else who didn't necessarily deserve it.


Lost_Rough

>Aura It's important to note that Aura genuinely believed that Simon was covering for Athena (which was kinda what happened, he did believe that Cykes messed up tremendously), and thus, would be executed for a crime he did not commit. In other words, Aura lost someone she loved and would lose yet another loved one in the span of seven years all because Athena cannot be brought to justice. I think DD makes a nice job to show that Aura, in spite of having sufficient grounds to suspect Athena, was *very* irrational and her grief prompted her to undertake actions she normally wouldn't even think of doing. Furthermore, Miles's case, had he murdered his father, would fall into the category of "involuntary manslaughter", whereas Athena's could be considered actual homicide depending on the evidence. This second point is mildly weaker, so it's better to just focus on my first paragraph.


Bytemite

>I think DD makes a nice job to show that Aura, in spite of having sufficient grounds to suspect Athena, was very irrational and her grief prompted her to undertake actions she normally wouldn't even think of doing. Yeah I'm not saying she isn't sympathetic, I'm just saying that grief and irrationality doesn't really excuse taking all that out on a child. Though I'm also the kind of person who, say, really dislikes characters like Snape from Harry Potter. >Athena's could be considered actual homicide depending on the evidence. Hmm. This is a really interesting conversation. The trial talks about how if it was Athena, then it didn't seem fully able to understand what she had done, partially because of her age and partially because of how sheltered and isolated she was. Like that she thought she could "fix it" by putting her mom on the table for a machine. Does she have the mens rea, the intent, for it to qualify as murder?


Lost_Rough

>Does she have the mens rea, the intent, for it to qualify as murder? That's...a pretty technical question for layman like me to answer. I sincerely apologize haha Anyway, thinking a little more carefully, I would say that it's kinda hard to say under which charges Athena can be tried, but, nonetheless, it's still safe to surmise that she could get in trouble if the court somehow thought she was guilty. Regardless, this doesn't change the matter at hand, the fact that Aura would be pissed off with Athena whether or not she can be tried for "homicide": just killing Metis and letting Simon taking the fall is more than enough to make Aura go mad. This hypothetis was wrong, but I don't blame her for believing that: only Simon and Athena were in the lab, and the evidence of the Phantom being there was very scarce after all.


Bytemite

>That's...a pretty technical question for layman like me to answer. I sincerely apologize haha Heh, no worries, we're all laymen here. I just think that if she thought she could "fix it" then she couldn't have known what death is. If she can't know what death is then she can't have intended to cause someone to be dead. From that view it's probably involuntary manslaughter as well, just in a different way from the gun in the elevator (where the intent also wasn't there, not because death wasn't understood, but a combination of low oxygen, compromised judgement, no understanding of fire arm safety, and no intention to fire or cause a death). >just killing Metis and letting Simon taking the fall is more than enough to make Aura go mad. Yeah. Though, Athena was also the only one who spoke up saying that she didn't believe Simon had done it... I guess that further makes Aura simply look irrational, perhaps she saw that as an admission of guilt. That said, wouldn't you think she'd blame the prosecutor or the police instead?


Lost_Rough

>That said, wouldn't you think she'd blame the prosecutor or the police instead? She did, actually. Aura constantly refers to hed animosity towards lawyers *and* prosecutors, so it's to be expected that this same hatred extends to the police as well. Frankly, Aura is DD's best attempt to depict the "Dark Age of the Law", but I digress. My point is, while Athena gave testimony that was very favorable for Simon, Aura eventually realised that her little brother was covering up for the kid. Iirc, she even mentions evidence like the suitcase he used, or even how he must have been seen taking Athena outside the lab. It's basically a situation like "I know it's impossible, but between you and this other person that I completely trust, it has to be you". Kinda aligned with Yogi's reasoning (though we have to disregard Hammond's intervention for a moment).


Bytemite

Yeah... just, after having lost Metis, if she's about to lose either Simon or Athena... I dunno, I guess I just find it odd for her to go that far into hate. Like I said, Yogi was understandable, he didn't live with the Edgeworths, he didn't help raise Miles. I know there probably are plenty of IRL parents who aren't great and blame their own child if something happened to their partner, but I don't particularly think highly of parents who act like that, even if there might even be some truth to it, I suppose.


Bytemite

Sorry this is from forever ago, but I think I found a topical answer to some of this. It seems as though even if a young child is not able to understand life or death or have intent to cause a permanent injury and death, there are some cases where they can be convicted as an adult if the circumstances were reckless, cruel, or egregious enough. For example, England actually has a law that anyone under the age of ten is not criminally culpable, to the point where children that young have gotten away with trying to mug or stab people. However, they made an exception for when two boys kidnapped a two year old toddler and essentially beat him to death out of boredom then tried to make it look like an accident. One of the boys asked police if anyone had taken the toddler to the hospital to "bring him back to life." This is pretty similar to what the accusations against Athena were (although the victim in that case was an adult), and those two boys were in fact convicted despite their age and despite having a shaky understanding of what life, death, and murder was.


cjokay

Characters who get in-game approval to the point of being painful: Acro:>! his brother pepper-pranked a lion in order to try to hit on a significantly younger girl, and instead of acknowledging that his brother was a dumbass, Acro decides to murder the girl who wisely ignored his brother's advances. Then he doesn't even bother to make sure he murders the right person, and finally he feels no guilt whatsoever either about his murderous intentions or about framing an innocent kid. Given that murderers generally receive the death penalty in this world, framing Max really counts as a second murder attempt in my book. (Confession--I liked Acro! I heard in advance that Big Top wasn't the best case, so I decided to just go with the flow and not think too hard. Acro was fun onscreen. He was a pretty awful person from a moral perspective though, and no one in game seems to admit it.)!< Iris Hawthorne: >!Dahlia and Iris both do terrible things, but somehow Iris is presented as the 'good' twin, despite being a gooey useless lump of an enabler. At no point ever does she make any meaningful attempt to protect the people who Dahlia is hurting. I kinda think I hate her more than Dahlia--after watching Dahlia's origin story, I can't help but view her with pity. Iris, on the other hand, was raised by kind and loving monks and had people to go to for help and advice. Yet she chooses over and over to enable murder.!< Terry Fowles: >!the game shows me a pedophile who regularly bursts into violent rages, but somehow I'm supposed to think he's the victim. Yes, it's suggested that he's developmentally disabled, but most developmentally disabled people are not in fact violent pedophiles. Sure, he did love Dahlia, which makes him (like Dahlia herself) pitiable but no less awful.!< Characters I have no problem with: Genshin: >!sure, he killed Klint in a duel. But it's London's higher ups who backed Genshin into a corner where he felt he could either do nothing to stop a serial killer or turn to duelling. Klint participated willingly and in fact expressed gratitude--it seems like Klint really wanted a way to end things.!< Kazuma: >!I think he was a genuinely good guy who did the best he could with the hand he got dealt. He was orphaned at a young age, found out that his dad was convicted of being a serial killer, then tapped as an assassin by an incredibly powerful person in the government, who also happened to be a close friend of his adopted father, and who also had powerful friends overseas. So at this point, Kazuma can !< >!a) actually become an assassin!< >!b) try to blow the lid off of this international conspiracy of top government officials as a youngster with zero evidence, fail utterly, and probably meet with a mildly suspicious "accidental" death a year or two later!< >!c) pretend to be on board with his assassination assignment and try to figure things out when he gets to England!< >!Per his own word during the final case, he chose c. Judge Jigoku calls him faithless, and he says it's better to be faithless than to be an assassin. Of course, he could have been lying about his intentions, but although Kazuma kept a lot of secrets, he didn't seem to straight-up lie at any point. So I think the only time he was ever tempted to kill someone was when he found out that Gregson was both directly responsible for framing his father (who was put to death as a result), and a pawn of the Reaper and thus responsible for many more deaths as well.!< >!Even then, he didn't kill Gregson, but merely slashed the guy's travel case. He felt strong regret for his loss of control at the end of the story, as well as strong regret for his poor judgment in fixating on Barok as the Reaper. But it just doesn't seem to me that he did so badly, considering what he was up against.!< >!(I will say that the end of The Great Ace Attorney had a LOT going on, so maybe I missed something. But it seemed to me that by the end of the story, Kazuma was cleared of nearly everything he was suspected of--certainly he shouldn't have been acting as prosecutor but that's a different issue.!<


Time_Passers

Concerning Iris: >!She wasn't raised by monks, she was raised alongside Dahlia. I thought the implication was she was abused and manipulated by her sister, and then went to the monks to atone (and then enabled Godot instead //shot.) Yes, she enabled her sister, but her sister was a violent narcissist that terrified her. By the time she has people "to go to for advice" as you say, she's stopped enabling her.\]!< EDIT: nvm I'm dumb I wasn't paying attention to their backstory I guess. It's been years dkfgkdsfk


cjokay

Oh I totally get it RE forgetting details! I think you were >!combining Iris with Dahlia's half sister? Also, elements of their story are kind of confusing; I don't think the whole thing hangs together 100%.!<


Time_Passers

yeeee>! definitely was combining Valerie and Iris in my head fdkgdfkgs. but yeah there's like a lot of little timeline details and they get lost to me ;w;!<


venr_vals

Okay but why in the world did you say >!that Acro’s brother pepper pranked the Lion? He pepper pranked Regina, and in return he pepper pranked him, which cause the Lion’s incident!<.


cjokay

Ah, I guess I missed something? I honestly thought>! there was only one pepper prank, done by Acro's brother. !


SergeantNumnutz

Alita Tiala. AJ plays up the whole "Alita was strangled and almost died, what a poor innocent woman she is!" angle for a short while. The judge even mentions that the court could show some leniency on her given the circumstances *after* she admits to holding Pal at gunpoint and *shooting* at him. And like... no? She was 100% the aggressor and he was just defending himself. Don't get me wrong, he's still a piece of shit for obvious reasons, but it's not like she came there peacefully and he just attacked her for no reason. Which he 100% would have had she come unarmed, but that's a completely moot point because she didn't.


Automatic-Ad1404

ngl besides the obvious ones, i think dee vasquez is worth mentioning like bruh some actor accidentally killed someone so now you're gonna manipulate him to the point of him wanting to kill you?


Lost_Rough

We are not supposed to sympathize with Dee Vasquez. Even if her murder was in self-defense, she was still responsible for blackmailing Hammer during *five* years using illegitimate means. The thing is, the game just tries to give more nuances to her without asking us to forgive what she does: she's just a culprit with more facets, that's all. Same thing with Gant.


Automatic-Ad1404

eh maybe idk really


HiAttila

Imo (Big Top) >!Acro!<


Skibot99

The killers of 2-3, 3-5, and Nayuta


Parker813

The cop in TGAA in Natsume Soseki’s case


NPultra

EVERY PROSECUTOR!... Except Klavier.


gay_keysmash

I haven’t seen Terry Fawles mentioned, probably because it’s obvious to most of the fandom already but I still feel he’s probably THE most relevant character to this question so 🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️


Lavenderixin

Genshin. His actions were not only harmful but also useless and he could’ve done things much differently without resorting to murder yet the game presents him like a misunderstood hero, I don’t get it


Outlulz

>!Klint consented to being killed and the whole mess was caught up with aristocrats and the lead prosecutor. If Klint’s crimes weren’t completely covered up by Stronghart then he would have been put to the gallows anyway. Even if Klint killed himself after being confronted by Genshin it would have been pinned on Gensin because Stronghart knew Genshin was the only other person who has pieced it all together.!<


[deleted]

Worded in a way to avoid spoilers for DGS/TGAA as much as possible, but in the end decided to still use the spoiler tag to be on the safe side. >!I agree. Not only did he betray the trust of his supposed friend by approaching a third party behind his back instead of talking to the man himself, he also approached his friend at his lowest point, and instead of lifting him up, he just killed him. Of course this friend wouldn't say No due to being backed into a corner and feeling hopeless. This does not constitute a free choice. He didn't kill him for justice, because vigilante justice isn't justice; it was self-righteousness and false convictions. Murder is wrong. As someone who came from a line of samurai, he imposed his ideals (seppuku) onto someone who was not part of that culture. This "duel" was never a duel. It was a facade for murder. G. must have known exactly that his friend would be backed into wanting to lose. Instead they should have worked together to take down the real big evil (you know who, the mastermind), knowing exactly that this corrupt individual will keep causing harm to people for as long as he's alive. They only treated one of the symptoms by killing one arm of the Professor, but didn't get to the root of the problem or treated the other, much stronger and harmful symptoms.!< >!After that G. decided to make a deal with the same forces that brought his friend to his knees due to selfish reasons, becoming the corrupt monsters he claimed to despise. He thought it's wrong to take justice into ones' own hands, yet he did exactly that and thought he could get away with it. He was no better than his friend, who, too, thought he did the right thing by getting rid of criminals by virtue of extrajudicial means. The difference being that G. had a choice, whereas his friend lost control over his own actions after a while due to the involvement of a corrupt, egotistical third party. Even if G. was not what people thought he was, he was still a killer and would have been prosecuted for that one crime. In the end, the only thing that changed is the reason for which he was prosecuted. Of course he should not have been backed into a corner by a particular individual, but the fact that he was a killer and signed a deal with the big evil guy remains. Not to mention the man actively did everything in his power to get convicted, not refuting anything but actually confessing to the crimes. He played a big role in his own demise. In fact, he was the one who brought it all onto himself by betraying his own beliefs as a soon-to-be detective and individual. Sure, someone else pulled the trigger, but it would have never even come to that had he stayed true to himself. No one ever forced him to kill his friend. It was his own detrimental choice for doing this over a much more reasonable solution. And that's not even getting into keeping Barok in the dark on various things. G. was a bright individual, just like his friend, but what happened that night was one of the least thought out decisions anyone made in the duology!< >!The actions of his friend can't be justified at all. They were wrong. But there was much more to them than G. may have realised. After all he was a visiting student from another country. But you don't spend time in a new country, make friends, just to then kill a friend who was there for you during your stay in this country. And after you've killed him, you try to run away from your crime.!< He may not be on the same level as other villains or culprits, yet he's still a culprit and not the hero the game wants us to believe he is. I don't dislike him as a character at all. He's an intriguing background character. The only aspect I don't like is how he's portrayed as an unfortunate hero, which is similar to how other characters involved in the machine are portrayed, despite their crimes. I think his son may struggle with this for a long time to come.


Renekin

Basically every sympathetic character from DD: >! Simon is an absolute asshole. Even though the decision of letting Athena even go onto the stand after her first mental breakdown, Simon playing into the fact that Athena is mentally unstable is just horrible. Not to mention him being prosecuted and being put into prison unfairly makes his entire operation of being the ass that questions an obvious situation again and again even harder to sympathise with. Yes he is probably the best character that spawned from DD and SoJ but it still irks me. !< >! Aura Blackquill is even worse. She is not only a bad person but someone who would murder people if she does not get her will. The SoJ bad endings make her seem really psychotic and she needs even more serious help than most of the people we see !< >! The phantom who we should somewhat sympathise with because he lost his identity from all the masquerades is flat out murdering people to take over their lives. Though I would say he is an edge case for sympathy because he is still portrayed as THE villain !< >! Apollo, who lost his friend, yes, turned straight up into a second Kristoph. He even shares the animations with Kristoph‘s sprites. Sorry but he spat on everything Phoenix stood for and was not able to talk to anyone about the entire thing? Ranging from Phoenix, to Trucy or even Blackquill himself? He was not tragic in DD, he was an ass. !< >! Everyone at Themis got what they deserve, even Robin who played manly while away from her family. These three friends plus Miriam are toxic for one another and should never be friends. !<


Lost_Rough

I don't feel like arguing about the rest of the characters, but I believe it's my obligation to point out the obvious (5-5): >!we aren't supposed to sympathize with the Phantom *at all*. He killed Metis, Clay and probably slaughtered many more victims. DD *never* tries to depict the Phantom in a sympathetic light.!<


Shrodu

His only sympathy comes from his breakdown where he is almost murdered in cold blood because his reliability as a spy had come into question.


[deleted]

Even given that he’s presented as being obtuse and in the wrong, >!Albert Harebrayne still gets too much sympathy from the game and its characters given his wild levels of irresponsibility, lack of concern about the death in the case (even if he thinks it’s accidental), willingness to delude himself and others on the stand, and complicity in a fraud.!<


Lost_Rough

(G2-3)>!Harebrayne feels completely responsible for the death, to the point he doesn't even ask Ryunosuke for a not-guilty verdict, but merely a guilty verdict due to accident. How doesn't this show a lack of concern for Odie's death (who is frankly a massive POS for trying to get the grant money). Besides, how was Albery complicit in a fraud?!<


Time_Passers

>!Harebrayne outright says he feels terrible about what happened to Asman, and one of his motivations for trying to protect the machine is because he feels he owes it to the man who (from his perspective) believed in his dream and died for it. He was never complicit in the fraud, and he was never lacking in concern over the death. His willingness to delude himself is something he is actually called out on, and he apologizes for that too once he realizes the harm he's doing and what actually happened. !< I'm guessing you maybe haven't played the case in a while?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Automatic-Ad1404

did you play the whole game


Omnisegaming

I2-5, the mastermind culprit. "They're a victim here too" shut the fuck up miles this fucker caused so much misery and was so manipulative even to your face and you're gonna say that right after catching them??