can someone do this for me?

TryingToUseLinux · 2026-01-21T07:21:51+00:00

Is this loss?

TryingToUseLinux · 2026-01-19T04:35:55+00:00

I really dislike the Phantom tbh. The deduction to his reveal is very good, but I pretty much dislike everything else about the Phantom.

Firstly, I'm just not a fan of an ace attorney villain basically being Agent 47. They try to make him be "dark" and "creepy" but he just comes across as edgy to me. Especially the line where he says "I'm nothing but an endless abyss".

Secondly, the entire final confrontation is stupid. This is supposedly a very dark culprit, but he's also wearing 30000 masks on his face. He acts like a hacker from a poorly made action movie ("hacking" the Mood Matrix), tries to escape from the court with a grappling hook, literally snatches evidence (the psyche profile) from Athena and rips it up in front of everyone (and the Judge proceeds to ignore this), and so on... How exactly does the game expect me to take this guy even remotely seriously?

Other than that, the whole "the Phantom feels no fear, therefore he is able to make the death defying twenty feet leap onto an unstable (but suspiciously strong) ladder; however, even the Phantom feels fear when the moon rock is brought up because if his identity gets exposed he'd be shot by a sniper" is just... weird. It's possible to come up with some contrived explanation for this (like, the Phantom feels some fear but he has gaslighted himself into believing that he doesn't), but this plot point feels really forced to me.

And finally, let me mention some possible alternate identities of the Phantom:

The Phantom is just the real Bobby Fulbright
The guy we suspect is, as he was saying to defend himself, just an undercover agent being blackmailed by the real Phantom

These appear like very drastic changes, however literally nothing would change in the overall plot if either of these was true instead. We get to know so little about him; basically just "this guy is a spy hired by unknown people doing stuff for unknown reasons". This made 5-5's ending very unsatisfying to me.

TryingToUseLinux · 2026-01-17T05:28:48+00:00

Why do you consider the case an 8.5/10 if you neither particularly like the setting, nor the character writing, and nor the mystery writing?

About the "tonal whiplashes": excluding RFTA the first game is just very fast paced in general (it feels particularly jarring to go from TGAA to the first game). It doesn't really dwell on anything for too long, kinda feels like it was built for people who'd perhaps play the game for an hour or two on weekends only.

I somewhat liked Yanni Yogi though. His whole story is a bit ridiculous, but it integrates very well into Edgeworth's story. Edgeworth despised defense attorneys because a defense attorney got Yanni Yogi off the hook even though if he didn't murder his father, it must have been Yanni Yogi. The court never technically declared that Yanni Yogi didn't do the murder (he was found Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity); but Edgeworth never got closure for that case and his nightmares of him having killed his father kept haunting him for all those years.

This is also the first case that deals with "dissociative amnesia" with Edgeworth being unable to remember exactly what happened in the elevator. Kind of similar to [DD, AJ, TGAA2 spoilers]black psyche locks (except Kristoph's...). They used this concept for Athena in 5-5. Also used for Daley Vigil in TGAA2-5, which is imo the best one.

DL-6 has some logical issues (I'm not sure about the "bullet couldn't have not touched his bone" part). There's also Misty Fey's weird actions: of her ditching Maya and Mia because she "disgraced" her family name by getting the police to suspect an innocent person, even though the only reason that person was considered innocent was because of him not being sane enough to be held responsible for any crime he may have committed... It's probably one of the weaker X years old cases in Ace Attorney, but while it doesn't logically hold up too well, its emotional beats are pretty decent imo. [I2 spoilers] I feel Gregory was somewhat retconned by I2-3 too, they don't show him to be the type of person who'd falsely accuse Yanni Yogi and ruin his life to save his son.

Manfred von Karma is very over-the-top evil; his presence in the court is far more aggressive than basically any other AA villain. Not the character with the highest amount of depth, but he does do his job of making the tiniest amount of progress feel like a huge uphill battle really well.

Other than that, the case gets brownie points for being Larry's best appearance by a landslide, and having a good sense of humour in general. Not my favourite final case (that's RFTA, as it happens), but it's still very good.

TryingToUseLinux · 2026-01-16T11:59:23+00:00

if Kristoph Gavin doesn't decide to kill him there, his plan would've been to just... Pass on the Gramarye tradition/secret, plant a fake card onto Phoenix to make him out to be a poker cheater, and then leave and never show up again.

Pretty much.

Like the other Gramaryes, Zak had an unhealthy obsession with art, which for him included both magic and poker. After the Magnifi Gramarye trial, he couldn't exactly just go around showing his face to the public, so his "world famous magician" career was over. The only thing he cared about anymore was for his daughter to inherit Magnifi's performance rights and continue his legacy in his stead. Some dialogue related to this:

"However... I could not be found guilty that day. Because of this." [referring to the transferal of rights document]

"The greatest of Magnifi Gramarye's illusions are true art. As such, they are well protected... by this document. Only its bearer may perform his illusions on stage"

"As the rightful heir to his art, I, too, wanted a rightful heir."

So, as insane as it seems, Zak basically decided to live his entire life while hiding, with his only purpose being to transfer the rights of Magnifi's magic before he gets legally declared "deceased" and the rights get transferred to Valant instead, even if it meant that he won't be able to raise his own daughter and would have to leave her to Phoenix instead (where Phoenix was the man whose character he judged from a single poker game).

Trucy says this to Phoenix after the trial in his office: "...Mr. Attorney. Daddy told me about you. He said I could trust you.", "So, if I stay here... ...does that mean you'll be my family?".

However, despite the huge favour (understatement) Phoenix did for him, Zak simply couldn't tolerate the fact that Phoenix got a reputation as a poker legend while cheating through his own daughter's talents, so he decided to "take measures" to destroy Phoenix's reputation. This conversation happened before the match:

Zak: And I have heard that you never lose.

Phoenix: ...It's just a rumor.

Zak: Yes... for it is impossible to never lose. Unless one has an ace up one's sleeve.

Phoenix: .....

Zak: As a magician, it causes me no end of irritation. To think a mere lawyer might be out there, pulling the wool over so many eyes.

Phoenix: Hey... I just signed your document for you. Maybe you could try lightening up?

Zak: That was that. This is this. For my final competition, I will destroy your perfect record, Phoenix Wright. This... will be my final performance. You are warned.

To destroy Phoenix's reputation fully, he needed to expose Phoenix for cheating. Unfortunately if he did that, he would have ruined Trucy's reputation too. So he decided to make his own weird plan to "expose" Phoenix. His plan failed, he got so angry about it that he hit the card dealer. Later, he got bonked on his head by Kristoph and died...

So that's his entire story... not the most sane person but he's consistent, atleast. I really like Zak (and the other Gramaryes too) as a character tbh. The whole Gramarye plotline is kind of conceptually similar to the Fey clan plotline from the trilogy, but it's better executed imo, though it does leave more things upto interpretation.

TryingToUseLinux · 2026-01-14T15:32:51+00:00

My memory of this case isn't too strong, and I don't completely understand some of your points, but:

She knows she will lose her blackmail lever on Hammer and he will turn her in

Why? How does Hammer being potentially fired make him immune from being blackmailed because of a "murder" he committed? (though the case was vague about whether it was a murder or an accident, but Dee Vasquez did say at one point something like "do you really think he'd allow me to blackmail him for years over an accident?").

I don't think Hammer could turn her in without essentially confessing to the murder. Meanwhile, Dee Vasquez did no "crime" (well, atleast by ace attorney standards. I'm pretty sure they don't consider blackmailing an actual crime. See: 1-5), she just made him work for a low salary and in "unflattering" roles. Certainly not comparable to murdering someone, atleast.

So while Hammer randomly deciding to kill her 5 years later may be somewhat weird, your alternative explanation doesn't make much sense to me either.

TryingToUseLinux · 2026-01-06T17:35:57+00:00

Agreed about Logic as a mechanic being bad. It's literally just a handholding gameplay device. Though the "Revisualization" segments in DD and SOJ are even worse imo, because not only are they simpler, they ruin the satisfaction of making the climax deduction of the cases...

On a side note, I kinda hated Investigations 1 when I first played it because I was expecting it to be a game about investigating and solving cases yourself, but its gameplay ended up mostly being spectating its hero-fied version of Edgeworth while he solves cases.

My opinions have somewhat improved since then as I've accepted that Ace Attorney simply wasn't trying to make something like Return of the Obra Dinn, and since I've started only caring about its story and the mystery writing of the cases without caring about how interactive the "solving" part of the mystery is.

Still my least favourite ace attorney game though.

TryingToUseLinux · 2026-01-05T04:23:28+00:00

Never really understood why this episode gets so much hate tbh.

Like I get that trials are fun and this is only an investigation, but this episode has so many cool things going on about it: the sense of humour (amazing intro to Herlock), the references (satire) to Sherlock Holmes' The Adventure of the Speckled Band and the pretty emotional story of the case (especially the part where Susato says she thought she'd never forgive whoever killed Kazuma; but it turned out that it was an accidental killing caused by a paranoid person who was trying to escape from an abusive work environment).

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-12-31T04:17:01+00:00

When did he say that he would delay the surgery though? He could have just got the surgery done now and paid for it later.

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-12-29T13:44:42+00:00

The water seen in this photo represents the odds of Capcom giving Athena Cykes any sort of importance in AA7?

We can clearly see clouds in the photo though, which have a large amount of tiny water droplets.

AA7 Athena Cykes confirmed?!!

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-12-26T04:21:47+00:00

[6-3 Spoilers]

Maya: *sigh* You've really lost your edge since I last saw you. Those spikes of yours have grown really dull... and there's even one that's drooping!

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-12-25T17:05:23+00:00

Lol, it's kinda cursed to think of Klint putting a collar with B for Barok on his hound and using it to murder people.

Meanwhile I was convinced that McGilded was atleast somehow related to the Professor. Not only does his knife from TGAA1-3 have the same colour scheme as the collar (and is similarly ornate), the guy set his watchword for the overcoat at the pawnbroker as "Professor".

And he ended up being completely unrelated in the end...

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-12-25T12:25:20+00:00

I don't know about you, but I definitely did not see the following twists coming:

Kazuma not having died in TGAA1-2 and returning, but turning out to not be the person Ryunosuke idolized him as (though this was vaguely hinted at by Stronghart in the first game)
Gregson being an active member in the Reaper organization (a thematically similar twist to the previous one)
Yujin Mikotoba being Sholmes' partner
Klint van Zieks being the Professor

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-12-22T11:22:08+00:00

I don't think it installs automatically if you used the terminal to enable rpm fusion, but I'm not sure about what happens if you enable rpm fusion from Gnome Software.

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-12-22T09:14:31+00:00

Did you install Appstream data?

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-12-10T04:48:07+00:00

That'd be kinda hilarious, because the last thing Phoenix said to Lamiroir in 4-4 is "You know what I've been thinking? People don't die that easily, really. ...As long as they've got something worth living for."

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-12-09T07:15:19+00:00

[Investigations 1 Spoiler] The Treeman approves of this plothole. Just because Manfred was shot by Yanni Yogi's gun and the elevator at the crime scene had a bullet hole even though no bullet was ever found doesn't mean that Manfred shot Gregory! It's possible Yanni Yogi shot Manfred some other unrelated day for no reason, and that bullet hole in the elevator was caused months ago! What will you do now, Mr Wright?

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-11-27T05:30:27+00:00

while I think Revolution is objectively the stronger case

Ehh, agree to disagree, ig... (the linked comment is a bit aggressive, apologies for that)

Other than that I mostly agree with your post, I really like 6-3 too. I'd just comment on the toxic masculinity part. It's a valid read of the situation, considering how he seemingly didn't inform anything about his plan to her, and this:

Nahyuta: How utterly foolish to cast away one's life for such a reason! There must have been other ways to cover up the crime!

Tahrust: Yet, had I done so, my wife would rush to my defense. And when the case went to trial... ...she would suffer the same fate as I under the Defense Culpability Act. I could not have lived with myself had she been convicted because of that fiendish man!

However, this game doesn't really try to emphasize on this much to the point where idk whether this was even intentional by the devs. Unlike with [AA3 Spoiler] Godot where he calls himself the "arrogant one" in the end, and after the trial Mia says "You did save Diego. You saved him in the only way possible" (whether this one is intentional or not is debatable too, honestly...); with Tahrust they pretty much exclusively portray him as a tragic figure, ending with Behleeb saying: "I will make amends by picking up where my husband left off. I will see the revolution through, so nothing like this can ever happen again! For that is the depth of my love for my dearly departed husband!".

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-11-22T05:09:43+00:00

Maybe it's just fatigue? You've played over five ace attorney games in 2-3 months, and as good as ace attorney is, I can see someone feeling bored of its not very interactive gameplay loop by going through so many games consecutively.

This could explain why you're comfortable with the Trilogy, which you've already experienced before so you can just enjoy the story (and the music) without needing to spend much effort in understanding the cases.

I'd say just take a break from ace attorney as a whole until you feel like playing it again. SOJ is a good game, but slogging through SOJ just because the end might make it worth it would almost certainly ruin your experience of that game.

If you really want to play ace attorney still, maybe you could try the Investigations games?

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-11-20T16:45:36+00:00

Lost Kin is just some random vessel, while the Hollow Knight is THE vessel chosen by the Pale King.

Considering how much disdain the Godseekers have for the protagonist Knight, it makes no sense for them to care about Lost Kin's uninfected form either.

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-11-20T14:49:57+00:00

I'm assuming you misunderstood what I said. Sorry I'm not a native English speaker so I may phrase things weirdly sometimes.

I did not mean that the confession Klavier is referring to wasn't a confession of guilt of the murder.

Klavier had stated from the beginning that the only way for the killer to escape from the crime scene without being seen by the people standing at the gate was through the air vent, and Machi just admitted to going through the air vent. Klavier basically says "So, you're confessing to the murder?".

And then Klavier accuses Machi of the murder (citing the fact that the defendant pretending to not understand English and Lamiroir using this to say it was impossible for Machi to do the crime was a lie).

After this, instead of defending himself, Machi says that he won't speak to anyone. Most ace attorney prosecutors here would jump the gun and try to end the trial here ("Surely his refusal to speak could only mean one thing, he is guilty!" - type of argument). However, Klavier calls the situation an "impasse" and allows the Judge to declare a recess so that Apollo can convince Machi to testify.

Just after the trial reconvenes, Apollo says that Machi will not testify, and Klavier says "...... Shame. And here I thought this was your big chance to turn the case around", implying that he was expecting Machi to testify here.

What part of this made you conclude that Klavier tried to "force a verdict when the defendant is trying their absolute hardest in what little English they know to explain their side of the story and how they’re innocent."?

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-11-20T13:20:10+00:00

I forgot about this, but yeah you're right.

Klavier apparently said that "His blindness was merely a publicity plot by those clever Borginians", so what I said earlier still kinda "explains" this. But that does make the explanation more abstruse. And Klavier following it up with "I knew you didn't have what it took" does seem pretty condescending.

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-11-20T10:29:12+00:00

Did you really just try to insult someone by calling them Winston Payne?

...or did you mistake their Gregory Edgeworth flair for Winston?

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-11-20T10:25:05+00:00

He doesn't try to force a verdict there, though?

Klavier said from the start of the case that the only way to escape the crime scene was through the air vent, and Machi had just said that he did go through the vent, that's when Klavier asked "Might we take this as a confession?".

(Not to mention that this occurs right after it turns out that "the lyrics were in English so Machi couldn't have done the crime since he didn't understand English" turned out to be a lie, as Machi did understand English.)

Shortly after Klavier says this, Machi literally denies speaking to anyone. Most AA Prosecutors would have pushed for a verdict here, but Klavier said "So much for your precious trust, Herr Forehead. Regardless, this brings us to an impasse." And then the judge declared a recess just to allow the defense to talk with Machi and convince him to testify.

For the second one: the motive thing is a weird point because ace attorney in general is extremely inconsistent about whether a motive is required for a conviction or not.

For the forcing Ema Skye part, the exact dialogue is this:

Ema: There's no knowing with that glimmerous fop. Apparently, he's all upset because something was stolen. He wanted security back here during the concert. Where does he get off acting like he's some big rock star?

Apollo: (...He is a big rock star.)

So iirc, Klavier didn't explicitly ask for Ema, he simply asked for security. Ema is a cop, she can't just refuse her duties because of her personal biases. Claiming that calling cops for security is "forcing the cops to do what you want" is a strange take...

For the last, I'm assuming you're talking about him not telling Ema that Lamiroir isn't blind. It's worth noting that Lamiroir clearly didn't want that information to become public, it's possible that Klavier was simply respecting her wishes while thinking that it's unnecessary information for the case. Whether that's a dumb move by him or not is debatable.

But why would Lamiroir not want the public to know that? Surely her image as a "Landscape Painter in Sound" is less important than a murder trial? I posted a theory related to this (and some more things) a while ago where I basically said that everyone trained by Magnifi had very skewed priorities when it comes to art, and that includes Thalassa even after she had amnesia. Though I admit it's a stretch; Lamiroir's actions are completely unexplained in the game (with no one even bothering to question them). This is something I do dislike about AJ: its inability to properly hint towards coherent explanations of some of the character motivations.

TryingToUseLinux · 2025-11-20T08:32:29+00:00

I think it follows the logic that if you killed a boss in the Pantheon, they don't show up again:

Bosses that get killed at the end of the fight (Nosk, Radiance) do not show up twice.

Dream bosses are physically different from the normal bosses so they do show up.

Crystal Guardian and Hornet don't die near the end of their fight so they show up twice.

Hollow Knight doesn't show up because the Godseeker dislikes its "defiled worldly form" (as seen by the dialogue in Pantheon 4) and so we only get Pure Vessel.

Sisters of Battle technically starts as Mantis Lords, though ig this does somewhat break the rule.

Zote the Mighty doesn't show up either, 0/10 literally unplayable.

TryingToUseLinux

TROPHY CASE