A Personal Retrospective on Apollo Justice

Spoilers. Obviously.

Source

In light of the recent news that Apollo Justice is finally getting a mobile release, now seems a good time to talk about this one game, and hoo boy. This one's a beast to tackle. If you know anything about this game, you know how divisive and controversial this game is. On one hand, you've got the corner of fans who hate this game with a passion, and everything it represents. In the other corner are the fans who like it quite fine, and think the outrage over it is totally unjustified.

If you wish to know where I'm coming from when writing this, I'm moreso in the first camp. Apollo Justice is my least favourite Ace Attorney game, though not because of any drastic shifts in the world. My issues come from the story and actual logic it uses and how confusing it gets. So, sit back and let's figure out where this game went wrong, and more importantly, why.

So how did this all start? After the 3^rd game wrapped the story of the series up quite nicely, Capcom was at a bit of a crossroads. Ace Attorney was undoubtedly a money making series that they would do well to continue, but how does one continue after a clean end? Well, usually a reboot is what a lot of writers go for, but in this case, they decided to bring in a totally new character and story, keeping the game mechanics. However, it was eventually decided that they should keep some continuity, so they brought in some old characters as well to appease old fans.

Yeah, that didn't go over well at all. Most notably, Phoenix Wright was brought back, and let's just say a lot of people weren't' very happy with how they did this. It's interesting to look at, because it's a prime example of how not to implement changes in a character. 

The important thing to remember here is that at first, most changes are neutral in concept. I believe that the idea of making Phoenix lose his lawyer's badge wasn't what got most people upset. I personally think it's not a bad idea, and it's even a fantastic story hook to start off with. The problem is that this idea was clearly thought of in a vacuum, and they didn't properly take steps to make this make sense in the game.

This is made abundantly clear in 2 areas, both relating to the smoking gun of this idea: forged evidence. First of all, the manner in which Phoenix loses his badge is contrived as hell and totally clashes with the story and characters set at the end of the 3^rd game. At the end of T&T, it was clearly established that going forward, Phoenix had truly outgrown his weak, unconfident roots, and had truly risen to the level of a great lawyer. Nice ending, all wrapped up with a bow. But they ignored this, having him make the truly dumb choice of trusting evidence he had no time to vet. They also make him go against clearly established core values in previous games, him hating the idea of crooked tactics in court.

I rag on these tired points because it would not have been hard to fix these issues. Why not put Phoenix into a scenario where he has no choice but to present the suspect evidence? Say he had a personal connection to the defendant or something along those lines. It would have given a reason for him to act so recklessly. And on the other point, why not use the MASON system's capabilities to show past events to show hints of Phoenix becoming more jaded and disillusioned?

It's very clear that the writers were trying to recapture the essence of the first Ace Attorney game. Rookie lawyer, new world to establish, new gameplay mechanics. But in doing so, they fell into the trap of mostly looking to the first game for inspiration, and that led to Phoenix acting how he did in the first game. When you're not looking to how characters were at the end, you're not going to see any need to explain changes. So of course it seems obvious Phoenix would make a dumb move in that mindset. 

Alright, alright, I slag the game off a lot, but credit where it's due, besides how Phoenix acts, the game pretty much nails the first 2 cases. While a lot of people do just write the entire game off, it's important to recognize that the old AA magic is still very much present in a lot of the game. The setting may not be your cup of tea, but the first case has an excellent and engaging opening unlike any of the other games, and the 2^nd case is more of the same old AA excellence in a lot of areas.

Alright, I'm not here to give every detail on this game, as much as I would enjoy that. Just remember that I'm not saying as much about the good aspects of the game because of this fact. What I'm about to say is an analysis of what went wrong in the 2^nd half of the game, not what I personally think about it. Just remember that most of the stuff I don't mention I like quite a bit (Especially the music oh my god). 

So, case 3. This is widely considered a bad case by many, and it's an excellent example and word of warning to all story writers wanting to follow in the footsteps of crime stories. It's clear to me here that the separate elements of this case were almost certainly thought of separately, with no cross checking between them to see if they would work well together. It's easy to imagine such a scenario, too.

They come up with the basic idea of the scene being a concert, and they've already got a performer in the cast, so it already fits. They then think of the elements of this case, a defendant who can't speak English, a gun as the weapon, a “locked room” scenario, and the defendant can even be a kid. Maybe we can incorporate international smuggling, and undercover agents too!

Now, all this stuff sounds fine, but the details muddy it up, details that were clearly not , let's say, cross-examined. How is a kid supposed to fire a powerful gun? What motive would a kid have? How would an international smuggling operation fit into the overall story? How do we get the kid to show any personality, since all we really have is text?

All these elements, when you lay them out, look ridiculous if you try to combine them (Seriously, just throwing in international smuggling isn't a good idea). We can see how ridiculous this seems now, so why not back at the conceptual level? I can't say definitively, but the most likely scenario in my eyes is that they created the story in a modular fashion. By the time the separate parts started to grind up against each other badly, it was likely too late to change the fundamental parts of the case. It's a lesson in being sure to check and double check all the important beats in your ideas before expanding on them.

And, finally we arrive at case 4. No, that's not what I'm really wanting to talk about here. Case 4 is fine. Let's discuss MASON.

MASON is the most ambitious thing Ace Attorney has ever really tried. I'll be blunt; it didn't work. I'm not talking about the story, I'm talking about how it was conveyed. MASON, for those of you who don't remember well, is supposed to be a database of sorts where the jury is supposed to trawl through it and come to their own conclusion on the proceedings.

Sigh

I could literally write a whole article about this system, and why in the game universe it makes no goddamn sense. From conflicts of interest to half the stuff in it being seemingly irrelevant to the case, there is no way this would be greenlit. But let's assume for a second that it could get by (With the crazy legal systems in place it wouldn't be too surprising), and examine why it fails the player specifically.

For all the heat I give it, MASON could have worked in theory. A system where we jump between recorded events to try to piece together a story? Sign me up! But the issues are too glaring here to ignore.

It's linear to a disappointing degree. Yes, Ace Attorney isn't known for story paths or anything, but it doesn't let you discover clues and evidence on your own. Rather than using your own logic to figure out what you need look for next, it is in every way like a tightly written investigation sequence, just hopping between time periods. Yes, it still works, but why would we even need to go about figuring out this in such a convoluted manner? In such a story driven game, every piece needs to have a purpose, otherwise it's just fluff and not valuable to the story.

Of course, everyone's biggest complaint with MASON is how it seemingly allows you to transport evidence from the future into the past. Again, if you don't remember, often you would gain evidence from some recorded event in the future, but then go back to a recorded event in the past and still being able to use it. This is handwaved as not being a 100% accurate representation, but that's just not good enough. In a game built around logic and reasoning, such blatant lazy storytelling should not be allowed. It makes no sense, and even if there is a good reason it's confusing to the player, the death knell for any story.

MASON is the sign of the biggest problem with Apollo Justice: things just weren't fitting together well. You can see all the signs of good ideas underlying the problems at every step. Apollo is an interesting idea for a character. The music is SO GOOD (It's my favourite OST in the series guys it's that good).

The problem they hit looks very much to be scheduled related. Many of the ideas and characters were never given enough time to be expanded upon, and a lot of the plot beats simply needed more thought put into them. Apollo Justice is the victim of running out of time.

But it's not all bad, and I want to end this little look back on a positive note, because Apollo Justice is not a train wreck. Not by a long shot. Apollo Justice has excellent side characters, on par with the other games easily. I know everyone hates some of them, but they stick out and are very clear, and you're not supposed to be comfortable with Spark Brushel anyway guys. Seriously.

The game also has engaging cases, something I think a lot of people ignore. Yeah, looking back there are plot holes, but in the moment they've got a great pace to them, and ensure you're always engaged. The game has very clear signposting and good indicators for what you need to do next, something the older games did often fail at.

Regardless of what it does right and wrong, this game is likely going to remain contentious for a very long time to come. And that's fine by me. Every game series is gonna have one of these, right? I still recommend this game to any Ace Attorney fan despite all this, and I encourage you to try the upcoming mobile port if you haven't gotten a chance to play it yet.

And the music guys oh my god can we just talk about this again it's so amazing holy cow

What happens if a meme goes too far?

This is going to be a huge mistake, I can just feel it now.

Disclaimer: The incident involving the death of the gorilla named Harambe, which I do not want to get into details, was undoubtedly a huge tragedy. I want to let everyone reading this know that I in no way want to make light of this incident, nor do I want to get into the rights and wrongs of it, nor the rights and wrongs of how it spread across the internet like wildfire.

Now then.... what the hell happened with Harambe? Quite honestly, this is one of the most controversial ideas that has ever spread throughout the internet. Some describe it as a tasteless meme, others describe it as a way to honor the ape, and most are quite honestly confused at the sheer insanity.

So, and with the utmost respect, what the fuck happened? How could something considered tasteless by many spread so far?

It's more than a meme; it's an solid idea

Memes are, by their nature, short lived and not very deep. This isn't a knock on them, it's just the format. For a meme or joke to spread, it needs to be simple, easy to understand, and provoke an immediate reaction. And by this nature, of course most memes aren't going to be deep. They're usually going to be simple jokes, one dimensional, easy to react to. But sometimes, something can straddle the line. Harambe is one such idea.

It's a simple joke on the surface, yes. But it can be construed as deeper, particularly because it's based off of a real world event. It's got elements of real world animal rights, death, tragedy, and an undercurrent of honouring a dead creature.

What this means is that this isn't like the usual quick laugh people can get from a meme. It can get as deep as one would want, whether that be a simple joke or commentary on the situation. The joke is what let it spread. The commentary is what's let it last for so long, rightly or wrongly.

The forbidden fruit

More than anything else, this whole thing is controversial. It's been described as offensive, tasteless, dumb, and much worse. That's the key.

Remember when you were younger, and were exposed to something considered much too inappropriate for something your age? You probably thought it was the coolest thing ever, some sort of awesomeness that you weren't supposed to see yet. Really, it could have been an R-rated movie, an M rated game, wherever, it didn't matter. What mattered was that it was usually off limits, and that gave it an almost mystical factor.

Same principal applies here. Joking about shooting an ape would be in bad taste in most areas and casual conversation. But not in the wild west that is social media, where you can say literally anything and often see no real world consequences. Nothing is off limits there, so it's no surprise that anything and everything can spread.

But it being a tad risque or a bit offensive isn't enough. No, it has to, HAS TO be off limits everywhere but the anonymity of the internet. That means no news. No organizations. No casual conversation. Nothing.

The jokes about Harambe fit all this perfectly. The news (Save Last Week Tonight) can't touch something like this, as it would be seen as offensive. Organizations can't use it to look “cool” because it's in bad taste socially. And there is no way you'd say “Dicks out for Harambe” in casual conversation unless you were drinking.

Again, all this gives it a sort of mystique, like the internet is thinking “How far can we push it?” “How far can we go?” It's strangely subversive in a lot of ways, ducking under social norms and socially acceptable jokes. It's a lot like passing notes in class, in that it gives people autonomy from what they are expected to do. That's a powerful motivator.

A... rallying point?

Ok, hear me out here. Harambe can be a rallying point, something to follow, something to support. That, more than anything else, is what made this idea stick.

What I'm trying to say here is that in invoking this idea, a person can in a way also take a stand. The joke can also be used as support for Harambe, animal rights, a way of protesting the shooting, etc. Whether they are actually doing so in reality is irrelevant, as it feels like you're expressing an important opinion by using this idea. It feels like you're doing more than just joking around.

Again, jury's out on whether it collectively means anything. Regardless, it's an important factor. Most memes don't mean anything, They're dumb little jokes we all laugh at and get some fun out of. This meme is one of the few a person could conceivably get something out of beyond a laugh, heck, it could even communicate an opinion. What I'm saying here isn't why it spread. Memes can spread on humor alone, as we all know. All these reasons are why it spread despite it being seemingly so much in bad taste.

...OK, it's kinda funny

It's also just somewhat humorous in the first place, something we can't discount. I've laughed at this meme a few times, you likely have, and that's fine. The sheer absurdity when someone shouts “Dicks out!” is funny a lot of the time because of the out of nowhere element it has.

It's not a bad joke per se. A lot of people discount any humorous element, but that's not entirely true. It never would have been made if it wasn't kinda sorta funny. And we need to account for that, despite how funny you think it is.

So there you have it. The Harambe memes spread because they were funny, deeper than usual memes, had an element of subversion and gave people something to support and think about. That's a mouthful. I wouldn't expect anything else from the most contentious idea to ever wear the hat of “meme”.