Talk:The Great Ace Attorney: Adventures

About translation to incorporate setting of the localization in an original Japanese version.

Will this translation be used as a source? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7vxwo6cM4

"Well then, Mr. Wright. Let's begin our deductions!"

Holmes does not call it "Mr. Wright".

Do not deceive a fan in translation that interlaced a lie.211.122.252.212 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it won't be used as a source. I doubt we'll even use the original Japanese trailer as a source - we'll most likely go for some news article about the game instead. The subtitled trailer is not trying to deceive anyone, though, it's just trying to make it more accessible for people who don't speak Japanese and thus know the characters as the Wrights rather than the Naruhodous. IDV^talk 09:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Iv'e seen several subbed trailers that use established names. I highly doubt that anyone was trying to trick people into thinking that the character's surname was meant to be Wright in the original version.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dai Gyakuten Saiban: Naruhodō Ryūnosuke no Bōken. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom.co.jp/game/content/?p=20564
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/takumi_gt/status/459310769624997888
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/takumi_gt/status/459311125582983168
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/takumi_gt/status/459311452927434752
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://twitter.com/capcom_france/status/638738807010029568
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ace-attorneys-creators-talk-the-new-title-and-loca/1100-6440971/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170413203240/https://www.famitsu.com/news/201704/13130964.html to https://www.famitsu.com/news/201704/13130964.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Level of development completion

(For context, Smeagol 17 removed this piece of information from the article, which I (IDV) think should remain)

@Smeagol 17: I am definitely of the opinion that knowing how far along development was at so-and-so date is useful insight into how the production went, and it's backed up by a reliable source. How do you mean when you say it doesn't matter after the game has been released? Since this would affect more articles than just this one, I'll ask people at WPVG for additional input.--IDV^talk 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Unless there was something notable about the state of development at the time, such as a new feature that got announced, I also agree that info that simply says "In late January 2017, development was 35% complete" shouldn't really be added. What if it's reported on monthly, would we just have a large paragraph stating the completion percentage in each month prior to release? The only real way I could see this being added is at the start of a sentence that includes other info, so By the start of 2017, development of the game was around 35% completed, with OTHER NOTABLE DEVELOPMENT INFO HERE. with By the start of 2017, a third of the game's development was finished being an alternative. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Release date discrepancy

For the Asian site it cites the release date as the 29th instead.

https://www.ace-attorney.com/great1-2/en-asia/

Nathanielcwm (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the 27th in the infobox and lead as the first wide international release and then specify in the article body under Release that the Asian English release is scheduled for two days later.--Alexandra^IDV 06:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Racism in "Reception"

I can't help but notice that in the "Reception" section of the page a good 80% of its text is talking about... racism.

Why is it like this? I gave a look the the review that have been linked as sources, and "racism" isn't exactly the main point of none of these reviews. Kotaku summarizes all his thoughts in the end of the article itself: "If The Great Ace Attorney: Adventures is your first Ace Attorney game, welcome! This is a wonderful place to start your Ace Attorney journey. If it’s not, you may get frustrated by the hours of exposition as you eagerly button-mash your way to your next courtroom appearance." While it does talk about the racism, mentioning it in two brief paragraphs, that looks far from the whole point of the review, which also talks about the game being too long and praised the gameplay additions. Neither the pro (gameplay additions) and the con (being too long) have been mentioned in this article which, for some reasons, focuses ONLY on racism

Eurogamer, as well, summarizes it at the end: "The Great Ace Attorney chronicles is a lovely bundle which, like many a spinoff, suffers from not being quite as great as the original you immediately compare it to. Regardless, there is so much to love here: it tries some new things setting- and gameplay-wise, it makes enjoyable references and I just consistently enjoy Shu Takumi's writing no matter what he puts out. The historical setting could prove to be a bit of niche interest to many, but rather than contort myself and tell you that this is just like the Ace Attorney you know and love, or call it a prequel, or a great way to start with the series, which it isn't, I'd rather give it to you straight and say - do you love a good period drama? Have at it." This Eurogamer mentions racism ONCE. Just once. Then whoever wrote that stopped caring. Needless to say, only that tiny portion has been mentioned in the Wikipedia page. The rest of the review as if it never existed, neither the cons or the pros have been quoted.

Nintendowire talks mainly about the writing. Mentions of racism: 1. Yet again, that is apparently the only part that matters and that is quoted in the article.

The firstpost article: I don't know what to quote on that, but the main point of the review (which looks mostly negative) is about the pacing of the narrative. Not about racism, which, yet again, has been cited only once in the whole review.

The NintendoLife article? Link is broken, I don't what it redirects to but it seems unrelated, probably a mistake.

Insights article? Racism briefly mentioned once. Then whoever wrote that review stopped caring and talked about other things about the game.

Theverge: Very, VERY briefly mentions once sexism and racism. Once. But the review itself is barely a review. It's very short.

The only one which actually talks about that in depth, in my opinion, is the apptrigger article.

I've never heard of apptrigger, so I took a look to metacritic reviews here: https://www.metacritic.com/game/switch/the-great-ace-attorney-chronicles/critic-reviews And I've opened some reviews that have NOT been quoted here, and guess what, none of them talk about racism in this game. Destructoid, GameInformer, ScreenRant, Siliconera. NONE of them talk about this at all.

So, sorry, but I have to ask. Why is the article written like that? Reading it, it looks like the game has been the epicentre of some kind of racism dilemma, where that's hardly the truth. Most of the reviewers that have been quoted just briefly mentioned it, but it's apparent that they wanted to talk about other things regarding the title, like the story, the gameplay or the pacing. The "Reception" segment barely talks the game, or what reviewers did or didn't like, and just focuses on whatever the game's instance of potrayal of racism were accurate, offensive or whatsoever.

That should be re-written from scratch. While small potrayals of racism are in the game, it's hardly its main plot point, and most importantly it's not what reviewers, or people in general seem to care about.

RashFaustinho (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There is already an "undue weight" tag applied to the reception section, which means people need to flesh it out with other aspects of the game's reception to even things out. Feel free to add to it yourself if you'd like, seeing as you've already looked through several sources. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. While there should be a mention thereof, the problem is that there's little to no other reception text. The section needs to be substantially expanded such that it's only a small part of the section rather than overwhelmingly weighted as such. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the only fair mention of racism would be the one in the Kotaku Article (while obviously mentioning the fact that they think the gameplay addittions were good and that the game was too long for their tastes.) But as for the others reviews... I'd scrap out all of that. Either they don't talk about it at all, just briefly mentioning it, or the reviews have been written by sites that I've never heard of. To me it looks like these reviews have been specifically picked for this. That's why I would rewrite everything from scratch. What's the standard for situations like these? Is there, like, a rule that tells what and what not to pick? I don't think you can quote every single review out there just "to be fair" RashFaustinho (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed all reviews that were not from one of the approved sources listed on WP:VG/RS (in this case: Kotaku, Nintendo Life, and Eurogamer). Use this list to find other reviews to fill out the section, and get other more general review criticisms from the three that are already there. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I've made the edit. I hope I didn't screw up, I'm not exactly used to editing Wikipedia pages. Let me know if it's ok RashFaustinho (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the "undue weight" flag still needed? I think that, right now, it's impartial enough. Some people attempted to delete the Kotaku part but I think it should stay since they listed that in their "dislike" summary table. RashFaustinho (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep the articles separate.--Alexandra^IDV 09:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

---

I think it might be prudent to combine both TGAA articles into one for The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles. As it stands, Resolve is basically just a plot synopsis with no other sourcing, not enough to stand on its own. Furthermore, any English-language reception will be applied to both games due to their compilation release, and any development info on the localization will likewise apply to both since they were translated at the same time. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom Neutral comment DGS2 (Resolve) didn't even receive a complete fan translation like DGS1 did, so its standalone coverage is lacking. I agree that its relevance to enwiki as its own article, as of right now, is questionable. Zudo ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support A fan translation for DGS 2 -was- in the works actually, the team simply didn't finish it before the announcement of Chronichles. Anyway, the plot of the two games is strictly tied, and DGS1 was made with a sequel already in mind (I can't found the source now, but I do recall Shu Takumi saying something among those lines, and the ending of DGS1 is kinda proof of that). I'd still mantain the plot of the two games in two separate sections, though RashFaustinho (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Prior to the Chronicles collection they were both covered individually and extensively by RSs (see for example: Famitsu TGAA2 review, Famitsu awarding TGAA2 Excellence Award as an "outstanding work", 4Gamer TGAA2 review, 4Gamer TGAA2 review, Dengeki TGAA2 review, Game Watch interview with Eshiro, four-part Nintendo Dream interview with the developers). Our article on TGAA2 is currently mostly a plot summary, but there is easily enough material for substantial development and reception sections, and I'd work on them right now if I weren't still in the middle of my TGAA1 playthrough. I also want to add that "It hasn't been fan translated" and "A sequel was planned from the start" have absolutely nothing to do with why we would or wouldn't do a merger.--Alexandra^IDV 07:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  In that case, I'm quite happy to defer to your knowledge on the matter. The presence of someone who can deal with Japanese-language sources definitely changes things! Zudo ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the rationale and sources provided by Alexandra IDV. Haleth (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reason that Mass Effect 1 2 and 3 are not merged now that Legendary Collection exists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We didn’t merge Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Justice for All, and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Trials and Tribulations when Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy was released, so I don’t see why we would merge these two articles just because a compilation was released. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The Ace Attorney Trilogy and Legendary Collection comparisons aren't really fair because none of those individual game articles were insufficiently sourced or lacking in English-language coverage outside of their compilation releases. Ultimately, the whole reason I suggested a merger in the first place was because TGAA2's article was so lacking, and I didn't think there was enough English-language coverage of it that didn't overlap with TGAA1. (You won't find English-language reviews of them individually, for example). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• May I ask one question here: If this merge proposal was turned down, where would development contents like "story mode" and "localization" go? Shall we maintain an identical copy of it in both articles? --Milky·Defer >Please ping me while replying to me... 11:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not really part of the merger discussion in any way, but I'll attempt to answer it anyway: if there is too much information for it to make sense to duplicate it across both articles, I would consider covering the details pertaining to both games in full in TGAA1, and summarize that in TGAA2 together with a See also: The Great Ace Attorney: Adventures § Localization. Details only pertaining to one of the two should only go in the respective article.--Alexandra^IDV 07:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:GLOBAL. A cursory search indicates that ample Japanese language sources exist to support two articles. OP's merge rationale treats the English-speaking side of things as if they're the only ones that matter. Localization is only one facet of development and the English release's reception is only one aspect of overall reception. The sources are out there. That they're in Japanese has no bearing on this article's independent notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.