Doesn't make it any more 'true' though.



I"m not saying it hasn't happened before (ex: comic book series, castlevania) The big difference though is that's Konami, this is Capcom. All I'm saying is that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that they'll axe AJ from the official canon if they keep pressing to keep DMC2 even though 1. It's a complete stinker for more reasons than Dante->mute and Trish->???? and 2. A strong majority of the fanbase HATE the game. 3. Creators seem to HATE the game for all the skirting around in interviews and how they seem to treat it in said interviews.

The key thing is it's not IMPOSSIBLE that AJ will get marked off as an AU, I fully acknowledge that. It's fully possible that Pearl turns into a serial killer via bad channeling and in horror of her actions commits suicide but it's not likely. But either way, I stick to 'until Capcom says it's an AU, it's just wishful thinking'.

---

Hence possible indirect reasons. Something might happen to that sort of explains why he isn't shown in 's arc (*whew* avoided a potential joke there) but wasn't necessarily intended for that purpose... or something.



Even if we don't mention , "need-to-know-basis" has been a common feature in AA games. If it's not important to the story at all, it's generally never mentioned. characters were irrelevant to 4-4, and at that point it would probably have felt like they were shoved in for no real reason.

One key difference here, is that I think Takumi and Matsukawa wanted to make an alternate scenario (NOT one off GS2/3), conceptualised an alternate scenario, and in their head canon probably still regard it as an alternate scenario. (And that blog of Takumi's seems to confirm this.)
True ;_;

All we need is some kind of 'official' statement from one of them. (Capcom probably won't regress as 'pride', though I still haven't seen evidence it was proven as marketed as a continuation of game 3 scenario specifically.) This would be one of the easiest ways to repair the discontinuity problems, fanbase split, in-fighting, 'threats' that developing Apollo might be curtailed, ruination of original story etc.

(No doubt DMC2 authors didn't care about sticking to the original story either, but that had entirely different writers? I don't think Takumi would just randomly ruin his old story on purpose. Also, if it was 2, it was more like 'JFA'. Sequels often are made mainly as a cash cow and frequently bad. (Do later games make any attempt to patch up 2's story?) A 'follow up' [?] 2nd 'series' to a highly successful and quality completed trilogy, though maybe lower quality, usually doesn't try to ruin the entire first series' story, it's a stupid decision for marketing at the very least. Takumi was conceiving an alternate scenario, I'm sure. Matsukawa probably was as well, and the only other reason I can think of than her own alternate timeline, is arrogantly wanting to spite the work of the old producer and deeming it irrelevant. Which is still effecting a kind of conceptual alternate 'reality' anyway.)

---

If you are so sure about it, show us the proof instead of talking about it.

---

The sad part is, is that Capcom will never make an official statement saying that "This took place after the events of GS3" because they will assume that it is so obvious (like saying "Gumshoe likes Maggie") that it will remain unsaid.

And thus, this debate will never die.

---

Perfect example! Spot the contradiction!
The murderer thought it was 'Maggie' but really her name is MAGGEY. So it's not 'obvious', but a fatal contradiction reliant on DETAIL of game 2.

Thus perfectly metaphorically echoing how Capcom continues to think we'll be content with blatant and fatal contradictions to GS2/3 scenario!

oh Phoenix_Apollo.. I will reply to you.

BTW None of the ads on Youtube for GS4 claim it as any continuation of GS3 (though this isn't exactly a conclusive sample of promotions) the only one which showed the past games (as 'posters' on the 'wall') scrolled them all past like this: 1, 2, 3, 1-5, 4

---

That's a pretty good indicator they thought about, and acknowledged, the existence of the other three games when making Apollo Justice.

If you want to use my spelling error to further your point, go you, but you're not really winning me over or anything.

I don't think the contradictions are "fatal".
Seems, really, a bit of a stretch.

---

I also find it funny how she tries to dodge my asking her for evidence by doing something else, or replying to something else. Seems like she can't prove herself.

---

I wouldn't say that.

Because tomorrow sometime, there will be a huge block of text that "perfectly explains everything"

---

In fact, I'm not even sure what your [Ing and Phoenix_Apollo's] 'official' position on the continuity issue is. Is it 'GS4 is a continuation of the same scenario, conceptual timeline and story as GS3?" Because mine is ~'GS4 is not, and was never intended or conceptualised to be, a continuation of the same scenario, conceptual timeline and story as GS3. The past conceptual scenario and story in GS4 are regarded as 1-1-5. This is by far the most plausible explanation of GS4's game contents, supported by conditions and context of its development'



No it isn't. It's a 'genealogy' of GS games. And guess what comes just before 4? 1-5, promoted to whole game status! It's a pretty good indicator that 1-5 is regarded as the most recent game, is as important as an entire game, and that GS4 is depicted to follow directly after 1-5, NOT GS3.

If you consider this a 'debate' (when did somebody decide that and what is the exact question we are 'debating'?) why is nobody making any case for the 'alternative explanations' to the concept. ie. support that it was written conceptually as a follow-up to GS3's scenario. Debates are not one-sided. And I was hoping we could have an interesting and productive 'discussion' on this.

---

See, but I don't see it that way. You should say "I SEE this as indicative of being promoted to its own game status" as opposed to "It HAS been promoted to its own game status"

You've gotten better by saying "I think this is an indicator" (because I used those terminologies, perhaps?), but come on, icer, don't you know 95% of all disagreements stem from a misuse of language? That's why I am, at least when it comes to "arguments" very careful in choosing my words, because if I don't, I just have people calling me out the whole time as opposed to listening to what I say.

You say "No, it's a genealogy" when it is better to say "I believe this means it is a genealogy". Because, frankly, the former approach is a bit off-putting, and not doing anything for ya.
You seem to be putting quite a bit of words into my mouth, and I don't mind, but you say I've done nothing to state what I think is right and well, that's just plain silly.

If you are confused, I'll give you my opinion right here and right now, free of charge:

"I believe that, in terms of the placement and timeline of the game Apollo Justice in relation to the rest of the Ace Attorney series, the following:

-The natural progression of the games is AA->JFA->T&T->AJ
As such, AJ is the natural extension of the universe built upon by the first three games.

-Apollo Justice, while perhaps not originally intended to take place in the exact same area or share characters with the previous arc, nonetheless and regardless of these intentions still would have taken place in the same universe as the first three games; Phoenix still would have existed, even if he never had appeared as had been originally intended

-Since Phoenix did appear, this means even more clearly to me that Apollo Justice is an extension of the timeline put forth by the original trilogy. It may have not been the creators' original intentions to have the previous arc's characters be in, but their intentions are superseded by what actually made it into the game. As such, Phoenix is in, and he seems to be the only link between the two arcs.

-He is the ONLY link between the two arcs, and as such, the inclusion of characters specific to Phoenix's arc (Ema notwithstanding) would be superfluous and do nothing to help Apollo's arc.

-1-5 is given such prominence for two reasons: For one, it prepares players for the new gameplay mechanisms of the Apollo game, and more importantly from a story perspective, to introduce the players to Ema Skye. She is the reason 1-5 exists, in my mind. To prep the fans for her appearance as detective in the Apollo Justice. It is not promoted to its own 'game status', but merely placed as one of the more important cases in the entire overarching series because its relation to the Apollo arc."

I can go into this more, but i don't really feel like it. There's more to my thoughts, but not in a tangible form at this exact moment. If you want to say (as I am sure you believe) something along the lines of "The appearance of Phoenix does NOT signify that the game is a continuation of GS1-3! ...etc. etc."... Well, ok, great. We're still not really getting anywhere. It once again boils down to saying "I believe in X" to my "I believe in Y"

You say we aren't debating, but these last 6 pages seem like a pretty big argument to me. An extremely off-topic argument, if one scrutinizes closely enough. I thought I was making at the least semi-valid statements, and-


Well sorry, babe.

---

When all else fails, then pigheaded stubbornness to look at "facts as they are" is sure to shine through?
No really, what's all this AU stuff in here? No substantial proof whatsoever.

You may not like it, you may even hate it...but as things stand, Gs4 is the canon continuation of Phoenix's life.
Besides, I enjoyed Phoenix's personality a lot more in GS4 then in prior games.

Umm.. how can you possiblly say that, after all that's been shown by both statements from the creator and the extreme impossibility of Phoenix being all alone in the world (which was shown to be the case) merely 2 months after 3-5?

It isn`t even an unprecedented situation (castlevania). You have to admit the possibility exists, and has things supporting it, just like the other possibility.




I enjoyed his personality there as a badass as well. That dosen`t mean that he had to become a hobo to be like that, or that the way the game says it happens meshes at all with Phoenix's life as we knew it in GS3.
Two paths simply may exist, one no better than the other.

GS2's "bad end" was also canon, in that it was written and put into the final game. That dosen`t mean that GS3 had to use it to continue form though. It's simply an alternate possibility.

---

For the sake of fair argument, I will point out that while Devil May Cry 2 wasn't retconned from the canon of DMC, Megaman X6 for the Playstation 1 was. It was entirely retconned because the creator hated the game, which is often the reason games get retconned, not because the fans hated the game. If the fans had any say in what made it into the canon or not, you would see lots and lots of failed games, story-wise.

And since I don't see the Takumi hating AJ, I doubt it's going to be retconned.

---

The thing is, canon =/= in character. Just ask Spider-Man, who sold his marriage to the devil, or Leslie Thompkins, a compassionate doctor who willingly denied an innocent girl treatment, or Speedball, a happy-go-lucky teen hero who went emo for no good reason, or Hal Jordan, the dutiful sympathetic Green Lantern who went on a "Kill all life!" rampage, murdering his mentors and darn near the entire Green Lantern Corps. as a publicity grab by DC, or... man, I could go on forever citing how often comics has abused characters similarly and then fixed it later with a nice retcon... <<
Anyways, retcons are a natural part of serial fiction, and AJ is a textbook case of the kind of bad move they were made for.

You know, Robbie, I kind of wonder what you thought of 3-1...

"What? Phoenix isn't the main character, and instead of being a lawyer he's a lovestruck dork? OMG I HATE THIS CASE IT'S THE WORST EVER! I HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN PAST THE OPENING BUT IT SUCKS!"

I don't think "over-glorified game over screen" counts as "canon" guys.

If that was the case, there would be a branching universe for every fucking time you lost the game. So, maybe Apollo Justice is a continuation of when Phoenix lost case 1-3, or, or, maybe it's a continuation of the reality set in 2-3 after he lost!

---

Well, that's not really true, since every other time you lose the game, the judge says the same exact line, and you get to start over form the last save right away, clearly saying that you didn`t "really lose" in the game's story. 2-4 is the only case where they go out of their way to make text specifically for your loss, and even then only if you present the wrong evidence at a certain point.

---

Last edited by Handren on Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, that was fine. That's different- that's not suddenly and abruptly having your character OOC for no good reason other than shock factor.

See, I think that is a whole load of shit.

A game over is a game over.
You get to start from your last save as well.

It's not a "branching time line" or some crap like that. It's just a device to make you feel ESPECIALLY bad for losing that particular case at that particular time. Who is to decide that some cases are integral to the game's story and others are not? Saying "it clearly says you didn't lose in the game's story" is a weak cop-out, and ultimately, self-defeating.

This is not the fucking Zelda series, with time-line shit convoluting everything.
It's four games, GS1-GS4.

---

wowow.. since when did I say that some cases held value over others? Every time you win or lose a case you have the opportunity to start from your last save, even when you win the final case! Even after the credits have rolled, I can still re-play the last part of the last trial in EVERY GS game. 2-4's bad ending IS special because it has unique text to every other time you "lose" in every other game in the series.

Forgot about 4-4, here which also has a special "bad ending" .It definitely exists as an alternate possiblity, though I seriously doubt they'll use it as the ending to continue from, just like GS3 continued from the good ending of GS2.

And the number order thing isn`t that important. It would be hard to count the number of game series in which the third game takes place at a different time than "directly after #2".

---

But special text does NOT equate to alternate ending, and all the bells and whistles of a fucking "alternate universe."

Really, why do you even want to argue that?

---

This isn't DC. This is CAPCOM. Specifically, GS. Just because you don't like Apollo (Even though you haven't played the game!) doesn't mean it should be retconned. Just accept it and get over it. And you really should play AJ before actually talking here, just to at least look more than some fanbrat saying "WAHH WAHH THEY RUINED PHOENIX! I HATE APOLLO! WAH!" You're like that one lady who dissed Mass Effect on Fox News without playing it first. Only, she ended up being publicly ridiculed until she finally apologized.

---

Neither are Spider-Man or Speedball. *Comics knowledge = WIN.*
It doesn't matter- this is still serial fiction. Only difference is writer arrogance, universe style, and format. Sure, Capcom can't just have it snapback as easily as a universe like DC's can by saying "AJ never happened because Superboy punched the fabric of space time", but they can and will fix this, if they're in any way smart or concerned about quality. And I have played some of AJ, and have had enough spoilers (the CR Case files) to pass judgement.

Spoilers do not equal knowledge, so no, you can't pass judgement. And how much is "some"? The demo? You could at least play the first couple of cases.

And it really is only a problem in some fan's eyes. So WHAT if Phoenix's friends weren't in the game? You only played as him for a tiny bit. You saw (a very off) Gumshoe at the very least. Fanservice doesn't equal relevancy. If an old character was relevant to the plot, they'd bring them in. It's that simple. Now, I think GS5 MIGHT have some old characters in it. GS4 WAS written largely to be a new start for the series until Phoenix was put in, so now they probably will put characters from his era in. I don't know who, but probably at least one.

---

2-4 and 4-4 bad ends = A piece of SCENARIO is executed.There's plot, and even special music, and a 'THE END'.
They're only brief timeline deviations onscreen, but they ARE branching scenario paths off the main scenario in case of failure. This has already established precedented 'alternate scenarios' in the GS franchise which are not the ones later followed.


And as you can see, Ing, with regards to exactly what capacity and how GS4 is a 'natural progression' or 'follow up' to GS1-3, your concept is VAGUE. And that's the point. It's clearly an undefined grey area the extent or literality that this is a 'follow up' or what precisely in the old arc it's a 'follow up' to.

Thus it can quite justifiably be called into QUESTION over the extent to which 'follow-up or 'sequel' can be taken to mean 'LITERAL continuation of the exact same plot and conceptual scenario of GS3.'

I never saw you mention it was a literal continuation of GS3 specifically's plot, scenario, or storyline at all which can be taken to imply that subconsciously you agree this is a questionable assumption at best. In fact, your insistence that it's invalid or unnecessary to return elements that are integral to any continuation of GS3's conceptual scenario hints you deem it false.


Indeed. And the definition of YOUR terms here are excessively vague.

-What kind of 'progression?' This could mean virtually ANYTHING. It certainly doesn't imply 'GS4 is explicitly and is intended to be a literal continuation of the exact same scenario and plot timeline as GS3' does it?

As for 'extension of the universe', that's so inherently vague as to be meaningless. (Nobody has even implied there are multiple literal 'universes' in GS. Supposedly, alternate scenarios like 2-4 bad end also occurred in the same GS universe.)



Did anybody ever imply Phoenix would NOT have existed? This is irrelevant.

If he's you admit yourself, the ONLY LINK, doesn't this imply this is NOT a continuation of GS3's conceptual scenario specifically? Remove every single thing but Phoenix from 'GS3 Conceptual Scenario' and it is NO LONGER 'GS3 Conceptual Scenario' is it. It's NOT the same conceptual scenario.

And if he's the ONLY LINK, why are you not regarding other characters from 1-5, SUPPOSEDLY part of PHOENIX ARC, as superfluous also? You recall characters like MIKE MEEKINS were returned, a superfluous character if ever there was one. Thus, I assume you do NOT regard 1-5 as part of 'PHOENIX ARC' Is this correct? Because it's what your character return reasoning implies.



Oh no. It's hard to use a DS to fingerprint. And GS4 wasn't for new players now, was it? Expecting 1-5 to be made as a giant tutorial for GS4 is proven incorrect simply by the obvious pitch of GS4 to new players (who would not have played 1-5.)

Ema is a relatively minor char in GS4. We do not require a whole case to introduce her. To support my point; why, new chars appear all the time in the series without cases to prepare us: Trucy, Apollo, Klavier, in the old arc people like Franziska, Pearl and Godot... it's just accepted new chars appear without massive intros being required.

'Oh but we are only returning chars from 1-5, so it's irrelevant. 3-5 chars were not returned'.
PRECISELY. We are only returning chars from 1-5, the most recent new game. And that goes for Phoenix too. Phoenix is NOT returned form his 3-5 conceptual plot. He and all other chars which appear are 'returned' from 1-5 and its scenario.


'One of the most important cases'. But no impartial analysis of Phoenix's career would regard 1-5, plotwise, as one of THE most significant cases. And apparently every single other case is deemed INsignificant, save the newly invented disbarring flashback.

'Because of its RELATION TO APOLLO ARC.'

Why look, you agree that 1-5 for 'some reason' you haven't properly quantified, has been given a seemingly unjustifiable weight of IMMENSE and INTEGRAL significance, whereas simultaneously every single other case (save the 'flashback trial') is suddenly subordinated to 'irrelevant'. I see you agree with this entirely correct observation, however you have NOT accounted for this fact with any plausible explanation. 'Because it introduced Ema' is not a valid explanation to properly account for this.

In the same conceptual scenario timeline as games 1-3 in ENTIRETY, 1-5 would only be one of MANY important cases for Phoenix. Cases like 3-5, 2-4, 1-4 etc would carry equal or MORE weight and IF the writers were using the SAME CONCEPTUAL SCENARIO timeline, they would regard them and consistency with their events with EQUAL BEARING to 1-5 in the game concept.

Oh but they're 'old' so only 1-5 now 'matters' in this context. Well yeah. Alt conceptual timeline...


Oh yes. Phoenix appears. The games are a 'continuation'. It's where the continuation is FROM that's the issue. And all the evidence in the game and production conditions implies - the CONTINUATION point of the series is FROM 1-5.

I believe in X being correct/implied because of (supporting evidence and reasoning as justification)
I believe this is more plausible/deems Y incorrect because (supporting evidence and reasoning.)

A debate is different to an argument. I'm pretty sure debates have a distinctly defined 'question' or assertion being debated and doesn't deviate into arguing about arguing or personal attacks. What we're arguing about isn't even specifically defined. I mean, give evidence to prove what, exactly? However, I'll rewrite my argument. Its original intention was just to imply the plausibility of the stance that GS4 was NOT an extension of GS3's same plot, story and conceptual timeline and this could be fully supported by logical reasoning and evidence from the game contents and could NOT be contradicted or faulted by any game contents or development conditions.

However, this time I'll rewrite it to demonstrate that it's MORE plausible than an opposing position/s. Though of course, the exact 'opposing position' requires definition.

We don't. We are 'debating' alternate scenarios, already clearly precedented in this series. There's more than text. There's a special graphic, special music, alternate plot explicitly featuring multiple characters and their future, and a THE END.

---

Last edited by icer on Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It IS an alternate possibility. Just because it hasn`t (and in all likelyhood will not) been explored, the fact that these scenarios(2-4, 4-4) have been scripted out by the writers shows that they are possible paths. Paths you do not want to take, do not like, and have not been explored that much at all, but they still exist.

---

But he WAS OOC. Unless you could really expect him, as he is in the main games, to insist that whomever he's romantically interested in "doesn't poop?"

So let's count how many alternate timelines are there...

1: GS1 -> 1-5 -> GS2 -> GS3 (this one, so far seems obviously canon)
2: GS1 -> 1-5 -> GS2 bad ending
3: GS1 -> GS2 -> GS3
4: GS1 -> GS2 bad ending
5: GS1 -> 1-5 -> GS4
6: GS1 -> 1-5 -> GS4 bad ending

7: GS1 -> 1-5 -> GS2 -> GS3 -> GS4
8: GS1 -> 1-5 -> GS2 -> GS3 -> GS4 bad ending

I still do think that number 7 is possible, even if very very very unlikely. So such unlikeliness demands a lot of explanation. GS4 can still be made a logical continuation of GS3, if the writers intend to. But without it, it'll be just like... let's say The Little Mermaid prequel and sequel excluding the original movie. If you've seen both of them, but you forget about the original, you can just see how unlikely it is, because the unlikely things happened in the original movie (that connects the prequel and the sequel). And yeah, when unlikely things happen, we need a game / movie / book of that part. When likely things happen, we do not. That's how it is.
Thus, we need a game that connects GS3 and GS4.
Read my fanfic and see, it's not even that hard.

---

Some = The first case. I borrowed it from a friend. It left a bad taste in my mouth, so I stopped. If I was running Capcom, AJ would be retconned into an alternate timeline/universe/scenario and the next game would be a true AA game, i.e., sequel to the trilogy. Maybe work Apollo himself in to appease his more limited fanbase, but as an intern/rookie you play for the obligatory Payne case with Nick as advisor a la Mia, and in the bonus case, which would be a winnable version of the case that got Phoenix disbarred in AJ.


Now you're just being inane and we both know it. He was, generally, in character. What I'd expect from a younger Feenie, anyways, and it didn't bother me.

First of all, he WAS younger.Second of all, When you are really in love for the first time with someone, you DO say and think things similar to that, nomatter how smart you really are. You`re overhwlmed by hormones, which block out most reasoning. Unless someone is a "player" type who likes to go out with many girls, like larry, that is what happens when you are looking for someone to genuinely be with for the first time at his age.

Also, it has little to do with this topic. I don`t think Phoenix was that OOC in GS4. I DO think that the events that happened around the flashback case, and how he acted afterward, completely do not mesh with what we have been told about phoenix's life at that point form GS3.

Szabu, one of Icer and I`s main points IS how easy it would have been to make clear references to Maya and Egdeworth helping "offscreen" during GS4, but they didn`t. The absence of something so integral and simple is oen of our points.

---

This is deviating off-topic.

Phoenix in GS4 is depicted as supposedly 2 months after the end of 3-5. His subsequence appearance AFTER is contradictory and OOC to 3-5 timepoint in myriad ways we won't rediscuss.

Phoenix in 3-1 is depicted as 3 years BEFORE we meet him. He is not OOC because this is a past timepoint from BEFORE we ever saw his character and therefore it doesn't contradict what we've already seen because it doesn't erase or contradict existing past development. The fact that he's depicted in such a momentous scenario [his 'girlfriend' tried to murder him AND tried to frame him for the murder! This would have major psychological implications. And this event also demonstrates to him that he could save Edgeworth by being a defense attorney] well explains his 'changed' character development and life scenario after Mia saves him as plausible. [In fact half the point of 3-5 is to show how his character has positively matured since Mia saved him.]

@ Szabu: I'd put 1-5 officially into the GS 1-2-3 timeline, even if it wasn't in the GBA, barring official declarations of alternate, it was DELIBERATELY CONCEIVED to fit between 1 and 2's plot in the same conceptual timeline and scenario, unlike GS4 which was not conceived as a literal follow-up to GS3. (Hey, if GS5 does not placate me, maybe I'll just pretend the Bad End to 4-4 happened and write a nice fanfic where things get resolved alternately.)

Oh yeah, RobbieValiant: But 4-1 is the best case! It's the only good one! How could you stop before the Flashback Trial? You didn't get to throw your friend's game at the wall! And 4-3. You missed the new Worst Case Ever! =)

---

I found the evidence you want me to present, icer.

While I cannot "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt that GS4 takes place after 3, I can indeed prove that it was at least after GS2.

And do you know why that is? It's because of Dr. Hotti/Hickfield

Your argument: But Hickfield changed! His sprite was updated (unlike Gumshoe's in the flashback), his theme music was enhanced (unlike the court music in the flashback or in 4-1 when Phoenix objected or in the MASON system aside from the Magatama music), and they changed his name! The fact that he was in GS2 is irrelevant!

First of all, his sprite was updated because he was in a modern-day AJ case. He was not in the flashback case at all. I believe the flashback is a way of saying goodbye to the GBA days and saying hello full-force to the DS days, thus the unchanging/changing sprites. Continuing, yes, his theme was updated. Maybe because it mattered at the moment. And it's a way for old fans to recgonize him. The Magatama music was updated to let old fans know that it was coming back as well. The unchanging court music is just that; unchanging court music. While the outside in the AA universe may change, the core of law never really does.

They also changed his name because the clinic changed names. If he was going to bother with his "LOOK AT ME. I'M THE DIRECTOR" charade, he obviously would change his name too. As for why the clinic changed names, look, business change names for one reason or another. Whether it's passed around in ownership, or the owner just gets tired of the name. It changes.

And as for being irrelevant that he was in GS2, might I point out that they could have created a new doctor for the purpose of filling the same role? What they did with Hotti/Hickfield, is show that while most of the characters have changed, some tenents of some places won't. Hotti wouldn't just magically disappear for AJ, so they put him in. Call fanservice or not, he didn't HAVE to be Phoenix's doctor, Capcom chose to put him in. They put him in, and that at least proves that GS2 is at least canon in AJ.

---

HOLD IT!
Alternate timelines would not affect the existence of individual people! Even if GS2 didn't happen in the alternate universe/timeline/scenario, there would still be a Hickfield/Hotti! In fact, the change in name may even be evidence of further differences in the past! You have proven NOTHING, save perhaps Capcom's own laziness!

There's a problem with that Robbie, a fairly big one.

Nick treats him as if he's known the guy for years. Remember, Hotti/Hickfield is really just a loony patient, so I doubt he'd get to know him unless circumastances force them to meet (Ie, 2-2).

The other thing is that they wouldn't have bothered to put in a legacy character like Hotti if they weren't going for the JFA fanbase. No point making a joke to people who won't get it.

---

Objection!
Who is to say Nick may not have had some health problem in those 2 proposed alternate years? Stress is common in law, and stress-related conditions are common. Perhaps Nick got one he didn't in the other timeline- one that would force him to find a doctor, such as one at the clinic, thus meeting Hickfield/Hotti.
As for the second, yes, it is to the fans, but appearance =/= events! There are no references to the events, and thus things may still have occurred differently!

Last edited by RobbieValiant on Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, Phoenix in GS4 is seven years after we saw him last. (Well, except in the flashback, but he struck me as Phoenix-the-lawyer then.) Seven years, during which he had lost his badge and adopted a daughter. Why would he be the same?

Well okay. Dr Hotti is older than um, 10. When he appeared in JFA, he was already an adult. So theoretically, at 1-5 timepoint he was born! And continued to exist.
Except, in this alternate scenario, he is NOT Dr Hotti at all. I don't care if he's in the Hickfield Clinic now because why is there a different clinic now to GS2 anyway? How many hospitals can there be in one small area? There's already the Meraktis one....

So the fact that 'Hotti' GETS a name change to differentiate him from the GS2 character, which was unnecessary, because having yet another clinic, the Hickfield Clinic, is also unnecessary, PROVES they are trying to DISTANCE him from GS2. It's yet another Easter Egg. Insane creepy doctor in BOTH scenarios. The name change was totally unnecessary.. except as a method to distance him from the GS2 incarnation. There was NO plot or otherwise reason to change the name from Hotti to Hickfield clinic. And if it's a dodgy public hospital, those do not tend to change name over time.

TL;DR The fact that Hotti was required to be changed to Hickfield for not actual plot purpose merely makes it evidence implying that this is a deliberate ALTERNATE timeline to GS2. Otherwise there would be no need to change his name and it would have just been extra work. As for not making a new char? Would need extra work, extra ideas (recycling him is much easier) and it's an EASTER EGG.

Known for 'years'? Phoenix has been staying in the hospital, so would be familiar with his 'habits' (which surface after about 2 seconds onscreen), and has possibly been in hospital before (7 years is a long time), also even in an alternate scenario, he could have visited the hospital for whatever reason. Clients might have been there, he might have investigated that Magnifi shooting at the hospital...

We were discussing 3-1 Phoenix and I was explaining why Robbie would not have a problem with 3-1 being unlikely for Phoenix but does for game 4. Nobody ever claims Phoenix should be 'the same' 7 years later. The scenario concept in general is inconsistent and unlikely after GS3's story (nobody expects such to suddenly ruin the canon good ending in hindsight). Stop taking this off-topic into irrelevancies.

...Why do references being Easter Eggs mean they don't count?

To be honest, I was only really bringing 3-1 up to try to get Robbie off his "Phoenix acting different=SUCKY GAME" bias, so he'd at LEAST look the game up on YouTube. (More than what he already knows.) Simply put, in a debate, I can't really take someone seriously if they've only really got basic knowledge of the issue.

I'm sorry, but no. It's like Twilight- I could take the first book from morbid curiosity, but anymore would just be too much. is to as the Cullens are to actual vampires.