From what I've seen, everyone pretty much agrees that the Jurist System in the final case was underdeveloped. Recently, I've come up with a way to spruce up, if you will, the Jurist System introduced in Apollo Justice based on my recent experience in court.

A few weeks ago I was called in to my city's courthouse for jury screening, for which the case's details will go undisclosed. During the screening process, I watched the defense and prosecuting attorneys, and the judge perform a particular screening procedure that I think Capcom would do well to implement into the next Ace Attorney installment.

What the defense, prosecuting team, and judge did was have the selected jury members fill out questionaires and hand them in for analysis. After reviewing the details, the judge would individually ask questions concerning what the jury panelists wrote on their questionaires. Based on the panelists responses, the judge would either excuse them or keep them for further hearings. Then he would pass the inquiries over to the defense and the defense to the prosecuting team. Based on all of their questions, jury members would be required to stay or they be excused from the hearings.

How could this be implemented into the next Ace Attorney game? At the beginning of the first court segment, the judge, prosecutor, and defense could ask questions to a jury panelist or two. While playing from the perspective of Apollo, you could ask a particular jurist a question and based on their answer, you could decide to excuse them or keep them for the trial. When the judge and prosecutors perform their inquiries, perspective shifts over to the jurist that they're questioning. You, as the jurist, can pick from a selection of responses on the DS screen. Based on which response you give, the judge and prosecutor can eliminate the jurist or keep them for the trial. In the event that a jurist is eliminated, a second jurist will be selected (but they will not be questioned for plot convenience).

At the end of the trial, when the defense and prosecutors have presented their evidence, performed their cross-examinations, and squeezed out as many antsy reactions from the witnesses as possible, the court will turn to the jury panel for a verdict. During this period, the player will have no control over the jurists decisions. In other words, based on the jurists you've selected, the game will analyze everything that's happened from the panel screenings up through the final piece of evidence. After this time, the jury panel will come to a verdict: it can be either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Depending on which verdict the jury chooses, the outcome will be entirely different from what could have been.

By following this process, you could not only alter the course of the trial, but create an entirely different outcome allowing for non-linearity, yet staying with the game's linear roots. Depending on the outcome of the trial, a different story path will become available. Despite this, you can go back to the previous case and complete it again, but based on what you do different opportunities and paths will become available throughout the course of the case. Of course, with as much data the game already takes up with its Great China Walls of text, the developers would have to place a limit on how many different paths are available which detracts from the experience somewhat.

Still, I believe it's an investment well worth looking into. Not only does it present an opportunity for non-linear-yet-linear gameplay, it also ratchets up the intensity of the case and overall challenge the player more than any other game before it. The fact that you, as the defense attorney, have no "direct" control over the final outcome will urge players to do their best in selecting jurists, presenting their arguments, and cross-examining witnesses in an attempt to win over the jury to their cause, whether it be a "Guilty" verdict for an obviously guilty criminal, or a "Not Guilty" verdict for Tiny Tim. By leaving the final selection process up to the game, not only will the game find a newly injected surge of manic desperation, but the players will also find themselves challenged like never before. Instead of picking their path, they'll have to convince the game to choose the path that they want. It's this idea of battling against the game that will keep players on their toes in doing their best.

Of course, there are a few snags will this system. As I mentioned before, the developing team would have to cut down on the number of paths available because the DS catridges aren't the biggest data crunchers in the video game world. Another concern is the final case, which would have to end with a positive verdict (again, "Guilty" for the criminal, "Not Guilty" for the framed Vera) because it pretty much goes without saying that a happy ending is more inviting than a sad ending.

And, that is all. What do you think?

---

And if I happen to pick the wrong jurists, then I'll have to start the case from the beginning again, right? In that case, I'm going to pass on this idea, and leave the jurist system as it already is. And somehow, I think Capcom will as well.

By "outcome being different from what would have been", I mean to say that if the jurists declared a "Guilty" verdict, a different story path would become available than if they had chosen a "Not Guilty" verdict. There is no right or wrong verdict per se, except in the final case. Therefore, you wouldn't have to start the case over again unless you want to unlock story path that would be attained by getting the verdict opposite of which was declared.

---

see, and here's where it doesn't jive with the GS series' style of play.

there is one path and there will always only be one path.
it's not something that they're going to toss out - the series is practically a visual novel anyway

It does sound like a good idea but I'm afraid I'd have to agree. If I picked the wrong jurists and got a guilty verdict I'd be mighty pissed... and it wouldn't exactly flow into the series if I got a new chapter after a guilty verdict...

---

I always kind of just expected our lawyers to go emo and quit lawyering forever, like what happens in Trauma Center (over and over and over and...) when you lose.

Perhaps it could be used to change a few different things. Like, for example, if you pick a certain jurist, he'll ask you a question at the end of a cross-examination. If you don't, however, things proceed as usual. Little things for that 100% completion.

...But the game still has to be pretty linear. Or come on two cartridges.

---

I think if it were to return, the Jurist system would not be the huge craziness like MASON and choosing the verdict and what-not.

It will be, after the deliberations, the Judge saying:

And the Jury (or even "the Court") finds the defendant

GUILTY/NOT GUILTY

---

I also don't think this is such a good idea... the game is linear because what you must do in all the cross-examinations is set out already and everything. So basically if you mess up picking your jurists at the beginning of the case, you've automatically lost. And you can't do branching storylines because the number of cases increases exponentially, taking up massive amounts of room.

---

One thing that could be done, though, is to have the jury selection change the case's level of difficulty. If you manage to eliminate prosecution-leaning jurists, you'll be able to, for example, take fewer steps from your premise to your conclusion, but if all the defense-leaning jurists are eliminated, you'll need to use more of your evidence to form a case. Say for example that your premise is that Edgey stole the cookie from the cookie jar. If pro-defense jurors are there, you may only need to present the cookie jar with Edgey's fingerprints on it to prove your case. If the jurors are pro-prosecution, you may also need to present the crumb-covered cravat and the surveillance video to convince them of your argument.

That still makes it a bit too much branching.

Still, I like that idea of changing the difficulty. Perhaps the harder it is, the more points you lose for each penalty?

---

I like the idea of changing difficulty.

---

I remember one of the members here had an idea about this. The jury would make a decision based on the amount of mistakes you made, or didn't. Flawless throughout the whole trial? 100% acquittal. Barely managed to scrape through the cross-examinations? Bare minority.

But I agree with grim_tales on this one.

---

There doesn't HAVE to be a jury. Remember, the one in AJ was a test, so it would take a while for the system to be implemented to courts in general.

I think the jury is simply going to replace the life-bar.

This would not work. It's way too complicated to work with the PW system...

---

hmm a way to flesh it would be to really pick the people yourself. i mean if you pick the right people it will be easier and less scary

---

I just have to say that the "Bump Topic" feature is the most amazing thing I've seen in a while.

---

They could run GS5 on a DS and have GS6 work like this on the Wii- it has the same amount of processing power as the 360, so I think this would work. And have a difficulty change. I would also have it be like this:if you choose a prosecution-leaning/simply corrupted jurist, you have to go through a lot more cross-examinations and use evidence in multiple ways, making the game much harder. If you choose a defense-leaning jurist, information will flow much easier, less testimonies and cross-examinations, and shorter trials. OR have the first run-through of the game be normal, but unlock the Jurist feature after you've beaten the game. Allows for more replay value, kind of like Shadow the Hedgehog (which sucked, by the way.)

---

Have a meter of overall jury opinions.
When you make a mistake, they go towards Guilty.
When you prove something major, they go towards Not Guilty.

It'll be exactly the same, only the penalty conversations will be like:

"The jury isn't convinced of your argument, Mr. Justice... *penalty*"

And game over is like:

"The Jury has decided they have had enough of Mr. Justice's outrageous claims. The Defendant has been unanimously decided as...

"

---

I love the ideas, but it sounds like what you're onto here is a completely different game, which i would love to see, since the only courtroom simulator is AA, and i really want a more realistic and more serious one ( not that I don't love AA, it's just that realism isn't what I love it for).

---

If you like realism buy 'Objection' a PC game for $99.

But yeah, I have to agree, the Jurist system will most likely stay the same. But other features will be added on. Maybe is Nick would just give up his Magatama...

---

I think this is the most realistic portrayal of what the new system will be like. They have a line and you start in the middle. As you make mistakes, the mark will shift left. Shift far enough to the left and the trial will be over. The goal is to stay on the right-hand side, etc. Or something of the sort.

I just can't see it working in an AA game.

---

That is likely going to be the reality of it, make a good case and all ok, do something iffy, down opinon goes. Heck, make it more real time fun with it changing depending on what evidence has been presented, Von Karma just presented a motive for your defendent to kill someone BAM, bar goes across towards 'GUILTY'.

Sounds like a spectator sport now but there was occations when there was audience outcry in the games after all and people do turn up just to watch a trial, funny really.

---

If excusing corrupt jurors is supposed to be a gameplay element, then failing to do so shoud cause an immediate game over.

I would expect there maybe ot be one or two jury trials, and the rest normal cases.

I can see a number of defendants waiving their right to trial by jury. In fact, based on the first days investigation, there may be an option to try and talk the defendant into a trial by jury, or a normal one. Picking the wrong choice there would be a game over. Sample game overs would be "Unfortunatly, the defendants reputation preceeded him. No jury of his peers could possibly have acquitted him. Despite the best efforts of the defense, he was found... Guilty." and, for the other side. "Try as they might, the defense was unable to gather enough decisive efidence to prove his clients innocence. He was inevitably found... Guilty."

The way i see the trial by jury working, is a sliding bar that goes up and down. The catch is that if it ever goes all the way towards guilty, and you don't do something immediately afterwards that raises the bar back up, you lose. Thus, if you walk into too many of the prosecutions traps in a row, you can get stuck in a loosing situation without knowing it, and have to restart from the chapter beginning. also, pointless pressing would slowly eat away at the jury opinion bar, while pressing the right things, and following them immediately by presenting evidence would cause a bigger swing back towards innocent.

The idea of a corript jury sounds good, it might make things harder, maybe the judge could say "The jurist system does have problems" or something.

---

Honestly, I think this is a wonderful idea that could help make the series better.

Honestly, do you want the entire remaining series to be a one-trick pony? Lets mix it up a bit! It's not like they'd be scrapping the entire gameplay and re-doing it, it's just fleshing out a more interactive style of gameplay. I mean honestly, I wouldn't mind doing this, the twists and turns that made the trials in the games are getting stale. I mean it'd be an interesting take on things.

What I don't understand is why you guys are so apprehensive to new ideas. I see tons of people on this board brooding on the old, with rants like "BRING PHOENIX BACK" and "I HATE APOLLO JUSTICE BECAUSE IT'S STUPID!!1!1", etc. I mean really, you guys see something new, and it's almost as if you're like:

Really, I like this idea, maybe with some tweaks it could really work, I only wish Capcom read these boards.

---

I think that, unofficially, they do. Only they can't confirm it because Japanese laws would force the site to be shut down.

---

Yeah. It's kind of funny how like, Capcom Japan doesn't acknowledge us, but Capcom USA does. They even invited Croik to one of their events because she ran the site.

---

Yeah... how about beating the final case 5 times unlocks a corrupt jury with a completely new plot line to the final case? Same fundamental plot, with more twists with the corrupt jury...

---

That would take lots of planning though wouldn't it?

---

I have another idea, how about having 2 different endings for each case, one for guilty and one for not guilty.

Or how about this, having a "jury bar" that determines where the jury believes in, if the jury bar falls to the left, there would be a higher possibility of a guilty verdict, and when it falls to the right, the trial is in favor of the defense. It wouldn't act like the life bar, but it depends on how much you press, if you keep on pressing senseless parts of the testimony, it may confuse the jury and favor the prosecution.

---

2 different endings and a jury energy bar (like the Judge's patience) sounds good - and 2 different endings is a good idea - like 2-4's good/bad ending.

---

I don't know about the Next GS5 law system, i know jurist looks pretty complicated. But you see, actually i have a way if Capcom still want to implement the jurist system, in GS 5.
Instead of using penalty gauge, i'm going to INtroduce the new penalty stuff:

the "Trust Gauge"
, this gauge will show the red bar and blue bar and a pointer, in the beginning of the trial, of course the pointer will be in red gauge, so the jury could declare a guilty verdict in no time. So, as a defense attorney(presume it's Apollo), have to find a way to make jury have more trust to the defendant to declare him "Not Guilty". This can be done with Apollo, to create more suspicion around the Witness instead of the Defendant.

A little like what I said, but I think there should still be a life bar and if it's depleted, the jury would unanimously declare GUILTY

---

It's not going to work because the series is based on the Japanese Court System which is based on "FINDING THE TRUTH" not "WINNING OR LOSING". This system is known as the Inquisitorial System and there is NO JURY in this System.

Why was the Jury system put in GS4 then?

---

sorry I haven't actually played up to four yet so I wasn't aware about that... *hides shame*

I agree with the jury bar, where stupid claims make them lean to "Guilty" and ingenious ones lead to "Not Guilty"
Then at the end, the verdict will be based on the jury's opinions.


As for if you get a guilty verdict, I have an idea:

If you get the guilty verdict, the game calculates how much back in the trial you must be in order to get the "Not Guilty" verdict and goes back to there, where the player mustn't make more than X mistakes until the end to win. If you get the "Not guilty" verdict the first time, then you won't need to replay that last bit of the trial. If you get the guilty verdict more than once, the amount of mistakes you can make keeps getting smaller.

That pretty much solves everyones problems doesn't it?

---