One thing I've noticed with the Ace Attorney series when looking at it as a whole is that there's been a transition of sorts with regards to how a game's plot is built.

In the first and second games, each case was largely its own story and almost completely independent of the events of other cases. Sure, a few things introduced in one case might show up or at least be mentioned in a later case, but it was rare for their presence to be relevant to other cases. Mind you, I'm not talking about involved parties, but rather the crimes themselves. For example, Jack Hammer (the victim in 1-3) almost certainly still would have died the way he did no matter how Phoenix's previous cases went.

Starting with the third game, however, we started to see cases with significant connections to each other. Essentially, one case happens because of another case and/or a single person or event is critically connected to multiple cases. The majority of the cases from each Ace Attorney Investigations game come to mind, with four of the five cases in each game being critically connected.

As the title implies, I'm curious about people's preferences and their reasoning. I can see advantages and disadvantages to both, but I tend to prefer standalone cases. Connected cases allow for more detailed plots than can usually be done with a standalone case, which means characters involved in the cases are often more fleshed out--something I usually like. The downside is that these larger plots are more vulnerable to spectacle creep; a large plot often requires a very strong (for lack of a better word) antagonist. Such characters as the "final bosses" of AAI and AA5 (names omitted out of respect for anyone who has yet to play either game and wants to avoid spoilers) are tough acts to follow. To be fair, some standalone cases also fall victim to spectacle creep, but their necessarily smaller scale means they're not as strongly affected, thus making it easier to go back to "smaller" cases afterwards. I also have found it somewhat annoying at times when a large enough number of cases are meaningfully tied to a single event, character, etc. "Seriously, give DL-6 a rest already" was pretty much my reaction to The Inherited Turnabout (AAI 2-3). The big one for me, though, would have to be the satisfaction that I get from completing a case. That satisfaction suffers if right after that case is over, I get dragged into another case that is connected to the case I just finished. It's kind of like a boss that takes on a new form rather than dying once its HP runs out; it can be a good battle, but it also has the potential to get tiresome.

---

This is hard for me, since I can see the appeal in both cases (no pun intended). I have to say, I agree with many of your opinions about the matter.

I feel that when it comes to a standalone case I can feel a slight "well, that was that"-vibe after finishing them, but at the same time the connected cases are harder to pull off and be completely satisfying. When they do manage that, I have to say that I prefer it, but connected cases that doesn't succeed often makes it all feel anticlimactic, not only, say, the finale (that is, even if I really enjoyed the previous cases), but harming the overall feeling of the game, leaving me with dissatisfaction. Either it feels grand and epic, or it just falls flat. I have an easier time to "forgive" things I'm not pleased with if it doesn't affect the entire plot.

---

Connected cases can pack a great punch if done well, but in general I prefer standalone cases becasue the stories they present have to be finished and neatly packed up instead of leaving lots of loose threads and unfinished business. And I like to see seperate sets of characters instead of having the major cast go in and out of trouble, which is often the case with connected cases as they overall need so much more in order to not feel anti-climactic.

That being said, I wouldn't want the games to consist of standalone cases only. I liked the route they took in the first game, where the fourth case was pretty much on its own, but a few things returned which made it feel connected to the overarching plot, such as getting to know how Phoenix and Edgeworth had known each other, and also DL-6, which had been mentioned in 1-2, but then it was from the perspective of Misty and Mia.

---

Can't I like both?

Standalone Cases are great and I'd be fine with episodically releasing individual one-off cases. They are free of the shackles and limitations connected cases are as well. For example they don't need to include any previous characters (aside from the main cast) which mean they can utilise new interesting characters. It also allows for a greater pool of murder suspects as it's all too easy to quickly write off people if there is too many recurring characters (AAI2-5 suffered this for me).

For Connected Cases if done well there is a nice Narrative Arc which you won't normally get from a Standalone as odds are you won't be seeing much of those characters past their own case. You can create some nice tension as well like in case 3-4. The murderer gets away dramatically which creates tension and dislike for that character which makes their comeuppance even more satisfying. Plus it allows for greater growth of a relationship as it'll cover a period of time which you can't achieve with a standalone episode.

That considered I'd say AA is suited to both: The main cast is well developed enough that they don't really need to show more relationship growth for them, so they could easily get away with standalone episodes focusing on new things.

However I have faith that they could still do more with a narrative arc, say develop the relationship between Gumshoe and Apollo or Athena, by having them interact over the course of a game. Gumshoe wasn't trusting of Phoenix at first so it'd be interesting to see that dynamic develop with new people.

---

I'd say both, as long as the stand alone cases don't feel... "too" stand alone. Like the poisoning case, it showed nothing big. (Yeah Godot can't see white on red, we could have that appear at a later or earlier point, it did not deserve a whole case to show that detail) It could largely be cut out with no repercussions. Or even 1-3, with its idiocy of people not being able to move casue of a monkey statue's head or walking on grass.

I don't mind stand alone cases, as long as they have some good quality behind them.

C-A

---

Connected all the way~

Part of the reason I say that is because, due to constraints on time and resources, fancases tend to be standalone cases, and while there are some fantastic standalone fancases, that means that the canon games are my only real opportunity for connected cases.

I don't have any problems with satisfaction in connected cases. I mean, you still solved and put away a murderer, didn't you? Whether the case is standalone or connected, there's always going to be a problem right around the corner in the next case. Heck, the only case I felt wasn't as satisfactory was 4-4, since the guy you put away... was already in jail for murder.

I agree that spectacle creep can be a problem... but it doesn't have to be. You're right that making the connected cases means it needs to end with a strong antagonist, but rather than making them "bad" in terms of position of power, they just need to make them "bad" in terms of being evil. I mean, just look at GK2.

My biggest gripe with connected cases is that I feel it leads to "character bloat" (mostly in GK; the format of GS naturally curbs this), and fewer and fewer new characters get introduced in the final case (I-5 had 2, GK2-5 had 1, and 5-5 didn't have any! Is GS6-5 going to memory wipe one from our memory or something?).

---

I like both.With standalone cases it can be good for introducing new characters and,in the case of the main series,just show that any cases the characters take aren't necessarily connected to their past or with an old controversial case.Though a standalone case in the middle of a connected plot may feel weird or unnecessary,so after DD I would prefer cases like this either as DLC or the whole game to be unconnected/loosely connected.

With connected cases,you get a chance to develop characters more and introduce larger plots,though not necessarily one which will have loose ends "not-to be continued" on the next game.



Oh yeah,and I'm still waiting for an AA game where the villain is a recurring chracter from another game.



It will start introducing less characters in case 4,and it will get to the point where all the characters are going to be recurring characters.Maybe it's signaling the end of the series?

---

I also like both but generally I prefer games where every case tells its own story while still slowly delivering an overarching plot, like AA1 and AA2. I'm pretty sick of T&T's story structure that, if memory serves, every game since T&T has used (first case is important, second and third less so, then it gets back to the main plot for the finale). It worked like a charm for T&T but feels pretty tired at this point.

---