Talk:Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney − Justice for All/Archive 1

English translation errors in the Japanese version?

This might be worth noting - I've noticed all kinds of typos, spelling mistakes, poor grammar etc. in this Best Buy translation of the game, and a buddy tells me that it's probably an "alpha" translation, so to speak; they've still got half a year to iron out the problems. So this translation might not be the same as the North American version. I've edited the article to clarify this.

I've noticed a few, but it's hardly a mistake every sentence, and it's nothing bad enough to detract from the game. Even the US version of the first game had a number of (equally minor) spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors.

I've noticed it too. It's honestly pretty bad, much worse than their usual standards. Phoenix Wright contained no typos that I noticed, where as this one contained more than a few even in the first 3 cases.

Who was the translator? Kazuhite 06:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't have the link handy, but I recently added an article on Nintendo.com that talks to the localizers for PW2 (the article is on the PW WP page, however, since it confirms that LA is the city that the localization takes place in). --Masem 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that american spelling differs from english - specifically , the reference to the judge, your honor, is spelt so in the game, as in America - in the UK, however, it is spelt honour, so some of these spelling mistakes are not so mistakey. However, the misspelling of "off" as "of" instead is a clear contradiction - OBJECTION!!!!! Poor jokes ftw. Az —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.96.115 (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No one ever suggested that "honour" was a misspelling, but it should be pointed out that Phoenix Wright was meant to be localized so it would be an L.A.-based setting, which makes "honour" incorrect anyway...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha!

No, see, October 2006 is actually Q1 2007; it lasts from October to December 2006. So the dates are not contradictory. Theswillman 03:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we tell from the context that they were talking about a fiscal year and not a regular year? Sources would be helpful here. Tim Dean 06:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked up on this issue. The Q1 2007 date comes from Capcom's press release. Similar press releases on Capcom's site use regular quarters and not fiscal quarters, so unless there was a mistake the "Q1 2007" refers to early in 2007. The "Nintendo" press release only seems to exist in blog postings and not anywhere official, here's one that I found: [1]. I think unless someone can find a better source, we should go by the date on Capcom's press release for now. Tim Dean 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Nooooooooo!" I so wanted this game to come out earlier! Soup Blazer 05:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nintendo press release does indeed exist…check out this link: http://press.nintendo.com/e32k6/Nintendo_DS/FACT_Upcoming_Games_DS_FINAL.pdf . Use username "golin" and password "harris" to get in. You'll see that "Phoenix Wright 2" is slated for an October 2006 release, which corresponds to gaming quarter one of 2007. Hence, the most specific date we have right now is October 2006.

October 2006=Q4 2006. I've yet to see *any* case where Q1 refers to the last quarter of the year before, quite simply because it doesn't - and if you were to testify that in court, you can be certain that Phoenix would be yelling "Objection!" before you could even finish the sentence. ;)

Given that Capcom are the ones MAKING the game, I'd go with their announcement, which is currently Q1 2007 - meaning January-March 2007.

Oh, and for the record, if we were talking about Q1 in the fiscal year 2007, it would be April-June 2007, since the fiscal years *ends* in March. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• 1st Quarter: October 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005
• 2nd Quarter: January 1, 2006 – March 31, 2006
• 3rd Quarter: April 1, 2006 – June 30, 2006
• 4th Quarter: July 1, 2006 – September 30, 2006

Copied and pasted from fiscal year. Is Wiki wrong? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not as such - that article is talking about the US fiscal year. Nintendo is a Japanese company, so it's not the same periods. There, the fiscal year ends on March 31st, as written in the Japanese version of the article.

And while I guess that *is* a case where Q1 refers to Q4 in the year before, I was talking in context of game release dates. :) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There you go then, Pidgeot. I think we should just go by the more specific (and optimistic) date we have right now. Whoever found the press release has a point. Theswillman 07:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It was an English press release, Pidgeot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the companies are Japanese, and therefore have their fiscal year ending in March. As you've probably figured from this, that's at least part of the reason why you don't use fiscal years when talking about release dates - they aren't identical across the globe, and you wouldn't expect the average person from USA to know anything about the Japanese fiscal year.

Besides, if we were to apply that logic, that would mean the Wii will be out no later than September. This doesn't match with the current estimatre of November. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're arguing that if Nintendo of America made a press release and dated, say, Jam with the Band 2 as being released in January 2007, it is, by default, the Japanese release date, regardless of the fact that it defies all logic that the American division would release a press release about this game? Capcom USA doesn't run on the Japanese time zone, does it? So why would it run on the Japanese fiscal year? Nintendo Software Technologies is an English development company because they're based in America. They discuss what's happening in America, not in Japan, so why would Capcom USA orbit Japanese fiscal years? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you're mixing two things together here. What I'm saying is that since these companies are subdivisions of Japanese companies, they would, at least ultimately, be using the Japanese fiscal year, since they'll be reporting to the parent company.

However, this has nothing to do with release dates since the fiscal year is not identical worldwide. Therefore, using the fiscal year of *ANY* country as the basis when speaking of a release happening in a certain quarter would only cause confusion, more so since even NoA press releases cover countries with different fiscal years - NoA is also responsible for Canada, and the Canadian fiscal year coincides with the Japanese fiscal year. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, how about no? No one DOES that. No English company caters to the Japanese userbase simply because they're based on a Japanese company. They were created to report to people in America, not people in Japan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Link to the Past (talk • contribs) 14:39, 23 May 2006.

I've given sufficient reason for why fiscal years are not used for release dates, which is the only reason one could ever hope to explian the "Q1=October" issue - in fact, the fact that in for Nintendo, USA also covers Canada, is enough to dismiss that theory, since the two countries use very different fiscal years. WHICH fiscal year a company would use for release dates in a press release released in America (assuming they did that in the first place) is not relevant to the issue. All I'm saying is if the press release *were* doing this, the only logical assumption would be that it's using the company's fiscal year, and since these are not stand-alone companies (at least not to my knowledge), that would be the Japanese one, since the parent company is Japanese. They cannot use the American fiscal year by default, because these press releases are also intended for Canadians, who use a different fiscal year (coincidentally, the same as in Japan). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pidgeot (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 May 2006.

Their American division is Capcom USA, not Capcom of America. Capcom USA made the press release, not Capcom Canada (if it exists). - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As has been noted, though, there is no precedent for Capcom implicitly using fiscal year quarters when referring to game release dates. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There is the fact that it would explain why Nintendo, who would have a specific reason why they would state October 2006 as a release date, would give that date, while Capcom gives a more vague release date that could possibly apply to PWJfA. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't explain why Capcom suddenly started to use fiscal years without mentioning it anywhere, nor does it explain why Nintendo would choose October over November or December. This makes misinformation or changed dates more likely. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 12:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because October is the true release date? Why would there be no explanation why Nintendo used October over Nov/Dec? I would think the explanation of October being correct would be enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're going out of context here. This part of the discussion is purely about whether or not Q1 was used as a fiscal year quarter, not whether or not the date was changed. Since there is no evidence to support the claim that a fiscal year quarter was used, there is no reason to believe this is the case, meaning that one of those press releases are incorrect.

The discussion about which one is more correct cannot be settled at this time, since we don't know which release was the first to be written - we need new information from either party before we can know that. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For one, why are we to AUTOMATICALLY disbelieve that they're using the fiscal year? It is not only possible, but probable, considering the fact that if it were, both Capcom and Nintendo, both who would have a great deal of knowledge of JfA, would be correct.

Additionally, we do know. Nintendo's press site launched the day before Capcom's press release, and the press site contained the videos/press releases/screenshots/release dates that they have now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would Nintendo know a lot about JfA? They are neither making nor publishing it in America - though NoE will likely publish it in Europe when that time comes (as they did with PW:AA), that's irrelevant to the discussion, since we're talking about the Americas.

Anyway, there is no precedent for Capcom using the fiscal year, as Tim has provided several examples of, nor is there any reason to suddenly start doing so (particularly not implicitly). After all, no one else does it that way.

I might also add that I stated we don't know which one was written first, not which one was published first. There's a difference. (If you want to get technical, it would be a matter of whether or not Nintendo was INFORMED before Capcom wrote their press release, but let's keep it simple.) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 01:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Take that! Look at this: Capcom release dates and this: Capcom press releases. The release date for CAPCOM® CLASSICS COLLECTION VOL. 2 is listed as Q4 2006 in the press release and as Nov. 2006 on the release dates page. CAPCOM® CLASSICS MINI MIX is Q3 2006 in the press release and Sep. 2006 on the release dates page. GOD HAND™ is Q4 2006 in the press release, Oct. 2006 on the release dates page. Clearly they're not using fiscal quarters. Furthermore, the Capcom press release came out after Nintendo's press release, so it likely contains newer information. Finally, as Pigeot pointed out, Capcom are the ones MAKING THE GAME so they probably have better information on what it will be finished. Tim Dean 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"The release date for CAPCOM® CLASSICS COLLECTION VOL. 2 is listed as Q4 2006 in the press release and as Nov. 2006 on the release dates page. CAPCOM® CLASSICS MINI MIX is Q3 2006 in the press release and Sep. 2006 on the release dates page. GOD HAND™ is Q4 2006 in the press release, Oct. 2006 on the release dates page." Who cares? Theswillman 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to make it clear that Capcom does not use fiscal quarters in their press releases. If they did, then CCC2 should have been listed as Q1 2007, CCMM as Q4 2006, God Hand as Q1 2007. But they don't, the quarters they used correspond to the calendar year quarters instead. Tmdean 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's simple

This is the fact: Nintendo used the date of October 2006 in their press release, as you can read above (as long as the link doesn't go dead, which it might, for all I know). I seriously doubt that they just pulled that date out of their ass from nowhere. We've established that October 2006 corresponds to American fiscal quarter 1 of 2007, and since Capcom USA made the announcement, plus the fact that the game hasn't even been announced for ANY other market other than the North America (don't start about how Canadian fiscal quarters are different, because Nintendo USA was obviously using American fiscal quarters...what game company uses Canadian fiscal quarters anyway?), there is absolutely no reason why, at the present moment, we should doubt that the date will be anything other than October 2006. And don't say it's unusual for release dates to be announced according to quarters because it happens all the time, for both games and gaming hardware. As of right now, it is NOT "Early 2007" according to the information we have. It is October 2006. Theswillman 20:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno why you're so convinced, why would Capcom use fiscal quarters in only the Phoenix Wright press release and not in any of their other press releases with no explanation? Tmdean 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you. SOMEBODY wrote down that October 2006 release date, and there must be a good reason why. Theswillman 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Be prepared for a big "I told you so" when October comes and goes with no new Phoenix Wright. Tmdean 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just acting on currently-known information. We have just as much of a chance of seeing the game come out in October as we do early next year. Theswillman 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who's not listening. It's not unusual for games to be announced according to quarters, it's unusual for games to be announced according to FISCAL YEAR quarters.

As for Nintendo, NoA covers both USA and Canada. Canadians can't be expected to know anything about the fiscal year in the US, therefore this discrepancy wouldn't make sense.

And finally, somebody also wrote down Q1 2007. Given the precedent of NOT using fiscal years in Capcom's press releases COMBINED with the fact that Nintendo is neither making nor publishing the game (at least not in the US), there is no reason to believe Nintendo are right here. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying we should completely ignore the October 2006 date? Even though it came from an extremely reliable source and is the more precise date we have, not to mention that it fits in nicely with its matching fiscal quarter? If you are, I think it would be pretty dumb to only listen to dates from official Capcom press releases, and ignore all other sources. Theswillman 20:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, take a look at Pigeot's edit. He didn't complete ignore the date, he mentioned both dates and the controversy. You're the one who completely ignored the Q1 2007 date. Tmdean 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no precedent for your interpretation, it is unlikely to be correct - presumably, one of the two were misinformed or something changed after one of them were finished and they didn't correct it - in other words, one of them is correct and one of them is not.

Given that we don't yet know WHO is correct, even though it is more likely to be Capcom, both dates should be mentioned (at least for now). However, they should not be considered equivalent. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 20:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Since GS2 originally came out as a GBA game this article should contain the original Japanese date. Either that or split GS2 from the remake.

I like the Final Fantasy wiki formats. Focus on the *original* games, including box-art, release date and most importantly the title. Under 'releases' it then sites the other releases and remakes, even if they are identical. Final Fantasy V page is an excellent start for Gyakuten Saiban wiki editors. The GS series did not begin with Phoenix Wright on DS. It began with the first GS on GBA a few years ago. -Jon

The Japanese version of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Justice For All contains VERY LITTLE translation errors. I have the copy myself, and I found it as a very accurate translation. I saw VERY MINOR errors, and VERY SCARCELY, but none that make the game hard to play or understand. The way it's stated in the article makes it sound like it had a very horrible translation. Please someone address this issue. Ramfan2772 10:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Von Karma and Phoenix refer to Acro as a her twice in the same day. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction from the first game

I'd like to see this article updated. When talking to Franziska von Karma during Case 3, it completely ignores Case 5 from the previous game. It's pretty shoddy, and is a huge plothole. If someone could reflect this in the article, perhaps in a new section, I would be pleased. I'm unsure how to edit the page in such a manner. At all. - pokemaniacbill

How do you mean? Having played through both games, I don't notice any major contradictions. --Masem 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did kind of explain it in the first post. During Case 3 of Phoenix Wright 2, you talk to von Karma in the Lodging House just before you meet Acro the first time. She tells you how Edgeworth has disappeared, and that after the conviction of her father he was a wreck who got worse every day, and never stepped foot in court again. This is a direct contradiction of Case 5 of PW1, where he seems to be building a better reputation for himself (In some circles) and worked with Phoenix to expose the truth during the 5th Case of PW1. It creates a disappointing plot hole. If he never went in to court after Manfred von Karma's conviction (And Edgeworth's own acquittal), then how could he have been in court prosecuting against Lana Skye in the 5th case of Phoenix Wright 1?

It's a pretty shoddy mistake. You can see for yourself, I wrote this as I saw it come up in Phoenix Wright 2. - pokemaniacbill

That doesn't necessarily have to be a plot hole; Franziska may not have known about that particular case (maybe someone wanted to hide it from her, or maybe no one thought to tell her), and as I recall, there's no real proof that he had any other cases between Case 4 and 5 in PW:AA.

Additionally, it IS made pretty clear in Case 5 that Edgeworth hasn't been well at all since Case 4. If by "better reputation", you're thinking about the award, keep in mind it's an annual thing, and only two months pass between Case 4 and 5. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 11:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could or could not be a plot hole - however, it's not "pretty shoddy" and "huge", particularly with no outside reference to back it up. (Gumshoe's current position also could be argued as a problem too, as he seemed to be a lacky in 1st game, 5th case, but now lead detective in PW:AA:JFA, and I'm sure there's more one could find) Real time wise, in Japan, whomever wrote the 5th case for PW:AA(DS) should have known of the events in PS:AA:JFA(GBA) and (I believe) the 3rd game too, but even with that recent Nintendo interview, it's hard to tell if the localatization tema knew of the PS:AA:JFA story when localizing the 5th case - in other words, was the problem written from the start or introduced when localized? If either of the original developers or the localizations comes out with something that says "oh, there's a few inconsistancies...", great, we'll add it with a cited reference. But, like the note on the page about english translation bugs, even if a plot hole, I can't see how it would ruin the enjoyment of the game, and particularly the WP knowledge needed for the article, and thus really shouldn't be called out until references can be found. --Masem 14:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a plot hole because, well, Phoenix collaborated the story. I say he was trying to be a better person, I suppose, because of the way he worked with Phoenix. I'm not sure, at all, how the game is made. But I do know that it is a plot hole (And to me, it is a problem) and it was disappointing. Gumshoe could have easily gotten a promotion, that's fine. But this actually has a hole in the story. I'm not quite sure why on earth you need a developer to say "Yeah, this is a plot hole" when you actually have a hole in front of you. It'd kind of like getting a guy who makes hydrants to say "This is a hydrant" before you put a hose on it. It's pretty stupid. Anyway, I honestly don't care how it hapened. I'm annoyed that it did, I just think it should be brought to the attention of other people. - pokemaniacbill

The biggest flaw in this entire argument is that case 5 of the original Phoenix Wright was not in the original GBA version, and was only in the DS remake from 2005. Since the original version of Justice for All (Gyakuten Saiban 2) came out years prior, it's only natural that the game does not take case 5 in to account. Gyakuten Saiban 3 doesn't recognize its occurance either, as it came out in 2004. Case 5 is canonical but is not recognized by any of the games except possibly GS4 (as seen by the button on Phoenix's cap). --Guess Who 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's how I see it. Let's say they remake... I dunno, an RPG. And this RPG has a sequel which is also being remade. And the first remake is an enhanced remake, intended to retcon the entire series. Fair enough? Right then. Now, let's say this sequel is simply a remake with better graphics and ignores the plot chances of the first remake: It's inconsistant. It doesn't matter that there are sequels 3 and 4 to the game that don't recognize it (Retconning, after all, does me retroactive continuity), it matters that the second remake doesn't recognize it. If you changed stuff, you changed stuff. This'll be true forever, and you MUST be willing to abide by your changes or you'll run in to problems.

I understand the reaons you're giving to blow it off. It simply doesn't make any sense both from a story perspective and from a logical perspective to me at all. A remake retroactively changes continuity if it is changed because it is newer source material, overlaying on the old game. That's the way these things work. - pokemaniacbill

To add to this this scan [2] shows an older Ema Skye is GS4. Short of this being an ellabrate fake we can say once and for all that case 5 was cannonical since she would not be in that game otherwise. --69.156.205.123 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of canon-isity, there's really no point to include these plot holes into the article unless a major reviewer comes out with quotes that say that they are obvious and affect the game's score in some way. --Masem 04:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I know and agree. I was just sharing that the question of coanonically was no longer an issue. I don't think anyone was actually planning to add this to the article considering the first post was made almost a month ago and nothing was added. --69.156.205.123 04:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure, totally agree. But just in case someone new comes along and adds this, we can point them to the talk page. --Masem 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I've seen that two editor's have consistently deleted the trivia section. This is uncalled for, as it is out of line with the other article in this series, which *does* list it's pop culture references within that section. I would like to start a legitimate discussion of this topic so that an actual consensus can be reached on the topic, as opposed to some editorial tag-team.

For my part, I've put the original trivia in, and pulled out all references to the previous game and others in the series to include in its own section. This was done to keep the trivia list shorter. I feel that series references as a whole should be included, as these are also included in discussion of the first game, and were not disputed in the original article.Rebochan 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the trivia was circumstantial references with no sources. While these types of references are common and easy to add, they are usually frowned upon due to WP:Trivia standards. Unless you can cite a source that says "the writers included X as a reference to Y", then it's pretty much speculation. --Masem 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Typical stuck up wiki-editor nazi responce. Just keep adding the trivia. If every entry on this site followed those rules to the letter, then half of the content wouldn't be here.68.206.44.33 05:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of a living document. --Masem 05:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can cite a source that says "the writers included X as a reference to Y", then it's pretty much speculation. Yeah, nice getting people to jump through impossibly high hoops. If those are the rules, then please take out the trivia sections from the articles on the Silent Hill games. Either that, or allow editors to write about the Lord of the Rings reference in the second case of this game. Sheogorath 31.111.78.209 (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Finding a reliable source is nowhere near an impossible hoop. If you can't find a source, then don't bother. If unsourced trivia is found in the Silent Hill articles, then they don't belong there either. There are other, better places to go to add shout outs to other games/films/books/etc., like TVTropes. Wikipedia is not just not the place for it. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sales

How well did this game sell in North America?

According to VGCharts, the game has sold about 35,500 copies in North America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JusticeLeaguer8 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Unprofessional estimate. Capcom will likely make a press release soon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot

From what I can see, a very detailed and well thought out write up of the plot and entire stroy of the game has been written in to this article. However, as you can see, it has been removed due to being excessive, and so it leaves quite a hole in the overall article. It shouldn't be too hard to cut down what hs already been written to a decent length. I'll have a go at it very soon, so I just thought I'd leave a message in here about it in case anyone else wants to have a go, and to let people know what I'm planning. - Admeister200x 10th September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.234.216 (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put the warning up, but I have noted on the 1st and 3rd game that the plot sections are way too long for what we really should be presenting: the general events that happen over the course of the game and not the specifics of each case save when they affect the overall game. By WP:FICT we should only tell what is needed to make the game's plot understandable from a non-player's perspective. The "Overall Plot" section is about all that we really should need for these articles. --Masem 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad ending

Do you think we should mention this game's bad ending in the plot section somewhere? I think that some readers may be interested to read about it.--72.65.210.145 (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's highly POV, and I rarely hear complaints. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What is POV about it? 131.191.52.113 (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, I misread it; at first, I thought that he meant that the "bad ending", ie, the low quality ending, but now I realize what he meant. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It should at least reference any ending at all, which it does not right now. Someone probably removed it who does not understand the wikipedia rules on spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.161.198 (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reception

I don't think it was 'mostly' criticized for the lack of DS features, but because of the absurd 'think-outside-the-box' difficulty that makes you guess all the time. The third case is infamous for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.11.86 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The localization deletes the Japanese culture. The localization fan deletes the Japanese notation. You are conceited.

In localize, is Los Angeles a stage? However, it is not recognized in the original Japanese version. Does Wikipedia give priority to a localization version?

Describe the original name and setting in a plot. 219.160.54.113 (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

We explain the game is originally a Japanese game, and thus there's localization. But as we are en.wiki and not a game guide, it is improper to provide the original Japanese names. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

original version name is Unnecessary?? You are stupid.219.160.54.113 (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No, we're writing for English readers, they will see the game with the English names. It is unnecessary to iterate the Japanese character names. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your claim is incomprehensible. localize name(English name) is not original name. When recite a work, it is stupid to treat original rudely. localize fan is conceited. 219.160.54.113 (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not ignoring that this is a localization, but the bulk of en.wiki readers will be playing this version and not the original. (jp.wiki can handle the original version). --MASEM (t) 14:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I was able to understand ethnicity of English speaker. The American(English speaker) does not seem to show respect for the original.219.160.54.113 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of American names is not meant to be a sign of disrespect for Japanese names. We know they exist and acknowledge in the article that it exists. It's simply because this the English Wikipedia, that's all. If the Japanese wiki used localized names for their article on an American game instead of the "original" English ones, it wouldn't be a problem either. Also, please refrain from personal attacks like calling us "stupid" or "conceited". It isn't getting you anywhere. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

here is Wikipedia of the English version. However, it is stupid to delete the original name and setting. You hide the existence of the original name and insult it. You who downplay original are conceited.

American games are imported by Japan, and it is said that the name was changed. I write original American name.

219.160.54.113 (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have anything new to say? Because all you've done is call people reverting your edits "conceited" and claiming that it's an "insult" to not include Japanese names for everything. Any arguments to the contrary have been called "stupid" with no real counterargument. If it makes you feel better, Japanese game titles are included in the articles on the Ace Attorney games and Japanese character names are included in the article on Ace Attorney characters. Having them anywhere else is, again, unnecessary.

Unless you can provide an actual reason as to why doing it this way is "stupid", this conversation is over. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Title naming discussion

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney:_Revenge_of_the_Colons. Your input is appreciated! Axem Titanium (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)