I know. I acknowledged this.Bad Player wrote:Yes Lind, it's not just an AA game, but also a Layton game.
I'm not entirely sure what point you're making here.
Moderators: EN - Assistant Moderators, EN - Forum Moderators
I know. I acknowledged this.Bad Player wrote:Yes Lind, it's not just an AA game, but also a Layton game.
And this means they aren't bad things because...?Bad Player wrote:Because basically all your complaints are hallmarks of Layton games?
Explain how.Bad Player wrote:That doesn't mean it isn't bad, but you're using a silly set of standards to judge the game
Well, you can't really call a game bad for perfectly catching/doing what it's supposed to do, can you? Honestly, I consider this my favorite AA game. It carried all the good of the visual in AA, but also carried with it a much more interesting overarching story. The fact is, your gripes are either complaining that the game isn't what you thought it was or doing EXACTLY what it was supposed to do. Aka. Be both an AA and a LAYTON game. You can't judge a dog as bad because it wasn't a cat, or an orange as bad since it wasn't an apple. And that's what you're doing here. Maybe if this was just an AA game you'd have a point. But it isn't. It's half a Professor Layton game. And I felt, while they didn't blend together seamlessly, giving the investigation style to that of the layton games and the trial segments to that of the Ace Attorney games is quite a fair compromise. And, further more, the outlandish and crazy twist at the end is a STAPLE of the Layton franchise in the same way that crazy breakdowns or putting a different prosecutor on the bench for the final trial is a staple of the AA games. You can say you didn't care for it, I guess? But you can't say it's BAD as a result. You're complaining about a stylistic choice that is a constant within what half of the crossover is. This isn't Ace Attorney Vs Ace Attorney. As for the plot holes, sure I noticed a few but if you think about them there's a very easy explanation for most of them. Or they're actually addressed in the bonus episodes.Lind wrote:Explain how.Bad Player wrote:That doesn't mean it isn't bad, but you're using a silly set of standards to judge the game
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's "bad" so much as just "not great". My point there was more that there were maybe 5 characters with enough screentime to be fully fleshed-out, and of them only two really worked for me.Nearavex wrote:Spoiler : :
Well, actually, I can. If someone tried to do something that wasn't a good idea, and succeeded, that doesn't make it a good idea.enigma wrote:Well, you can't really call a game bad for perfectly catching/doing what it's supposed to do, can you?
enigma wrote:And, further more, the outlandish and crazy twist at the end is a STAPLE of the Layton franchise in the same way that crazy breakdowns or putting a different prosecutor on the bench for the final trial is a staple of the AA games.
So yes, I don't mind that the twist is completely absurd - I mean, I can't say I like that, but I wouldn't have called that bad in of itself. My problem is that there is literally no way we could have figured it out ourselves.Lind wrote:...and I wouldn't have minded it that much, if it had been even remotely possible for us to work it out. But no, instead, Layton figures out the whole thing in the background by extrapolating from a ridiculously tiny amount of information because he is completely perfect.
I watched the bonus episodes after writing that, but they just raised further questions - they pretty much flat-out admitted that it was a plot hole that made no sense.enigma wrote:As for the plot holes, sure I noticed a few but if you think about them there's a very easy explanation for most of them. Or they're actually addressed in the bonus episodes.
Okay, listen. Knox and Van Dine are not an infallible set of rules that absolutely have to be followed. Several of these rules have not aged well. However, that does not mean you aren't taking a risk by ignoring them completely. Notice how the game actually broke a lot more Knox and Van Dine than just the ones I listed? That's because I only listed the ones that had negative consequences (in this context) for breaking.enigma wrote:Finally, do NOT apply Knox or Dine to this game.
"But you should have known it would be bad before you played it!" does not hold up as an argument, to me.enigma wrote:Complaining that a crossover between series' took elements from one of those series which you don't agree with is a terrible way of judging something as bad, because you should've guessed that both games would be represented going in.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the Layton series either. I think it completely fails as a mystery series. It does work as a long string of amusing puzzles for its own sake, though - but this isn't applicable to PLvsPWAA.Nearavex wrote:I pretty much given up on it, having tried the first two games. The pacing was way too slow for me and I was pretty much bored to death...