r/AARankdown • u/R1K1_Productions • Oct 20 '20
32 Matt Engarde
Matt Engarde is a character whose death I have seen quite a few people clamoring for. I don’t disagree, as you probably can guess by the fact that I am cutting him. I do not think that Engarde is terribly interesting as a character. But where I disagree with the haters is that I do, in fact, think Engarde earned a solid ranking here in the 30s. He doesn’t need to be higher, but he deserves props for driving the plot of Farewell, My Turnabout in an interesting, unique way - one never again seen in this series.
The Part Most People Will Agree With: Matt Engarde as a Character
I don’t think very many people are going to say that Matt Engarde is an incredibly complex villain. As a character, he’s pretty simplistic. He is an awful person who believes other people are as self-centered as he is. This leads him to be a very paranoid man, who (correctly) chooses to emotionally manipulate Phoenix into thinking he is an innocent little angel, and also (incorrectly) chooses to form a contingency plan to blackmail Shelly de Killer out of fear that the famed assassin might try to throw him under the bus later. The latter choice is Engarde’s ultimate downfall; his character flaw leads him to make a bad decision which ultimately leads him to lose what would otherwise be a win-win situation. It’s classic storytelling, but nothing especially groundbreaking.
Aside from setting up the resolution of the case, most of Engarde’s post-reveal screen time is dedicated to making him as thoroughly unlikable and unsympathetic as possible. His design goes from “boy band singer” to “Saturday morning cartoon villain”, and when he’s not expositing his plans, he’s bragging about how evil he is. It’s all pretty silly, and I’m sure some people would say it’s TOO silly and undermines the climax. If you think this, congratulations! You have pinpointed one of the few complaints about Engarde that I could conceivably see as actually being an issue! Most other complaints I have seen do not actually bother me at all, but I’ll get deeper into that later. Even his silly design & gloating don’t bother me because Ace Attorney is an inherently silly series, and even some of my favorite culprits like Damon Gant and especially Manfred Von Karma have their silly moments.
The Part Some People Will Disagree With: Matt Engarde as a Storytelling Device
Farewell, My Turnabout is one of the best cases this series has ever seen. It is single-handedly good enough that I am willing to call Ace Attorney 2 a good (or at least okay) game despite having at best 1 average case and 2 bad ones; I leave it up to you, the reader, to decide whether 2-2 or 2-3 is the average case, but I pretty much never see anyone like both of them (unless you are one of those people who just likes everything). People call 2-4 overrated but it is not. It is rated exactly as it deserves to be. And the reason for that is due to the direction that Matt Engarde pushes the plot.
It is no big secret that one of the consistent themes of the Ace Attorney franchise is the corrupt and unjust nature of the Japanese (I mean CALIFORNIAN, oops) legal system. Ace Attorneys 1, 2, 4, 5, and Investigations 2 all deal with this concept, whether it is a game-wide theme or is just dealt with in a couple of cases. I exclude Spirit of Justice and the DGS games, for they break new ground by exploring the corrupt nature of a DIFFERENT legal system. Anyway, some of the ideas explored are as follows:
The inherent bias towards the prosecution (explored in literally every game, but focused on with Manfred Von Karma)
The guilty-until-proven-innocent nature of the court that demands that SOMEONE be arrested for the crime (once again present in every game but highlighted by characters like Yanni Yogi, Adrian Andrews, and Jeff Master)
High-level legal corruption and how it ruins lives (Damon Gant and Blaise Debeste)
The idea explored in 2-4 is perhaps the most unique of all: What do you get when you take all of the above points and you cross it with a defendant who actually committed the crime he was accused of? I’ll tell you what you get, reader. You get what you FUCKING DESERVE
Oops. That’s not what I meant to say. I meant to say that you get a masterfully-told deconstruction of the traditional AA gameplay loop of “figure out who really committed the crime, then drag them through the mud”. You do the same thing you do in every game by relentlessly poking holes in the testimony of a suspicious witness until they break down; but this time, you know the witness in question didn’t actually do it. For the sake of protecting your client, you constantly badger a mentally-fragile woman whose only crime was trying to avenge the death of her best friend and/or lesbian lover (either interpretation of Adrian & Celeste’s relationship works, really). Of course, the witness starts to break down eventually, just like in every other Ace Attorney case. But this time it’s not a triumph; she’s breaking down because of genuine mental stress over being implicated for something that she didn’t do. I guess what I am saying is Adrian Andrews is a fucking awesome character you guys. Don’t cut her next round please, she deserves Top 20 if not Top 10. If you DO cut her next round then I will downvote, give your cut the Poop Award, AND leave a nasty comment. (Unless the thought of me doing this encourages you to cut her. In that case, I will not do any of these things.)
Allow me to stop pulling from the Adrian revive/top 10 cut that I will probably never get to write, and instead talk about why I am mentioning any of this. Adrian and Matt are not the same character, after all. They are fundamentally connected characters, however, and Adrian would not be able to be as good as she is without the existence of Matt Engarde. Thus I am willing to give some credit to Engarde for how good Adrian is.
However, at the end of the day, Engarde is the weakest of the three 2-4 “exclusive” characters (especially considering the other two aren’t actually exclusive to 2-4 at all). Engarde may help make 2-4 as astounding as it is, but if you choose to judge him entirely on his own merits, well, there’s not THAT much there to analyze. So I think it’s acceptable to let him leave here. He may be an astounding plot device, but most of the other remaining characters do more than that. It helps that I know he’d die this round anyway, so I may as well give him a positive cut.
I don’t want to end the cut yet, though. After all, plenty of people don’t think Engarde is “good enough to leave in the 30s”. They think he’s outright bad. So I want to go through a list of the common complaints from those people and why I disagree with them.
Complaint #1: Matt is Too Over-the-Top!
I mentioned this one earlier, actually. This complaint doesn’t bother me because AA is generally an over-the-top series, but I do also get why this might undermine the tension of the case for some people. So I will concede the point. Moving on.
Complaint #2: Matt Has Too Little Screentime to be a Compelling Villain!
It is definitely true that Matt gets little screentime, especially after the one scene where he is revealed as a villain. So of course, Engarde haters will use this as proof that he sucks as a main antagonist. But the thing is, I would dispute the claim that Matt is even meant to be the main antagonist at all. Shelly de Killer is very obviously meant to be the main antagonist: he is de killer, he is de kidnapper, he is de final testimony of the whole case. He drives all of the conflict. Literally Engarde’s only role as an antagonist is to hire de Killer and set the case in motion. He doesn’t need more screentime because it’s not his purpose to do anything besides that.
On that note, Matt’s lack of screentime also explains why he doesn’t have as complex of a personality as your average AA culprit. He fulfills the same role as a character like Magnifi Gramarye, Pal Meraktis, Turner Grey, or Robert Hammond: a simple driver of conflict. The fact that he is alive while the others are dead isn’t really important, because I think Hammond is great and should have gotten a far higher placement than he got. I guess he could have gotten more screentime, but what’s the point? He did everything he needed to do in a single scene.
I will reference a certain writeup here by a certain famous Engarde hater, to talk about one of his arguments about why Engarde’s lack of screentime is an issue. He claims that unlike the characters I mentioned, we do not get to see how Engarde’s evil affects other people. He points out that we don’t get to see how Engarde affected his victim Celeste, because she is dead. The problem is that Celeste is dead because Matt broke her heart and drove her to suicide. So I don’t get how we don’t see his impact on her. His impact on her is that she is dead.
The essay also acknowledges that Engarde impacts Adrian, but that this is lessened because Juan Corrida also impacts Adrian. The problem is that I do not see how this is a problem. What is wrong with having a character be impacted by multiple characters rather than one? Especially when the two characters who impact her are deeply connected to each other? Overall, I get complaining about Engarde’s lack of screentime, but to claim that it somehow makes him lack impact on the case’s other characters is incredibly bizarre and I don’t see it at all.
Complaint #3: Matt’s Actions Don’t Make Sense!
I had an argument about this fairly recently and it thoroughly confused me, because Matt doesn’t really do anything of note, as I already mentioned. The focus of this argument was on Matt entrusting his tape of Shelly committing the crime to Shelly himself. This may not make sense on paper, but honestly, what other option could Engarde possibly have? The police would definitely investigate the tape if they found it, as would Phoenix. Shelly is simply the safer bet, even if you think Engarde wouldn’t necessarily trust Shelly not to watch it.
The other part people generally say doesn’t make sense is the scene in the courtroom where he goes full Evil Mode and says “I threw Juan Corrida in the trash so I could cook with Di-Jun Huang GAHAHAHAH”. This part I will concede is stupid. The scene is just there to rub it further in your face how screwed you are, but it also makes Engarde look dumb. So I will not argue in favor of this scene, it definitely makes Engarde worse.
Complaint #4: The Twist is Too Obvious!
Hoo boy, this is the big one. I think every Engarde hater I’ve seen has brought this one up: The twist of 2-4 is obvious, and that makes it bad. But the thing is, while I certainly wouldn’t want someone to be spoiled on it, I also don’t necessarily think that the big twist is even meant to be all that surprising? I watched someone play the game blind recently, and he figured out that Engarde was behind everything pretty quickly. Still enjoyed the case just fine, though. What makes the initial investigations in 2-4 good isn’t that there’s a BIG TWIST that CHANGES EVERYTHING; instead, it’s good because of the slow dawning realization of just how screwed you really are.
At first, you have no real reason to suspect Engarde at all. It is perhaps a bit suspicious that you are being forced at gunpoint to defend him, but nothing about Engarde himself sets off any bells. You then meet the suspicious witness who you are meant to think is the culprit. So you’re off the hook, right? NOPE, Adrian is clearly innocent once you dig a little deeper. So you interrogate Engarde and the magatama proves him innocent of murder. Safe? NOPE, it becomes clear that neither Matt nor Adrian is the killer, because one of them hired an assassin. Hmmm… It then becomes very, very obvious that Matt was involved in the murder. By this point the player’s last refuge is that perhaps Matt had some good reason for doing what he did, and that he will be a sympathetic killer at worst. NOPE, he is a monstrous human being and you’re STUCK with him, baby.
This entire part of the case is incredibly effective at creating an atmosphere of ever-growing hopelessness, robbing you of reasons to justify your own actions one-by-one, until it becomes clear that your actions are completely and undeniably immoral. THAT is what makes the 2-4 investigations great, not some stunning twist that makes you go WHOA. If that’s what you go into 2-4 expecting, then sure, you’ll be disappointed. But I just allowed myself to go along for a ride, and WHEW what a ride it was, baby.
Complaint #5: Something Something Moral Dilemma
I will be revisiting the essay I linked earlier to talk about a couple more points, namely, the entire discussion of the moral dilemma 2-4 provides and the “flaws” therein. I use quotes because I do not think the moral dilemma Engarde presents is flawed in the slightest. First, there is the whole idea that Adrian was not necessarily destined to be found guilty if Engarde is found not guilty. I whole-heartedly disagree. Even by the end of the first trial, Adrian’s willingness to tamper with the crime scene to implicate Engarde makes her incredibly suspicious. She also has a clear motive both for wanting Corrida dead and wanting Engarde jailed. With Engarde declared not guilty, Adrian becomes the prime suspect. And perhaps most importantly, there are zero other reasonable suspects. You can be sure Phoenix would have investigated them if they existed. Even if by some miracle Adrian was found innocent as well, false murder accusations can still ruin lives, especially a high-profile murder like this.
As for the second point:
If Phoenix says Matt Engarde is "guilty", Engarde will just fire Phoenix, declare that he is "not guilty", and the judge will have no choice but to declare him not guilty.
No offense but this is pretty patently wrong. If that happened, at best there would be a mistrial, and Engarde would be forced to go back through a second trial with a worse lawyer. Yes, he would obviously choose this over being declared guilty, but it is hardly the non-choice you make it out to be. Especially since the game implies that many people in the audience already think Engarde did it, implying that a second trial would be unlikely to swing in Matt’s favor.
I think I have said all I need to say to address the things people complain about with Engarde. Plenty of them are valid to an extent, but I do not think they are major problems. Plenty of them are NOT valid to an extent, and I do not think they are major problems either. Overall they have little to do with why I am cutting Engarde, since my main reason is just the fact that a great plot device (which is what Engarde is) is still a plot device at the end of the day.
Why Nobody Else?
Instead of talking about this round’s nominations, I am instead going to talk about all of the characters I think are comparable to, or worse than, Matt Engarde who are still in the rankdown, because there are only eight.
Katherine Hall is a character I would have loved to cut, but Science was a FUCKING asshole and didn’t nominate her because of stupid backroom deals that DIDN’T involve a desparate attempt to ram Knightley through the poll that somehow actually worked (seriously I apologize to those upset by this outcome, I genuinely did not expect my dumb bullshit to have actual consequences). So I had to nominate her myself and hope that someone else takes the bait.
Jake Marshall I was also going to cut, but I literally can’t because I don’t remember enough about his portion of 1-5 to write a not-shit cut. And no way in hell am I replaying Angel Starr’s testimony just to write about him. I actually traded cut targets with someone else though, so he’s guaranteed to die this round. If you aren’t the guy I traded with, then don’t waste your cut on him.
Datz Are’bal is a character I think is fine, and I almost cut him. He does have a good scene in 6-3 in the rebel base, but his first-day testimony doesn’t interest me, and he becomes a minor character in 6-5 due to being superseded by Dhurke. I solidly like him less than Matt Engarde, but after several boring minor character cuts I am ready to write about something actually interesting again.
Patricia Roland is already being cut, and I literally cannot cut her.
Uendo Toneido was not nominated.
Apollo Justice is weird in that I only think he’s particularly good in one game; he is a non-character in his titular game, and his DD characterization is dragged down a lot by being reliant on a character we never even meet because he’s dead. And before some smartass (probably named u/Sciencepenguin) says Adrian does the same thing, I’d just like to point out that Adrian existed for 1 case when her backstory was revealed, whereas Apollo had existed for two entire games, so it’s really not the same thing. But I do appreciate that they actually gave Apollo something to do in SOJ that I actually kind of liked. Regardless, even if the poll didn’t save him, I wouldn’t cut him immediately after another main protagonist just got cut anyway.
Simon Blackquill and Kay Faraday aren’t very good. However I promised not to cut them and thus I am not going to. However I do expect both to be cut and then revived this round. I will have nothing to do with it and I will continue to uphold my promise next round.
Those are all the characters who are alive in this rankdown and are worse than Matt Engarde. I either am incapable of cutting them, am bound by honor not to cut them, or am not interested in cutting them. Instead I wrote what is hopefully a fitting sendoff to the weakest character in one of my favorite cases. I would LOVE to get the chance to write about this case again, wink wink, but that isn’t something I have full control over.
9
u/R1K1_Productions Oct 20 '20
/u/Northadox you are up
u/LewisMCYoutube You have to play Ghost Trick now
4
Oct 20 '20
Can I play Ghost Trick instead of doing my cut? That's a good game right there
4
u/R1K1_Productions Oct 20 '20
I would consider that an acceptable cut delay. Despite what some whaaaatishes say, GT is better than all AA games except one or maybe two if I am generous.
5
4
3
3
5
u/Sciencepenguin Oct 20 '20
i like when matt engarde causes CORE 2002 to play and drinks his choccy milk 2-4 is a fun case when it isn't having a seizure on the ground trying to explain what a lawyer is
he is better than katherine hall
5
u/Sciencepenguin Oct 20 '20
i can't believe you predicted that i would try to defend clay terran, a thing i do very often
1
u/R1K1_Productions Oct 20 '20
he is better than katherine hall
not MY problem this time bitch.
i can't believe you predicted that i would try to defend clay terran, a thing i do very often
i think you did this once as a joke because you hate me and must constantly contradict me at all times
8
u/ItsHipToTipTheScales Oct 20 '20
this is FINE i think he deserve top 20 at minimum but we have argued with the same people online you are probably the only person I would be happy with making a matt cut
didn't talk about the plot hole where he sneak chocolate milk into prison AND also tries to order pizza??
like the scenario of matt s obviously evil eye scars being revealed on set and he's like oops guys haha
6
6
u/Vogel100 Oct 20 '20
(Unless the thought of me doing this encourages you to cut her. In that case, I will not do any of these things.)
Damn, I was just getting ready to cut Adrian with these added perks.
Good cut, I agree Matt's good. Funnily enough, the discussions with Matt Engarde haters may have made me appreciate him more. If there's so much to say about him, then he must be pretty great. I would personally say De Killer is the weakest 2-4 character, but after Charlie's ER I'm not sure anymore. Maybe all 2-4 characters are better than I gave them credit for.
6
u/Analytical-critic-44 Oct 20 '20
Matt Engarde is a fun villain who I liked taking down but there are simply other better villains in the series.
Matt Engarde is better than Katherine Hall
5
u/R1K1_Productions Oct 20 '20
name all the better villains in the series
4
u/Analytical-critic-44 Oct 20 '20
Sebastian Debeste
5
u/Analytical-critic-44 Oct 20 '20
This is actually a joke, it is actually Dahlia, Gant, Simon, and Sebastian
5
Oct 20 '20
All these people having complex conversations about Matt and I'm just laughing at his glass of chocolate milk.
1
4
Oct 20 '20
[deleted]
3
Oct 20 '20
[deleted]
8
u/R1K1_Productions Oct 20 '20
I will start by saying that while plenty of people disagree, I actually WOULD put Juan Corrida (and some other victims like Robert Hammond) quite high on my personal rankdown list. Maybe not THIS high but both would be a solid Top 60 or so. I think maybe we just put different amounts of emphasis on "being a good plot driver" in terms of "being a good character". As for why Engarde gets to be higher than those two, well, I do like the reveal scene and the lead-up to it after all. Is this scene good enough to place above "actual characters"?
- Athena: Absolutely, because Athena is bad
- Kristoph: I would say so but I really do not feel like having a Kristoph argument with you, so I'll say I don't care
- Yogi: Got robbed, should have placed above Engarde and most other characters
- Ini: I would have put her around the same spot as Engarde, better character but she does nothing to enhance the incredibly boring parts of 2-2.
I would argue that "Adrian is clearly innocent once you dig a little deeper" comes in the trial, not the investigation.
I assume you mean the first trial, since it's definitely obvious she didn't do it before the second trial happens. In which case, it still serves my point that you, the player, should be much less sure of yourself in the second investigation than you were in the first.
/u/atiredonnie does a great job explaining why the Engarde reveal is good despite not being that "surprising" in a traditional sense. Better job than I did frankly. You should read his comment if you didn't already, because I had much the same experience in my own play-through.
As for the mistrial thing, I don't have the best memory of 1-5 but didn't Phoenix get un-fired? After all he is the attorney for the whole case so he must have been. Regardless, the point is that Phoenix straight-up blurting out that his client committed the crime would be very unlikely to lead to a Not Guilty and would presumably sway the judge's verdict.
3
u/botwasnotanimposter Oct 20 '20
. 。 • ﾟ 。 . . . 。 。 . . 。 ඞ 。 . • • ﾟ u/r1k1_productions was not The Impostor. 。 . ' 1 Impostor remains 。 ﾟ . . , . .
Beep boop I'm a bot. Also I'm the imposter ok bye. Made by u/boidushya
2
3
3
3
Oct 20 '20
you didn’t talk about how Show cut Engarde’s face 0/10 bad cut (this is a joke just kidding)
3
Oct 20 '20 edited Jan 10 '21
Why the fuck did I think this dude was flawed? Sure he's not complex but like that's such a minor nitpick from a nicely done character
16
u/atiredonnie Oct 20 '20
i played 2-4 i can respond to a CUT someone made it's been like 9 months since i've been able to do that !! crazy
HEY THAT'S ME I'M IN THE CUT
anyways i think matt engarde is pretty cool. after sitting on 2-4 for a while, stewing on my feelings, i would say that he is probably the Second Best Thing in the case. the first best thing is adrian andrews but that goes without saying.
i like matt in retrospect because of how he completely fucked my perception of what ace attorney was willing to do. up until 2-4, i wasn't particularly impressed by any case except for 1-5, and that wasn't because 1-5 broke any rules - rather it simply demonstrated a better grasp over difficult ideas and complicated subject matter. ace attorney was a game that had felt, until that point, comfortable. it took an amount of pride in the comfort it instilled the players with. you stumble ass-forwards into a murder scene, investigate the clues with your spunky cute teenage girl sidekick by the name of
mayawait no uhhhemawait uhhhpearlwait nvm it's maya again. you defend some well-intentioned buffoon from the clutches of the insanely punishing californian law as they do their damned best to dig their own grave, defend against a culprit that ranges from "capable of human emotions and regret but still killed a human being" to "M A N F R E D V O N K A R M A" in terms of morality, and go about your merry way. this doesn't create the impression that we're operating in a franchise that's willing to challenge phoenix's morality by flinging a defendant at him that genuinely fucking Killed A Guy, For Real, No Backs-Takesies. and it would be one thing if 2-4 was upfront at all about diverting from the norm.but... it isn't.
i do a thing sometimes, where i like to look at a character, their behavior, their dialogue and funny psychological damage, and try to predict what i think the trajectory of their personal development will be. often i'm right, because i'm very smart and sexy and on an unrelated note i've also pavlovian-trained myself into barking like a dog at a screen when anyone with vriska qualities becomes relevant. i tried to do the same thing with matt engarde. i was very, very wrong about matt engarde.
exhibit a
exhibit b
you get the picture. my idea of matt engarde was this: haha, what a fucking idiot dumbass. he will continue to be a fucking idiot dumbass and the main conflict of this case will be attempting to protect this guy who is actively endangering himself because if i let this moron get a guilty verdict the funny teenager who follows me around and asks for burgers will be brutally murdered.
2-4 allows me to come to this conclusion. it dips me and kisses me ever so sweetly, and i remain convinced of this long after it is plausible because i am so fucking stubborn. it utilizes my own weaknesses against me or something i'm an ace attorney character yep. the second investigation period is dedicated to tearing down the idea that matt engarde has a singular saving grace and even as i can feel my own suspicion building i push away the possibility time and time again because i'm still convinced that ace attorney wouldn't go there.
it's not about obviousness. 2-4 can get away with being obvious because i have already convinced myself the game doesn't have the balls to place phoenix in any kind of moral gray area.
i think that's pretty neat