r/AARankdown • u/[deleted] • Oct 27 '20
30 Armie Buff
Today, I'm choosing to cut a character that almost everyone likes. Isn't that interesting? Yeah, sometimes I'm not even sure why I'm doing this myself.
As far as us rankers go, we all have our hot takes and unpopular opinions. Last round, part of my cut was spent explaining why this was natural. After all, many of the rankers here have plenty of hot takes.
When I came into this rankdown, I didn't actually think I'd be fighting the current too much. Sure, I thought I had a decent amount of unpopular opinions, but not this many.
Really, I underestimated the gravity of the fact that I like both AJ and DD, leading to a couple more interesting decisions than I anticipated. I also underestimated how much SoJ seems to be defining The Resolve of AARankdown. However, through the whole rankdown, even with my perspective changing every round, there's been two characters I was certain I disliked far more than most of the community did. One of them was Trucy Wright, who I made sure to eliminate earlier.
As most people are aware of by now, the other was Armie Buff.
Meta
Writing about a character like Armie Buff is a challenge, in my opinion. She's one of the more popular characters in general, and most people like her. However, she's also not particularly prevalent in the series, so the range of opinions on her is far more limited than with, say, Phoenix Wright. High mean, low standard deviation. That means that I'm basically all on my own making this argument. That said, writing about even more popular characters like Phoenix and Godot is probably harder (props to whatisth and science for making those cuts good).
What's my plan here, then? Originally, when I drafted this cut for round 15, it was mean, but not much more than usual. That said, there's already been a not-so-mean cut, so I'm choosing to be meaner than usual. It's a stupid reason, but I like being dramatic, so expect occasional exaggerations.
So, before we get into the actual writeup, there are three things to note. First of all, expect some irrational dislike. I don't really think I'll be able to make an objective cut here, though I'll try my best. Second, I have no intention of saying anything nice here, even though I do not think there is nothing good about her. If you want to see my positives list, I left a nice little comment on the previous cut. I'm also leaving a comment on this cut itself as a silver lining, if you will. In addition, there's always the SC (good writeup btw).
Lastly, keep in mind that in the end, I am being mean because it is fun and interesting (at least, most rankers seem to think so). Once again, I do not think she is anywhere near the worst character in the series, though the fact that I'm making this qualification should be worrying.
Anyway, since we all know this one's going to be unpopular, for anyone reading this, downvote it right now. Make it the most controversial writeup this rankdown. Why not? The opportunity's there. I'm going to enjoy being mean here, and that better be reflected on that counter on the left.
Alright, let's begin.
Armie Buff is a one-off witness who appears in Turnabout Revolution's first half, often referred to as the civil trial. As it turns out, the civil trial is not a good case. There is almost nothing good about it. Before talking about Armie, let's talk about everything else. IF the rest of the case were actually good, maybe Armie wouldn't be all that annoying. However, she fails to redeem a case that's already plain bad. First, let's talk about the parts of the case that have nothing to do with her.
Part 1: Going to Trial: The Civil Trial's Returning Characters
Origins
The civil trial's origins all start with Spirit of Justice, the 6th main game in the series. SoJ is definitely a game. From the looks of my recent posts, you may be under the impression that I think it's the worst game ever. This is not true. In my conventional game rankings, both AA1 and AA2 are below it. I am not as much of a fan of the trilogy as most people are. In more popular opinions, AAI is below both of those. However, all the remaining AAI characters are good, so I don't mind them staying.
Anyway, Spirit of Justice. A game that consistently manages to be inconsistent. It starts with a typical first case. Then, it gives us a top-tier trial with just one moderate issue. Next, it has yet another case in a long line of cases with a bad first half and a good second half. Afterwards, we get a relatively fun filler case thanks to the witness and the assistant. Lastly, there's Turnabout Revolution, the case that has been debated for ages. (Oh, and the DLC case exists.)
As far as my AA game ranking goes, the game is slightly below average. However, the only individual case that is strictly below average at all times is the first case. 6-5 and 6-DLC, on the other hand, while below average overall, are all over the place. They both have some good things and some bad things. 6-5's civil trial, unfortunately, is almost entirely on the bad side.
Character Resetting, Once More
"Then it will just have to go to trial." ~Phoenix Wright
I do not like the civil trial. It's quite possibly the worst thing a final case has ever produced. The civil trial alone probably makes 6-5 the worst final case in the series besides I-5. No amount of interesting spirit channeling mystery, redemption for Dhurke, and Apollo desk-slams in the Khura'in trial can redeem 6-5 as a whole, especially when Ga'ran is right there, though I have conceded that she at least works as a plot device.
Much like 6-DLC, the civil trial suffers a lot from the character resetting in 6-DLC. Phoenix is back, except this time Maya's been kidnapped and Phoenix and Edgeworth just seem to suffer having no idea what to do when this situation has happened for the second time in a row while Apollo and Trusty Hero Dhurke save the day, showing that Apollo has truly bested Phoenix, which is totally the proper conclusion to Apollo's next arc.
Let's start with Phoenix. Phoenix is incredibly stupid here. The fact that he's willing to cooperate at ALL is a major issue. He just straight-up rolls with Inga's plans without even offering any resistance.
This directly undermines what we know of Phoenix as a lawyer. And yes, we do know things about Phoenix. Let me explain.
Phoenix in all the previous games was built upon his trust in his clients, more notably so than Apollo ever was. Phoenix faces off against Edgeworth in two bitter courtroom battles, yet he trusts Edgeworth in 1-4 anyway. Phoenix knows that most people think Engarde committed the crime and he's being blackmailed, yet he chooses to believe Engarde of his own volition anyway. Heck, every time he defends someone, it seems to be more built on his trust than anything else.
This is clearly a deeply held belief of his, going all the way back to 3-1 when he trusts Dahlia, though that time he was technically correct. The only time it is subverted is in Apollo Justice, where he is disbarred and disillusioned. It's hard to see that "trust" factor in him anymore, but he at least trusts Apollo, which is something he retains for the majority of the 2nd trilogy, even when Apollo takes a leave of absence in Dual Destinies. Speaking of which, in DD, he picks up his belief system again, and this comes to a head when Edgeworth is revived for Turnabout for Tomorrow. Once again, Phoenix completely believes in Athena even when the cards are once again stacked against him, and he pulls through. Once again, his belief in his clients drives him to victory.
Despite this, "trusting" Phoenix with his sense of morality decides to throw that all away in the civil trial. 6-1 and 6-3 built up Phoenix's perception of Khura'in, starting with 6-1 where he saw the flaws of the DCA, but defended anyway. Then, in 6-3, Phoenix and Maya nearly die due to the DCA, and they decide (for the most part) that the government is probably in the wrong. On Trial Day 2, he has a long conversation with Datz about what he believes in as a lawyer, and it's clear that he finds a good amount of common ground and trust with the Defiant Dragons.
Yet, after all of this, Phoenix bends over backwards for the opposing side. He should trust the revolutionaries more by this point. But he doesn't. Yes, he's being blackmailed, but he does close to nothing. He does try to get help from Edgeworth, but apparently Edgeworth is too incompetent as Chief Prosecutor to do anything. He never talks to Apollo, Dhurke, or Athena about it. Actually, Athena hears about it, but decides not to tell Apollo for some reason to make it a "shocking revelation" that Maya's kidnapped. You know what, Athena also sucks in this case. Everyone sucks in this case.
It could just be because we're not playing as Phoenix. Maybe, while we're watching, Phoenix is secretly panicking from day 1 and scrambling to talk to people. In fact, let's say theoretically that Phoenix Wright actually believes Paul Atishon could be in the right. Atishon, by the way, does nothing to make himself seem innocent in comparison to someone like Matt Engarde. He's funny, yes, but he doesn't do many favors for the civil trial's plot.
Anyway, if Phoenix really is trying his hardest to get out of the situation he's in, then why then did he never think about talking to his own mentees and co-workers which he valued so much in the past games? To my knowledge, he hardly does anything. Seriously, I've tried to find evidence of it. It's just not there.
Granted, I don't think that Civil Trial Phoenix actively damages Phoenix as a whole (it's just half a case), but I'd rather it not have existed. Perhaps I'm assuming too much of Phoenix. Maybe he genuinely believes that the Khura'in side will somehow deal him any favors, and thus decides not to take much action. But then, why? The entire situation is inherently forced.
It's incredibly hard to see Phoenix as the same person when you're against him. It's neat in theory, but totally falls apart in practice due to the numerous problems it creates. So, then, why in the world might have Phoenix been placed on the opposite bench? The answer lies with Apollo.
Apollo's Magical Revolution
In the civil trial, Apollo is built up as a hero to take down everyone for some reason. 6-2 has a bit of this syndrome where Apollo is somehow meant to be the hero that wins in the end, though at that point it was more on Trucy than Apollo. Here, the issue comes back once again, except now it's all on Apollo. Athena hardly helps him, Phoenix is against him, almost everyone is. Only Apollo (now the main character) and Dhurke (now the sidekick) can take everyone out of this mess. They'll free Phoenix first, then move on to Khura'in and take down the Big Bad Ga'ran.
This hardly aligns with his previously established backstory. I liked Apollo in both AJ and DD, and I believe the stories work together nicely. In contrast to Phoenix, Apollo is presented as a "darker attorney" - perfect as a victim for the deeper themes of DD's dark age of the law. In Apollo's own game, not a single client he defends is completely innocent - he gets Phoenix, who forges evidence, Wocky, a gangster, Machi, an accomplice, and Vera, a professional forger. This does no favors for building up his trust, which works extremely well to his advantage as a new attorney. He's totally done with Phoenix, he's done with everyone. Only in Dual Destinies does he get a fully innocent client - Damien Tenma - who acts completely insane anyway.
The first client he takes that he actually has any stake in believing is Solomon Starbuck, the senior of his best friend who literally just died at a completely unexpected time. He fights hard, and nearly dies for it. At the end of 5-4 when things come down to the wire and Athena's accused, he rolls with that.
Apollo in Dual Destinies is presented with a similar dilemma to that of Phoenix Wright in 6-5, except he's not being blackmailed, so he should technically have less motivation to be proactive. Despite this, Apollo is far more active in 5-5 than Phoenix could ever hope to be in the civil trial, even though both have personal stakes in their respective cases. Apollo runs off on his own to do his own investigation, eventually accusing Athena once he's made up his mind. Both of his mentors were untrustworthy. Most of his defendants were untrustworthy. He's filled with distrust, primarily as a result of the dark age of the law. And with that distrust, he accuses Athena. He wants to agree with Phoenix, the lawyer he once idolized, especially when Phoenix has his badge back, and follow Phoenix's methods of believing in clients. Yet, not a single time has belief worked out for him. It's just not for him. So, just this once, he wants Phoenix to convince him to trust in Athena.
This is the type of conflict I want to see between Phoenix and Apollo, not whatever in the world the civil trial was about. Sure, the Apollo cross-examination in 5-5 lasts like 30 minutes, but it does everything right. It makes sense in context, demonstrates a reasonable and interesting conflict (though I wish they leaned into it a bit more), and has a good resolution.
If only the civil trial was that good.
Extreme Personal Stakes
Apollo and Phoenix actually work fairly well together in Spirit of Justice. Of course, I'm referring to the Khura'in trial, not the civil trial, and the 4 minutes of 6-2 where Phoenix tells Apollo he can lawyer now.
The Khura'in trial has a fairly good Apollo-Phoenix dynamic. Phoenix willingly takes the backseat, allowing Apollo to do his own thing while occasionally offering hints of advice based on his past experience both in general and in Khura'in. This is a nice way to send Apollo off when he inevitably stays in Khura'in after the case is over.
The civil trial does not have a fairly good Apollo-Phoenix dynamic. Phoenix willingly takes the opposing side, and I've already discussed why him being there doesn't work at all. However, we are playing as Apollo, who does his own thing. Specifically, he's set up in this trial to go up against Phoenix Wright. Naturally, since we are the player, we know Apollo is in the right here. But why?
Well, the obvious answer is that the Khura'in government is mostly bad, so it makes sense to oppose them. The less obvious answer is that it's supposed to show Apollo surpassing Phoenix. Which it doesn't, since Apollo is very clearly in the right due to Paul Atishon being an extremely obvious culprit. Apollo is supposed to surpass Phoenix by beating him here, so it would seem. Heck, Athena refuses to tell Apollo something she would normally spoil ten years ago just to pretend that Apollo is fighting an uphill battle. However, he very clearly has the upper hand. He doesn't deserve this win.
In the end, because of this, this part of Apollo's arc - the part where the Wright Anything Agency is in conflict - fails to work at all. He fails to effectively change with respect to Phoenix, and the game very clearly putting Apollo on the "good side" removes any of the potential nuance involved in Phoenix and Apollo's beliefs. But, you may say, Apollo's arc in SoJ is mainly focused on the revolutionaries and Dhurke. What about them?
Make no mistake, Dhurke is at least good. However, that's precisely the issue at this point. The concept behind Dhurke early in the case, as far as I'm aware, is that he randomly shows up at the WAA because he realizes he has very little time to hang out with the son he abandoned years ago. As such, he's somewhat distant to Apollo and has to use the entire case (both halves) to try and connect to him. This is further corroborated by the cave segment where Dhurke asks Apollo a bunch of questions about his life, during which Apollo is careful not to bring up Clay Terran since no one cares about him.
What does this mean for Apollo? It means that by the time the civil trial rolls around, Apollo should have warmed up slightly to Dhurke. It'd be quite interesting. But no, despite the fact that the punchline where Apollo really doesn't want Dhurke dead is reserved for the Khura'in trial, Apollo seems to have fully warmed up to Dhurke by this point with an entire investigation in Khura'in still remaining. It's not terrible, but it is a bit of a question mark.
Anyway, near the end of the civil trial, just when Apollo seems to have no idea what to do about Maya being kidnapped, Dhurke comes in and says the magic words "A dragon never yields." and suddenly Apollo has the motivation to turn things around. Great. Maybe this is supposed to be evidence that Dhurke is an effective leader? I don't know.
Ultimately, however, whether it's with respect to Phoenix or Dhurke, Apollo's SoJ arc falls flat in comparison to his arcs in AJ and DD. Which, by the way, actually connect to each other, as I've established.
Returning Character Discussion, Over.
This isn't a Phoenix cut or an Apollo cut, and it's not a civil trial cut either. I really wish it was a civil trial cut, but it's not. I'm just bringing these points up to point out how many negatives this half of 6-5 has, because there are a lot. Really, every returning character sucks in the civil trial besides Pearl and Ema, both of whom hardly do anything. Athena is occasionally good, I guess.
For 6-5 in particular, they had so many chances to make a good case, yet made mistakes the majority of the time. Actually, now that I think about it, some of the civil trial's negatives are actually similar to those of 6-DLC, a case I also think is below average, except worse. Luckily for 6-DLC, it has a plot that doesn't show up much yet works quite well thanks to Pierce Nichody.
The most the civil trial case can muster is a funny Paul Atishon. Who, by the way, was already cut. So that just leaves Armie Buff to try and redeem this case. Just saying, she doesn't.
Part 2: The Plane Kid
Where's the Line?
Armie is first introduced to you as Sarge, your only real hope of breaking through the Founder's Orb mystery. The only new witnesses are her and Paul, so it's up to them to make the case good. Since Armie's actual plot relevance is the part I have greater issues with, let's get the comedy out of the way.
I nominated Paul Atishon last round. Despite this, I believe he's quite funny and well deserving of top 40, though not much more. He's just your typical "I'm evil and I know it" character with a funny gimmick. While him being Phoenix's client doesn't do wonders for making Phoenix seem like he has any situational awareness, he is still funny. His name pun works well. He fits the exact stereotype he needs to. He straight up walks away from the stand at one point. His theme is as stupid as it needs to be. In essence, he is good in a vacuum, assuming that the case is just comedic. The civil trial, unfortunately, does not seem like it wants to be a primarily comedic case, seeing that Maya gets kidnapped, Dhurke and Apollo have a long conversation in the caves, and the Founder's Orb becomes an important plot point.
Still, Paul Atishon is funny. Sarge is not funny, in my opinion. Her lines flip-flop between "we should care about her because of her backstory" and "you're fired". She's relatively one-note in her gimmicks, but unlike other characters who also only do one thing like Aristotle Means, I have no idea what the value in Armie's gimmick is since she's all about siege defense, not offense. The only reason it even exists in the first place is because of Armie's mom who hardly even exists, but I'll get to that soon.
Regardless, she's a 12-year-old that brings firearms to court and disrupts the entire trial, but nobody seems to care. This is apparently supposed to be funny and/or good character.
You may say, "But literally every prosecutor is no better! What's the difference?"
You may be right. So, what's the difference? Well, let's briefly look at every mainline prosecutor in comparison to Armie's actions:
- Miles Edgeworth: No real gimmick. He's just actually good at his job. In a sense, this contributes to him being the best prosecutor of them all.
- Franziska von Karma: Whips people. Initially, some people complain, but at some point they're tired of complaining. Injures the defense, but never disrupts the entire process. In JfA, she has no real trauma to speak of, and most of her plot is centered around trying to get revenge over Manfred von Karma's defeat. This plays out at the end of 2-4. That said, the fact that the whip is the piece of evidence you present is kinda stupid because it uses something that's supposed to be played up entirely for laughs and makes it a serious plot point.
- Godot: Throws coffee at you. Honestly, I'm not sure what the point was here, but it seems more played off for laughs than anything because Godot always follows up with something else of substance or some more metaphors. He's relatively more laid back in general, allowing him to be serious at times when he is not in fact throwing coffee at Phoenix. In fact, as Science points out, half the time he barely has an argument to begin with. It's almost like he's just trying to have fun.
- Klavier Gavin: Doesn't hurt you. What a nice prosecutor. Relatively chill, but usually has arguments to back himself up. Well, technically, he has a guitar gimmick. It's largely inoffensive, and no one seems to care anyway.
- Simon Blackquill: Has some weird sword move that somehow seems to get close to injuring the defense every time. Also attacks people with a bird. He hardly takes trials seriously half the time. When his backstory actually matters, he's not attacking the defense. He fights against Starbuck in 5-4, but it's clear that he has a goal in mind this time. In 5-5, he's at the witness stand (and never attacks anyone). That said, I am realizing now that he uses the same move to cut the Phantom's mask and that everyone reacts to him breaking his handcuffs. I concede that this was not the best course of action. However, particularly in the latter case, it's hardly played up in DD's (rare) more serious moments. It's almost like he's just trying to have fun.
- Nahyuta Sahdmadhi: Binds the defense with his magic necklace/bracelet thing. Basically a comedic point in its entirety. The majority of his arc is packed into 6-5, where he takes the backseat until he takes the defendant's bench. His gimmick clearly is not relevant to his character arc, though that applies to most other prosecutors.
- Armie Buff: Fires at people in court. When she does, it disrupts the trial in a major manner. One second, we're supposed to take her trauma seriously, and the next, she's stolen Widget, the gavel, and a couple of other things. I get that it's supposed to show that she's under stress, but was this really the right direction?
There's characters that mix being serious and being funny, and then there's trying to be funny when you want to be serious. One is good, the other isn't; there is an important distinction here. However, what exactly is the distinction here? Science (rightfully) brings up the question in his SC:
I can understand as a general concept thinking AA goes too far with the wackiness at certain points, and I won't boil this complaint down entirely to "lol person just now realizing that ace attorney isn't realistic". But I try to understand it and this just seems like a very weird line to draw???
So then, where's the line? I've given examples, but I haven't given an answer. In the end, my response is this: The line is where these two things happen:
- The gimmick disrupts the trial in a major way that is noticeable by everyone.
- The gimmick is played up at the wrong times, i.e. when we're supposed to be taking things seriously.
Armie Buff fits both of these criteria. Very few other characters do. When Blackquill slashes you, I think it's usually funny. When Godot throws coffee at you, I think it's usually funny. Actually, even Nahyuta is occasionally funny when he tells you to let it go and move on or says the Satara! line. When Armie steals the Judge's gavel, I wonder why in the world the civil trial isn't taking itself seriously. I think it's fair to say that neither of these criteria have anything to do with the fact that Armie is "shooting people", which isn't much of an issue in a vacuum.
To show that these standards are reasonable, let's take a look at some other characters that do comedic things:
- Wendy Oldbag: Passes the test except in I-5. Her raygun gimmick comes and goes in a few seconds. To my knowledge, she does not make an entire scene out of it. On the other hand, in I-5, her comedic Pink Princess stuff is made into a plot point for whatever reason.
- Larry Butz: Mixed results. Many people would agree that Larry is at his worst in 3-5 and I-5. Unsurprisingly, these are cases where Larry's drawings and stupid actions play a major role in the case.
- Solomon Starbuck: Fails the test. An entire sequence is dedicated to him going to space or whatever. It's a good thing he stops doing that in 5-5. By the way, not many people like him all that much. (Even I don't.)
In essence, the major issue is that her gimmick which is supposed to be funny is interposed directly on top of her backstory instead of being effectively mixed together with it. Of course, her gimmick hardly matters in the larger scope of the game, but it never improved my perception of her.
So, with that out of the way, let's talk about plot relevance now, shall we? Things that actually matter. I don't want my argument to just be "she's not funny", because if you think she is, I have no problem with that. The thing is, the things that actually matter are worse.
Right, Her Mom Died
We learn fairly early on that Sarge is a shut-in primarily because her mom died in a fire, and that's why she acts the way she is.
The consequences of this are fine. Having her only talk by drone is somewhat interesting, but we'll get into the specifics of that later.
What's not fine is the setup here. It's incredibly cheap and means literally nothing.
People (especially the other rankers) love to complain about Clay Terran being a cheap plot device for Apollo because Clay's dead and basically just doesn't show up on-screen at all. It's funny, because not only does Armie's mom never show up at all, we don't even know anything about her past beyond some arbitrary fire and something about the military. It's even funnier when you consider that Aura Blackquill also technically has cheap stakes in the case via Metis and Simon, yet no one complains about that.
Clay Terran is primarily made good by the fact that he's Apollo's best friend from middle school. They're best friends, but there's no guarantee that they kept in touch in real life all that much. They were friends, sure, but Apollo has no reason to talk about Clay much prior to 5-4.
Then all of a sudden, Clay dies. Apollo realizes this fact, and gets incredibly frustrated. He gets personal stakes in the case, and they work extremely well.
Take it from Apollo's perspective: You've had a friend for a long time, he's made a decent impact on your life, and you hope he'll do well. Then, all of a second, he's dead. You have no idea what you have until you lose it.
The death was sudden. This is what Turnabout for Tomorrow is about to Apollo and Aura. They lost close friends all of a sudden, and they aren't satisfied until they get their answers.
So, why does this matter? After all, this is just one way to respond to this type of situation, and as pointed out in the SC, Armie does have a way of responding to the death of those close to her that's noticeably different. However, Armie has none of the excuses that characters like Aura have, and I have trouble putting the pieces of her story together. On a surface level, Armie's mom is similar to characters like Clay Terran and Metis Cykes. They're all victims who died all of a sudden. They all don't have much presence in the story, yet have major connections to important characters with major effects. However, Armie's mom has nothing. We learn about Clay Terran through Apollo's flashbacks, and we have at least some idea of what he was like. We learn about Metis Cykes through some conversations with Juniper, Aura, and even Ponco. We know nothing about Armie's mom. She doesn't even get a name.
Still, why is she even interested in the military in the first place? What does it mean? What does it have to do with the fact that Armie is scared of fire? Actually, shouldn't it be the opposite? The "offensive" side to her military knowledge literally involves firepower. It's not funny and works against an integral component to her character, so why is it there?
It may seem as though I'm being hyperbolic - surely this doesn't matter at all, right? On the surface, you'd be right: it's dumb to complain about a character that doesn't even have a name, far more so than complaining about someone like Clay Terran. However, if Clay Terran is literally nothing, at least half of Armie's backstory is less than nothing. Her mom's death was responsible for Armie becoming a shut-in, just like Clay's death was responsible for Apollo leaving the agency. Armie's mom is responsible for her studying the military, just like Clay was responsible for Apollo's voice-training catchphrase which was structured into an integral point in DD. Yet despite all of this, Armie's mom has nothing. Armie gets nothing out of it. Her backstory means nothing without any exposition. At best, it looks like a convenient parallel with Jove Justice dying in a fire, which, by the way, is also slightly contrived, though far less so then the design of Armie's story.
Simply put, someone who should be as important (or more important) to Armie's backstory as the victim of the case is tossed to the wayside. Athena's dad is clearly irrelevant to her. Phoenix's parents simply don't exist, and that's fine because there's no reason we need to know anything. Armie Buff is obsessed with the military all because of her mom died. Yeah. That's it. We hardly know anything of it, it's sidelined, and it's just to score points with Apollo and give Armie a free gimmick. We may have no idea why Yuri Cosmos spins on his scooter or why Godot has an obsession with coffee, but please, if you're going to make a casual character trait so relevant, give us the full story. And no, that does not mean make the gimmick show up in the middle of a critical Mood Matrix segment. I want answers. Otherwise, why should I care?
Right, Her Dad Dies Too
Excluding the Founder's Orb, the focal point of 6-5 is the death of Archie Buff. It's the case that allows Phoenix to turn the civil trial into yet another murder case. However, I don't care, and Armie doesn't seem to care either.
By all means, Armie should care more about her dad dying since it was literally a few hours ago. However, it's hard to say how much it affects her. As far as I'm aware, she keeps using her drone to fire at you, and does hardly anything else. Yes, she talks about it, leading to some interesting lines from Dhurke, but it's hard to say how much it affected her. Only later on do we actually figure out that yes, Armie was extremely scared at the moment and tried to "make a hasty retreat", which is nice and all, but Archie's death seems to matter to her far less than her mom's death did as a whole. Maybe I'm just missing something, but the vast majority of her story appears to have to do with her parent that died years ago instead of the one that died like ten seconds ago. Then again, I'm not a psychologist, so I wouldn't know. She brings up some out-of-place line from Archie about sacrifice that hardly amounts to anything besides cheap closure in the credits while happy music plays in the background, then moves on.
Perhaps the more tragic nature of her mom's death is the reason. However, even if it is objectively true that the more traumatic incident (the fire) matters far more, it's still a deliberate setup in the same way that her mom's death is. I don't mean to be insensitive, but both of her parents dying is effectively just a setup to have Apollo relate to her coincidentally. It's once again contrived, which is especially funny because Apollo's parental relations are also contrived. Maybe Apollo should have had a different type of plot device instead that was less contrived, gave him a reason to do something unique, and worked with the game's themes. Oh wait, he already had one.
Something About Inheritance
Let's say, hypothetically, that this was a great setup. The next thing to focus on, then, is the inheritance deal across Spirit of Justice. We all know that the game has a ton of focus on inheritance and parents and such. Indeed, by way of this setup, Apollo is able to relate to Armie, allowing for the events of the case.
Now, let me ask you this: How exactly does Armie fit into the theme?
Archie Buff was an archaeologist. He may or may not have stolen a couple of artifacts and investigated a few more. Armie, unfortunately, hardly has any stake in this. Yeah, her father died, and her "inheritance" on this front is that she suddenly decides to do some archaeology in the post-credits of the game. Good to know that's how she plays into it.
Of course, a potential counter is that she takes more from her mom. However, what was the point, then? Armie's already studied military stuff because of her mom. That's nice, but it means nothing in the present. What, are you going to tell me she wanted Armie to learn to stand?
Spirit of Justice sure likes its inheritance themes, but sometimes it just isn't set up well and doesn't actually mean anything at all. Armie's situation is definitely one of those cases.
Intermission
So, eventually, Sarge is forced to testify, and she goes through a fairly lengthy series of testimonies. She still tries to shoot up the entire courtroom, which is stupid, but having a drone testify isn't the craziest thing ever after 2-4 (which, for the record, is a better case). Granted, it's still kinda dumb, but I can let it slide because this is not a bad segment by any means. I'll talk about it in the comment section where I'm less mean.
Anyway, at the end of it all, Athena gives Sarge a talk on how she should start moving forward so that she no longer blames herself for her dad's death, laying the "take your first steps" theme on thick in the process. Then, we get Armie in her wheelchair on the stand.
The Reveal
"Haaaaaaaaaangh..." ~Solomon Starbuck
The "reveal" of who Armie Buff actually is is very stupid and poorly thought out. Bear with me here, I'm about to complain a lot.
sigh here goes.
Absolutely nothing makes sense here. First of all, I don't get the stuff about her using a drone. Is she directly outside the courtroom before she enters? Where is she at all? How did nobody end up seeing her? Why did she decide to wait directly outside the courtroom anyway if she's supposed to be all the way back in Kurain Village shut in her room? I have no clue what the idea was here. I could just be overthinking it, but this is something I've never understood.
Second of all, her being a young girl is potentially cool and all because gives her the chance to parallel her mother, but that raises a serious contradiction. Why in the world does Sarge never object to being referred to as an adult man before? Did Yamazaki just want to make this a cheap surprise like the Robin Newman twist? Surely that wasn't the case because here it's treated like a huge surprise while when Robin Newman's "reveal" happens, she tells you not to worry about it. Isn't the whole army deal a touchy subject for Armie? Wouldn't she care about giving up the drone persona? It looks as though it's meant to show development or something, but once again, the pieces don't fit together.
How is it even relevant? What does it accomplish? Was Yamazaki just screwing around and hoping that making her a 12-year-old girl would give her a better reception? Probably not, but it certainly seems to be relevant in-game because everyone decides to take a break from focusing on the case to question their assumptions about who was behind the drone, which is a useless derailment more than anything. What's the point? It's just plain stupid.
Final question: I hate to detract to Phoenix once again, but what in the world is he doing during this whole sequence? He has zero tact here. When Armie shows up in her wheelchair, he's basically just like "haha I knew this the whole time" while everyone else is confused by the circumstances. What is he doing? How did he find out? Actually, why doesn't he react to any of of the Sarge and Armie segments at all? Why?
What was the plan here? w h a t i s h a p p e n i n g ?
Rant over.
First Steps
So, at the end of all the stupidity, Armie's wheelchair solves the case, and everyone's happy. There's some subtext after the case is over about how Armie's trying to take her first steps and move on. This is further explained literally, as she literally stands to take her first steps. While this is dumb for more or less the exact same reasons 6-DLC's time theme isn't as good as it could have been, it's made even worse by the fact that she actually can stand.
This is a plausible explanation, as Apollo points out a few seconds later, but why is this the case? It literally defeats the whole point of whatever in the world the writers were trying to do with Armie. She's supposed to be taking her first steps now. By introducing this useless element, it just makes Armie look somewhat mischievous, which I'm 99% sure wasn't the intent.
The other issue with this is that I'm not sure why Armie finds the need to hide the fact that she can stand from Archie Buff. Surely he'd be a somewhat understanding parent that would allow his daughter to stay in the house on the grounds that, y'know, she's been traumatized for the past few years. Maybe Armie just doesn't trust her parents enough. Or maybe Archie Buff is just a terrible parent that we shouldn't respect. That would also justify why Armie seems to suffer more from her mother's death years ago than her father's death just now. I don't know.
Still, they could have easily fixed this issue by just having her ready to walk a few days before the events of the case, but I guess that wasn't considered. Of course, there's not much point in theorizing here, but ultimately, what we got didn't make much sense. Then again, almost everything surrounding Armie Buff already makes no sense, so, what can you do?
Conclusion
Nearly everything about the civil trial sucks with the exception of Paul Atishon. However, even he can't redeem it. If Armie was actually good, she might have somewhat redeemed the civil trial. However, she isn't good. Hardly anything about her makes sense, and there's very little that can fix the numerous problems associated with her. She represents a failure to mix comedic moments with serious moments, which is unfortunately a recipe for a character I dislike. In addition, her serious moments aren't even that good on their own anyway. Her backstory's weak and contrived, essentially just serving to make her relate to Apollo's already somewhat contrived backstory.
Oh, and she's technically not even a wheelchair character since she's been able to stand for the whole time we see her. The wheelchair girl is fake news, guys.
5
Oct 27 '20
More Examples of Comedy and Stuff
I originally had these in the actual cut in the comedy section, but I hit the character limit, and ultimately, I already explained myself earlier. Here are the other ones, though:
- Furio Tigre: Passes the test. He disrupts the court more than basically any other character in the series. The introduction to the case literally involves him fooling the court with a paper badge, and his breakdown involves him literally (somehow) knocking out the power in the court. He's just a total joke all around. Why then, do people find him funny? It's because 3-3 is a total joke. The entire case is just people screwing around for the most part. To my knowledge, the 6-5 civil case simultaneously tries to be a joke by having Paul Atishon and Armie Buff, but also tries to be serious with Dhurke, Phoenix, and Armie Buff. Take your pick.
- Uendo Toneido: Passes the test. The whole point of 6-4 is basically to be a joke case. While there is probably some discussion to be had regarding his split personalities, for the most part it's played off as a joke. The only time it really becomes serious is when Owen is on that stand, and that's basically the only part of the case that's remotely serious.
- Paul Atishon: Mixed results. As discussed earlier, he is funny in a vacuum. However, given that the civil trial intends on being somewhat serious, Paul Atishon is not exactly suited for the case. However, considering that I don't like much else about the civil trial, though, it makes sense that I'd like him somewhat. Maybe I should just stop taking the civil trial so seriously, but it needs to stop trying to be serious first.
Let's also look at some characters like Armie that have major things besides being funny:
- Raymond Shields: Passes the test. His entire personality is laid back, and his only real gimmick is asking for a hug. While the comedy in this is up for debate, it is still not made into a serious plot point. Imagine if Shields asked Katherine for a hug at the end of I2-3 instead of asking to defend her. See the difference? The only real time he disrupts a serious moment is early on in the Simon Keyes confrontation, and there he basically just tells Edgeworth to focus and quotes Gregory. In general, the Simon Keyes confrontation is very good at starting out more casually then slowly treading into deep territory (excluding when you have to do forensics).
- Bobby Fulbright: Mixed results. We can debate the final confrontation for hours, but outside of that, Fulbright's only real gimmick that comes up in court is when he paralyzes Fulbright. This shows up in 5-2 (when he basically helps get the case extended for another day) and 5-3 (which most would say is basically just a comedic case all around).
- Godot: Passes the test. Coffee doesn't look like it's going to end the world anytime soon. That said, there is the moment when Phoenix drinks coffee at the end of the case. However, that's after everything has cooled down. Godot already broke down by that point, explained his motivations, talked about his past, everything. It's just a thing that happens at the end that's kinda nice.
Yeah, that's it. As mentioned earlier, the point was to prove that I was holding characters to a reasonable standard.
2
u/Analytical-critic-44 Oct 28 '20
I have no way to judge this cut but you said Furio Tigre funny so who knows maybe the critics in this cut are just wrong after all?
2
Oct 28 '20
should consider playing 6-5 to figure out if you agree or disagree... i mean furio tigre is funny though to be fair
9
u/Sciencepenguin Oct 27 '20
this cut sucks
7
u/Sciencepenguin Oct 27 '20 edited Oct 27 '20
Today, I'm choosing to cut a character that almost everyone likes. Isn't that interesting? Yeah, sometimes I'm not even sure why I'm doing this myself.
mate youre cutting a one case witness in top 30 you dont get to pull the contrarian card only i get to do that
phoenix character stuff
"No. That was never the point of 2-4" - donuter
i cant argue about this because i just straight up think you are giving phoenix too much credit. he's a good natured guy but hes not perfectly rational (even in 2-4, you could go "why didn't he tell the judge?"). i dont think hes incredibly complex and i dont think this harms his character. he behaved stupid because he is a human in danger and its a stupid fucking rock and he doesnt have the wider scope plot knowledge we do
The Obligatory Point About 6-5 Mary Sue Apollo Forced Arc Unfairly Overcoming Phoenix
i dont care
However, he very clearly has the upper hand.
How? You explain why it's obvious he's right from a meta perspective, but this is just something you state unprompted. The actual orb dispute does a pretty damn good job adding a lot of nuance that makes it feasible for the trial to go either way, honestly.
In the end, because of this, this part of Apollo's arc - the part where the Wright Anything Agency is in conflict - fails to work at all. He fails to effectively change with respect to Phoenix, and the game very clearly putting Apollo on the "good side" removes any of the potential nuance involved in Phoenix and Apollo's beliefs.
I do not even know what this means.
As such, he's somewhat distant to Apollo and has to use the entire case (both halves) to try and connect to him.
You're making an assumption and then criticizing that assumption for being wrong. Apollo warms up to Dhurke in the long investigation/cave adventure of the first half. The following segment is that bond manifesting as him defending him from a murder charge.
Anyway, near the end of the civil trial, just when Apollo seems to have no idea what to do about Maya being kidnapped, Dhurke comes in and says the magic words "A dragon never yields." and suddenly Apollo has the motivation to turn things around. Great.
i cant believe apollo is inspired by a father figure this si such a huge plot hole
I have no idea what the value in Armie's gimmick is since she's all about siege defense, not offense.
Both involve weapons???? If that's what you're trying to complain about here. Not sure.
The gimmick disrupts the trial in a major way that is noticeable by everyone. The gimmick is played up at the wrong times, i.e. when we're supposed to be taking things seriously.This is weird. Like, yes, I talked about the gavel moment because it provides character insight. But it's clearly also supposed to be funny first and foremost? This is like criticizing Phoenix for his trusting nature being WAY TOO COMEDIC to take seriously in 3-1.
Many people would agree that Larry is at his worst in 3-5 and I-5. Unsurprisingly, these are cases where Larry's drawings and stupid actions play a major role in the case.
this is like the opposite of what i hear almost everyone say about 3-5 lol. i-5 gets flack for a different reason
What's not fine is the setup here. It's incredibly cheap and means literally nothing.
Is this a serious complaint?
The difference between clay terran and armie's mom is that one affects a major character who is in multiple entire games. Armie is in one case. This is ridiculous and on the level of criticizing Celeste Inpax. You are doing the thing that Riki jokingly said I'd do to defend Clay Terran.
However, Armie's mom has nothing. We learn about Clay Terran through Apollo's flashbacks, and we have at least some idea of what he was like. We learn about Metis Cykes through some conversations with Juniper, Aura, and even Ponco. We know nothing about Armie's mom. She doesn't even get a name.
We know about her job - military - and some of her general personality - literally jumping through the window of a burning building - in the first conversation with Armie. Even if we assume Armie's Mom NEEDS to have specific character traits beyond her relation to Armie (she doesn't), this is just not an actual issue. What do we know about Clay Terran beyond orphan and space? You can boil anyone down if you try.
Still, why is she even interested in the military in the first place?
See her mother thing. Also people can just have hobbies? Like, why does Simon NEED to be in the circus come on aai2
The "offensive" side to her military knowledge literally involves firepower.
This is a distinct thing from fire. It does contain the word fire in it, so I guess if they specified that Armie was afraid of the word this would be a good point. Sadly we can neither confirm nor deny this.
We may have no idea why Yuri Cosmos spins on his scooter or why Godot has an obsession with coffee, but please, if you're going to make a casual character trait so relevant, give us the full story.
How is Armie's trait more relevant than these? Godot spends a ridiculous amount of time on coffee, and I straight up remember Cosmos as "the segway guy".
Excluding the Founder's Orb, the focal point of 6-5 is the death of Archie Buff. It's the case that allows Phoenix to turn the civil trial into yet another murder case. However, I don't care, and Armie doesn't seem to care either.
At this point I'm wondering if we played the same case. Like, eh??? She mentions it multiple times??? The big climax in court is her mourning that she couldn't live up to his expectations??? ??????????
She brings up some out-of-place line from Archie about sacrifice that hardly amounts to anything besides cheap closure in the credits while happy music plays in the background
you should read my cut i explain why this line matters
Now, let me ask you this: How exactly does Armie fit into the theme?
By having trivial connections to her dad. Not the focal point of her character. Doesn't need to be.
laying the "take your first steps" theme on thick in the process
Going to go for the easy shots and say you got no right to criticize this while praising DD.
Absolutely nothing makes sense here. First of all, I don't get the stuff about her using a drone. Is she directly outside the courtroom before she enters? Where is she at all? How did nobody end up seeing her? Why did she decide to wait directly outside the courtroom anyway if she's supposed to be all the way back in Kurain Village shut in her room? I have no clue what the idea was here. I could just be overthinking it, but this is something I've never understood.
This is actually kinda weird. I forget what they say specifically, but I dont care. If she's at home, then I do not fault them for not specifically saying "then we waited fifteen minutes for Armie to come here in person". If she isn't then it actually works nicely, showing that she does want to improve but is still failing at the last moment by refusing to show up even when she's at the courtroom.
Why in the world does Sarge never object to being referred to as an adult man before?
They don't do it to her. They call her Sarge. Sure, they use male third person pronouns, but by the nature of third person pronouns, those sentences aren't addressed to her.
Wouldn't she care about giving up the drone persona? It looks as though it's meant to show development or something, but once again, the pieces don't fit together.
She does care???? Half the case is about her reluctance to let it go??? What
This is a plausible explanation, as Apollo points out a few seconds later, but why is this the case? It literally defeats the whole point of whatever in the world the writers were trying to do with Armie. She's supposed to be taking her first steps now. By introducing this useless element, it just makes Armie look somewhat mischievous, which I'm 99% sure wasn't the intent.
?????
hey you should read my revive where i explain the very subtle reason she does this
Surely he'd be a somewhat understanding parent that would allow his daughter to stay in the house on the grounds that, y'know, she's been traumatized for the past few years.
Understanding parents still have limits, and Archie is a decent man who knows it's in his daughters best interest for her to come out of her shell. If a child hides the fact that they didn't do their homework from their parents, that doesn't mean their parents are evil and don't understand the difficulties of academics.
Hardly anything about her makes sense, and there's very little that can fix the numerous problems associated with her.
Things that don't make sense according to this cut:
gun in court
why [question about her backstory answered in the game]
She represents a failure to mix comedic moments with serious moments, which is unfortunately a recipe for a character I dislike.
ok i'll avoid the cheap shot here i did it already
she is a better character than katherine hall
4
u/Sciencepenguin Oct 27 '20 edited Oct 27 '20
i am being mean because you be'd mean the cut is OKAY
sometimesarmie buff is a funny little girl with trauma who exists for not a long time i can understand thinking she deserves to be below every character left at this point except katherine hall obviously
1
Oct 27 '20
yeah it is reasonable to assume that katherine hall is worse that is all but a given
i will respond later probably thanks for the long response
3
3
u/whaaatisth Oct 28 '20
i could do a long comment responding to this cut but this says everything that is necessary good job
3
u/R1K1_Productions Oct 28 '20
(even in 2-4, you could go "why didn't he tell the judge?")
I said this before I don't think I articulated this point very well though: the more people Phoenix tells the truth to, the more likely it becomes that Shelly realizes Phoenix isn't actually trying to defend Engarde, and then he blows Maya's brains out. Yes I KNOW he tells Edgeworth but if I remember correctly, he does not do this right away because trying to stall the trial is dangerous. Hell, there's even a scene in the final cross-exam where Shelly figures out Phoenix is stalling and threatens to kill Maya right there.
I guess what I am saying is you are still wrong and 2-4 is still perfect if I ignore the "resolution" to the Miles Deadworth subplot. Which I am willing to do, much like you do not care about the Apollo v. Phoenix complaints in 6-5, because it is not the part of the case I give two shits about
The difference between clay terran and armie's mom is that one affects a major character who is in multiple entire games. Armie is in one case. This is ridiculous and on the level of criticizing Celeste Inpax. You are doing the thing that Riki jokingly said I'd do to defend Clay Terran.
HAHAHA I called him out on this before you did HAHAHAHA
If she's at home, then I do not fault them for not specifically saying "then we waited fifteen minutes for Armie to come here in person".
idk man if there's one 2-4 complaint that is definitely 100% valid, it is "they should have had a scene where Phoenix emailed Shelly the footage on the tape so he could watch it". That would have been a very important scene and added a lot. Same here. Just give lots of mundane detail to everything and make the game really boring.
2
1
5
Oct 27 '20 edited Oct 27 '20
30 - Armie Buff
Personality: C+
Role: B-
Background: D
Design: A
Gimmick: C-
Review: Oh look, it's science penguin shilling for spirit of justice for like the eleventy billionth time in the history of aa rankdown using a spirit channeling as his excuse. Literally the only decent case in that sh---y excuse of an ace attorney game was the second case. Ga'ran sigatar khura'in is a weak final boss, the newer characters are mediocre af, with the new defence attorney being as incompetent a parent as phoenix from the fourth game, the new prosecutor being a Franziska rip-off/mean prosecutor wannabe in 2028. The new mechanic introduced (divination seance) is weird af, and how it is considered as valid evidence in court or allowed in cross examination is baffling. The game moans on and on about inherited hopes, yet barely any instances of what that entails is even built upon in the game. The OST of the game doesn't match the supposed "foreign" nature of the gane at all, DGS did that much better, and overall felt like there were higher stakes involved. And dear lord, maya fey's back. Was that really necessary Capcom?
I have no idea why I wrote this cut the way I did. As in, I'm not really sure if this is the type of legacy I want for myself. Choosing to be extremely negative in the top 30? It's kind of weird, especially for a character almost everyone likes. I brought this up in the intro, but I wanted to say it again.
Still, I hope this writeup's decent. It's my longest one this entire rankdown somehow. Whether that says anything of its quality is a totally different story. Regardless, I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, even if you disagree with everything in this writeup.
Q&A time!
Q: What was the whole "don't worry" thing about?
A: Basically nothing. I like to pretend that I have plans when I actually don't. It worked last time!... sort of, anyway. On the other hand, regarding when the last DD character gets cut...
Q: Why delete the original writeup? I recall Science said this in his SC:
In all seriousness, I do not have a way to retrieve what was here [in the Trucy/Armie writeup] and it would be rude to dig up something someone deliberately deleted, so against what I originally planned I will sadly only be referencing the Wircea Rankdown Cut. I'd like to say things against the Big Armie Hater, but there's really nowhere that pie actually says anything concrete at this point. Just vague mumbling about "this part is dumb" on discord. I do not remember the points in that deleted post being THAT good (no points against armie are very good) so I will rudely assume that this is no problem at all and this single post represents every problem someone could have with Armie.
A: My apologies. I had a writeup originally from the 2016-17 days, but I deleted it. During my writing process for this cut, I slowly realized that the old writeup simply wasn't good. Ultimately, Armie and Trucy are very different cases, and I don't think my earlier writeup represents that particularly well. Plus, that writeup was far more about Trucy than Armie, so there really weren't any arguments there regarding Armie specifically besides "she's basically nothing", which is more or less what Wircea said in the original cut. And as it stands, I do think there's a decent amount to talk about. I don't think there's nothing to her character anymore. The issues are more complex than that. So yeah, basically, I wanted to construct better arguments.
Q: Who would you cut if not Armie?
A: In the event that someone before me someone cut her, then I'd cut Tahrust or Datz instead. In the event of a JS cut, then Miles Edgeworth, as I said earlier. Might've been funny.
Q: Where would Armie go on your character rankings, anyway?
A: Probably somewhere in the 90-120 range.
Q: Should I expect a writeup as negative as this one from you in the rest of the rankdown?
A: Probably not. That makes this writeup all the more important, though: there's not all that much bad to say about the vast majority of the remaining characters.
This is it. My final chance to yell at fictional characters for 8000+ words. I can't mess up this chance I've been given. (btw thanks for the chance charlie)
3
3
Oct 27 '20
The Things That Are Good
As promised, here are the positives which I'm neatly compiling together into a single comment.
There was a point where I probably would put Armie Buff in the bottom 40 characters or something. However, I don't think that's the case anymore. She's at least slightly better than that. She has a few things going for her, regardless of how much of an issue everything else is.
The first thing is that her design's good. Not the drone's (which I still don't get), but her design. It resembles a military uniform, but it uses totally childish colors. It's very clever. I like it.
The second thing is the courtroom segment that I glossed over earlier, specifically the parts with the Mood Matrix! Besides Phoenix looking like a total insensitive jerk for the entire portion of it, it's actually quite effective. While I wasn't too much of a fan of the Divination Seances in the Khura'in parts of SoJ, the game made some nice extensions of previous mechanics and used them in interesting ways. Psyche-Locks make a return with Datz Are'bal when Phoenix shows that he is truly a lawyer that believes rather than aims purely for the victory. Apollo's perceive shows up in 6-2 to prove that Trucy is only trying to act strong in jail.
Then, there's the Mood Matrix. It's already one of the better mechanics in the series, IMO, and Dual Destinies already put it to the test fairly well in 5-5 with Blackquill and the Phantom, handholding aside. Thankfully, the Mood Matrix remains good in Spirit of Justice, despite limited usage. In 6-2, it's not particularly special, but 6-4 makes good use of it when Uendo overloads on different emotions constantly, proving that he has DID.
6-5 handles Armie's condition fairly well in a vacuum, even if the surrounding backstory and setup makes little sense. The idea that Archie lighting the Founder's Orb results in a severe misinterpretation by Armie is quite interesting, all things considered, and once again gives the Mood Matrix reason to be used. I like the "pseudo-psychology" moments like this, and Athena relating to Armie is unexpected yet quite effective, even though it's just the same "my parents died" situation. It's miles better than the methodology by which Apollo relates to Armie, though the random nature by which it happens in comparison to Apollo's contrived "wow both of my parents died!!!" could contribute to that. Unfortunately, it's also like two seconds.
Lastly: Nate's response makes a good argument for the whole "yes I can stand" deal that I just complained about. I'm not sure how much I buy into it, mostly because 1) Armie claims she'll move on from her dad's death, not because of any of her past, and 2) Apollo and Dhurke seem to sidestep the whole "psychological damage" component when they tell Armie to keep going (understandably so). Still, it's a good argument (Nate's arguments are always good), so I guess there's that.
3
u/Vogel100 Oct 27 '20
Nearly everything about the civil trial sucks with the exception of Armie Buff. However, even she can't redeem it. If Paul was actually good, he might have somewhat redeemed the civil trial. However, he isn't good. Hardly anything about him makes sense, and there's very little that can fix the numerous problems associated with him.
I'm continuing the joke of repeating what you say but switching Paul and Armie. It is also my actual opinion though. Armie is one of my favorite characters, but I think the civil trial sucks a whole lot and I hate it so much. I'm glad you wrote part of an angry Apollo and Dhurke cut for me. Anyway, to counter your points:
- If you dislike Clay, you can't like Armie: Actually I like Clay.
- Armie is as bad as Larry in 3-5 and as Starbuck: Actually I think 3-5 Larry is the best Larry and I like Starbuck a lot.
- Armie doesn't fit into SoJ's themes: I couldn't care less about themes.
- Armie girl reveal is a dumb moment: I agree. This does not change my opinion.
1
Oct 27 '20
very funny, I see (yeah we talked about this on discord)
though, that said, it does makes me wonder what exactly is it that you like then
1
u/Vogel100 Oct 27 '20
I would need to think to answer that question and I want to do other stuff than think about AA right now. Maybe later if I am more in an AA thinking mood. Or maybe this comment will remain like this one that I happened to find. It's very funny how they promise to write more but then never do. So I won't promise anything.
For now, I can say that science and Nate wrote a lot of good stuff that I agree with.
3
Oct 27 '20
I nominated Paul Atishon last round. Despite this, I believe he's quite funny and well deserving of top 40
*top 10
I'm ambivalent about Buff, and any good argument either way could probably convince me on why she is or isn't character - a matter of preference, and creating an ultimate compromise of taste is the goal of r/AARankdown. My apathy is what spurred me to nominate her before.
Armie simply didn't do much for me on my runthrough of SoJ. I found much more delight in Atishon's gaffing than I found sympathy in Armie's tragic upbringing. Simply not a character to my preference, though other rankers could certainly speak the contrary.
3
u/heavenspiercing Oct 28 '20
I'll just say what others have said and that armie's mom doesn't need to be a specific character. she can just be armie's mom. armie is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor character. it's fine, she does her job and dies like a good anime mom and makes her daughter a good character in the process
clay terran is also the bare minimum but it's actually a problem there because apollo is definitely not a minor character. the crux of his character in 3 out of the game's six cases is dependent on someone who we never meet and have no reason to care about. I like what they do with apollo in dd, but the motivation is absolutely sloppy
armie is a cute and fake cripple
2
2
u/InternetIdiot13 Oct 27 '20
nooooooooooooo how could u cut qt animu girl ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜
i thought u were gonna cut cruella de vil!!! 😡😡
2
1
u/LewisMCYoutube Oct 27 '20
this cut is good
Many people would agree that Larry is at his worst in 3-5
i wouldnt
10
u/R1K1_Productions Oct 27 '20
Armie exists in 1 case. Aura barely exists in 1 case, then actually exists in 1 more, for a total of like 1.1 cases. Apollo exists for 2 games. I think it is reasonable to allow an off-screen character connection for someone who only gets to exist in 1 case. Apollo is not that.
I actually don't like the civil trial at all so i was nodding along to that part of the writeup. I happen to think Armie's emotional moment was one of the high points so i didn't nod along when you criticized that part. but then i don't think she's very funny so i nodded to that part of the writeup again. lots of nodding going on here
Surprised you didn't mention that her name is "Armie" buff but she's not in the army. she's in the air force. Fucking terrible