cannard: Didn't read the OP (sorry), so I can't address whatever problems you had, just here to share my thoughts about my experience with the games.
No worries, I wrote an essay up there! Thanks for your input - I'm getting the feeling that it's not exactly going to get any better in the later installments.
That is spot on!
I suppose my complaint with the game is that it obviously bases itself on the player using logic to solve the problems and advance the stories, but then it breaks its own rules. It feels like when your opponents cheats in multiplayer games to gain advantages that they shouldn't really have. If the game has to break its own rules to present a challenge to the player, then the game really isn't all that good.
HiPhish: (...) You have no choices and no meaningful inout, you just poke at stuff until it triggers the next part of the story.
That's another one of my problems with the game. I thought I would have to conduct an actual investigation, collect actual evidence, and present it properly in court. I thought (and really liked the idea) that I would be able to lose if I didn't investigate properly or didn't utilize my collected evidence properly. But you really can't lose in Phoenix Wright. Granted, you can run out of exclamation marks, which is a hassle since you then have to sit through everything that has happened since your last save, and there is no way to skip or speed up text (except if you've read it before), which really drove me absolutely crazy.
zavlin: The first game is pretty great. It is fairly consistent i
n the context that the game sets up.
Yeah, like I said, if a game bases itself on the player using logic to solve it, then goes and breaks its own fundamental rule, then it really isn't a very good game.