[T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Find and discuss trials made by other members and showcase your own trials.

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

User avatar
E.D.Revolution
Posts: 5743
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:00 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English and decent Spanish
Location: Across dimensions, transcending universes

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by E.D.Revolution »

See, I think we may have miscommunicated on that part. When forming these responses, I came to the realization (possibly Phantom, too), that the people who would better benenfit was authors and potential authors. Regular players may not necessarily recognize some of these mistakes (I know from experience that certain players have missed that certain things are not canon and think they are.) I'm not sure I made that clear.

So let's get this out of the way. This is for authors and potential authors, alike.

Now as for authors recognizing these mistakes. That is what authors should be doing anyway when playing peers' trials. Whether it's pointed out or not, one should learn from others. Reviewing them, in all, helps us (phantom and I) see some flaws and see what the players see. It definitely helps us in future trials. Reviews also help others see what was not seen in the first place. It also tells them what things are, why things work/don't work, etc. That particular review is framed for the general audience, with way too much philosophical/scientific rambling.

Now do be careful. What you should not take away from what we've said is "We know what's there, and refuse to change it, lulz, [Censored. Please be polite]." Rather, "We acknowledge the problems that you have pointed to us. In fact, there are several problems that we have not seen, and it's better for everyone to know it. This is the kind of trial that does not benefit from rehauling everything due to its nature. Learn from the mistakes. Apply your knowledge."

Again, like I said before, we take them as they come.
Image
User avatar
DWaM
Posts: 1763
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:23 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: The Kingdom of Ellipses

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by DWaM »

Well... While on some point, I agree with some issues being impossible to fix, considering they're basically based around changing all that the trial is, but some I really do think should be fixed. Sure, while it's the trial authors who learn from those kinds of mistakes, you have to understand that the majority of the audience for fancases in general are players and people who most likely won't be making trials (or, at least, releasing them publicly). By leaving some of this stuff in, while you help authors, you neglect the audience that's here to just play and enjoy the story, since some of these can really distract or damage their experience. Because even if you said this is an experiment, your average player will still look at it as... well, a normal case with some possibly neat twists to the formula going in.

Generally, I think it's tutorials that you should be there to teach players what to do and not to do. These tutorials are created from the organic evolution of trials which, while still acknowledge their mistakes, still try to apply everything that was pointed out as negative or not-working (that is, acknowledged by the majority to be wrong or just something extremely obvious) and make it the best they can be - trials are still an experience and should serve to aspire authors to the level they want to reach - the standard they should match or even surpass. Instead of telling people what not to do, they should see what they should do. The plot and the characters are yours to do what you like, it's your vision - but that vision should reach its full potential instead of being held back in favor of what is arguably a minority here - experienced trialmakers became aware of the majority of these issues through what they've made, aspiring trial makers shouldn't 'experiment' too much to begin with, but try to focus on establishing their own writing style and the way they present their story before they move on to creating their own 'larger' vision and general players... well, will be kind of turned off when they see these mistakes, so... Yeah. :/

And again, I'm not talking about large, plot-altering things, just... minor things, I suppose (heck, even some of the CEs could use more clarification just to make sure that the player is never fully confused, or giving player a 'rewind' button when they get a game over - would fix the fairness error). Some scenes could be shortened, or just cut
Spoiler : example :
(again, I think I'll write a full feedback on this - but the mysterious Maya(? - dunno, still haven't finished) at the very beginning of Pt. 2 comes to mind, the whole Apollo shaking scene - not just the sprite, but pretty much the entire sequence after the Mia encounter - it honestly ended up more awkward than amusing, I'm afraid...)
, some wait timers could be removed (on some, I just saw no purpose as to why they were there -- they honestly didn't provide me with any information nor was there some huge surprising line of dialogue come right after them), the usage of some colors that... really isn't necessary, when all is said and done, etc., etc. It would really... focus the entire experience and make it stronger as a whole, in my opinion.

I assure you, my opinion when all is said and done probably isn't as negative as Enthalpy's and it honestly does do some things I rather like... but it could be even better, that's the thing...
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by Bad Player »

If this is an "experiment" intended to help prospective/inexperienced trial authors, you should probably be a bit more explicit about it, and perhaps even make a text "guide" about what exactly is "wrong" with it. Otherwise, people are going to just go into this like they would any other normal trial, and take nothing away from it. They may go "eh, I didn't really like it," but not even authors will probably think deeply about why they didn't like it, let alone try to learn from it and apply it to their own work.
User avatar
E.D.Revolution
Posts: 5743
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:00 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English and decent Spanish
Location: Across dimensions, transcending universes

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by E.D.Revolution »

I may take you up to task on a guide based on this.

Man I'm in a miscommunication roll... -_-

When I said it's for the authors I meant the experiments. Obvious the trial is for everybody, including regular players. I am not dismissing regular players.
Image
User avatar
Sligneris
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:22 pm
Spoken languages: English, Polish

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by Sligneris »

Calling a fangame an experiment performed to show something... I don't really see the point of it, actually. It just overly complicates things when it comes to discussions such as this one, and I am not sure what purpose this maneuver serves. The only people who I saw saying you can learn something from it was you and Proton, and you two are the authors of TGens... Sorry if I'm mistaken. <_<
User avatar
E.D.Revolution
Posts: 5743
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:00 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English and decent Spanish
Location: Across dimensions, transcending universes

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by E.D.Revolution »

I'll probably elaborate on this. The experiments are varied, whether it's gameplay, music, mood, etc. The results are there for everyone to see. It's up to the player/author to decide if the experiments work or not. And yes, even though Phantom and I keep saying this, it does need repeating. Authors can learn from the experiments. For example, take music and mood. We've put up an variety of music to try to convey mood. Obviously, it deviates from AA norms. It's up to you to decide if the music works or if the music is a mismatch for the mood attempted to be conveyed. Let's say the music really works wonders in your opinion. As a regular player, you can tell us it works. As an author, feel free to do similar experiments in your own the trial (in addition to telling us the music works for X-type situation).

Or let's take another example where experimentation resulted in changes. Take the map. V1 was ugly. And hard to read (according to feedback). What can one learn, if one so chooses? That's not how you do maps. But more importantly, go take an example from Dan and look how a proper map is done. The results for the v2 map speak for themselves.

I'll give you another example, outside TGens. Remember CCEs? I wasn't the first to create them. Nevfx did. That, too, was an experiment that worked, overall. For me, it half worked (pacing was really slow as a result of gameplay). What did I do? Take the CCE and refine it to make it better and faster-paced and fun and challenging. That's how you learn from experiments.

Remember, just because an experiment failed does not mean it can't be built upon/over. Also remember, that there's good and bad experiments. It seems that when talking about the experiments, it's focused on the bad experiments. Look at the good experiments, as well. While I can agree that it's harder to learn from bad experiments, don't ignore the good experiments.
Last edited by E.D.Revolution on Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Sligneris
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:22 pm
Spoken languages: English, Polish

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by Sligneris »

Hmm. Okay, I can agree about the map and the music. However, the way you address the fact that it is an experiment to many other issues makes it feel like it's an excuse of sorts and that you're not actually willing to improve. Just the impression I got. ^^;

PS: I'm sorry, but... What are CCEs? ^^;
User avatar
E.D.Revolution
Posts: 5743
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:00 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English and decent Spanish
Location: Across dimensions, transcending universes

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by E.D.Revolution »

Here's the thing. This is the kind of trial where experiments carry over. It's hard to see changes as a result of experiments if there's nothing to base it on. Note the map, for example. I may appear to be stubborn, only because the point of experimentation doesn't work if everything was to be revamped. Remember, when you revamp something, you write it over. So while people who have played before can note the changes, the new people won't be able to see that. And besides, note what Enthalpy said: over 9000 frames. A herculean, time-consuming task of revamping. None of the criticism of the trial has actually been dismissed, even though it appears to be. Every criticism has been noted and will be applied to the next part. Don't confuse not willing to revamp with not wiling to improve.

CCEs are Counter Cross Examinations. It's gameplay based on the Prosecutor POV. Whereas defense can go through the statements and ask questions, the prosecution does not have a chance to scroll through the statements. The prosecutor must make sure the trial runs smoothly and that the defense is not wasting time. It sounds more boring than it actually can be. Turnabout Rock God has them, so does Turnabout!, currently.
Image
Phantom

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by Phantom »

Okay, so this is getting needlessly complicated, so it needs to be simplified as possible. Look at the end of the post if you just want a quick summary.

DWaM wrote:... Er...

I have a question to ask, since I noticed something a bit... weird, with the way you chose to word certain responses to Enthalpy's critique... And it's a question -- a legitamite one - I don't wish to cause an argument or just... do something bad, but it's something I don't quite understand.

You say you want feedback (I mean, it says so in the topic title), but... Why?

I mean, at the end of the day, correct me if I'm wrong, but - what you're essentially saying is that it's an experiment and that the mistakes that are there should stay there for the players to see them and, as future trial authors learn from them. In other words, as an experiment, it bases around the idea that the player will realize these mistakes themselves while playing the trial, correct? And if that's the case... what does reviewing it achieve? I mean, the entire idea is that the player is the one who understands from your work and, as I said, learns from it. The only people who could possibly learn anything from feedback is... well, you. But... as you've said time and time again, what's there shouldn't be changed and should stay for the player - hence, this feedback is just redirected to the player than you (after all - you acknowledged that the flaws were already there)... But in that case, it's also pointless, since the player is supposed to see these mistakes for himself... Pointing them out for the player's interest outside of the actual trial is like beating a dead horse... and a review doesn't exactly help the player, especially after he's played the thing...
I mean, even if a player goes to read a review and sees something that a certain reviewer saw as a flaw, but he as a player didn't - it can't really be considered helpful to him, yet again, since some of these issues are entirely subjective and maybe not issues at all.

...*Cough* Sorry if that... doesn't really make any sense, I tend to ramble and eventually lose myself in what I was trying to say, so I suppose I should summarize it into an actual question -- If the player is the one supposed to learn from the mistakes, and you on the other hand acknowledge, but still choose to leave the mistakes in, who is the feedback for?

Naturally, I'll still give some kind of feedback myself at some point... Once I finish it...
If I ever reach the end...
Thank you for the concern DWAM.
-We need feedback just like any other typical author wants feedback on a work when a new part is released, or a new case is released: tGens is a playground of experiments hidden behind the mask of a regular trial case. This wasn't an issue for us in Part 1, but for Part 2, the lack of activity on the trial section in general requires us to try to grab attention in any way we can, and that's usually through bumping a thread, or editing the thread with the title: "need feedback".
Because it's all disguised within a "normal trial", non-authors/authors can play the case normally, and provide critique/praise normally (which again, was how Part 1 was advertised). We didn't want anyone to give this case slack on the things we did (like the mystery itself, the story, etc.) solely because it's a trial whose main priority is conducting our experiments to see what works and what doesn't. That way, there wouldn't be any bias to the feedback.
Although it COMPLETELY backfired on both ED and I. We were NOT expecting solely praise, and there was an expectation that there would be a Part 2. Shot myself in the foot. Remember that tGens was originally meant to be just a demo (but a polished one) showcasing various things you can do with the editor.

Now that you know this, I can respond about the player bit: It's not a regular player's perogative to comment on the experiment aspects. Since tGens is disguised as a normal trial, it can still be experienced normally. The same can go to authors as well though: they don't HAVE to focus on the experiment stuff, since I mentioned to Enthalpy in his review that we do not explicitly tell you what our experiments are. Though we'd appreciate it for sure if authors can call us out on things we did wrong/things we did that doesn't entirely work, since the experiment stuff is meant for you. When you criticize some things on tGens, most likely we already knew about it. However, there are times that you guys can point out something we authors may not realize we did wrong, and that's certainly something we can learn from and try to improve upon. In the event there's a demand for Part 3 (which is very unlikely to me now), we would take all of your feedback, and do our best to incorporate them in the best manner in the next part, so each part is an improvement over the previous based on what you tell us.
After all, tGens is my first project/trial. I WILL make mistakes I don't know I'm committing anyway. When we can gauge feedback like this, it works really well for us.

That being said, this completely backfired us again for Part 2. I should've stuck with just advertising the trial like normally, instead of saying "hey there's a LOT more experiments going on, try to find what we did that you think works/doesn't work!". It's clearly failed if you guys (the authors) are getting conflicted about whether or not the experiments stuff is even working. I just want feedback as normal at this point.
DWaM wrote:Well... While on some point, I agree with some issues being impossible to fix, considering they're basically based around changing all that the trial is, but some I really do think should be fixed. Sure, while it's the trial authors who learn from those kinds of mistakes, you have to understand that the majority of the audience for fancases in general are players and people who most likely won't be making trials (or, at least, releasing them publicly). By leaving some of this stuff in, while you help authors, you neglect the audience that's here to just play and enjoy the story, since some of these can really distract or damage their experience. Because even if you said this is an experiment, your average player will still look at it as... well, a normal case with some possibly neat twists to the formula going in.

Generally, I think it's tutorials that you should be there to teach players what to do and not to do. These tutorials are created from the organic evolution of trials which, while still acknowledge their mistakes, still try to apply everything that was pointed out as negative or not-working (that is, acknowledged by the majority to be wrong or just something extremely obvious) and make it the best they can be - trials are still an experience and should serve to aspire authors to the level they want to reach - the standard they should match or even surpass. Instead of telling people what not to do, they should see what they should do. The plot and the characters are yours to do what you like, it's your vision - but that vision should reach its full potential instead of being held back in favor of what is arguably a minority here - experienced trialmakers became aware of the majority of these issues through what they've made, aspiring trial makers shouldn't 'experiment' too much to begin with, but try to focus on establishing their own writing style and the way they present their story before they move on to creating their own 'larger' vision and general players... well, will be kind of turned off when they see these mistakes, so... Yeah. :/

And again, I'm not talking about large, plot-altering things, just... minor things, I suppose (heck, even some of the CEs could use more clarification just to make sure that the player is never fully confused, or giving player a 'rewind' button when they get a game over - would fix the fairness error). Some scenes could be shortened, or just cut
Spoiler : example :
(again, I think I'll write a full feedback on this - but the mysterious Maya(? - dunno, still haven't finished) at the very beginning of Pt. 2 comes to mind, the whole Apollo shaking scene - not just the sprite, but pretty much the entire sequence after the Mia encounter - it honestly ended up more awkward than amusing, I'm afraid...)
, some wait timers could be removed (on some, I just saw no purpose as to why they were there -- they honestly didn't provide me with any information nor was there some huge surprising line of dialogue come right after them), the usage of some colors that... really isn't necessary, when all is said and done, etc., etc. It would really... focus the entire experience and make it stronger as a whole, in my opinion.

I assure you, my opinion when all is said and done probably isn't as negative as Enthalpy's and it honestly does do some things I rather like... but it could be even better, that's the thing...
I've considered this myself, regarding things to fix. But there is a stance I've taken from Part 1: Unless something breaks the game completely, ie. the player can't advance anymore due to a gamebreaking bug, or there is an obvious spelling/grammar error, or there is a clear "in-your-face" fact that breaks previous canon, then I won't fix even the minor things you have issues with (though don't get me wrong when I say we DO note those issues you have). If a new part comes out, I may be forced to revamp certain things to an extent where it's consistent (meaning, the crap case logic xP).
This is because when we are sure that no more parts are required to be made, we can actually work on a document showing you all the things that worked/worked wrongly, and at the end of the case, gives us the time to revamp EVERYTHING that everyone, including ourselves, had a problem with. For example, the crappy map in Part 1? I would revamp that section for example by implementing the improved version from Part 2. However, to ensure everyone can see the "old" version of tGens, I would revamp the parts on a copy of each part, so you all can see the difference and still use tGens as a reference material. We would take all the experiments we thought failed, and take them out in the revamps, so only the good ones remain. In the end, I want the case to "evolve" in each part, and have the next part be superior to the previous part in some sort of way.

In general, the critiques are not usually about bugs, but content that stems from poor design on our part. I can try to do my best to make sure this doesn't happen in the next part, but unless you point out some things you think didn't work (like your talk of text colors), some things may carry over to the next part (since again, being a first-time author, I WILL do some things you may think is really wrong, without me even knowing I'm actually doing it).

Still, I acknowledge that there are going to be lots of players who play regular trials, who aren't authors. I've said this to Enthalpy. But according to all the feedback we're getting from them, despite some flaws they've pointed out (which again, tends to be very minor stuff), they still enjoy the experience as a whole. I think it's because we try to deviate so much from the norm that it becomes a refreshing thing to experience I guess. Still, if you took out tGen's experiment aspects away, it wouldn't hold so well under scrutiny. However, because of lack of honest feedback by some members, I have to be completely skeptical of everyone else's feedback now unfortunately...

As for the tutorial bit, again, tGens has a certain worldview set to it: a social constructivist worldview, which allows for open-ended interpretations by everyone. If I wanted to make tGens a tutorial case, I would do it completely in the form of Radian's Turnabout Tutorial case. You want an interactive way of learning how to make a case? Definitely play that one. tGens is merely showing what you CAN do with its experiments, and see what works or not, so you can take the best of tGens and apply it to your own case [which is why I released all of our content as I was allowed to :)].
...Be it some of the high-quality graphics edits we came up with (apparent in Part 2, from the beginning to the end, as those things take time and are NOT easy to edit/make), the ui graphics (luster profile mugshots, the special "check" detail section), the way we narrate the story (multi-monologues from multiple characters, which deviates from the regular AA games, or multiple "intros"), the way we design the game (the 'invention' of fake contradictions, red herrings against players who think they founded a real contradiction, only to find out 200 frames later they were tricked, etc. etc.), the way we even pace the game (fast text speed in Part 1, much more slower/varied in Part 2, intermission sequences, etc.). Sure, not everything we did works, but at its core, we are demonstrating things in a way that shows you "hey, this feature works, but it's quite clear us two authors didn't design it well to fit within the impossible case story, so other authors need to be more careful implementing this feature in order to get the best results."

What I'm saying makes complete sense when you use the presentation elements as your frame of reference when I talk about experiments. For example, didn't you like the way we actually provided a visual "dmg" indicator in Part 2? Didn't you like the creamy smooth testimony blink graphics animation? What about the animated talking mugshots?
Those were experiments in trying to slightly add to the player experience through visual appeal. It clearly worked since not only were they aesthetically pleasing to the eye, but they can be reused in a normal trial very easily to add abit of freshness to the AA experience. I've released templates for other authors to utilize them at the art section too ;)
tGens can get away with it, because as I said earlier, it's a playground of experiments, which is disguised under a normal trial. We can actually see if our experiments work in a practical manner or not by treating the case like a typical trial. That's not to say there isn't any bad experiments though (like trying to find ways to bore the player, such as a lengthy lobby session, or the pointless mega-testimony with monotonous, repetitive music driving the testimony...Or making poorly written characters like Gottem, that aren't MEANT to be liked, which for us achieved the opposite: most players so far like Gottem :().
If I strictly just had tGens as just one big experiment as a whole, I would treat it as a miscellaneous trial. But I don't think it would tell us if the things we implemented would work in a normal trial scenario.

Again, for minor content, I will gladly make sure to fix/avoid anything you found wrong so we do not repeat the same mistakes in Part 3. But I want players/authors to play the next part, and feel like that next part is vastly superior to the previous part. I can't even stand trying to go back to playing Part 1 now, since Part 2's quality is WAY too different not to notice. Revamping the issues with the previous part will defeat the purpose of the experiments at this point in time, since as ED pointed out, no one will know what we did wrong. But like he said, it's not like we're dismissing your feedback, and not willing to improve. We're just incorporating feedback in a much different manner.

If you can expand upon things you didn't like, like wait-timers not serving a purpose in some areas (as an author, I need specifics, like an example where you thought the wait-timers were useless, otherwise your feedback too helpful for me on where I'm supposed to fix them xP), that would help us greatly in ensuring we don't do that again for Part 3. I may have used wait-timers in inappropriate areas to get the music syncing right for example.
Even though I don't personally agree with you on some things (like *that Apollo shake sequence*, since it's MEANT to be awkward for the player), these interpretations are still valid, and something I must consider for the next part to avoid ;)
Bad Player wrote:If this is an "experiment" intended to help prospective/inexperienced trial authors, you should probably be a bit more explicit about it, and perhaps even make a text "guide" about what exactly is "wrong" with it. Otherwise, people are going to just go into this like they would any other normal trial, and take nothing away from it. They may go "eh, I didn't really like it," but not even authors will probably think deeply about why they didn't like it, let alone try to learn from it and apply it to their own work.
-I was explicit about it, when I kept posting updates progress for Part 2. I repeatedly emphasized that there would be much more experiments in Part 2, and so the case as a whole would suffer, so authors would be encouraged to try to look at things we did on the experiment side and critique it as so. I repeatedly emphasized only one part was meant to be made, and so Part 2 would suffer poor case logic, and be more experiment focused, with intentional mistakes for authors/players in general to catch. I've done this for one year, way after Part 1 was released.
As for the guide document, yes I planned that, but only after everything with tGens was done. If ED decides to not continue Part 3 (which at this point, I don't think he should waste his time with), then I would shift to making a google doc of everything I could note down regarding the experiment(s) from Part1+2.
Sligneris wrote:Calling a fangame an experiment performed to show something... I don't really see the point of it, actually. It just overly complicates things when it comes to discussions such as this one, and I am not sure what purpose this maneuver serves. The only people who I saw saying you can learn something from it was you and Proton, and you two are the authors of TGens... Sorry if I'm mistaken. <_<
You're not an author, yes? Then don't worry about the experiment stuff. Just play/rate the trial like you would normally. Since tGens is my first project, I have to pretend it's a real first-timer trial anyway, so if you feel confused by all the talk of experiments, then simply don't worry about it, as it's not targeted towards regular players like you. Still, if you discover something you hate (like the fake presses you talked about pages ago), I will still point out how it may be an experiment, in case other folks don't catch it (since regular players can find things even authors may not notice).
Just remember though: tGens is not just one big experiment. It is a collection of experiments. They're more focused on ways you can add/detract to/from the AA formula. It's not really meant for authors trying to learn HOW to build a case (again, go to Radian's trial series for that). However, you can be pretty sure you can implement some of the good stuff so the quality of your trial can increase significantly, especially for first-time authors. I'd say for a first-time author, tGens meets/exceeds the first-time standards pretty damn well because of some things we implemented :)
(though Enthalpy's reviews have confused me on if this truly the case or not...but no matter, IMO tGens doesn't stand on its own well were it not for the experiments taking place).
Sligneris wrote:Hmm. Okay, I can agree about the map and the music. However, the way you address the fact that it is an experiment to many other issues makes it feel like it's an excuse of sorts and that you're not actually willing to improve. Just the impression I got. ^^;

PS: I'm sorry, but... What are CCEs? ^^;
...No.
We've acknowledged several times before that we agree a lot of assessments from players/authors alike, especially in regards to negative feedback. They tend to go with our own self-assessments on the trial as a whole (especially Enthalpy's review, since yes I've refuted it as much as possible, but that's because I NEED to defend myself as an author and see how well my justifications/directions of the case holds up under scrutiny under a negative review like his. I actually agree with most of his points, especially since he expanded upon a bunch of them...but some points are things I won't budge on, like teh music haha).

You get this impression because we don't necessarily, or even immediately, apply the feedback to the current, released parts. I'm not stupid enough to implement poor gameplay design on accident, like the way you approached the mega-testimony CE for example. You may not ever see that again in Part 3.
But there are still mistakes I've acknowledged that I've made by myself, like how you pointed out the huge flaw about the MASON system's creator/inventor, the ESG studios guys, where I said another company completely made it. I fixed that, as that's not something minor, it's a major flaw that clearly breaks established facts, which I didn't know I was breaking.

To have such an impression, yet dismiss the fixes I DID make in respond to certain things players/authors pointed out that majorly requires fixing, surprises me a bunch from your post. Like ED said, don't assume our not willing to revamp for the most part, means not willing to improve. It's still my first case, and so of course it's not going to be perfect (it's not meant to be). But you should have the expectation that for the next part that's released, it should be a greater improvement over the previous part, with all the feedbacks you all point out implemented as much as we can.





So, let me simplify this as much as possible, because I don't want to go over this again, as it's getting more complicated than it needs to be:

Simply play, review, critique, etc. the trial like normally. Yes, you can be for certain that there may or may not be experiments taking place, but you are not obliged to actively seek them out. We want to see if the experiments we implement work under a practical, normal trial setting, even though they may not be obvious that we're conducting them.

We can hint that an experiment is taking place through breaking the 4th wall (which we subtly did in Part 2, but I guess it can be more explicit for Part 3) though, so you'll get a heads up on the matter, but again, you don't HAVE to comment/look on those aspects if you don't want to. This applies to authors/players alike. For my fellow authors, it would be MUCH APPRECIATED if you think you can find something we did wrong/really well that stood out to you, but you aren't obliged to at this point.
User avatar
Sligneris
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:22 pm
Spoken languages: English, Polish

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by Sligneris »

...
Last bumped by E.D.Revolution on Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:02 pm.
What.
User avatar
E.D.Revolution
Posts: 5743
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:00 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English and decent Spanish
Location: Across dimensions, transcending universes

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by E.D.Revolution »

Le consequences of having restrictions of posts not showing up right away. Means time tags get messed up. The least you can do is respond to what Phantom says.
Image
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by Bad Player »

Proton wrote:
Bad Player wrote:If this is an "experiment" intended to help prospective/inexperienced trial authors, you should probably be a bit more explicit about it, and perhaps even make a text "guide" about what exactly is "wrong" with it. Otherwise, people are going to just go into this like they would any other normal trial, and take nothing away from it. They may go "eh, I didn't really like it," but not even authors will probably think deeply about why they didn't like it, let alone try to learn from it and apply it to their own work.
-I was explicit about it, when I kept posting updates progress for Part 2. I repeatedly emphasized that there would be much more experiments in Part 2, and so the case as a whole would suffer, so authors would be encouraged to try to look at things we did on the experiment side and critique it as so. I repeatedly emphasized only one part was meant to be made, and so Part 2 would suffer poor case logic, and be more experiment focused, with intentional mistakes for authors/players in general to catch. I've done this for one year, way after Part 1 was released.
As for the guide document, yes I planned that, but only after everything with tGens was done. If ED decides to not continue Part 3 (which at this point, I don't think he should waste his time with), then I would shift to making a google doc of everything I could note down regarding the experiment(s) from Part1+2.
I don't see anything in the OP about this being an experiment or anything... And if this is an experiment to help authors, making a "guide" to help them sooner rather than later seems like it'd be a lot better, especially considering you don't seem to have any idea when or even if this will be finished.


Also, I'm not really sure why you care about "first time trial standards" so much. Depending on your point of view, the bar can already be extremely high. For example, we've done the Ace Attorney Online Annual (ha!) Awards twice, and both times the "Best Trial of All-Time" winner was the first trial of its author. If you're trying to show that a high-quality trial can be made even when it's the author's first... it's already been done. I really do feel that trial quality is gated by the skill of the author, which is largely independent of how many trials he/she has made.
User avatar
Ping'
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:23 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Français, English, Español
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by Ping' »

Hi everyone, been mostly lurking these past few months, but I saw some interesting activity in this topic and thought I'd give a few thoughts...

First, I'm somewhat confused because I remember playing the first part, and I don't recall anything about an 'experiment'. The start of the second part doesn't mention anything like that either (although the presentation is excellent).

In any case,

- I love experimenting, including open-ended experimentation for its own sake. You know, 'Breakin Da' Rules', so to speak. But ultimately creative works aren't a science. There's no search for truth, only possibilities to be explored within a basic framework composed of mainly three elements: the author(s), a production, and opinions on that production. The value of creative experimentation, even when done for the sake of experimenting, lies in feedback - either in the form of opinion that helps the author in his next production, or new work inspired by the original work. In other words, you can't hope to nullify feedback by saying 'it was an experiment' because without feedback the creative potential of your experiment will never be released.

- Authors should stand up for what they wrote and willfully engage with all forms of feedback in a spirit of complete honesty. Not for others, but for themselves. Retroactively reinventing your original intentions is a dead end (and yes, it's very difficult not to succumb to that temptation... I've been there :mrgreen:). As an author, I try to always ask myself: what did I hope to accomplish? What did I, in fact, accomplish? What explains the difference? What will be my vision next time, and what can my last work teach me that will help me reach that vision?

- I sympathize with the idea that the 'experience' comes before all else, but I will agree that experience is rather hard to define. As for presentation VS story/gameplay/etc., each author definitely has their own signature strength that draws you to their work, however the best 'experiences' generally achieve some kind of balance, or at least meet minimum standards in each area. I'm not saying this case doesn't, by the way, just that denying it could potentially lead an author down to a dangerous path.

- And yes, I agree with BP that there should not be arbitrary limitations or standards applied to first cases. In fact the most influential fancases have often been first cases. The larger point I would make is that once you've put your work out there, you can no longer control how it's going to be perceived. It no longer belongs to you, therefore you can no longer lock it in any conceptual prison.

Anyway, this is a fascinating topic.
User avatar
E.D.Revolution
Posts: 5743
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:00 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English and decent Spanish
Location: Across dimensions, transcending universes

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by E.D.Revolution »

Ping' wrote:First, I'm somewhat confused because I remember playing the first part, and I don't recall anything about an 'experiment'. The start of the second part doesn't mention anything like that either (although the presentation is excellent).
Bad Player wrote:I don't see anything in the OP about this being an experiment or anything...
Uhh, from the main post... Right under the big box art...
Phantom wrote:Welcome everyone! Glad to see you stopped by to view this thread! :april:
Just to take note, this is my first attempt at a trial.
This trial is meant to be an example to follow along with my guides, but also to pose a "what-if" scenario of a transition between GS4 and GS5, or maybe the start of GS5 itself. Obviously, with the official release of Dual Destinies, this case is an AU from the end of GS4. There are other reasons I've wanted to create this trial, such as raising the bar for first time trial standards, but won't disclose at the moment.

I'm also attempting to keep things authentic in-game such as details and personality, but will mainly focus on experimentation.
A large amount of custom content will also be included within the trial.
Note that the OP hasn't changed much since three years ago. I really do get irritated that people don't get that we've been explicit about experimentation... :tigre: :tigre: :tigre:
Bad Player wrote:Also, I'm not really sure why you care about "first time trial standards" so much. Depending on your point of view, the bar can already be extremely high. For example, we've done the Ace Attorney Online Annual (ha!) Awards twice, and both times the "Best Trial of All-Time" winner was the first trial of its author. If you're trying to show that a high-quality trial can be made even when it's the author's first... it's already been done. I really do feel that trial quality is gated by the skill of the author, which is largely independent of how many trials he/she has made.
Ping' wrote:And yes, I agree with BP that there should not be arbitrary limitations or standards applied to first cases. In fact the most influential fancases have often been first cases. The larger point I would make is that once you've put your work out there, you can no longer control how it's going to be perceived. It no longer belongs to you, therefore you can no longer lock it in any conceptual prison.
I don't know if I can explain this for him, but I'll try. He wanted to see how this fares compares to first-time trials. Well, now, it would be obvious that it would be somewhere between the bottom tier (the usual first time) and the god tier (the featured trials). And the argument about trial quality being independent of how many trials they have done. If you're citing featured trials, that is the exception to the norm. Not being able to compare it to that doesn't help him gauge where is he or how the trial has aged. Still, though. The issue with the "first time standard" in this case was that Phantom was very explicit and made it clear to Enthalpy that he needed to apply first time standards, e.g., how does this fare as a first time author's first case? Basically, he didn't do what was asked, and that's what irked him.
Ping' wrote:I sympathize with the idea that the 'experience' comes before all else, but I will agree that experience is rather hard to define. As for presentation VS story/gameplay/etc., each author definitely has their own signature strength that draws you to their work, however the best 'experiences' generally achieve some kind of balance, or at least meet minimum standards in each area. I'm not saying this case doesn't, by the way, just that denying it could potentially lead an author down to a dangerous path.
I agree with this. Probably could've explained this better. One thing does not just define a player's experience with the trial.
Ping' wrote:I love experimenting, including open-ended experimentation for its own sake. You know, 'Breakin Da' Rules', so to speak. But ultimately creative works aren't a science. There's no search for truth, only possibilities to be explored within a basic framework composed of mainly three elements: the author(s), a production, and opinions on that production. The value of creative experimentation, even when done for the sake of experimenting, lies in feedback - either in the form of opinion that helps the author in his next production, or new work inspired by the original work. In other words, you can't hope to nullify feedback by saying 'it was an experiment' because without feedback the creative potential of your experiment will never be released.
Again, I'll say what has been said before. Just because we say that doesn't mean it actually has been nullified. You'll note that I don't argue against most of the review because I actually agree with it. (Read carefully on the first response to the review to what I actually responded to). Phantom, obviously, responded more on it. He did say he agreed with most of it.
Image
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○

Post by Bad Player »

E.D.Revolution wrote:
Ping' wrote:First, I'm somewhat confused because I remember playing the first part, and I don't recall anything about an 'experiment'. The start of the second part doesn't mention anything like that either (although the presentation is excellent).
Bad Player wrote:I don't see anything in the OP about this being an experiment or anything...
Uhh, from the main post... Right under the big box art...
Phantom wrote:Welcome everyone! Glad to see you stopped by to view this thread! :april:
Just to take note, this is my first attempt at a trial.
This trial is meant to be an example to follow along with my guides, but also to pose a "what-if" scenario of a transition between GS4 and GS5, or maybe the start of GS5 itself. Obviously, with the official release of Dual Destinies, this case is an AU from the end of GS4. There are other reasons I've wanted to create this trial, such as raising the bar for first time trial standards, but won't disclose at the moment.

I'm also attempting to keep things authentic in-game such as details and personality, but will mainly focus on experimentation.
A large amount of custom content will also be included within the trial.
Note that the OP hasn't changed much since three years ago. I really do get irritated that people don't get that we've been explicit about experimentation... :tigre: :tigre: :tigre:
...Huh. So it is.

Still, if the main purpose of this thing truly was/is experimentation, mentioning it one time without any sort of formatting to draw attention to it in a wall o' text OP that many people will probably just skip over is not being clear and explicit enough. All the people posting in here saying "I had no idea this was supposed to be an 'experiment'." and the fact that people missed that part of the OP when specifically looking for mentions of experimentation should be proof enough of that.
I don't know if I can explain this for him, but I'll try. He wanted to see how this fares compares to first-time trials.
I just don't see any value in making a distinction about whether a trial is a "first time trial" or not when reviewing because, as has been demonstrated several times, one can make a great trial even if it's the author's first time.
Post Reply