[T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○
Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers
Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
According to the thread Enthalpy posted at the bug forum, the bug found by him seems to be a bug with the engine, and not human error.
For future players, try not to skip straight to playing inside a CE. If you use the avancement function, do it before the CE actually starts. Saving inside+avancement into a CE will always end up glitching something that's out of our control, so hopefully this doesn't occur for V6
For future players, try not to skip straight to playing inside a CE. If you use the avancement function, do it before the CE actually starts. Saving inside+avancement into a CE will always end up glitching something that's out of our control, so hopefully this doesn't occur for V6
- Enthalpy
- Community Manager
- Posts: 5172
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish
Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
Finished...
Spoiler : Enthalpy's Review :
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
- 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] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
First of all, thanks for taking the time/energy to do this Enthalpy
Did you note down a bug report btw? The spoiler of yours is a review, but you usually include a bug report IIRC.
That being said, I'm going to tackle the review paragraph by paragraph. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely satisfied with it (and not because it consists of mainly criticism, I want that. I agreed with some of it, and you can read below what I agreed with). My responses will be in a separate spoiler for your convenience.
I will need to say, that I think you should have reviewed each part separately compared against each other. The quality of the parts are just too different not to notice. And the things lacking from the review that I thought you would be the person to comment about the most worries me (the lack of specific details like graphics for example, or vague details in saying why some things don't work, in which you call out other players/reviewers for doing the same thing xP).
Also, I strongly feel as though you were playing this with completely wrong expectations, not because of the logic errors you pointed out, but because you send this impression that this case is meant to somehow tie into DD :s. Please read everything below, as it's a wall-of-text. Especially the part about how you're mystified on what Generations is supposed to be about .
If you can provide suggestions for fixes, I'd appreciate it a bunch.
Anyways, thanks for still taking the time to do this. I definitely don't agree with a bunch of points you made, as it seems harsh from the fact that you're also not applying first-time standards to this trial (which is alarming considering this is my first and only project xP). I know it's hard to believe that it seems like this doesn't come from an inexperienced trial author, but tGens DID certainly have the reputation of a really authentic, presentable, atmospheric case back when it was first released. That's what ya boy Proton is known for. The presentation dude . I apologize that you personally didn't have an enjoyable experience with this case. Your the first/second person to provide a negative review for tGens, which indicates to me that it probably isn't standing the test of time anymore.
Did you note down a bug report btw? The spoiler of yours is a review, but you usually include a bug report IIRC.
That being said, I'm going to tackle the review paragraph by paragraph. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely satisfied with it (and not because it consists of mainly criticism, I want that. I agreed with some of it, and you can read below what I agreed with). My responses will be in a separate spoiler for your convenience.
I will need to say, that I think you should have reviewed each part separately compared against each other. The quality of the parts are just too different not to notice. And the things lacking from the review that I thought you would be the person to comment about the most worries me (the lack of specific details like graphics for example, or vague details in saying why some things don't work, in which you call out other players/reviewers for doing the same thing xP).
Also, I strongly feel as though you were playing this with completely wrong expectations, not because of the logic errors you pointed out, but because you send this impression that this case is meant to somehow tie into DD :s. Please read everything below, as it's a wall-of-text. Especially the part about how you're mystified on what Generations is supposed to be about .
Spoiler : Responses as per paragraph :
Anyways, thanks for still taking the time to do this. I definitely don't agree with a bunch of points you made, as it seems harsh from the fact that you're also not applying first-time standards to this trial (which is alarming considering this is my first and only project xP). I know it's hard to believe that it seems like this doesn't come from an inexperienced trial author, but tGens DID certainly have the reputation of a really authentic, presentable, atmospheric case back when it was first released. That's what ya boy Proton is known for. The presentation dude . I apologize that you personally didn't have an enjoyable experience with this case. Your the first/second person to provide a negative review for tGens, which indicates to me that it probably isn't standing the test of time anymore.
Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
Oh also forgot to include this in the post (I can't edit a post unless a moderator approves it first), but how did you like the authentic/centered testimony/CE title labels and all? Did they look perfectly centered like they would be from the AA games?
- Enthalpy
- Community Manager
- Posts: 5172
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish
Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
Response to selections from E.D.
"It's an experiment" is not valid justification. Fine, this case is an experiment. If you want to be technical, it's a playground of pre-DD social constructivist experiments. I question the effectiveness of this. Your entire modus operandi assumes that people are going to learn from the mistakes in this case. There are a lot of mistakes, but I haven't seen any learning from them. Your technique of showing people what not to do isn't working at all, so this sequence of experiments fails. Showing people what not to do isn't working, so instead you should be showing them what to do. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "it's an experiment" has been overturned.
"There's a reason you don't know that explains why" is not valid justification. Fine, there's some reason I don't know about it that explains the strange events of this story, as well as why people are acting the way they are. I should be able to trust that such a reason exists, and I should know the author acknowledges there's an explanation required, and I should never be confused trying to keep up. I'm not getting that. As regards Phoenix, that canon is being violated, again in multiple senses of the word, screams for a reason, and I can't give it one. That Mia is showing up out of nowhere and Apollo being fine with it needs justification. Even if there is some unknown reason, there's a problem when the reader has lost confidence that there really is a reason that can explain all this strange behavior. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "there's a reason you don't know for it" has been overturned.
"This is a first-time trial" is not valid justification. Fine, this was the first trial you made. It's still foolish to apply first-time standards to you. Just the fact that you're making this argument shows that first-time cases tend not to be as good as other cases. However, if we actually play other first-time cases, we find that this is of a much higher quality. The difference is so vast that applying those standards would be meaningless. Besides, you've got over 30 pages here, and you have set yourself up as somewhat authoritative on trials. And didn't you say that you were known for presentation? Even if this is your first trial, those standards can't be applied here. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "this is a first-time trial" is overturned.
"Anybody can find these problems" is not valid justification. Fine, problems can always be found in a work. I'll grant you that readily. But I do not believe that massive problems can be found in quality works. This is simply part of how we define quality! It's not true that no matter how hard I look, a huge problem can be found in any work. Certainly, problems can be found, but if there are large problems found, there are large problems to find. Thus, that I'm pointing out these problems shows you can make these problems, and problems of similar magnitude, disappear from existence. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "anybody can find these problems" is overturned.
"Only presentation is important" is not valid justification. Fine, you value presentation. However, so much more than presentation is important. A quality case has good aspects besides presentation. If nothing else, the story, characters and logic in their current state is distracting from the presentation. Even if you think presentation is important, you see these other problems. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "only presentation is important" is overturned.
Again, with all due respect, you seem to be dodging the responsibility for the several massive errors of Turnabout Generations. You are not above mistakes. You can make mistakes. You have made mistakes. The current state of Turnabout Generations is a mistake. You are responsible for the current state of Turnabout Generations. Not recognizing these things is a fatal mistake.
Response to selections from Proton.E.D.Revolution wrote:Spoiler : Response :
I think at this point that there are a few points that I need to drill in. With all due respect, you seem intent on finding every way possible to dodge responsibility for the problems in this case. Not one of them are valid.Proton wrote:Did you note down a bug report btw? The spoiler of yours is a review, but you usually include a bug report IIRC.
I felt it unnecessary. Minor gripes were minimal, and I also felt that you should rewrite most of the dialogue, so problems specific to the current dialogue would serve no purpose.
I will need to say, that I think you should have reviewed each part separately compared against each other. The quality of the parts are just too different not to notice. And the things lacking from the review that I thought you would be the person to comment about the most worries me (the lack of specific details like graphics for example, or vague details in saying why some things don't work, in which you call out other players/reviewers for doing the same thing xP).
Beyond presentation aspects and length, I found no significant difference between the two parts. I dd not find this adequate to warrant separate sections. As for vagueness, I have never spent much time dealing with presentation issues. In other sections, the problems themselves were extremely vague, or due to the vast number of problems, I was unable to give them the attention they deserve. If the latter is true, I apologize.
Also, I strongly feel as though you were playing this with completely wrong expectations, not because of the logic errors you pointed out, but because you send this impression that this case is meant to somehow tie into DD :s. Please read everything below, as it's a wall-of-text. Especially the part about how you're mystified on what Generations is supposed to be about .
I never made any comment about this tying into Dual Destinies beyond that you wrote an alternate version of Dual Destinies. Again, correct me if I am wrong on this.
If you can provide suggestions for fixes, I'd appreciate it a bunch.Spoiler : Responses as per paragraph :
Anyways, thanks for still taking the time to do this. I definitely don't agree with a bunch of points you made, as it seems harsh from the fact that you're also not applying first-time standards to this trial (which is alarming considering this is my first and only project xP). I know it's hard to believe that it seems like this doesn't come from an inexperienced trial author, but tGens DID certainly have the reputation of a really authentic, presentable, atmospheric case back when it was first released. That's what ya boy Proton is known for. The presentation dude . I apologize that you personally didn't have an enjoyable experience with this case. Your the first/second person to provide a negative review for tGens, which indicates to me that it probably isn't standing the test of time anymore.
"It's an experiment" is not valid justification. Fine, this case is an experiment. If you want to be technical, it's a playground of pre-DD social constructivist experiments. I question the effectiveness of this. Your entire modus operandi assumes that people are going to learn from the mistakes in this case. There are a lot of mistakes, but I haven't seen any learning from them. Your technique of showing people what not to do isn't working at all, so this sequence of experiments fails. Showing people what not to do isn't working, so instead you should be showing them what to do. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "it's an experiment" has been overturned.
"There's a reason you don't know that explains why" is not valid justification. Fine, there's some reason I don't know about it that explains the strange events of this story, as well as why people are acting the way they are. I should be able to trust that such a reason exists, and I should know the author acknowledges there's an explanation required, and I should never be confused trying to keep up. I'm not getting that. As regards Phoenix, that canon is being violated, again in multiple senses of the word, screams for a reason, and I can't give it one. That Mia is showing up out of nowhere and Apollo being fine with it needs justification. Even if there is some unknown reason, there's a problem when the reader has lost confidence that there really is a reason that can explain all this strange behavior. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "there's a reason you don't know for it" has been overturned.
"This is a first-time trial" is not valid justification. Fine, this was the first trial you made. It's still foolish to apply first-time standards to you. Just the fact that you're making this argument shows that first-time cases tend not to be as good as other cases. However, if we actually play other first-time cases, we find that this is of a much higher quality. The difference is so vast that applying those standards would be meaningless. Besides, you've got over 30 pages here, and you have set yourself up as somewhat authoritative on trials. And didn't you say that you were known for presentation? Even if this is your first trial, those standards can't be applied here. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "this is a first-time trial" is overturned.
"Anybody can find these problems" is not valid justification. Fine, problems can always be found in a work. I'll grant you that readily. But I do not believe that massive problems can be found in quality works. This is simply part of how we define quality! It's not true that no matter how hard I look, a huge problem can be found in any work. Certainly, problems can be found, but if there are large problems found, there are large problems to find. Thus, that I'm pointing out these problems shows you can make these problems, and problems of similar magnitude, disappear from existence. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "anybody can find these problems" is overturned.
"Only presentation is important" is not valid justification. Fine, you value presentation. However, so much more than presentation is important. A quality case has good aspects besides presentation. If nothing else, the story, characters and logic in their current state is distracting from the presentation. Even if you think presentation is important, you see these other problems. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "only presentation is important" is overturned.
Again, with all due respect, you seem to be dodging the responsibility for the several massive errors of Turnabout Generations. You are not above mistakes. You can make mistakes. You have made mistakes. The current state of Turnabout Generations is a mistake. You are responsible for the current state of Turnabout Generations. Not recognizing these things is a fatal mistake.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
Whoa... I must admit that I had several doubts about this project and now Enthalpy covered most of them in this one review... I wasn't able to give such a detailed opinion myself and I don't think I would be, so I kept silent about that, thinking it's just me, hahah xD
Kinda... ironic, seeing that I did contribute to that experiment myself, on a graphical area ^^;
Kinda... ironic, seeing that I did contribute to that experiment myself, on a graphical area ^^;
- ApolloGrimoire
- Posts: 1832
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 3:46 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: English
- Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
I think he's the only one who can.
Like the creator of Final Fantasy, I'm better at telling a story.
If you need help animating Ace Attorney sprite sheets, I'm your man.
Greatest Weakness - Mis;use of; Semi;colons
If you need help animating Ace Attorney sprite sheets, I'm your man.
Greatest Weakness - Mis;use of; Semi;colons
Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
First Enthalpy, thank you, SO MUCH, for sticking to your position. You've expanded most of your explanations with what you had with the content, and I'm satisfied with what you have to say now. Your honesty on ALL the problems (minor, or major) is something I've been looking forward from a negative review for a LONG time. AAO NEEDS more critical posts like yours for trial threads with the kind of scope you've provided.
I will reply to them, and you will still see I disagree with you on many things, but as a whole, I do agree with one thing: If tGens was a normal trial with absolutely no hint of experiments and such (just a normal trial from a trial author), it would be rated VERY poorly. This how I asked Enthalpy to review it anyway, as though it were a real, serious, first-time trial, without the experimental aspect of it.
There are things I need to reply to, especially in regards to making comments about how I'm avoiding responsibility of mistakes and such. I really only care about your assessment of the content, as that's what I've asked you to do: review this trial like you would normally (even if you're still not applying first-time standards). Your talk of experiments is out of the scope of what I've asked you to focus on, so please don't take offense when I say I'm ignoring that part of your review (I have still replied to it, but I'm not taking any of what you said in that area into account of the review).
I've already acknowledged I've made mistakes previously. Basically, if I were going to shoot for a QA, tGens would most likely not get featured as per Enthalpy's review. With Enthalpy's review, it will be the best justification to not have to worry about making a part 3, which does me and ED a HUGE favor
After this post gets approved, please be aware I'm not going to reply to anymore lengthy posts@Enthalpy. I approve of the review and your follow-up post.
However, before I address Enthalpy's post, I will need to address the two posts after Enthalpy's: AGs, and Sligneris
Now that I'm done with that, let's go with Enthalpy's post.
"It's an experiment" is not valid justification. Fine, this case is an experiment. If you want to be technical, it's a playground of pre-DD social constructivist experiments. I question the effectiveness of this. Your entire modus operandi assumes that people are going to learn from the mistakes in this case. There are a lot of mistakes, but I haven't seen any learning from them. Your technique of showing people what not to do isn't working at all, so this sequence of experiments fails. Showing people what not to do isn't working, so instead you should be showing them what to do. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "it's an experiment" has been overturned.
Such premise is flaky. That assumption would only work if we had enough attention and had feedback from other authors/players regarding the mistakes that exist in tGens, and ONLY focused on making mistakes. We're not going by such an assumption, and is out of scope of what I asked you to do in your review. As I repeated many times before, it's up to the player/author to determine what THEY think works right, or works wrong with the content. We're showing what CAN happen in a typical case, what CAN you do with the editor. Just consider that not all players are authors looking to make a trial, they're just here to play a fancase, or even be wowed. If I want to show them what to do, I will happily refer them to Radian's Tutorial trials, whose purpose is to actually TEACH authors on building a simple case. Social constructivist worldview.
But again, the experiment comments you're making is out of scope, and has no bearing on the review as a whole.
"There's a reason you don't know that explains why" is not valid justification. Fine, there's some reason I don't know about it that explains the strange events of this story, as well as why people are acting the way they are. I should be able to trust that such a reason exists, and I should know the author acknowledges there's an explanation required, and I should never be confused trying to keep up. I'm not getting that. As regards Phoenix, that canon is being violated, again in multiple senses of the word, screams for a reason, and I can't give it one. That Mia is showing up out of nowhere and Apollo being fine with it needs justification. Even if there is some unknown reason, there's a problem when the reader has lost confidence that there really is a reason that can explain all this strange behavior. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "there's a reason you don't know for it" has been overturned.
-It's not a valid justification if it's NEVER mentioned (which hasn't been the case), NEVER acknowledged (which other characters have acknowledged in the case), NEVER hinted at (which I've done repeatedly multiple times as subtle as possible), NEVER attempted to be addressed in the future (welp, a Part 3 ain't here yet!). It's only been 2 parts so far. That's where the finale comes in to resolve all these issues you have with the characters .
You've missed all these details/hints that I could give, especially for someone like PW. Sorry you missed them.
"This is a first-time trial" is not valid justification. Fine, this was the first trial you made. It's still foolish to apply first-time standards to you. Just the fact that you're making this argument shows that first-time cases tend not to be as good as other cases. However, if we actually play other first-time cases, we find that this is of a much higher quality. The difference is so vast that applying those standards would be meaningless. Besides, you've got over 30 pages here, and you have set yourself up as somewhat authoritative on trials. And didn't you say that you were known for presentation? Even if this is your first trial, those standards can't be applied here. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "this is a first-time trial" is overturned.
I've gone over this already. Your conclusion is pretty faulty since you already acknowledge that this is in fact, my first trial. And yet you still show the point on how I've exceeded what a typical first-timer standard trial should be. If you're directing this at ED, it makes sense. But not to me. That's NO excuse to not apply that standard. Even then, it makes no sense since you repeatedly mention how this is higher quality trial, but going back to say in other parts of your post how the quality is poor in general. If it's someone's first trial, then rate it according to a first-timer standard...assuming you even rate first trials differently from an experienced trial that is ;P. I would not have specifically asked you this request if this was my second project, or second case, etc. Yes, the quality of the two parts is different, but maybe it's because I intended for the newer part to be much better developed than the previous. I succeeded didn't I?
STILL, I do acknowledge this: If you take all the experimental aspects out, tGens as a whole wouldn't perform well. THIS I agree with.
"Anybody can find these problems" is not valid justification. Fine, problems can always be found in a work. I'll grant you that readily. But I do not believe that massive problems can be found in quality works. This is simply part of how we define quality! It's not true that no matter how hard I look, a huge problem can be found in any work. Certainly, problems can be found, but if there are large problems found, there are large problems to find. Thus, that I'm pointing out these problems shows you can make these problems, and problems of similar magnitude, disappear from existence. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "anybody can find these problems" is overturned.
-I agree with you on this in a general, but I'm not sure where I said this? Either way, quality works can still have major flaws, even if they are not obvious to the average viewer. But you can be damn sure those flaws can be hidden as much as possible through other means, to where critics have to search them out. In your case, the things you point out does not seem obvious to the average player (at least IMO). But I acknowledge this either way.
"Only presentation is important" is not valid justification. Fine, you value presentation. However, so much more than presentation is important. A quality case has good aspects besides presentation. If nothing else, the story, characters and logic in their current state is distracting from the presentation. Even if you think presentation is important, you see these other problems. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "only presentation is important" is overturned.
-This is where I disagree, especially for a first-time author. No one enjoys playing a bug-ridden, poor grammar, subpar presentable case. But I'm not affirming it's the ONLY aspect to consider for the player experience. The other aspects you critique on can STILL be overlooked (it's what happened to Tap's MSAT, which had numerous case logic errors, but made up for everything else regarding the player experience). STILL, if the case logic itself is poor, everything else will be hindered, and tGens shows this a bunch if you take out the bells and whistles.
Again, with all due respect, you seem to be dodging the responsibility for the several massive errors of Turnabout Generations. You are not above mistakes. You can make mistakes. You have made mistakes. The current state of Turnabout Generations is a mistake. You are responsible for the current state of Turnabout Generations. Not recognizing these things is a fatal mistake.
Again, I've already acknowledged that since it is my first trial, I HAVE made mistakes, especially ones that I didn't know I was making. But there's a difference between there being unintentional, and intentional mistakes. I have done both, and to not acknowledge this is naive. To say that the entire project in its current state is a mistake is harsh, but my feelings aren't hurt. Actually, I'm more offended by Sligs/AG's post than your negative review (which I'm gracious for, and not offended at all...Just desiring more from you, which you provided)
But that's just something else to learn from tGens. No amount of planning/covering/polishing is going to completely eliminate all the mistakes that exist in a work.
Again, EVEN though I have replied/attempted to refute your responses in a lot of areas, just understand that I agree with you as a whole tGens suffers MAJORLY, if you took out all of its bells and whistles, and if you didn't account for the experiments taking place.
On its own two feet, it's a poor trial, and IMO doesn't stand the test of time anyway. That's all I wanted to be taken away from your review. Not the experiment comments.
But that is to be expected, as it's just a glorified demo not really meant to make sense anyway .
So thank you for taking the time to respond to our comments Enthalpy. You don't know how much of a favor you're doing for us by providing a scathing critique.
I will reply to them, and you will still see I disagree with you on many things, but as a whole, I do agree with one thing: If tGens was a normal trial with absolutely no hint of experiments and such (just a normal trial from a trial author), it would be rated VERY poorly. This how I asked Enthalpy to review it anyway, as though it were a real, serious, first-time trial, without the experimental aspect of it.
There are things I need to reply to, especially in regards to making comments about how I'm avoiding responsibility of mistakes and such. I really only care about your assessment of the content, as that's what I've asked you to do: review this trial like you would normally (even if you're still not applying first-time standards). Your talk of experiments is out of the scope of what I've asked you to focus on, so please don't take offense when I say I'm ignoring that part of your review (I have still replied to it, but I'm not taking any of what you said in that area into account of the review).
I've already acknowledged I've made mistakes previously. Basically, if I were going to shoot for a QA, tGens would most likely not get featured as per Enthalpy's review. With Enthalpy's review, it will be the best justification to not have to worry about making a part 3, which does me and ED a HUGE favor
After this post gets approved, please be aware I'm not going to reply to anymore lengthy posts@Enthalpy. I approve of the review and your follow-up post.
However, before I address Enthalpy's post, I will need to address the two posts after Enthalpy's: AGs, and Sligneris
Spoiler : You two :
Spoiler : Responses in general :
Such premise is flaky. That assumption would only work if we had enough attention and had feedback from other authors/players regarding the mistakes that exist in tGens, and ONLY focused on making mistakes. We're not going by such an assumption, and is out of scope of what I asked you to do in your review. As I repeated many times before, it's up to the player/author to determine what THEY think works right, or works wrong with the content. We're showing what CAN happen in a typical case, what CAN you do with the editor. Just consider that not all players are authors looking to make a trial, they're just here to play a fancase, or even be wowed. If I want to show them what to do, I will happily refer them to Radian's Tutorial trials, whose purpose is to actually TEACH authors on building a simple case. Social constructivist worldview.
But again, the experiment comments you're making is out of scope, and has no bearing on the review as a whole.
"There's a reason you don't know that explains why" is not valid justification. Fine, there's some reason I don't know about it that explains the strange events of this story, as well as why people are acting the way they are. I should be able to trust that such a reason exists, and I should know the author acknowledges there's an explanation required, and I should never be confused trying to keep up. I'm not getting that. As regards Phoenix, that canon is being violated, again in multiple senses of the word, screams for a reason, and I can't give it one. That Mia is showing up out of nowhere and Apollo being fine with it needs justification. Even if there is some unknown reason, there's a problem when the reader has lost confidence that there really is a reason that can explain all this strange behavior. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "there's a reason you don't know for it" has been overturned.
-It's not a valid justification if it's NEVER mentioned (which hasn't been the case), NEVER acknowledged (which other characters have acknowledged in the case), NEVER hinted at (which I've done repeatedly multiple times as subtle as possible), NEVER attempted to be addressed in the future (welp, a Part 3 ain't here yet!). It's only been 2 parts so far. That's where the finale comes in to resolve all these issues you have with the characters .
You've missed all these details/hints that I could give, especially for someone like PW. Sorry you missed them.
"This is a first-time trial" is not valid justification. Fine, this was the first trial you made. It's still foolish to apply first-time standards to you. Just the fact that you're making this argument shows that first-time cases tend not to be as good as other cases. However, if we actually play other first-time cases, we find that this is of a much higher quality. The difference is so vast that applying those standards would be meaningless. Besides, you've got over 30 pages here, and you have set yourself up as somewhat authoritative on trials. And didn't you say that you were known for presentation? Even if this is your first trial, those standards can't be applied here. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "this is a first-time trial" is overturned.
I've gone over this already. Your conclusion is pretty faulty since you already acknowledge that this is in fact, my first trial. And yet you still show the point on how I've exceeded what a typical first-timer standard trial should be. If you're directing this at ED, it makes sense. But not to me. That's NO excuse to not apply that standard. Even then, it makes no sense since you repeatedly mention how this is higher quality trial, but going back to say in other parts of your post how the quality is poor in general. If it's someone's first trial, then rate it according to a first-timer standard...assuming you even rate first trials differently from an experienced trial that is ;P. I would not have specifically asked you this request if this was my second project, or second case, etc. Yes, the quality of the two parts is different, but maybe it's because I intended for the newer part to be much better developed than the previous. I succeeded didn't I?
STILL, I do acknowledge this: If you take all the experimental aspects out, tGens as a whole wouldn't perform well. THIS I agree with.
"Anybody can find these problems" is not valid justification. Fine, problems can always be found in a work. I'll grant you that readily. But I do not believe that massive problems can be found in quality works. This is simply part of how we define quality! It's not true that no matter how hard I look, a huge problem can be found in any work. Certainly, problems can be found, but if there are large problems found, there are large problems to find. Thus, that I'm pointing out these problems shows you can make these problems, and problems of similar magnitude, disappear from existence. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "anybody can find these problems" is overturned.
-I agree with you on this in a general, but I'm not sure where I said this? Either way, quality works can still have major flaws, even if they are not obvious to the average viewer. But you can be damn sure those flaws can be hidden as much as possible through other means, to where critics have to search them out. In your case, the things you point out does not seem obvious to the average player (at least IMO). But I acknowledge this either way.
"Only presentation is important" is not valid justification. Fine, you value presentation. However, so much more than presentation is important. A quality case has good aspects besides presentation. If nothing else, the story, characters and logic in their current state is distracting from the presentation. Even if you think presentation is important, you see these other problems. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "only presentation is important" is overturned.
-This is where I disagree, especially for a first-time author. No one enjoys playing a bug-ridden, poor grammar, subpar presentable case. But I'm not affirming it's the ONLY aspect to consider for the player experience. The other aspects you critique on can STILL be overlooked (it's what happened to Tap's MSAT, which had numerous case logic errors, but made up for everything else regarding the player experience). STILL, if the case logic itself is poor, everything else will be hindered, and tGens shows this a bunch if you take out the bells and whistles.
Again, with all due respect, you seem to be dodging the responsibility for the several massive errors of Turnabout Generations. You are not above mistakes. You can make mistakes. You have made mistakes. The current state of Turnabout Generations is a mistake. You are responsible for the current state of Turnabout Generations. Not recognizing these things is a fatal mistake.
Again, I've already acknowledged that since it is my first trial, I HAVE made mistakes, especially ones that I didn't know I was making. But there's a difference between there being unintentional, and intentional mistakes. I have done both, and to not acknowledge this is naive. To say that the entire project in its current state is a mistake is harsh, but my feelings aren't hurt. Actually, I'm more offended by Sligs/AG's post than your negative review (which I'm gracious for, and not offended at all...Just desiring more from you, which you provided)
But that's just something else to learn from tGens. No amount of planning/covering/polishing is going to completely eliminate all the mistakes that exist in a work.
Again, EVEN though I have replied/attempted to refute your responses in a lot of areas, just understand that I agree with you as a whole tGens suffers MAJORLY, if you took out all of its bells and whistles, and if you didn't account for the experiments taking place.
On its own two feet, it's a poor trial, and IMO doesn't stand the test of time anyway. That's all I wanted to be taken away from your review. Not the experiment comments.
But that is to be expected, as it's just a glorified demo not really meant to make sense anyway .
So thank you for taking the time to respond to our comments Enthalpy. You don't know how much of a favor you're doing for us by providing a scathing critique.
- 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] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT
Responses in Red... You took my color...
Enthalpy wrote:Response to selections from E.D.
I think at this point that there are a few points that I need to drill in. With all due respect, you seem intent on finding every way possible to dodge responsibility for the problems in this case. Not one of them are valid.E.D.Revolution wrote:Spoiler : Response :
Most of these can be debunked.
"It's an experiment" is not valid justification. Fine, this case is an experiment. If you want to be technical, it's a playground of pre-DD social constructivist experiments. I question the effectiveness of this. Your entire modus operandi assumes that people are going to learn from the mistakes in this case. There are a lot of mistakes, but I haven't seen any learning from them. Your technique of showing people what not to do isn't working at all, so this sequence of experiments fails. Showing people what not to do isn't working, so instead you should be showing them what to do. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "it's an experiment" has been overturned.
Tsk tsk tsk. Just because you don't see people learning doesn't mean people aren't. You can't know for sure if people are or aren't learning from anything here or anywhere. Even if experience tells you otherwise, you can't know for sure. As authors, people should be learning from mistakes in this case or any case. When you can find it, learn from it, not dismiss it. What went wrong? Why did it go wrong? What can be improved? The part of the experiment called "assessment" still applies. And since the experiment is the point, your assessment is not valid.
"There's a reason you don't know that explains why" is not valid justification. Fine, there's some reason I don't know about it that explains the strange events of this story, as well as why people are acting the way they are. I should be able to trust that such a reason exists, and I should know the author acknowledges there's an explanation required, and I should never be confused trying to keep up. I'm not getting that. As regards Phoenix, that canon is being violated, again in multiple senses of the word, screams for a reason, and I can't give it one. That Mia is showing up out of nowhere and Apollo being fine with it needs justification. Even if there is some unknown reason, there's a problem when the reader has lost confidence that there really is a reason that can explain all this strange behavior. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "there's a reason you don't know for it" has been overturned.
Phantom will have to respond to this one because this is the only argument that I can't counter or "ignore". Even I have questions, myself, at certain points.
"This is a first-time trial" is not valid justification. Fine, this was the first trial you made. It's still foolish to apply first-time standards to you. Just the fact that you're making this argument shows that first-time cases tend not to be as good as other cases. However, if we actually play other first-time cases, we find that this is of a much higher quality. The difference is so vast that applying those standards would be meaningless. Besides, you've got over 30 pages here, and you have set yourself up as somewhat authoritative on trials. And didn't you say that you were known for presentation? Even if this is your first trial, those standards can't be applied here. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "this is a first-time trial" is overturned.
Your argument is really confusing. I know you are attempting to address both of us, but right now, you're not doing a very good job addressing the right person. If this is me making this argument, I can accept this nullification (Because it's technically false). I'd be lying if I made this argument. Phantom is making this argument, and technically, what he says is true: This is his only trial, and he literally did this as a first-time author. He learned from other trials what to do and what not to do, and applied the knowledge. Again, this goes back to the experimental aspects of this trial, which is likely why you think you can't apply first time standards, even if you say it's leagues beyond it. At the very least, the first time standard would apply to part 1. (I'll agree that part 1 and 2 differ too much). "This is a first-time trial" would definitely not be a justification for him on any subsequent cases.
And another thing. I suspect you may be applying a double standard here that you otherwise wouldn't. Therefore, your argument that the X is invalid can't be accepted. Prove to me you're not, and I'll be happy to retract that.
"Anybody can find these problems" is not valid justification. Fine, problems can always be found in a work. I'll grant you that readily. But I do not believe that massive problems can be found in quality works. This is simply part of how we define quality! It's not true that no matter how hard I look, a huge problem can be found in any work. Certainly, problems can be found, but if there are large problems found, there are large problems to find. Thus, that I'm pointing out these problems shows you can make these problems, and problems of similar magnitude, disappear from existence. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "anybody can find these problems" is overturned.
The argument is badly framed. Every great piece of work has huge problems, whether one can spot them or not. Or if one is being subjective or biased. You cannot possibly find a piece of work that doesn't have a major problem with them. How you find the flaw is up to you. If there was a piece of work that is really perfect, only a perfect being can make it. Yes, it's a ridiculous sounding argument (common in philosoply, I might add), but that's what's being interpreted from this assessment. Just because you pointed out that these big problems exist (I don't dismiss this, see below), doesn't mean similar problems can't be recognized or appear. Again, goes back to the experimental aspect of this, and is encouraged. If you find the problem, analyze it and take what you've analyzed and apply it to your trial.
If you believe I'm misinterpreting the argument, feel free to correct me.
"Only presentation is important" is not valid justification. Fine, you value presentation. However, so much more than presentation is important. A quality case has good aspects besides presentation. If nothing else, the story, characters and logic in their current state is distracting from the presentation. Even if you think presentation is important, you see these other problems. Thus, your argument that Problem X does not matter because "only presentation is important" is overturned.
You are assuming too much. Sure, presentation can hide some problems. It's more obvious that there will be problems if the presentation is not there. Think about it. I don't think either of us has made the argument that presentation is the ONLY thing that matters. Therefore, the argument you present is false. Even if I agree with the reasons, I can’t accept the conclusion as-is because it hinges on the assumption that either one of us only cares about the presentation. It borders on strawman.
Again, with all due respect, you seem to be dodging the responsibility for the several massive errors of Turnabout Generations. You are not above mistakes. You can make mistakes. You have made mistakes. The current state of Turnabout Generations is a mistake. You are responsible for the current state of Turnabout Generations. Not recognizing these things is a fatal mistake.
That is true. We have made mistakes. I'll readily admit that. However, don't pretend that you don't make mistakes. You made the mistaken assumption that we don't recognize problems. We do, and we mostly agree with the assements. Yes, there are flaws, and it’s better for us if there’s someone else who can see the flaws we might not have seen in the first place. If this were any other trial, changes would've been made. You make the mistake of not recognizing that the format lends itself to allow mistakes to happen as a learning tool. The fact that it was framed as an experiment is why this works here but would not have otherwise. But most of all, you have make the mistake of missing the point of this experiment, entirely. It was designed to be a mix of good and bad experiments in a trial format. We show what's possible (it has to work at the very core but not overall) on the Editor/Player. It's up to the reader (or more accurately, the author) to identify why things works and why things didn't work and to learn from it. For example, "This CE makes no sense. It took me a while for me to get out. Now that I know the solution, the problem doesn't make sense. Lesson to learn: forumlate the CE with clear and concise information so that the solution makes sense. Don't let players make assumptions that are a bit... out there to solve the CE." Or, for us "Gottem is supposed to be annoying. Result: Got 'em too much praise. Why? Feedback suggests that he's so unique and the story deserves sympathy. Takeaway lesson: Amplify his annoyance and perhaps change the circumstances to elicit the response that we want." Thus, with lessons like this, your comparison to the neutrino experiment doesn't quite work. It also proves Phantom’s point (that you have seem to ignore on the nature of the experiment…)
If you think we're being stubborn on it, there's a good reason for that. This is a playground of experiments any can look at (but not edit, unfortunately). Analyze it, and learn from it. You don't learn from the mistakes? You'll make the exact same ones in your own trial, as well.
Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○
I would like to say my guide on how to frustrate players properly was inspired by trials I had a bad experience with. So it is entirely possible to play other cases and see what not to do.
Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○
Proton, I apologize for that. I am just bigger novice than anyone involved and I did not feel I had enough experience and authority to adress these issues ^^; Especially after you said it was intended. All I would be able to say is that I don't like something here and there and I did not think it actually would be of any use...
Re: [T] Turnabout Generations [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!] ○
Okay, I think enough has been said. Let's try and move on now, okay?
- 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!] ○
And that guide is a very good start. See if you can add any more to yours. Observe, analyze, apply, learn.TheDoctor wrote:I would like to say my guide on how to frustrate players properly was inspired by trials I had a bad experience with. So it is entirely possible to play other cases and see what not to do.
- 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!] ○
... 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...
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...