-And yet again, I've already explained why I made little mention of it back when Part 1 was released, versus being explicit about it as Part 2 was coming out. I didn't want anyone to give tGens slack back in the day because it was some experiment (really, it's a 'normal' trial masking a sleuth of experiments). If that had been the case, I would've just marked it as a misc. trial. After all, I was not expecting anyone to remotely like the sense of story/case, since they were mere afterthoughts meant to help drive the experiments.
I accomplished the things I set out to do, and got proper feedback accordingly with the experiments I did on Part 1 (since the feedback was consistent on major areas of Part 1 that I was expecting on), even if no one really knew about the line I mentioned in the OP.
If I had not been explicit about the experimental aspects for Part 2, I would have probably gotten the same kind of feedback I was looking for.
But now I'm getting called out for doing something I was from the beginning...
That is why I'd like for you to simply play and rate the trial as you would any other case at this point. I want all flaws/mistake of the case exposed, even if there were many instances where I purposely implemented in a poor manner. There is no need to worry about the experiment stuff at this point. But I need to gauge what things I did on Part 2 works or not (and so far, DWAM has been the only person to point out obvious things I know can be improved on for a fact, along with Enthalpy on major issues he pointed out).
-Because I'm not in the mood for tGens to be categorized as another typical crap trial coming from a first-timer. As has been demonstrated several times, MUCH more over the years, one can make a terrible trial, especially if it's an author's first time. I don't really know where tGens falls under unless you tell me how the case does as far as first-timers go.
-I don't think you read my responses to reviews like Enthalpy all the way. Anytime something was pointed out, and I know I experimented on, I would say "yes, I did this as an experiment". I then explain the process behind why I made x part experimental, and if necessary, how I went about doing so. I would note the feedback under my to-do list to improve, throw away, or properly incorporate into the next part. Back when I was mum about the things I did on Part 1, I went ahead and tried to actually improve on things. The best example to wrap your head around is the map layout. It's completely revamped in Part 2, and much more visually pleasing to the eye, compared to Part 1.Ping' wrote: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 ). 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.
You think I nullify the feedback because I don't immediately try to fix the things that were pointed out. Unless it's something like typos, the "fixes" would be incorporated into the next part. Theoretically, if I was producing a Part 3, I would do the exact same thing from all the feedback I was given so far, just like a typical author would...except those fixes would be seen in-game for Part 3. I've made this kind of fix with the introduction of the revamp of the map of Part 2.
You notice I don't outright ever say "I refuse to change this" (unless it comes to the music ofc ). But I'm adamant on not changing a bunch of things on the current released parts. When you play each Part, I want you to think in your head how much improved each latest part is. This kinda thing is evolutionary I guess you could say. Personally, I can't stand playing Part 1 because of how difference of quality I tried to instill in Part 2.
-Uh yeah, I've been defending this work like any trial author would. But I'm not going to be so stupid to think that everything about this trial is good. I know what some of the major flaws are, and they exist because I never designed the project to be finished. I don't know what you mean by me reinventing my intentions, since they are clear on the OP I had written. But as BP said, I wasn't explicit from the beginning on what I set out to do.
-That is a great point. It would not be right to send this kind of message to other new authors. That being said, I've been going by what I think entices players from my personal experiences so far. The thrilling atmosphere and high energy of pace is what I believe hooks a player in. The question then for me, is how to keep them hooked. I think having a sense of balance is reasonable to have in regards to everything else. Unfortunately, I know for a fact tGens is REALLY unbalanced in some areas
-I understand that in general once a work is out there, I can't control how it can be perceived. I will refer you to the rest of ED's reply on that.
---------------------
Anyways, while this was an interesting discussion, this was a total waste of everyone's time. I'd like a regular review that I need to defend myself against, and feedback on things that looks like needs fixing (especially if there are any bugs). If we could stop arguing about this talk of experiments, that would be much appreciated.
After all, ED won't be able to know what he's going to need to address for Part 3 unless there is feedback provided. Thanks for your time.