[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

Phantom

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

Post by Phantom »

@BP

-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.


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 :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.
-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.

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 :P). 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 :P

-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.
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 didn't even notice that you had finally responded. How long did it take you to respond to this?

But anyway, I think one person promised a review... I'm still waiting...
Image
Phantom

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

Post by Phantom »

I dont remember, but all I know is that this discussion got us nowhere and didn't help us out as authors in the end.
User avatar
mAc Chaos
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:33 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Phyrexylvania

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

Post by mAc Chaos »

been playing this

i like the high quality effects

but the testimonies are unbearable, i had to close it up
The wolf knows what the ill heart thinks.
@mAcChaos

BEHOLD, the ULTIMATE CASE: MACFIA, an epic journey through time and space.
Phantom

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

Post by Phantom »

That's fine, and expected. Unless it was buggy, then it's not fine ;P
User avatar
DeeYo
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:21 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Hungarian, English, some Russian, Spanish, German
Location: Yes

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

Post by DeeYo »

I pretty much like this trial. It gives off its own atmosphere and all the experimentation really made this trial memorable.
Spoiler : :
You know what else made the trial memorable? Those fake contradictions where you actually had to see into the future and predict that this approach wouldn't work.

It's still a pretty good trial, though. [I don't approve of the mostly electronic soundtrack though.]
Image

Total times sued: 10328
User avatar
mAc Chaos
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:33 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Phyrexylvania

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

Post by mAc Chaos »

Proton wrote:That's fine, and expected. Unless it was buggy, then it's not fine ;P
It was just the incredibly obscure objections, the pages and pages of evidence that were not necessary, the automatic wait times for half of the pauses, and some other stuff. By the time I got to that "LOL ITS BORING ON PURPOSE" Ema testimony I quit.

But that aside, I was totally into the whole Godot story and wanted to find out what was going on. Phoenix was completely OOC but I figured he was doing it for some purpose, like testing Apollo with all the tricks his own rivals used.

But actually playing it was the problem.
The wolf knows what the ill heart thinks.
@mAcChaos

BEHOLD, the ULTIMATE CASE: MACFIA, an epic journey through time and space.
Phantom

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

Post by Phantom »

DeeYo wrote:I pretty much like this trial. It gives off its own atmosphere and all the experimentation really made this trial memorable.
Spoiler : :
You know what else made the trial memorable? Those fake contradictions where you actually had to see into the future and predict that this approach wouldn't work.

It's still a pretty good trial, though. [I don't approve of the mostly electronic soundtrack though.]
Thank you for the praise.
Spoiler : :
The original AA games had a few "fake" contradictions like the way you speak, so ED had this idea of taking it the next level, and seeing if we could try to integrate it further into the gameplay, rather than at a few "off" moments. We wanted to find an alternative to simply producing artificial difficulty through "get this wrong, lose lifebar by 100%!".

Needless to say, when you plan the case well, fake contradictions can provide a whole new dimension for bringing in tension to the player. tGens certainly shows that red herrings can really stupefy the player when developing a route that fools them into thinking they are legitimately on the right track. Not simple scenes of "you got this wrong!". Entire sequences more like.

...There's a severe disadvantage though, because you can't design fake contradictions in a manner we did all the time. Part 1's last CE fake contradiction is something that I think works well because it's based on providing an entirely different explanation to a scenario. Part 1's 2nd CE contradiction about the bullets/gun doesn't work as well, because the circumstances were really flaky.

IIRC tGens has been marked as memorable due to this particular aspect of the case. We were the first to incorporate this I think, it's a good experiment on frustrating the player in a reasonable manner.

As for music, there were certainly places were the music was unfitting (the awful rock guitar theme in Part 1 when introducing Cell, to the weird traditional japanese track, and to majority of tracks revolving around Gottem).

Part 3 theoretically should take the best music from Part 1+2, and introduce only very tiny sample of new tracks, to see if we can get a harmonious set.
If I were producing a real series/trial case, I would definitely scale back on my music selection, and not introduce so much in so little time. But for now, all the music you hear is experimental, testing all sorts of genres. You won't hear the kind of unique music on any other case here IMO.
mAc Chaos wrote:
Proton wrote:That's fine, and expected. Unless it was buggy, then it's not fine ;P
It was just the incredibly obscure objections, the pages and pages of evidence that were not necessary, the automatic wait times for half of the pauses, and some other stuff. By the time I got to that "LOL ITS BORING ON PURPOSE" Ema testimony I quit.

But that aside, I was totally into the whole Godot story and wanted to find out what was going on. Phoenix was completely OOC but I figured he was doing it for some purpose, like testing Apollo with all the tricks his own rivals used.

But actually playing it was the problem.
-If you're talking about the way the objections were carried out in Part 2, yeah, that makes sense. Very unorthodox, to say the least. Part 3 would probably avoid the way Part 2 was directed (which was heavy on seeing if we could make the gameplay aspects unpredictable in the testimonies), and shift more to the structured gameplay structure of Part 1.
After all, AA is more game than it is a visual novel. Players are itching to play with a familiar formula. I think Part 2 certainly took it too far in many areas regarding this.

-You've never complained about the evidence pages amount for Part 1. Why would it be an issue for Part 2? Are you talking about content, or are you referring to way our custom graphics ended with us having to display the content on more pages?
Either way, it would not be tGens without the lengthy descriptions present on some of the evidences. More information, no matter how irrelevant, is beneficial for the player to formulate ways to approach a case (or theorize with what you know). It's not meant to be clear cut.

-Yes, DWAM noted about the wait-timer bit too. I wanted to tightly control the pace in specific areas of the case, but it's clear there's a fine line for authors not to take too much control away from the player. If you played through to the ending of Part 2, you'd understand why I controlled the pauses/wait-timer like so. Part 3 may or may not lay off this, and the good thing is, E.D. directs scene much more different from me, so you may not even deal with this annoyance there.
You're more oriented to the gaming-side of AA, so not having that kind of interactive control, even something simple as advancing to the next frame, can certainly be frustrating to not have as a player.

-You would've loved how Part 2 ended if you dig the Cell character :lol:

-It's certainly clear PW is not acting the way players expect him to be. Being a prosecutor is an OOC behavior itself, so his personality being displayed should always come into question. It's not just about how he talks or what he says, that's for sure.

-This is an assessment I feel is very valid. The ways contradictions were achieved in some testimonies of Part 2 deviates too far away to reasonably expect a player to figure out. We can improve on that, or completely scrap some ideas on the gameplay front for part 3.
As this is supposed to be a first-case, this can be considered bad design from the get-go.
User avatar
mAc Chaos
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:33 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Phyrexylvania

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

Post by mAc Chaos »

Proton wrote:-You've never complained about the evidence pages amount for Part 1. Why would it be an issue for Part 2? Are you talking about content, or are you referring to way our custom graphics ended with us having to display the content on more pages?
Either way, it would not be tGens without the lengthy descriptions present on some of the evidences. More information, no matter how irrelevant, is beneficial for the player to formulate ways to approach a case (or theorize with what you know). It's not meant to be clear cut.
In general I don't like pieces of evidence with huge amounts of texts in trials. It's just a lazy way of making contradictions. A good contradiction shouldn't depend on having one tiny piece of information buried in a 30 page Wikipedia article. That just depends on it being so buried that nobody notices, rather than it being a legitimate puzzle. Granted, it is hard to make a good contradiction, since it requires writing in such a way to both reveal the necessary information and conceal it at the same time. But there's already so much we have to remember.

So no, more information is NOT always beneficial. If you want to give them something to work with, include it in the dialogue instead. It's not like they detail every character's life story in their profiles.

I did like the fake routes for Part 1. That was good.

The wait timers were OK at first, but it just got used too many times, especially in press convos. I would have to go through them over and over and over and over and it became annoying.
The wolf knows what the ill heart thinks.
@mAcChaos

BEHOLD, the ULTIMATE CASE: MACFIA, an epic journey through time and space.
Phantom

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

Post by Phantom »

mAc Chaos wrote:
Proton wrote:-You've never complained about the evidence pages amount for Part 1. Why would it be an issue for Part 2? Are you talking about content, or are you referring to way our custom graphics ended with us having to display the content on more pages?
Either way, it would not be tGens without the lengthy descriptions present on some of the evidences. More information, no matter how irrelevant, is beneficial for the player to formulate ways to approach a case (or theorize with what you know). It's not meant to be clear cut.
In general I don't like pieces of evidence with huge amounts of texts in trials. It's just a lazy way of making contradictions. A good contradiction shouldn't depend on having one tiny piece of information buried in a 30 page Wikipedia article. That just depends on it being so buried that nobody notices, rather than it being a legitimate puzzle. Granted, it is hard to make a good contradiction, since it requires writing in such a way to both reveal the necessary information and conceal it at the same time. But there's already so much we have to remember.

So no, more information is NOT always beneficial. If you want to give them something to work with, include it in the dialogue instead. It's not like they detail every character's life story in their profiles.

I did like the fake routes for Part 1. That was good.

The wait timers were OK at first, but it just got used too many times, especially in press convos. I would have to go through them over and over and over and over and it became annoying.
For some reason, I passed over this post :s. Sorry bout that. Let me see if I can reply, seeing as it's been so long:

-True, if I were running this as a first case, there shouldn't be lengthy descriptions of text on most, if not all the evidence. I can certainly see why it can be considered overwhelming, and mostly useless to have lengthy descriptions for gameplay purposes.
Maybe when I approached the evidence description during development I considered the court record as a sort of miniCodex to which I could make a player interested in exploring and reading about. The pieces of evidence being essential to having good contradictions may have left this impression on you that they were an afterthought in Part 2, then. I didn't consider that a player could feel that way with the Wikipedia analogy, but it makes sense. Doing a variation on ED's take of "paying attention to details" can backfire if it goes too far. I didn't intend it to be this way, but the focus is lost in Part 2.
What can be done in Part 3 is streamlining this particular pain point, along with an in-game explanation of stripping the useless details. The question is that the authors have to address, is which details are irrelevant to the case at hand?

Unfortunately, it seems that players may likely only respond to this idea of having lengthy text in evidence well if they were initially in an investigation sequence slowly undertaking the case. To have all this thrown at you with only the context of being in the trial can seem offputting methinks.
Still, there may be an effective solution to remedy this problem for Part 3.

-I think what works about the Part 1 fake stuff is that not only is there a clear way to "fall" for it (meaning that you must present a contradiction you think is at a certain testimony), but the sequence after hit a sort of sweet spot in terms of length. Part 2 goes really extensive in this area, and it seems to be a hit or miss with some players. I think I'd like to avoid a fatal "fake" press statement from now on though. It takes too much time/resources to create an entirely different outcome the way I did it in Part 2 (assuming anyone actually fell for it)

-Ah, I must have been so focused on tightly controlling the experience that I even did it in the gameplay parts! That's something I need to avoid doing next time.

Pain point: Too many wait-timers. Too much lengthy texts seen in various evidences. Overall gameplay focus has been lost.
User avatar
Blizdi
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:39 pm
Spoken languages: English

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

Post by Blizdi »

So, is this project ever going to be finished?
Image
Phantom

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

Post by Phantom »

That's up to ED. If I still wanted to spearhead the project, I would've scripted some content in soon after Part 2 came out, even if it was only 5 frames worth :P

Besides, there are other priorities more important than tGens, I wouldn't encourage him to work on this.
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 »

It kinda annoys me when things are being bumped. That being said, I have stuff that needs to be done before I touch this.
Image
User avatar
WhiteZekrom
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:33 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

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

Post by WhiteZekrom »

E.D.Revolution wrote:It kinda annoys me when things are being bumped. That being said, I have stuff that needs to be done before I touch this.
Image
User avatar
Blizdi
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:39 pm
Spoken languages: English

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

Post by Blizdi »

WhiteZekrom wrote:
E.D.Revolution wrote:It kinda annoys me when things are being bumped. That being said, I have stuff that needs to be done before I touch this.
Image
I laughed, like, died laughing when i saw that.
Image
Post Reply