AAO's Comprehensive Guide for New Trial Authors

[Meph]

I disagree. Quite a few of us are more impressed by a well-presented simple 1st trial than a poorly executed complex 1st trial. It's more entertaining when it's more simple.

I think you've missed my point, ED. We want people to produce quality, yes, but there is no requirement that they get it right on their first go. People write trials because it's fun and because they want to share something with us. I regard my second trial Turnabout of the Wild West as "poorly executed" and yet people seem to like it. Shadow recently did a reboot of the second episode in his series because his initial one was "poorly executed". How good something is is subjective. When people think that their first trial is good when they first release it because they put as much effort as they can into it. However, later on, we always have second thoughts about our first trials, because we've improved so much since then.

[E.D.Revolution]

Personally, I think that if your first case is simple, and it's executed well, then it's enjoyable. The reason that we recommend doing a simple case is to avoid complex presentation issues that come up later on. I remember a case (forgot the name ) that was a very simple case. It was executed well, and people enjoyed it a lot. I did, too.

Again, first case.

Sure, I revamped my first case 9 times, and currently revamping my 2nd. But the point is that we're talking as if this is truly the first time you've done a case. Of course, you're going to call your 1st trial crap after making more cases. But this guide was written with the assumption that you're a greenhorn trial author.

[Ping']

I disagree. First case/trials that are investigation-heavy tend to go nowhere.

>

Spoiler : :

Scapegoat, Substitution, Virtual, even TSD... I wonder what those cases have in common

[E.D.Revolution]

Again, AAO, Ping'.

And Blackrune admitted that he had some practice before making Virtual. When I xat'd him he would consider Virtual a 2nd case or something like that.

And TSD was Tap's second case.

[Ping']

Except it's now probably easier to make investigations with AAO than with a casemaker. Having been involved with both, I don't think the fact that it's AAO changes that much.
I see your point, but I guess I believe the success of those cases (except mine, I'm not claiming anything with mine XD) is simply due to skill and hard work, not experience. Basically, if you're good, and you care, there's no reason why you should limit yourself to a trial-only first case.
But you may be right that it's more prudent to suggest that to the average reader =)

[ShadowEdgeworth]

ED: Do you realize how much sh*t I have to go through to make my Mia Fey series a success? I'm doing quite a few people a favor by advising that they don't do this as a first attempt at the editor. No doubt that I support Mia Fey projects. It's just that when you think about it, it's MUCH HARDER to write for them in general. PW and AJ cases/series are easier to write for, when you think about it.

Speaking as a prequel author, I think that's pretty subjective. I mean you only have so much room with Phoenix before his disbarrment, and Apollo isn't as popular. Doing a prequel series is quite original, and in some cases a more interesting process. You have infinite creative space to use with the cases, and you can also show how prequel characters became their present selves. (Like say, multi-coloured suit Bratworth to red-black suit Edgeworth). Showcase the events that led to those changes. Doing that may be a more attractive propsal than going with another Phoenix case, even as a first trial. (Hell, Turnabout Rookie was my third trial, but it was my first complete one after two cruddy ones. And I wrote for Grossberg and Young!Edgey.) Hell, I'd encourage it. Pulling it off would lead to some good reputation IMO. Let 'em choose.

And E.D, you were voted best new trial author so Mia Fey is quite successful.

[E.D.Revolution]

Heh that IS true, about New Trial Award.

But nowadays, Mia Fey and Bratworth have more limitations placed on them. I mean, I have to work with 3-1, 3-4, and 1-1 as a base, and Mia Fey: Justice for All would be all but impossible to write for without Mia Fey: Ace Attorney. (Catch my drift?) That's why I'm leaning more towards Mia Fey: Trials and Tribluations route. You catch my drift? (admittedly, ASA is a hybrid of "AA and T&T").

You, Shadow, admitted that you have to work with I-4, 3-4, and 1-2 to establish storyline and the characterization. It's gotten slightly harder to write for them, but not by much. Then again, shadow, ME:AA is your 3rd trial, and your 2nd series so...

Good point on PW/AJ.

Let's all recognize that I'm talking about your true first case, what a typical greenhorn trial author would do. We recommend that you don't do it as a first case, but who's stopping you?

(I ought to put in the guide that you're not obligated to follow these recommendations.)

Grossberg has INFINITELY more possibilities to work with since we have ZERO canon grossberg cases to refer to.

[Phantom]

I disagree. Quite a few of us are more impressed by a well-presented simple 1st trial than a poorly executed complex 1st trial. It's more entertaining when it's more simple.

I think you've missed my point, ED. We want people to produce quality, yes, but there is no requirement that they get it right on their first go. People write trials because it's fun and because they want to share something with us. I regard my second trial Turnabout of the Wild West as "poorly executed" and yet people seem to like it. Shadow recently did a reboot of the second episode in his series because his initial one was "poorly executed". How good something is is subjective. When people think that their first trial is good when they first release it because they put as much effort as they can into it. However, later on, we always have second thoughts about our first trials, because we've improved so much since then.

This thread is merely a guide on the directions for NEW, FIRST TIME trial authors. It's recommended by a variety of authors (and not just one person mind you), that comes from experience that we're simply sharing to new people so THEY can be guaranteed to have a success with their first-time cases.
The whole intent of the guide is to help new authors avoid many general obstacles that plague new authors, while still able to get a sense of being able to produce a QUALITY trial for their first time.

Not once has the guide said that your first trial needs to be perfect, and certainly not once has anything said that it is ALL REQUIRED.

It is meant to give users a heads up so they can be guaranteed a success for making a trial (and stick along with making more trials in the future to boot).

And one of the main reasons that it's highly recommended to avoid prequel cases for a FIRST TIMER, is because it's so hard to get it right and even approved by the community (look at how much it took ED to get ASA's case to be recognized: NINE times before it could get featured, and yet, EVEN though it was highly presentable, people just gnawed at the little nit-picky details that had hurt his case in the long-run for that matter)
Any other person would have quit making anymore trials in general if they had to revamp 9 times, but our good man ED stuck with it all the way through (and it paid off in the end).

To be a successful author, you need to have at least a basic understanding of the editor; presentation is just as, if more important, than an overblown story, I sure couldn't enjoy a bug-ridden trial after all xP

Remember guys, the guide isn't perfect, but it's simply a way for experienced authors to pass down their knowledge/experience to the new authors so they themselves can succeed too, it's meant to enlighten new folks after all, you CAN'T forget this.
----------------------

However Meph, I do agree somewhat with the notion that the "pragmatics" needs to be positive, BUT I think some of the points need to simply be worded better, not just sound "nice".
---------------------
If anyone has any more tips/suggestions to ADD onto the guide, (like Blackrune did with prologue), then go for it people.

[SwagmaWampyr]

I disagree. First case/trials that are investigation-heavy tend to go nowhere.

>

Spoiler : :

Scapegoat, Substitution, Virtual, even TSD... I wonder what those cases have in common

Well, TSD isn't exactly investigation-heavy...it's a very short phase.

[Meph]

Lol. Well I don't think I can win this dispute (if it is one). But I suppose you're right in that the guide is fine as it is.

Speaking of which, do you plan on adding it to the List of guides?

[E.D.Revolution]

Not quite yet. I have to reformat this for readibility... because some of the parts of this guide has so many comma splices it's not even funny. Re-stylize it to make it sound like one-style.

Just a few revisions before I ask for this to be added.

[Phantom]

Lol. Well I don't think I can win this dispute (if it is one). But I suppose you're right in that the guide is fine as it is.

Speaking of which, do you plan on adding it to the List of guides?

Oh not at all, you and a few others have raised quite a few points after all, now it's just a matter of making things more neat, organized, and much more presentable so that the guide can be more effective in the future.


Though quite frankly, I feel like there's definitely some more tips and such we can add to help new authors avoid more pitfalls.

Also, though it's a mouthful guide, I would think it shouldn't just simply clumped together inside a list of guides; this one is VERY important after all.

[E.D.Revolution]

Actually, now that I think about it... I'm going to balance the guide out even more... There is a huge chunk of text under "Helpful hints" and I want to break that into "Summary" and "Tips from Other Authors"...

alright then...

This thread is now open to tips from trial authors.

[Holhol]

You might want to say something like, "A trial can be successful no matter how you make it. Though, it's highly recommended that you follow this guidelines," or something...

[E.D.Revolution]

Well, I'm more likely to look for tips in regards on presenting the trial and that sort of thing. Nothing technical.