[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] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Post by Phantom »

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 :)
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5170
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

Post by Enthalpy »

Finished...
Spoiler : Enthalpy's Review :
I want to open this by talking about a news story in 2011. Physicists claimed that a single, solitary neutrino, which has a mass smaller than .0000000000000000000000000000000000001 kilograms, went 00.002% faster than the speed of light. The world of physics went insane, thinking that the last century of physics and the most verified theory of all time might be overturned. Then it was proven that the experiment that showed this was flawed, and the results were then repudiated by five independent teams of particle physicists. But if the original physicists were right about that single particle, then the last century of physics would actually have been in grave danger. Well, it might have. The moral of this story? Experiments are really hard to design, really hard to do, and when you do them, you don't get conclusive results. However, experiments can also be really powerful.

As you can probably guess, I'm bringing this up because of Turnabout Generations's stated aim of being an experimental trial. To quote Proton, "[Turnabout Generations] was never about the story, plot, or even the characterizations. It's been all about experimentation, trying to find ways we could improve some of the things the regular Ace Attorney games pulled off, in a slightly enhancing manner. It's a way for players/fellow trial authors to pick apart the things we did, and make their own assessments of what we did right/wrong. So that they can learn from ED's/my experiences/mistakes."

Of course, there are aspects to Generations besides the experimental factors. I was specifically requested to look at this trial from the perspective of this being a first trial, and as a pre-Dual Destinies version of Ace Attorney 5, comparing it in terms of story to The Heartbreaking Turnabout prior to its latest revamp. I aim to do all of these, which is... quite the tall order, but I think I can manage.

A brief note on how this trial serves as a "first-time" trial before getting into the trial proper, as there really isn't much to be said here. This trial in no way feels like an inexperienced author's trial. The atmosphere is too developed for that. Although it was requested for this to be reviewed as a first-time trial, there is simply no comparison to be made with any other first-time trial not already recognized as good. Besides, I do not believe Proton is representing himself as having first-timer standards in general, so applying first-timer standards to him would be nonsensical.

On to the actual content, I'll start with the experimental aspects of the case, as there's an interesting factor there that is necessary to explain quite a lot of my opinion. Namely, the level of attention paid by your average player. As I've found extensively in my playthroughs of first-time author cases, and reviews in general, it is extremely common for things to not be analyzed that carefully. As long as the story feels good as a whole, logical or narrative problems can be overlooked. This translates roughly to "have good presentation, and interesting story, and minimize glaring plot holes." (See Turnabout of Courage, where its logical errors are largely ignored in favor of its ending twist, and Turnabout Curtains, where the extremely distracting "BANANAS" factor is ignored in favor of how well the story is told.) This general approach is not bad in terms of answering "is this case good." However, it is very bad in terms of learning from a case, which is largely the end of this approach. Even worse, it's difficult for the author to get feedback, because very few people will give comment on the things that the author wants feedback on, intentional or not. We see this theoretical concern being played out on the practical level. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe a detailed, coherent response to part two has been given, and especially not one that deals with thoughts on the individual presentation elements being tested. I make no hypothesis as to feedback on part one, although I am also skeptical there. In other words, I do not believe the "experimental" aspect of Generations is working. It was a worthwhile thing to try to do, but the problem of obtaining sufficient, quality feedback has not been surmounted. I believe that this trial should be attracting more feedback, but largely due to the reputations the two of you have, it isn't. I don't see a good way to attract your more experienced authors to this. Even if you can get past that, please tell me if you find a way to consistently get detailed player reports.

Now for my thoughts on the various aspects of this trial. Things can be divided into Logical Fairness, Puzzle Beauty, Character, Plot, and Presentation. Again, I'll discuss these in the order I find most appropriate.

Presentation is commendable, for the most part. I have two concerns here. For one, I disagree wholeheartedly with your deviations from Ace Attorney syntax on matters of sound effect use, colored text use, and soundtrack size and style. I felt sound effects were used too often, and distractingly so. The use of unusual text colors in the beginning and inner monologue from any character was quite confusing. The soundtrack also felt far too large, disjointed, and oddly energetic. I emphasize that I am no music expert, but I would personally recommend soundtrack simplification. I rather liked every other presentation change I can recall.

Now we get into the uglier side of things. On the mystery side, the puzzles lack any sort of beauty, elegance, or anything similar. In official Ace Attorney games, there is a sense of cohesiveness to the mystery. Evidence yielding unexpected results, turning something around, a simple solution to seemingly impossible situations... In general, something that shows you put more thought into designing the puzzles and contradictions beyond "this make sense." In fairness, very few developers on AAO are even attempting this. The only one that comes to mind is Blackrune.

Unfortunately, it is fairness where the puzzles fall to thousands of pieces. Testimony one is press-all-to-continue, so it's fine. On testimony two, the fake contradiction is completely unfair. It is perfectly reasonable for the player to present that contradiction. The choice on whether to go through with the test, however, is completely unreasonable. The game seems to be hinting that we should go through with the test, and I see no reason why the test would lead to an instant game over. Also, at the very least, we get a penalty for presenting the contradiction. Just because the prosecution can explain it does not mean there is no contradiction. The real contradiction is also bad. The contradiction hinged on Ema saying "From the facts in the Court Record, we know the gun belongs to the defendant." The problem is that she never said that. She talked about the fingerprints and then randomly said it was the defendant's gun, but the statement did not explicitly say that because there are fingerprints, it must be the defendant's gun, which is what we are trying to contradict. Even if it had, that is a jump in logic, not a proper contradiction. I thought that it was just a slip-up on your part, not an actual contradiction. Now that I know the solution, I can't call it a contradiction. The means of proving the gun isn't Fone's by virtue of the silencer is also very bad, as he could get it on the black market, or he could be a government agent. This leaves the third testimony, which is another really bad one. I couldn't understand either the real or the fake contradiction at all.

The problems do not in any way resolve themselves in part two. The first testimony is another bad one, because it is not reasonable to expect the player to know the relevant data and connect it with the situation. Sure, Fone's real name may be Telly, but it has not been said for certain that it is a first name's initial that goes on the silencer, and it is also not reasonable to expect the player to remember that "Cell" is just a nickname. I also don't understand why presenting Cell's profile again is necessary. The second cross-examination, honestly, I just skipped through. I couldn't be bothered to care about something that titanic, and something you say in the walk-through will bore the player. I really do not understand why it was there.

Next are the Gottem testimonies. The fake contradiction in testimony one is absolutely pointless. A clarification can be given on this point, and there is no reason to keep this contradiction. The real contradiction is also a hassle. The contradiction isn't inherently unfair, but again, it is not reasonable for the player to remember and relate the relevant information. Most players will not have remembered such a minor detail as the cup having been broken, and in such a long testimony (albeit not as long as Ema's) with so much information in the Court Record, the contradiction is extremely hard to find if you don't know what you're looking for. Testimony two is press-all-to-continue and seems very pointless. The deduction we make that Gottem isn't an eyewitness is especially nonsensical. Just because he's taking a while to get to the point doesn't mean he doesn't know the point. This leaves the third testimony with him, which makes sense, but is just unnecessarily convoluted. Apollo doesn't need all those fancy explanations when he can just say, "The witness could not have known that Fone was at the front entrance, and he earlier denied that he knew." I lost track of what Apollo was trying to say several times... One final note on fairness, you absolutely overdid penalties on pressing. There was no warning really given, and a massive deal of them weren't fair. I feel this was another experiment, but it's very damaging to the game... In short, the game is a very bad mystery.

Looking at it from the story perspective, the characters. Well, the presiding judge is extremely out of character. He's just... a ridiculously angry judge. I get that his brother died, but this is still really out of character for him. Phoenix... No, that just wasn't the same Phoenix. I don't know who that was, but it wasn't Phoenix. I barely remembered Trucy was there. Apollo should be having a bigger "?!??!!??" reaction to... pretty much everything in this trial. He barely seems to react to anything except when melodramatically saying his case is doomed. Telly Fone is still a completely ridiculous character. And yes. We know he's Godot. I just don't know why he's behaving like this... It really doesn't add up. I don't know what Mia and Maya are doing anywhere in this. Ema... Her reaction to Phoenix still doesn't make any sense. Why is she so angry? I don't know what Bourne was doing, but that was just really weird. He didn't fit in with the other characters, and he didn't seem to have a story role either. He was just a "Big Lipped Alligator Moment," but a character. Then Gottem... He made zero sense. Why does the court have so much sympathy for his obvious sob story, and why is nobody getting annoyed with his bizarre laughter, or his "GOTTEM" schtick, or his constant stalling... And why does Apollo keep saying he's contradictory...? None of the characters really made sense. They didn't seem human, and they didn't seem rational... The characters don't even seem coherent or consistent.

Then the story... That made no blasted sense. Can anybody explain... any of that to me? There was random Phoenix being a really corrupt prosecutor who now hates Mia and travestied the entire Ace Attorney canon to justify his behavior, random Apollo sulking at the beginning and end, random Mia, Maya, and Godot showing up... That... I'm sorry but the story made no sense. Oh, and the judge was murdered in there somewhere, wasn't he? However, we're making no progress on that, so I don't really care all that much. The story was... not that great either.

With all that said, I think that now I can compare this to Heartbreaking. The version I played had Phoenix try to defend Thalassa for Apollo and Trucy's murder after she tells (or tries to tell) them of the family connection. It ended with Phoenix dying and Maya acting as a defense attorney to continue the case. It tried to be very much an emotional case, although its effectiveness is beyond the scope of this review.

Generations on the other hand... It's definitely after Apollo Justice. It definitely doesn't have Phoenix defending anyone, Thalassa being the defendant, Apollo or Trucy being the victims, resolution of the "Apollo and Trucy's family" arc, Phoenix dying, Maya acting as a defense attorney, or emotional aspirations. In other words, it's a completely different alternate universe version of Ace Attorney 5. But what version is Generations? On that, I'm mystified. It seems to not only be an altered universe in terms of changing the events of Ace Attorney 5, but Phoenix's character is subverted without explanation, and this occurs to a level that I thought impossible. Anybody who has played the trial should tell you that Phoenix's personality has completely reversed, and the reason for this is poorly explained. Even worse, Phoenix ties his reasoning to figures from his past, which Phoenix has always used to support his old personality. This reversal on the part of Phoenix is extraordinarily worrying, and I have the creeping suspicion that this case is going into nihilistic territory.

As regards the other ways in which this is post-Apollo Justice, they are few. Apollo is not developed, and if anything, seems to regress. As noted earlier, Apollo's reactions to things, especially the appearance of Mia, are markedly different than how he should react from Apollo Justice, and not in a way that seems like he has developed, but as if he has simply lost his personality. Trucy and Ema are largely unchanged. I very heavily suspect "Cell Phone" of being Godot and would think anything less would be a cheap trick, but I feel that Phoenix must be understood before we can deal with Godot. Maya and Mia are incorporated into the case, but not really in a coherent way. They both feel pointless and extremely random. Apollo's bracelet is thinly more developed by the changes that occur to it, but they have no real explanation and seem haphazardly thrown in. So, while Generations and Heartbreaking are different attempts at an AU!AA5, I do not feel that Generations makes this attempt well in any respect.

If I had to summarize Generations in an image, it would be the image of the faster-than-light neutrino. It was an experiment that seemed really promising and exciting, but once you got beyond the surface and superficial level, it was quite clearly flawed. In the same way, Generations seems like a nice, exciting experiment, but it doesn't work. You wanted to get information on what presentation was good, but the experiment was designed poorly. You made a behemoth case that drowns out the presentation issues with all sorts of other considerations. You wanted to make a case that was good, but the experiment was performed poorly. The logic lacks the flair and elegance that characterize Ace Attorney, and it lacks the coherence that characterizes actual logic. The story is underwhelming and undercut by the massive out-of-character-ness this forces from Phoenix, and the characters are equally underwhelming and undercut by inconsistencies between your characters and either their canon representations, or any sense of coherence. Now that this experiment is done, you really haven't gotten conclusive results, either. Blizdi, Sligneris, TheDoctor, WhiteZekrom, Alnar, ApolloGrimoire and others have all left you positive feedback, but if you haven't noticed, it's all been extremely vague. (I believe you received one comment that gargantuan testimonies and press penalties without warnings are bad, which hardly warranted any experiment.) The experiment is done, but I don't think any of the other reviews have told you that much. That you got a sharply negative review from me and yet positive reviews from others isn't even that useful of an experiment; it's happened several times, and it always comes back to my reviews being more detailed than most, and my placing greater value on themes and logic than the average player.

The one non-obvious difference with the image I have of Generations and Generations is that what went wrong with the neutrino was an improperly aligned wire. Your problem here is the overall design, which is going to be much, much more difficult to fix, especially when your cumulative frame count is over 9000. For now and the forseeable future, I'm calling this experiment a failure at doing anything it set out to do to any significant degree.
[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
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] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Post by E.D.Revolution »

Spoiler : Response :
I would like to see that report. I must've been asleep during the last two years, but I want to see the reports regarding that experiment. IT does pique my interest.

About the atmosphere... Heh, why do you think that trial worked so well back in 2010? :P

For the actual puzzles/mystery. When Phantom first wrote that in 2010, this literally was supposed to be a demo, intentionally leaving loose strings at the end. Due to the success back then, it backfired spectacularly, in which we HAVE to continue this. Of course not much planning was done back then, so now you get to the mess I keep emphasizing in my Newbie Guide.

Of course when it comes to lack of responses now, we take what we can get. AAO has kinda become the Republican party of today: we didn't leave it, IT left us. Hence why veterans are not commenting on it.

As for the presentation, I liked that you liked most of it. But I do have a something that needs to be clarified.
Enthalpy wrote:The soundtrack also felt far too large, disjointed, and oddly energetic.
Besides loading issues that come with it, how is that a bad thing? Especially the last part? On the music aspect, Phantom emphasizes experience and deviating from the norm.

Now for some of the testimonies... Ema 2 was definitely a trap. We expected people to go there. The purpose of that one was to see if people would think that since PW is known for bluffing, he must be. And I think there were warning signs that PW is not bluffing this time around.

I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on Ema 3. I'll admit that the fake contradiction on that one was badly done. I was a young nursing student who thought that, well... See the fake contradiction for yourself, not going to spoil it. I realize now that it makes no sense from a medical POV and a gameplay POV.

On part 2, I'll have Phantom explain that in more detail.

In general, this is what Phantom says about gameplay vs experience.
Phantom wrote:If you want to play for the experience, you play ''Turnabout Generations''. If you want to play for gameplay, you play "Ace Spirit Attorney."
This kinda summarizes why the puzzles may not be coherent. For pts 1 and 2, I merely helped with the technical aspects. Now that I'm taking it over for part 3, perhaps you can get some better puzzles to solve.

Character wise...
I thought so, too. We are talking about the Canadian Judge, here, and he did lose some of his mannerisms.

Well, well. As far as PW is concerned... You could say that's Phoenix Wright from the 5th Dimension *shot*. No. But anyway, that 180 change was intentional. As far as him acting that way, him in AA5 also makes no sense in light of 4-4 (and not regarding the Gramarye family thing). Think about it. Speaking of which... I think you have played AA5. We have not, and don't have the means to ATM, and would rather not get spoiled on major stuff regarding it. Regardless, there's a reason he acts this way, and we are disregarding Dual Destinies. Again, think about the implications of AJ...

Well, well. I think you might've missed a point there. Co-councils are supposed to be sattelite characters when in court, and upgraded to supporting character outside of court. You missed the mark on co-councils. Compare Pt 1 and Pt 2.

As for Cell, I refuse to divulge. :P

As for Mia... Is that Mia or is that Mia. Just like in TTT2, Is that Jun Kazama or is that Jun possessed by Unknown? Or is Mia really there at all? Hmm... :hobo:

As for Maya, yeah, that's definitely her there. As for what she's doing there... I will not divulge.

I'm glad you noted the flaw with Bourne. How the hell did nobody catch that?

And same with Gottem. I'm still flummoxed as to why people like Gottem. He's. Supposed. To. Be. Generic. And. Annoying. And we got the opposite reaction. That was an experiment in failure, I suppose.
Image
Phantom

Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Post by Phantom »

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 :(.
Spoiler : Responses as per paragraph :
  • Experiments are usually conducted under two different worldviews: a postpositivist worldview, and a transformative worldview. tGens falls under something else entirely: a social constructivist worldview (although it can be argued it fits as a postpositivist view), while the neutrino experiment you described fits under a postpositivist and/or transformative worldview.
    What I mean is, with the neutrino experiment, the scientists' intent was disprove, or prove a theory they had about something else (in the story you wrote, it was to prove that a particle COULD actually go faster than the speed of light). Researchers who go in an experiment with a postpositivist worldview do so because they generally want to prove a theory.
    In the case of tGens, we're not really here to prove a theory, but to instead, allow for open-ended meanings with the world we are intepretating (or to put it simply, allow for open-ended interpretations from players/authors like yourself, and see what experiments work and what experiments don't work according to YOU).

    That being said, I agree that experiments, depending on if you conduct it right, can be a powerful way of learning about things (or confirming existing beliefs). If you conduct it wrong, you won't get really fine results...But it can be assumed that you, or others, can learn from the mistakes you made with the experiment. I can proudly say that even if we don't do well on the experiment aspects, that other authors/players can learn from what we do and avoid/improve upon what we do. After all, failed experiments aren't inherently worthless, as we can still learn what went wrong with the process, and try to improve upon it in the future.
  • Enthalpy wrote:[snip]
    To quote Proton, "[Turnabout Generations] was never about the story, plot, or even the characterizations. It's been all about experimentation, trying to find ways we could improve some of the things the regular Ace Attorney games pulled off, in a slightly enhancing manner. It's a way for players/fellow trial authors to pick apart the things we did, and make their own assessments of what we did right/wrong. So that they can learn from ED's/my experiences/mistakes."
    Don't forget the other things I said about tGens! It's not simply finding ways we can improve upon things that the AA games pulled off. It's also finding ways to try to frustrate the player, that first-time authors may end up inadvertently doing in their own cases. Be it messing around with the pacing, intentionally making boring/out-of-tune characters, or having poor gameplay/case design in the case of tGens.

    However, as this is my first trial, there are mistakes I made that I didn't know I was making as a first-time author (for example, in Part 1, I used red text to emphasize certain keywords in a trial. I was supposed to use an orange one, just like from the games!). However, even though those mistakes are still there, I have kept it and not fixed it since it's something that authors need to be careful about.

    Again, it leads to the endgoal of other authors learning from our experiences/mistakes with the editor, and case-making in general. In your review Enthalpy, you have brought out a number of criticisms. If it's things you believe first-time authors should be avoiding, then tGens is accomplishing its purpose regarding assessing from a writer/developer standpoint on what we did right/wrong.

    I'm repeating what I said in your quote here, but I believe this needs greater emphasis.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Of course, there are aspects to Generations besides the experimental factors. I was specifically requested to look at this trial from the perspective of this being a first trial, and as a pre-Dual Destinies version of Ace Attorney 5, comparing it in terms of story to The Heartbreaking Turnabout prior to its latest revamp. I aim to do all of these, which is... quite the tall order, but I think I can manage.
    When you said pre-DD version of AA5, I assume you mean as though it were a "what-if" GS5 scenario, if DD never even existed. More on this later.
  • Enthalpy wrote:[snip]
    This trial in no way feels like an inexperienced author's trial. The atmosphere is too developed for that. Although it was requested for this to be reviewed as a first-time trial, there is simply no comparison to be made with any other first-time trial not already recognized as good. Besides, I do not believe Proton is representing himself as having first-timer standards in general, so applying first-timer standards to him would be nonsensical.
    Have you played Gumpei's The Rowdy Turnabout? Even though it's a little more recent than tGens, it too was Gumpei's first venture into trial-making. Compared to the rest of the poorly rushed trials coming out, Gumpei's Rowdy Turnabout is another example of a first-time trial that in NO way feels like an inexperienced author's trial. We're talking the nonexistence of bugs, little to no grammar issues, NO presentation issues, a solid case that's much more understandable than tGens, etc. Gumpei's trial is an example of a trial that *exceeded* what the standards of a first-time trial was/is supposed to be years ago, which is what we as tGens authors WANT to see happening.

    Have you ever thought, Enthalpy, that this doesn't feel like an inexperienced first-time author's trial, because I learned what other first-timer authors tended to do wrong? NOT applying first-timer standards isn't fair to me, since this is the ONLY trial I've ever had, and I can get people to vouch that for me. I represent myself as someone with first-timer standards for sure, but I represent it in an expectation that first-timer standards should be high (as in, making sure you actually put in time and effort to putting a presentable case out there, even if there are case logic problems that hinder the game).

    If it had been a second/third project I've worked on, I would have no issue with your methodology here and not treating this with first-time standards. This is what I believe makes the review as a whole flawed. More below.
  • Enthalpy wrote:[snip]
    As long as the story feels good as a whole, logical or narrative problems can be overlooked. This translates roughly to "have good presentation, and interesting story, and minimize glaring plot holes." (See Turnabout of Courage, where its logical errors are largely ignored in favor of its ending twist, and Turnabout Curtains, where the extremely distracting "BANANAS" factor is ignored in favor of how well the story is told.) This general approach is not bad in terms of answering "is this case good." However, it is very bad in terms of learning from a case, which is largely the end of this approach. Even worse, it's difficult for the author to get feedback, because very few people will give comment on the things that the author wants feedback on, intentional or not. We see this theoretical concern being played out on the practical level. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe a detailed, coherent response to part two has been given, and especially not one that deals with thoughts on the individual presentation elements being tested. I make no hypothesis as to feedback on part one, although I am also skeptical there. In other words, I do not believe the "experimental" aspect of Generations is working. It was a worthwhile thing to try to do, but the problem of obtaining sufficient, quality feedback has not been surmounted. I believe that this trial should be attracting more feedback, but largely due to the reputations the two of you have, it isn't. I don't see a good way to attract your more experienced authors to this. [snip]
    In order to ensure that this trial would be scrutinized like a regular, typical trial, we advertised the thread/trial more as a serious, typical trial, and quietly mentioned it was also one of experimentation. That way, we could gauge what players/authors alike were really receptive to, or really hated in terms of our experiments. It actually worked, just not in the way you probably think of it. For example, in Part 1, EVERYONE complained about the atrocious map, no matter if it was an author, or a player. It didn't require detailed posts either :P, as it was really bad to begin with. Obviously, when you don't have a proper understanding of an area a crime scene takes in, your case is going to be badly hindered in regards to location of the killer, the witness, victim, etc. We promised we would fix that map in Part 2.

    What no one realized, was that was an experiment in which we intentionally set on doing wrong. It is not our obligation to actually tell everyone WHAT each of our experiments are anyways. We wanted a strong reaction about the quality of map, since compared to everything else in Part 1, it was an off putting, low-quality aspect of tGens that made no sense why it was in there. The idea behind the map is this: If you don't ensure your graphics are at a passable quality, it will be something that can be a big turn-off in a case, and hinder your case. Interesting, considering at the time it was released, Part 1's only real criticism tended to be about the map (well, CE3 too, but more on the map).

    Since Part 2 is meant to be an improvement in Part 1 in different ways, we revamped the map to be more coherent, pleasing to the eye, and more useful to understand the layout of the victim's house. Its quality is *completely* different from Part 1's map. In Part 2, we're saying "look how huge of a difference the quality of a map plays in terms of being integrated into the case much more better than it was in Part 1, which was entirely useless". The testimonies revolving around the house in Part 2, would've been impossible to implement if I used the bad version from Part 1.

    What I'm saying is, I don't necessarily expect the player/author to know what exactly we're experimenting on, unless we explicitly tell them "it's this, this, and that." That is why most players/authors alike have treated this case as an actual 1st-timer trial, and not simply a technical demo, hence the lack of 'quality' feedback in these "experimental" areas. That could be why it got such a surprising positive reception as well.

    In Part 2 (more there than in Part 1), we made it obvious in breaking the 4th wall SO many times, usually through red text in the trial. Be it about not messing the pace up, saying how someone is out of character, etc. to show that we're probably doing an experiment at some point. For the thread, we've actively advertised that Part 2 has much more experiments, and that tGens in general is focused on experimentation, so that everyone knows why things are done in unorthodox manners (so basically the opposite of how we advertised Part 1).

    As for what you're saying about a detailed, coherent response from players of Part 2… Enthalpy, the average player is not necessarily inclined to post a detailed review like yours :P, since what's most important to them is did they enjoy what they experienced overall? Some have noted presentation elements, be it regarding sound effects, the UI, music, etc. They noted those in both parts.

    When you say that the experimental aspect isn't working, I think you're sending the wrong idea. I think you're saying that even though this is a trial meant to be torn apart and studied as a reference material for other authors, that others (especially experienced authors) aren't coming to comment on tGens because of our reputation or what have you. I must refer you to ED's post, where in general, veteran authors aren't posting in first-timer author's threads anymore (exception being you actually). In that case, I do agree with you that feedback isn't being provided in knowing if this was a worthwhile endeavor. But that's not necessary for tGen's sake; they are not obliged to post in order to make their assessments of what works in the trial or not. But it IS sad, that the veteran authors have shown no interest in Part 2. Tap, Blackrune, BP, Meph, and I believe BB, were the biggest trial authors that I remember showing keen interest in Part 1 and even giving it wide praise, experiments aside. Their reviews provided enough of an obligation from me to have to make a Part 2 anyway ^^'

    As for other, lesser experienced authors, yeah we had those guys too, including new players coming into the AA community playing tGens as their first case. I think the issue of lack of feedback still has to do with the fact that with an official, canon DD AA5 storyline, that a "what-if" post-GS5 case scenario is no longer appealing to anyone. I wouldn't blame them, since like Zekrom said earlier, this thread's seen better days.

    To summarize, I don't agree with this particular assessment. The lack of feedback doesn't necessarily have a bearing on the actual experiments made within the trial, and can be attributed to other more plausible reasons. I'm basing this statement based off my experience of varied, substantial feedback for Part 1, compared to what I've been receiving to Part 2 so far. There are failed and successful experiments we've accomplished presenting within the case, even if they weren't really commented on (for example, the 'testimony' blinker looked really smooth and well-animated compared to the regular AA's simple blink testimony icon in Part 2, indicating a successful experiment that can be applied to other trials in the future. Hence why I released the graphics resources that included this :))
  • Enthalpy wrote:[snip]
    For one, I disagree wholeheartedly with your deviations from Ace Attorney syntax on matters of sound effect use, colored text use, and soundtrack size and style. I felt sound effects were used too often, and distractingly so. The use of unusual text colors in the beginning and inner monologue from any character was quite confusing. The soundtrack also felt far too large, disjointed, and oddly energetic. I emphasize that I am no music expert, but I would personally recommend soundtrack simplification. I rather liked every other presentation change I can recall.
    I don't know if I want to comment on this as this can be really subjective depending on the player. Alnar loved the usage of sound effects (especially the new ones in Part 2), even though they may have been overused (same with Tap for Part 1). Didn't you love the imitation sound effect in Part 2, where it NEVER existed in Part 1? Not saying that cancels out your assessment. Obviously, what first-time authors should avoid is overusing sound effects if they can, which is what can be taken away from your two's feedback on that regard ;). They CAN become distracting, and that's what authors should take note, which I do agree with.

    Also, what do you mean you "disagree" with our deviations? Considering everything you just pointed out in the presentation aspects have to do with us trying to experiment on the presentation front, you either should think it works, fails, or is in between the two. I mean, didn't you like how we incorporated the perceive scene? I used sound effects that sounded like it came from AJ, but actually weren't at all. What about the actual graphics edit/detection of Apollo's tick showing up? Or the abstract "bracelet" loading screen after the main menu? Non-interactive mechanics yes, but subtle ways to show how tGens stands out in terms of identity.

    If i recall, there weren't THAT much text color variations (A sky blue for that weird telepathy-communication with the ghost lady in Part 2, which is meant to leave the player guessing how Apollo is talking, a purple to indicate that it's probably a Fey member talking, and a red to indicate that I'm breaking the 4th wall, or in the beginning of the intros, a specific person that is probably talking). In Part 1, the yellow, black, dark blue, etc. were just meant to help the player with a way of labeling the atrocious map :lol:. Still, if you think it's confusing, then it means that authors should be careful in picking their text colors. They should have a SPECIFIC purpose. Like the green text labeling the setting of a place (the time, date, location, in a typewriter dialogue etc.)

    As for the music...WHOA that's definitely something I don't agree with. When we say tGens is a playground for experiments, we mean it. That includes experimenting on the music front. Seeing what genres work in a post-AJ setting, seeing what genres suck for AA in general (like the awful fake rock theme that played as Cell's in Part 1, vs. a better jazzier theme for him in Part 2). tGens, for each part so far, follows the spirit of the original AA+AJ series, which includes new major iterations of music every time. You're the first person on this thread that's commented poorly on the music, and that's something I can't take as substantial feedback since I purposely experiment all the way in this regard. This is one of the main reasons I also requested you review each Part separately, since I'm trying to show players how HUGE of an impact music can make on your trial when care has been put to implementing the right tracks (which Part 2 is superior in). I will agree with you if you said Part 2's music flowed MUCH better than did Part 1, considering… for Part 2, I purposely ensured it was much more consistent than in Part 1. Although with Part 2, I needed to experiment ways to make a character annoying/unique with fitting/unfitting music. Bourne's is more acoustic guitar because he's essentially a redneck intelligence officer, which is a stereotypically fitting theme for someone that would be perceived as a "badass older-aged agent of sorts", which the player would discover more about him if tGens was turned into a series. Gottem's is more 8-bit chiptuned style unfitting music, to reinforce the idea that if authors are not careful with how they pick proper character themes for their OC's...they're going to be a HUGE turnoff for players. Unfortunately, this particular experiment seems to have backfired, as ED said, as generally Gottem has gotten more positive praise than negative :(

    Anyways, for tGens, we look at ways of trying to set the mood/atmosphere of the case through the music. And because I deviate from most authors in terms of finding unique, pleasant sound, I know I've accomplished my experiments pretty damn well when the music comes to tGens. You can't tell me the music simply doesn't work/not fit, since tGens was originally known as a trial with unique music that didn't rely on epic orchestral pieces, and that most of the tracks fit the vision I was going for. The trial is more fast-paced after all :P. But c'mon, I expected you would be the one to point out how I did such an amazing edit job of the JFA prologue background in Part 2 (where the ghost lady animation appears near Phoenix, with the synth track giving off the atmosphere of a serious/shady-vibe). Things like this is lacking from your review, and I think it stems from the fact that you didn't treat this as a first-time trial...
    ...Else I wouldn't be often asked to do music consulting for other authors so much xP.
    STILL, if you think first-time authors need to "simplify" (whatever THAT means) their OST list so the trial is more coherent in this regard...then it's still a valid interpretation.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Now we get into the uglier side of things. On the mystery side, the puzzles lack any sort of beauty, elegance, or anything similar. In official Ace Attorney games, there is a sense of cohesiveness to the mystery. Evidence yielding unexpected results, turning something around, a simple solution to seemingly impossible situations... In general, something that shows you put more thought into designing the puzzles and contradictions beyond "this make sense." In fairness, very few developers on AAO are even attempting this. The only one that comes to mind is Blackrune.
    I agree with this assessment. I don't know why/how tGens got a pass in regards to the actual case elements (I think it's because in general the experience is so polished I guess this stuff was overlooked). I really don't know how it didn't get scrutinized in this regard :s

    Still, even Blackrune gave praise to the CE content for Part 1, even the way we did the fake contradiction, and so we tried to model what people liked about the content in Part 1, and incorporate it in Part 2. According to you though, this didn't work to our benefit. I'm not surprised seeing as there was never meant to be a Part 2 (and why Part 1 tends to be flaky with all the case logic).
  • Enthalpy wrote:Unfortunately, it is fairness where the puzzles fall to thousands of pieces. Testimony one is press-all-to-continue, so it's fine. On testimony two, the fake contradiction is completely unfair. It is perfectly reasonable for the player to present that contradiction. The choice on whether to go through with the test, however, is completely unreasonable. The game seems to be hinting that we should go through with the test, and I see no reason why the test would lead to an instant game over. Also, at the very least, we get a penalty for presenting the contradiction. Just because the prosecution can explain it does not mean there is no contradiction. The real contradiction is also bad. The contradiction hinged on Ema saying "From the facts in the Court Record, we know the gun belongs to the defendant." The problem is that she never said that. She talked about the fingerprints and then randomly said it was the defendant's gun, but the statement did not explicitly say that because there are fingerprints, it must be the defendant's gun, which is what we are trying to contradict. Even if it had, that is a jump in logic, not a proper contradiction. I thought that it was just a slip-up on your part, not an actual contradiction. Now that I know the solution, I can't call it a contradiction. The means of proving the gun isn't Fone's by virtue of the silencer is also very bad, as he could get it on the black market, or he could be a government agent. This leaves the third testimony, which is another really bad one. I couldn't understand either the real or the fake contradiction at all.
    Oh man, tGens has a rep for being punishing (even if unfairly in some parts). We toned this down a BUNCH on part 2.

    Haha, I see why you did the avancement thing. You got the fake contradiction game-over!
    Did the game hint at saying for you to go with your test, or did your past experience of AA games subconsciously encourage you to go with whatever tended to get extrapolated the most in a press statement/contradiction? Trucy showed Apollo, and you the player, since Apollo at the time couldn't detect that Phoenix was lying/bluffing, that you probably shouldn't try to call Phoenix out on his bluff. Since Apollo detects nervous ticks...If he couldn't detect Phoenix with a nervous tick, was PW truly bluffing then? Of course, Apollo tried to rationalize how Phoenix would tackle the prosecution through the flashback of "well, Phoenix won many of his cases by bluffing"...but since PW called Apollo out by saying he needs to use his brain, and not a useless tool (the bracelet), it would be a risk not worth pursuing. I don't know how I could've made the hint easier to explain, without making it obvious :lol:.

    Btw, just remember Enthalpy, that tGens was the first trial on AAO to implement fake contradictions (at least, in the way we did). It was an experiment that shows it can technically work, but needs careful planning on implementing in a case. I think some other author incorporated fake contradictions MUCH better than tGens did, which means we accomplished the goal of people learning from our mistakes in some form or way.

    You're right that it's unfair that we still punish you if you retract your claim. But you wasted the court's time, and the judge seemed awfully impatient and in a hurry to get this trial over with...I wonder why? Hmmm....

    About the real contradiction of CE 2. I can see why you'd think that's bad. However, Apollo's (and the player's) only information they can go on according to the facts currently known in the case is based on what the information from the Court-Record+Ema supplies. tGens (in Part 1 at least) requires you to think ahead to tackle CEs, not necessarily by the hard facts you know. Obviously, this is not an ideal approach to mysteries. What I could've done years ago in Part 1 was provide an evidence of a permit/certificate showing that the gun currently in the hands of the court/police does in fact belong to the defendant, to get rid of your doubt here...Only thing is, because it was a Jurist-based system, all PW has to show to get the crowd wild is "hey guys, his fingerprints were on there, no more discussion!". IIRC the crowd ate that stuff up. Still, it would NOT change how you'd tackle the CE. At the time, your only information about Cell is that he's a telemarketer. Okay, the silencer description clearly states that only specific entities can obtain silencers (FBI, Army, Marines, Squat, etc. etc. w/e I put in). But as far as we know, Cell works for a random communications company. How could he have gotten his hands on a silencer? Ema/PW implied that the ENTIRE gun, INCLUDING the pistol, belonged to the defendant. It's a way for the player to exploit as a means to escape the CE. Remember the objection scene acknowledges that even though the gun may belong to the defendant, it could have been used by the killer to set-him up (why do you think there's no fingerprints with the silencer)?

    This is unorthodox because you can't, as you said, really call that as a true contradiction, but it still contradicts the facts you know for certain about nonetheless. It's still a way to beat the CE in a reasonable manner. Why do you think Apollo mentions in Part 2 about avoiding the discussion of the gun as much as possible?

    That's exactly why in Part 2, we separated the pistol, from the silencer. If I had done THAT in Part 1, it would've made the case a lot more streamlined/easier to tackle in this regard.
    D-Don't worry about the 3rd testimony though, let's just say the fake contradiction makes much more sense than the real one at this point in time xP. That section hasn't been revamped (intentional), and is basically supposed to show that because the knife killed the victim first, you can't necessarily say that the gun, which had fingerprints from Fone, actually killed him, and was a way to frame Fone in some manner (it's been years since I've written the explanation, so forgive me for not knowing at the top of my head). We kept from revamping to show the pitfalls of not planning a case properly, which in our case, shows big time (but c'mon, only one part was just supposed to exist and the case wasn't the primary focus! xP).
  • Enthalpy wrote:The problems do not in any way resolve themselves in part two. The first testimony is another bad one, because it is not reasonable to expect the player to know the relevant data and connect it with the situation. Sure, Fone's real name may be Telly, but it has not been said for certain that it is a first name's initial that goes on the silencer, and it is also not reasonable to expect the player to remember that "Cell" is just a nickname. I also don't understand why presenting Cell's profile again is necessary. The second cross-examination, honestly, I just skipped through. I couldn't be bothered to care about something that titanic, and something you say in the walk-through will bore the player. I really do not understand why it was there.
    You must've not endured the fake contradiction in this CE ;). Jason Bourne, as an expert in this field with guns and the process of issuing out silencers, tried to guarantee the court in the CE, that the signature could be either a nickname chosen by the recipient, or have the initial based off the real name. He justified this originally by saying his own revolver has its own initial with the letter "J", which he said stands for James. As for the player not knowing the nickname, this was also intentional. I definitely wanted to see how many average players would forget what Cell's real nickname was. I hid that fact from his profile on purpose in Part 2 (whereas it was obvious what his real name was in Part 1). This is also a way for Apollo's "personalizing" the court-record, especially in the profile section. You didn't like that? GOOD. It's a perfect example of what NOT to do to make a player pay attention to details like this. If it's not in the court-record, then they're probably not going to remember his real name at all.

    He probably didn't expect Apollo to use a legitimate argument that the initial SHOULD ONLY be based off the legal name of the client (which is based off of Fone's real name, Telly), especially from a government entity. Apollo used Jame's own example to his benefit to prove that it can't be Cell, because the initials are based on the legal name (so it SHOULD be a T, not a C).

    It would've all been fine, had Phoenix not pointed out that Jame's nickname/codename, is also coded as "Jaguar". So now you don't really know at all if the initials are based solely on the legal name, or based on the nickname, or can be based on both when having a weapon/silencer supplied by the government agency you work for.

    You're basically back at square one about the gun/silencer possession. If I didn't include this in, you probably wouldn't have made any issue with this, and the topic would be resolved.
    But I purposely made sure not to resolve it, and instead make it more (unnecessarily?) complex. It's an experimentation on frustrating the player even more on not tying loose ends here. And you pal, seemed to feel pretty frustrated at that point :P

    And for the profile, I just wanted the player to make sure of themselves that they weren't truly guessing on the Bourne CE.

    As for Ema's long testimony, we understand that in a story, the middle parts of it can tend to feel slow, either in terms of pace, or "climax". I just wanted to experiment how much I could bore the player through making him/her wade through a long, drawn-out testimony. I'd say it worked, since it's the biggest criticism we've had so far. Compare what we did, to what BP did in Silence of the Turnabout. His long CE's were much longer than ours, but it was a lot more engaging/interactive from a gameplay perspective I believe. It's a note to authors to watch what you're doing when you making long CEs. Press-all functions are clearly NOT the ideal way of developing a long CE, or presenting information in such an overwhelming manner.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Next are the Gottem testimonies. The fake contradiction in testimony one is absolutely pointless. A clarification can be given on this point, and there is no reason to keep this contradiction. The real contradiction is also a hassle. The contradiction isn't inherently unfair, but again, it is not reasonable for the player to remember and relate the relevant information. Most players will not have remembered such a minor detail as the cup having been broken, and in such a long testimony (albeit not as long as Ema's) with so much information in the Court Record, the contradiction is extremely hard to find if you don't know what you're looking for. Testimony two is press-all-to-continue and seems very pointless. The deduction we make that Gottem isn't an eyewitness is especially nonsensical. Just because he's taking a while to get to the point doesn't mean he doesn't know the point. This leaves the third testimony with him, which makes sense, but is just unnecessarily convoluted. Apollo doesn't need all those fancy explanations when he can just say, "The witness could not have known that Fone was at the front entrance, and he earlier denied that he knew." I lost track of what Apollo was trying to say several times... One final note on fairness, you absolutely overdid penalties on pressing. There was no warning really given, and a massive deal of them weren't fair. I feel this was another experiment, but it's very damaging to the game... In short, the game is a very bad mystery.
    Gottem's entire first couple of CE's are pretty much pointless, what're you talking about? xP
    As for the cup, instead of opting to think ahead strategy for Part 1, I opted to try ED's method of "paying attention to detail" on this one. Although you would need to wade through the CR, the challenge would be much less difficult if we gave much more simpler, less detailed information to work with. We had feedback from Part 1 on how it was a nice change of pace how there was much more details that may/may not be relevant to the case/CE's, so we expanded this in Part 2. If we overdid this, then it means we need to find a better balance for Part 3 regarding this.
    Testimony 2 and Testimony 3 actually have two different ways of beating each CE. Press-all is the easier, cop-out method we made for players since I want to show authors there's more than one way to you can allow a player to tackle the CE. However, I'm beating home the point that if you don't do it right...it's going to feel pretty damn pointless tackling the CE, just like you said.
    As for the deduction bit...That's exactly what PW pointed out at Apollo's attempt to hurt the credibility of the supposedly star witness...?

    But Gottem never made any claims in the previous CE's that he saw the killer at the entrance. Yes, Gottem approached the entrance many times, but only because he knew someone was in the dining room. How could he have known the killer was going to open the front door, when the killer left the dining room and "disappeared OUT OF MY SIGHT!"?

    Gottem slipped up in CE3, with that tricky wording. That's what it all is with his testimonies. Apollo couldn't really use evidence after the first CE of Gottem. Gottem's good memory actually went against him when he finally made the claim of "I KNEW the killer was at the entrance", EVEN though his previous, "pointless" testimony had him only saying that the killer just left the dining room, where Gottem *probably* couldn't see where the killer was going.
    As for pressing, yep, you're right. Part 1 was unfair. Part 2 is just as, even more unfair. I assume Part 3 is going to lay off this a lot more, if not completely. I dunno. We want authors to note that it's a cruel tactic to go against the player.

    But do I agree it's a bad mystery? Yes I do, since the case is not really meant to be solved considering the flaky, albeit impossible circumstances. If you recall from my PM, the case had not been designed to be solved, since a Part 2 was never meant to be made. It's why Part 1's faulty case logic flows into 2, and will most likely flow into 3. I mention this because you are right to assume that for an experienced author, this isn't something that should be acceptable.

    So, what does this mean? As I said awhile back, if you don't have careful planning...You're going to have a REALLY poor case. You know who else emphasized it. Come on, you know. But for your average player...it's never truly been about the case. xP
  • Enthalpy wrote:Looking at it from the story perspective, the characters. Well, the presiding judge is extremely out of character. He's just... a ridiculously angry judge. I get that his brother died, but this is still really out of character for him. Phoenix... No, that just wasn't the same Phoenix. I don't know who that was, but it wasn't Phoenix. I barely remembered Trucy was there. Apollo should be having a bigger "?!??!!??" reaction to... pretty much everything in this trial. He barely seems to react to anything except when melodramatically saying his case is doomed. Telly Fone is still a completely ridiculous character. And yes. We know he's Godot. I just don't know why he's behaving like this... It really doesn't add up. I don't know what Mia and Maya are doing anywhere in this. Ema... Her reaction to Phoenix still doesn't make any sense. Why is she so angry? I don't know what Bourne was doing, but that was just really weird. He didn't fit in with the other characters, and he didn't seem to have a story role either. He was just a "Big Lipped Alligator Moment," but a character. Then Gottem... He made zero sense. Why does the court have so much sympathy for his obvious sob story, and why is nobody getting annoyed with his bizarre laughter, or his "GOTTEM" schtick, or his constant stalling... And why does Apollo keep saying he's contradictory...? None of the characters really made sense. They didn't seem human, and they didn't seem rational... The characters don't even seem coherent or consistent.
    I had a big problem with this paragraph. First, YES THANK YOU, I agree that Gottem makes no sense. He's not MEANT to make sense. He's poorly written on purpose. We want authors/players, specifically first-timers, to take note what happens if you don't take care of writing your OC's well, and Gottem represents that. Since this is Jurist-based system, and the case getting a lot of public attention due to a high-profile judge getting killed, you can probably assume the crowd is full of emotional, common people. When Gottem proclaimed he lost his job, his home, having to move to another state for employment with his wife and daughter...um, you can be pretty sure he's going to get sympathy from the crowd. Whether or not it's sincere is irrelevant at this point of time though (and is why Apollo is automatically suspicious of him considering Gottem acts SO happy and weird in general, like none of his circumstances gets him worried).

    As for Phoenix...I'm taken aback at your reaction at this. Let's not even worry about his characterization. Why the hell is he even a prosecutor? tGens is the first case on AAO to put him in an ’official' prosecutor position. Everyone LOVED this idea. I don't see how you don't :s
    The way he's acting, even APOLLO mentions him acting weird (remember? Out of character? Apollo says that in red text early on in Part 2). I mean jeez, why is Phoenix imitating his former prosecutor opponents? You don't have good explanations for these because it's something that's meant to be explored if tGens was a series. (As in, further cases would provide reasons on these things). This is however one of the biggest elements that has drawn other average players in. Phoenix acting as a prosecutor, phoenix acting SHADY, resembling his AJ-hobo personality more than his older PW-era personality. There is a mystique about this that drives the average player crazy because you just want to know his motivations behind acting the way he is. It's a tease yo.

    Here's the thing about Trucy, and co-council in AA games in general. You're not REALLY supposed to remember them being there that much, if at all, unless they have a direct relation to the case. They're your slight hint-guides, or slight comedy relief, or even slight comforters of your main character, a moral support if you will. But you can't just have them on screen time ALL the time. I think ED mentioned something about regarding the concept of "satellite" characters. More minor in court, but much more main/important outside the court.

    In part 2, this becomes MUCH harder, since even though we have shown that you can have more than 2 co-council members, it's hard to keep them on-screen and make them relevant without simply forcing them in. I didn't want to do much, but at the same time, I had to make sure I wasn't doing too little of this. I certainly thought I did it right when it came to their exposure during the CE's of part 2. Hmm...

    In Part 2, it was more focused on Cell than on Trucy. Quite obvious considering the tease on not knowing if Cell is Godot (I mean, look at what he did at the beginning of the trial in Part 2, to the END of Part 2. It CERTAINLY reminds you of Godot doesn't it?). Though I don't acknowledge that it's Godot. I REFUSE to actually :P

    Ema could be really angry, and in a bad mood for some reason. I gave a subtle hint throughout Part 2 which could tell you why she seems to be in a bad mood. It can be elaborated further if it's not clear (but then it may become obvious :P)

    As for Apollo, considering what happened in events in AJ, I would like to think he knows how to keep his cool a *little* bit better than previously. That's not to say he hasn't reacted to !!!!!! everything about the case. He's certainly paid attention to it all. You could argue that his bracelet helps him somewhat keep focus on the task at hand, no matter the ridiculousness of things happening (especially with that ghost lady), since that's what the bracelet inherently does.

    Mia/Maya? Who? Which one's which again?

    Bourne is just introduced here. You're not meant to know him that well, but if it was a series, we would explore him further in later cases. Not all minor characters have to be essential to the story though, I'd at least think you'd understand that. :|

    So what can I say about this? I COMPLETELY disagree with a majority of your assessment here. I don't know what kind of expectations or idea you were coming in with this case, but it's definitely off. If you're CURIOUS and interested in knowing why they are acting the way they are, that's understandable. But I think you're saying that basically everyone is OOC, especially with no reason, which I must disagree with, especially with someone like the judge/PW. They may have a reason for acting the way they are, and may be driving the case in the way it is because of the way they're behaving. Ever thought about that?
  • Enthalpy wrote:Then the story... That made no blasted sense. Can anybody explain... any of that to me? There was random Phoenix being a really corrupt prosecutor who now hates Mia and travestied the entire Ace Attorney canon to justify his behavior, random Apollo sulking at the beginning and end, random Mia, Maya, and Godot showing up... That... I'm sorry but the story made no sense. Oh, and the judge was murdered in there somewhere, wasn't he? However, we're making no progress on that, so I don't really care all that much. The story was... not that great either.
    I'm not sure how I can acknowledge this. While I appreciate the honesty, your explanation doesn't help justify the criticism. Let me give you a hint that could probably clear some things up for you: Go take a look at the boxart. Notice anything different about it from your typical AA/AJ boxart? Notice the implications behind the box-art?

    I have done my best to incorporate them in the story as naturally as possible, without it being forced for the sake of it being forced. Maybe there's a reason why Phoenix is rejecting the philosophy of Mia, and instead going to the prosecuting style of his former rivals/opponents. Maybe Mia is showing up for a specific reason too. Hey, maybe Maya IS showing up, possibly because it's in relation to Mia being involved. WHO KNOWS?

    You can bash me for the case logic, but I don't think the assessment on the story is quite fair. It's the first introductory case, MAYBE it would all be explained in time? ;P
  • Enthalpy wrote:With all that said, I think that now I can compare this to Heartbreaking. The version I played had Phoenix try to defend Thalassa for Apollo and Trucy's murder after she tells (or tries to tell) them of the family connection. It ended with Phoenix dying and Maya acting as a defense attorney to continue the case. It tried to be very much an emotional case, although its effectiveness is beyond the scope of this review.
    Yes, that's the version I recall prior to the latest revamp, though I would have liked to see what your opinion on the effectiveness was.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Generations on the other hand... It's definitely after Apollo Justice. It definitely doesn't have Phoenix defending anyone, Thalassa being the defendant, Apollo or Trucy being the victims, resolution of the "Apollo and Trucy's family" arc, Phoenix dying, Maya acting as a defense attorney, or emotional aspirations. In other words, it's a completely different alternate universe version of Ace Attorney 5. But what version is Generations? On that, I'm mystified. It seems to not only be an altered universe in terms of changing the events of Ace Attorney 5, but Phoenix's character is subverted without explanation, and this occurs to a level that I thought impossible. Anybody who has played the trial should tell you that Phoenix's personality has completely reversed, and the reason for this is poorly explained. Even worse, Phoenix ties his reasoning to figures from his past, which Phoenix has always used to support his old personality. This reversal on the part of Phoenix is extraordinarily worrying, and I have the creeping suspicion that this case is going into nihilistic territory.
    Okay Enthalpy. This is where I think you may have Dual Destinies clouding your judgement, specifically when saying this: "It seems to not only be an altered universe in terms of changing the events of Ace Attorney 5, but Phoenix's character is subverted without explanation, and this occurs to a level that I thought impossible."
    WHETHER or not you played that game yet, it still doesn't matter. THIS CASE WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE RELATED TO DD. This case came out three years ago, prior to any DD release. It was only meant to serve as a "what-if" GS5 SCENARIO. With DD out, of course you're going to say it's an AU version of AA5. The hell? Did you not remember me mentioning that you had to pretend as though DD didn't exist when playing this case? :/
    Unless you mean in comparison to Heartbreaker...even then I'm not sure what your message is.

    Because of this one paragraph, I feel as though you came in playing tGens with the completely wrong expectations in.

    Yes, people have acknowledged that PW was acting OOC, considering he's on the PROSECUTION bench. I've never even given a true explanation for the way he acts, as you're supposed to find out slowly in time later. That's part of the intriguing mystery about it. The way he reversed a certain philosophy to support his "newer" personality is something I got all positive feedback on from my betatesting report (whether it not it was substantial, is a different matter, which I have considered into account). Note: That wasn't even meant to justify how he behaves in terms of characterization. It's just exposition to possibly give a reason why he views being a prosecutor in a favorable light. Juusst a possibility.

    This, is NOT PW-era Phoenix being OOC. This is Hobo-PW turned into a prosecutor for reasons we still don't truly know about. Again, it would be explored if this was a series. But this is a trial-only, introductory case. To treat it as though it's an entire summary of GS5 as a whole seems...baffling. I have not played DD, so I have no clue what the events of AA5 is…So why would I change all the events completely in such a manner if it was meant to try to fit to AA5 somehow? If this is how you were thinking, then NO WONDER nothing's been making sense to you :/
  • Enthalpy wrote:As regards the other ways in which this is post-Apollo Justice, they are few. Apollo is not developed, and if anything, seems to regress. As noted earlier, Apollo's reactions to things, especially the appearance of Mia, are markedly different than how he should react from Apollo Justice, and not in a way that seems like he has developed, but as if he has simply lost his personality. Trucy and Ema are largely unchanged. I very heavily suspect "Cell Phone" of being Godot and would think anything less would be a cheap trick, but I feel that Phoenix must be understood before we can deal with Godot. Maya and Mia are incorporated into the case, but not really in a coherent way. They both feel pointless and extremely random. Apollo's bracelet is thinly more developed by the changes that occur to it, but they have no real explanation and seem haphazardly thrown in. So, while Generations and Heartbreaking are different attempts at an AU!AA5, I do not feel that Generations makes this attempt well in any respect.
    This I will disagree with, not simply because of the AU!AA5 comment, but because of the characterizations aspects you mentioned, which I have already pointed out earlier. You're not even consistent with your assessment on Ema's characterization :lol: However, you at least shown how differently you can take a post-AJ game storyline/plot. Even if you say neither of us does it well, it's still something worth knowing about. You have to think long-term here. INTRODUCTORY case.
  • Enthalpy wrote:If I had to summarize Generations in an image, it would be the image of the faster-than-light neutrino. It was an experiment that seemed really promising and exciting, but once you got beyond the surface and superficial level, it was quite clearly flawed. In the same way, Generations seems like a nice, exciting experiment, but it doesn't work. You wanted to get information on what presentation was good, but the experiment was designed poorly. You made a behemoth case that drowns out the presentation issues with all sorts of other considerations. You wanted to make a case that was good, but the experiment was performed poorly. The logic lacks the flair and elegance that characterize Ace Attorney, and it lacks the coherence that characterizes actual logic. The story is underwhelming and undercut by the massive out-of-character-ness this forces from Phoenix, and the characters are equally underwhelming and undercut by inconsistencies between your characters and either their canon representations, or any sense of coherence. Now that this experiment is done, you really haven't gotten conclusive results, either. Blizdi, Sligneris, TheDoctor, WhiteZekrom, Alnar, ApolloGrimoire and others have all left you positive feedback, but if you haven't noticed, it's all been extremely vague. (I believe you received one comment that gargantuan testimonies and press penalties without warnings are bad, which hardly warranted any experiment.) The experiment is done, but I don't think any of the other reviews have told you that much. That you got a sharply negative review from me and yet positive reviews from others isn't even that useful of an experiment; it's happened several times, and it always comes back to my reviews being more detailed than most, and my placing greater value on themes and logic than the average player.
    Good summary, but about the only thing I agree with is the case logic. I knew the case itself wasn't going to do well since we never planned around that (again, it wasn't meant to, as it was just a fancy demo with only one Part meant to exist). You can argue that because the case suffers, everything around it can also suffer badly. If that's the case, I agree that there is POTENTIAL for that happening.

    Still, if this is how you think a first-timer author fails completely in, then it means I need to quit fangame development since it's quite clear I don't have a clear grasp of what makes AA a good game. Luckily, I'm already retired, so no problem there :lol:.

    I don't seem to quite understand, do you think tGens is one BIG experiment? I thought I made it quite clear that tGens is a playground of experiments.

    But here's the thing though, as the average player, it's more about the "cinematic experience" of playing a trial, rather than the strict value on themes and logic. Should I be expected to fully touch upon the themes of the case, to just the 2nd part? I don't think that would work well. Was it an exhilarating ride for all of them? I think the answer is yes. That stems mostly from the presentation, since I believe for a first-time author that if you have a good presentable case, then its flaws can be overlooked (although it shouldn't be ignored as you point out in your reviews). However, you too have presented some vague statements on some areas of development, and I would think you would appreciate the amount of attention to detail I put on all aspects of the case (yes, even in attempting to try to solve the case logic errors as much as possible through Part 2). I don't think it's appropriate, to imply (since that's the impression I'm getting) that their reviews are worthless because of a lack of details on their reviews, where yours differentiates in a detailed report. That's not an experiment, no it isn't. But you've helped proved the point that no matter how much you polish your case, there will always be some flaws that will be covered by more careful observers. First-timers will definitely need to accept that fact that you can't please everyone, and that someone will eventually find the big flaws of your case if they try hard enough. But I can't simply dismiss the other's feedback, even if some of their reports are somewhat vague.
  • Enthalpy wrote:The one non-obvious difference with the image I have of Generations and Generations is that what went wrong with the neutrino was an improperly aligned wire. Your problem here is the overall design, which is going to be much, much more difficult to fix, especially when your cumulative frame count is over 9000. For now and the forseeable future, I'm calling this experiment a failure at doing anything it set out to do to any significant degree.
    Ouch, I acknowledge the verdict, but that interpretation is HIGHLY subjective, and one I believe others would DEFINITELY not agree with. You have brought out some great points though (especially around the case logic), but the things you've pointed out are unfortunately mostly things I already knew, or explanations that aren't quite substantive to the critique. I'm looking for more details on problems you had outside the case logic, but unless they become more specific and less vague on why you didn't like the rest of the aspects, I won't have any clear idea on how to improve things. Still, there are some things from this review I(or E.D. rather) can take away that can be incorporated for Part 3 so it's improved in quality vs. 2, ;)
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 :P. 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.
Phantom

Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Post by Phantom »

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?
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5170
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

Post by Enthalpy »

Response to selections from E.D.
E.D.Revolution wrote:
Spoiler : Response :
For the actual puzzles/mystery. When Phantom first wrote that in 2010, this literally was supposed to be a demo, intentionally leaving loose strings at the end. Due to the success back then, it backfired spectacularly, in which we HAVE to continue this. Of course not much planning was done back then, so now you get to the mess I keep emphasizing in my Newbie Guide.

I objected to the unfairness of every single contradiction except the very last one. Explain to me how this paragraph relates to that.

Of course when it comes to lack of responses now, we take what we can get. AAO has kinda become the Republican party of today: we didn't leave it, IT left us. Hence why veterans are not commenting on it.

I cannot understand your comparison to the GOP without further elaboration. How exactly, has AAO left you? If you are trying to say that AAO has relatively little interest in your project, I would place the blame not on AAO, but on the quality of this trial, and your behavior in the community. Regardless of if you think you are justified, both of you have xat bans at the least, which goes to show your interactions with the community have been disruptive. Obviously, veterans would comment on your trials left, given that.

As for the presentation, I liked that you liked most of it. But I do have a something that needs to be clarified.
Enthalpy wrote:The soundtrack also felt far too large, disjointed, and oddly energetic.
Besides loading issues that come with it, how is that a bad thing? Especially the last part? On the music aspect, Phantom emphasizes experience and deviating from the norm.

All three aspects were extraordinarily distracting. Phantom may emphasize deviation from the norm, but deviation from the norm can have negative effects. I found the constant feeling of a new theme appearing, the disunity in the selection, and the excssive levels of energy diverted from the case.

Now for some of the testimonies... Ema 2 was definitely a trap. We expected people to go there. The purpose of that one was to see if people would think that since PW is known for bluffing, he must be. And I think there were warning signs that PW is not bluffing this time around.

I do not believe that sufficient warnings that Phoenix did not bluff exist. If they do exist, show them to me. If they do not, then the purpose of your experiment is irrelevant as it negatively impacts the game. Besides, what does this experiment try to show? What is its importance?

I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on Ema 3. I'll admit that the fake contradiction on that one was badly done. I was a young nursing student who thought that, well... See the fake contradiction for yourself, not going to spoil it. I realize now that it makes no sense from a medical POV and a gameplay POV.

I cannot elaborate. The contradiction made no sense. I understood none of it. There is nothing else to say.

In general, this is what Phantom says about gameplay vs experience.
Phantom wrote:If you want to play for the experience, you play ''Turnabout Generations''. If you want to play for gameplay, you play "Ace Spirit Attorney."
This kinda summarizes why the puzzles may not be coherent. For pts 1 and 2, I merely helped with the technical aspects. Now that I'm taking it over for part 3, perhaps you can get some better puzzles to solve.

Incoherent puzzles necessarily create bad experiences. Also, what do you mean by "experience"? You, or rather Phantom, uses this word without it having any sort of clear meaning. In what manner does experience differ from gameplay, beyond gameplay being more specific?

Character wise...
I thought so, too. We are talking about the Canadian Judge, here, and he did lose some of his mannerisms.

Change some to all.

Well, well. As far as PW is concerned... You could say that's Phoenix Wright from the 5th Dimension *shot*. No. But anyway, that 180 change was intentional. As far as him acting that way, him in AA5 also makes no sense in light of 4-4 (and not regarding the Gramarye family thing). Think about it. Speaking of which... I think you have played AA5. We have not, and don't have the means to ATM, and would rather not get spoiled on major stuff regarding it. Regardless, there's a reason he acts this way, and we are disregarding Dual Destinies. Again, think about the implications of AJ...

I have thought about it. You destroyed his character, and this in no way corresponds to the events of AJ-4.

Well, well. I think you might've missed a point there. Co-councils are supposed to be sattelite characters when in court, and upgraded to supporting character outside of court. You missed the mark on co-councils. Compare Pt 1 and Pt 2.

I never objected to Trucy in court. My problem is that the opportunities to give Trucy a character when out of court should have been taken, but were not. I do not see a difference in parts one and two on this issue.
Response to selections from Proton.
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.
Spoiler : Responses as per paragraph :
  • Experiments are usually conducted under two different worldviews: a postpositivist worldview, and a transformative worldview. tGens falls under something else entirely: a social constructivist worldview (although it can be argued it fits as a postpositivist view), while the neutrino experiment you described fits under a postpositivist and/or transformative worldview.
    What I mean is, with the neutrino experiment, the scientists' intent was disprove, or prove a theory they had about something else (in the story you wrote, it was to prove that a particle COULD actually go faster than the speed of light). Researchers who go in an experiment with a postpositivist worldview do so because they generally want to prove a theory.
    In the case of tGens, we're not really here to prove a theory, but to instead, allow for open-ended meanings with the world we are intepretating (or to put it simply, allow for open-ended interpretations from players/authors like yourself, and see what experiments work and what experiments don't work according to YOU).

    That being said, I agree that experiments, depending on if you conduct it right, can be a powerful way of learning about things (or confirming existing beliefs). If you conduct it wrong, you won't get really fine results...But it can be assumed that you, or others, can learn from the mistakes you made with the experiment. I can proudly say that even if we don't do well on the experiment aspects, that other authors/players can learn from what we do and avoid/improve upon what we do. After all, failed experiments aren't inherently worthless, as we can still learn what went wrong with the process, and try to improve upon it in the future.

    To save yourself and myself time, please do not confuse and lengthen the issue by including such things as a "social constructivist worldview" unless they have clearly explained meanings and go to further the point you try to make. This does neither. As to what you are trying to say, the difference between experiments with and without a hypothesis is irrelevant.
  • Enthalpy wrote:[snip]
    To quote Proton, "[Turnabout Generations] was never about the story, plot, or even the characterizations. It's been all about experimentation, trying to find ways we could improve some of the things the regular Ace Attorney games pulled off, in a slightly enhancing manner. It's a way for players/fellow trial authors to pick apart the things we did, and make their own assessments of what we did right/wrong. So that they can learn from ED's/my experiences/mistakes."
    Don't forget the other things I said about tGens! It's not simply finding ways we can improve upon things that the AA games pulled off. It's also finding ways to try to frustrate the player, that first-time authors may end up inadvertently doing in their own cases. Be it messing around with the pacing, intentionally making boring/out-of-tune characters, or having poor gameplay/case design in the case of tGens.

    Again, it leads to the endgoal of other authors learning from our experiences/mistakes with the editor, and case-making in general. In your review Enthalpy, you have brought out a number of criticisms. If it's things you believe first-time authors should be avoiding, then tGens is accomplishing its purpose regarding assessing from a writer/developer standpoint on what we did right/wrong.

    This assumes that the player will recognize such mistakes. That Generations has received only two negative reviews has me doubtful of this assumption, and in my experience, people rarely learn from the review of someone else's trial.
  • Enthalpy wrote:[snip]
    This trial in no way feels like an inexperienced author's trial. The atmosphere is too developed for that. Although it was requested for this to be reviewed as a first-time trial, there is simply no comparison to be made with any other first-time trial not already recognized as good. Besides, I do not believe Proton is representing himself as having first-timer standards in general, so applying first-timer standards to him would be nonsensical.
    Have you ever thought, Enthalpy, that this doesn't feel like an inexperienced first-time author's trial, because I learned what other first-timer authors tended to do wrong? NOT applying first-timer standards isn't fair to me, since this is the ONLY trial I've ever had, and I can get people to vouch that for me. I represent myself as someone with first-timer standards for sure, but I represent it in an expectation that first-timer standards should be high (as in, making sure you actually put in time and effort to putting a presentable case out there, even if there are case logic problems that hinder the game).

    If it had been a second/third project I've worked on, I would have no issue with your methodology here and not treating this with first-time standards. This is what I believe makes the review as a whole flawed. More below.

    "First time standards" has meaning because first time trials tend to match a specific pattern, and that pattern is one of very low standards. Regardless of what you think the standards for a first case ought to be, regardless of whether this is or is not your first trial, and regardless of how this trial got to its current standards, you greatly exceed those very low standards of "first time trials" to the point that applying them gives no useful information. If you would like to assume that first trial standards are indeed high, then imagine that my complaints would be leveled against any other first trial.

    My decision has no flaw, but operates within reality.
  • Enthalpy wrote:[snip]
    As long as the story feels good as a whole, logical or narrative problems can be overlooked. This translates roughly to "have good presentation, and interesting story, and minimize glaring plot holes." (See Turnabout of Courage, where its logical errors are largely ignored in favor of its ending twist, and Turnabout Curtains, where the extremely distracting "BANANAS" factor is ignored in favor of how well the story is told.) This general approach is not bad in terms of answering "is this case good." However, it is very bad in terms of learning from a case, which is largely the end of this approach. Even worse, it's difficult for the author to get feedback, because very few people will give comment on the things that the author wants feedback on, intentional or not. We see this theoretical concern being played out on the practical level. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe a detailed, coherent response to part two has been given, and especially not one that deals with thoughts on the individual presentation elements being tested. I make no hypothesis as to feedback on part one, although I am also skeptical there. In other words, I do not believe the "experimental" aspect of Generations is working. It was a worthwhile thing to try to do, but the problem of obtaining sufficient, quality feedback has not been surmounted. I believe that this trial should be attracting more feedback, but largely due to the reputations the two of you have, it isn't. I don't see a good way to attract your more experienced authors to this. [snip]
    To summarize, I don't agree with this particular assessment. The lack of feedback doesn't necessarily have a bearing on the actual experiments made within the trial, and can be attributed to other more plausible reasons. I'm basing this statement based off my experience of varied, substantial feedback for Part 1, compared to what I've been receiving to Part 2 so far. There are failed and successful experiments we've accomplished presenting within the case, even if they weren't really commented on (for example, the 'testimony' blinker looked really smooth and well-animated compared to the regular AA's simple blink testimony icon in Part 2, indicating a successful experiment that can be applied to other trials in the future. Hence why I released the graphics resources that included this :))

    Your nine-paragraph response seems to say nothing more than "the lack of feedback isn't my fault," which dodges the point of my paragraph. Why you have little feedback does not matter much. Without detailed feedback, this experiment fails. You have almost no detailed feedback, therefore the experiment fails. Again, I ask you not to confuse the issue with needlessly lengthy responses.
  • Enthalpy wrote:[snip]
    For one, I disagree wholeheartedly with your deviations from Ace Attorney syntax on matters of sound effect use, colored text use, and soundtrack size and style. I felt sound effects were used too often, and distractingly so. The use of unusual text colors in the beginning and inner monologue from any character was quite confusing. The soundtrack also felt far too large, disjointed, and oddly energetic. I emphasize that I am no music expert, but I would personally recommend soundtrack simplification. I rather liked every other presentation change I can recall.
    Anyways, for tGens, we look at ways of trying to set the mood/atmosphere of the case through the music. And because I deviate from most authors in terms of finding unique, pleasant sound, I know I've accomplished my experiments pretty damn well when the music comes to tGens. You can't tell me the music simply doesn't work/not fit, since tGens was originally known as a trial with unique music that didn't rely on epic orchestral pieces, and that most of the tracks fit the vision I was going for. The trial is more fast-paced after all :P. But c'mon, I expected you would be the one to point out how I did such an amazing edit job of the JFA prologue background in Part 2 (where the ghost lady animation appears near Phoenix, with the synth track giving off the atmosphere of a serious/shady-vibe). Things like this is lacking from your review, and I think it stems from the fact that you didn't treat this as a first-time trial...
    ...Else I wouldn't be often asked to do music consulting for other authors so much xP.
    STILL, if you think first-time authors need to "simplify" (whatever THAT means) their OST list so the trial is more coherent in this regard...then it's still a valid interpretation.

    Why do you start with saying that you are not sure you should respond to this, and then go in to five long paragraphs? For clarity, disagreement means fail, and I found every item I did not object to either good or not worth worrying about. (Now that I think about it more, I also had problems with a lot of the sprite edits. Phoenix's edits seemed unnatural, especially Edgeworth!Phoenix, and Apollo's "loosening up" animation was horrifying. I also don't get the Ema wink animation.) My objection was to not to text colors lacking a specific purpose, but to the excessive number of text colors. The music and edit quality made little difference in the case for me, due largely to the magnitude of the other problems. By "simplify," I mean reduce the number of files.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Now we get into the uglier side of things. On the mystery side, the puzzles lack any sort of beauty, elegance, or anything similar. In official Ace Attorney games, there is a sense of cohesiveness to the mystery. Evidence yielding unexpected results, turning something around, a simple solution to seemingly impossible situations... In general, something that shows you put more thought into designing the puzzles and contradictions beyond "this make sense." In fairness, very few developers on AAO are even attempting this. The only one that comes to mind is Blackrune.
    Still, even Blackrune gave praise to the CE content for Part 1, even the way we did the fake contradiction, and so we tried to model what people liked about the content in Part 1, and incorporate it in Part 2. According to you though, this didn't work to our benefit. I'm not surprised seeing as there was never meant to be a Part 2 (and why Part 1 tends to be flaky with all the case logic).

    The problems here have nothing to do with your planning for a second part. The same problems manifest themselves in parts one and two. The problem comes from these contradictions being designed terribly.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Unfortunately, it is fairness where the puzzles fall to thousands of pieces. Testimony one is press-all-to-continue, so it's fine. On testimony two, the fake contradiction is completely unfair. It is perfectly reasonable for the player to present that contradiction. The choice on whether to go through with the test, however, is completely unreasonable. The game seems to be hinting that we should go through with the test, and I see no reason why the test would lead to an instant game over. Also, at the very least, we get a penalty for presenting the contradiction. Just because the prosecution can explain it does not mean there is no contradiction. The real contradiction is also bad. The contradiction hinged on Ema saying "From the facts in the Court Record, we know the gun belongs to the defendant." The problem is that she never said that. She talked about the fingerprints and then randomly said it was the defendant's gun, but the statement did not explicitly say that because there are fingerprints, it must be the defendant's gun, which is what we are trying to contradict. Even if it had, that is a jump in logic, not a proper contradiction. I thought that it was just a slip-up on your part, not an actual contradiction. Now that I know the solution, I can't call it a contradiction. The means of proving the gun isn't Fone's by virtue of the silencer is also very bad, as he could get it on the black market, or he could be a government agent. This leaves the third testimony, which is another really bad one. I couldn't understand either the real or the fake contradiction at all.
    About the real contradiction of CE 2. I can see why you'd think that's bad. However, Apollo's (and the player's) only information they can go on according to the facts currently known in the case is based on what the information from the Court-Record+Ema supplies. tGens (in Part 1 at least) requires you to think ahead to tackle CEs, not necessarily by the hard facts you know. Obviously, this is not an ideal approach to mysteries. What I could've done years ago in Part 1 was provide an evidence of a permit/certificate showing that the gun currently in the hands of the court/police does in fact belong to the defendant, to get rid of your doubt here...Only thing is, because it was a Jurist-based system, all PW has to show to get the crowd wild is "hey guys, his fingerprints were on there, no more discussion!". IIRC the crowd ate that stuff up. Still, it would NOT change how you'd tackle the CE. At the time, your only information about Cell is that he's a telemarketer. Okay, the silencer description clearly states that only specific entities can obtain silencers (FBI, Army, Marines, Squat, etc. etc. w/e I put in). But as far as we know, Cell works for a random communications company. How could he have gotten his hands on a silencer? Ema/PW implied that the ENTIRE gun, INCLUDING the pistol, belonged to the defendant. It's a way for the player to exploit as a means to escape the CE. Remember the objection scene acknowledges that even though the gun may belong to the defendant, it could have been used by the killer to set-him up (why do you think there's no fingerprints with the silencer)?

    Phoenix's response about using our brain hints heavily against any bracelet-base deduction as to whether Phoenix bluffed. With this, the foundation for your hint collapses. As for the real contradiction of the second testimony (I note you make no solid defense of the fake), it most definitely creates severe problems. You cannot call it reasonable that if the gun belongs to Fone, so does the silencer, and neither can you cal it reasonable to rule out Fone lying to us about his job, given his behavior, or him using the black market.
  • Enthalpy wrote:The problems do not in any way resolve themselves in part two. The first testimony is another bad one, because it is not reasonable to expect the player to know the relevant data and connect it with the situation. Sure, Fone's real name may be Telly, but it has not been said for certain that it is a first name's initial that goes on the silencer, and it is also not reasonable to expect the player to remember that "Cell" is just a nickname. I also don't understand why presenting Cell's profile again is necessary. The second cross-examination, honestly, I just skipped through. I couldn't be bothered to care about something that titanic, and something you say in the walk-through will bore the player. I really do not understand why it was there.
    As for Ema's long testimony, we understand that in a story, the middle parts of it can tend to feel slow, either in terms of pace, or "climax". I just wanted to experiment how much I could bore the player through making him/her wade through a long, drawn-out testimony. I'd say it worked, since it's the biggest criticism we've had so far. Compare what we did, to what BP did in Silence of the Turnabout. His long CE's were much longer than ours, but it was a lot more engaging/interactive from a gameplay perspective I believe. It's a note to authors to watch what you're doing when you making long CEs. Press-all functions are clearly NOT the ideal way of developing a long CE, or presenting information in such an overwhelming manner.

    I do not recall Jason ever saying or clearly implying that the initial on the gun corresponded for certain with a person's first initial. As for it being good that the contradiction is bad because I learned that it is bad, how many others have noticed this? I called it bad before I played, as I do not count. I also question the wisdom of experimenting with frustrating or boring the player. Surely it should be obvious that overcomplcating contradictions, not resolving issues, and creating boredom creates problems.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Next are the Gottem testimonies. The fake contradiction in testimony one is absolutely pointless. A clarification can be given on this point, and there is no reason to keep this contradiction. The real contradiction is also a hassle. The contradiction isn't inherently unfair, but again, it is not reasonable for the player to remember and relate the relevant information. Most players will not have remembered such a minor detail as the cup having been broken, and in such a long testimony (albeit not as long as Ema's) with so much information in the Court Record, the contradiction is extremely hard to find if you don't know what you're looking for. Testimony two is press-all-to-continue and seems very pointless. The deduction we make that Gottem isn't an eyewitness is especially nonsensical. Just because he's taking a while to get to the point doesn't mean he doesn't know the point. This leaves the third testimony with him, which makes sense, but is just unnecessarily convoluted. Apollo doesn't need all those fancy explanations when he can just say, "The witness could not have known that Fone was at the front entrance, and he earlier denied that he knew." I lost track of what Apollo was trying to say several times... One final note on fairness, you absolutely overdid penalties on pressing. There was no warning really given, and a massive deal of them weren't fair. I feel this was another experiment, but it's very damaging to the game... In short, the game is a very bad mystery.
    But do I agree it's a bad mystery? Yes I do, since the case is not really meant to be solved considering the flaky, albeit impossible circumstances. If you recall from my PM, the case had not been designed to be solved, since a Part 2 was never meant to be made. It's why Part 1's faulty case logic flows into 2, and will most likely flow into 3. I mention this because you are right to assume that for an experienced author, this isn't something that should be acceptable.

    The player should never make nonsensical deductions, regardless of if the prosecution recognizes them as nonsense. Also, you do not address my points on the third testimony. Apollo needlessly con volutes the contradiction. Also, you are fundamentally incorrect. Logic like this should never be considered acceptable by any author, experienced or otherwise.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Looking at it from the story perspective, the characters. Well, the presiding judge is extremely out of character. He's just... a ridiculously angry judge. I get that his brother died, but this is still really out of character for him. Phoenix... No, that just wasn't the same Phoenix. I don't know who that was, but it wasn't Phoenix. I barely remembered Trucy was there. Apollo should be having a bigger "?!??!!??" reaction to... pretty much everything in this trial. He barely seems to react to anything except when melodramatically saying his case is doomed. Telly Fone is still a completely ridiculous character. And yes. We know he's Godot. I just don't know why he's behaving like this... It really doesn't add up. I don't know what Mia and Maya are doing anywhere in this. Ema... Her reaction to Phoenix still doesn't make any sense. Why is she so angry? I don't know what Bourne was doing, but that was just really weird. He didn't fit in with the other characters, and he didn't seem to have a story role either. He was just a "Big Lipped Alligator Moment," but a character. Then Gottem... He made zero sense. Why does the court have so much sympathy for his obvious sob story, and why is nobody getting annoyed with his bizarre laughter, or his "GOTTEM" schtick, or his constant stalling... And why does Apollo keep saying he's contradictory...? None of the characters really made sense. They didn't seem human, and they didn't seem rational... The characters don't even seem coherent or consistent.
    As for Phoenix...I'm taken aback at your reaction at this. Let's not even worry about his characterization. Why the hell is he even a prosecutor? tGens is the first case on AAO to put him in an ’official' prosecutor position. Everyone LOVED this idea. I don't see how you don't :s
    The way he's acting, even APOLLO mentions him acting weird (remember? Out of character? Apollo says that in red text early on in Part 2). I mean jeez, why is Phoenix imitating his former prosecutor opponents? You don't have good explanations for these because it's something that's meant to be explored if tGens was a series. (As in, further cases would provide reasons on these things). This is however one of the biggest elements that has drawn other average players in. Phoenix acting as a prosecutor, phoenix acting SHADY, resembling his AJ-hobo personality more than his older PW-era personality. There is a mystique about this that drives the average player crazy because you just want to know his motivations behind acting the way he is. It's a tease yo.

    So what can I say about this? I COMPLETELY disagree with a majority of your assessment here. I don't know what kind of expectations or idea you were coming in with this case, but it's definitely off. If you're CURIOUS and interested in knowing why they are acting the way they are, that's understandable. But I think you're saying that basically everyone is OOC, especially with no reason, which I must disagree with, especially with someone like the judge/PW. They may have a reason for acting the way they are, and may be driving the case in the way it is because of the way they're behaving. Ever thought about that?

    You spout absurdities in asking me to inquire why Phoenix is a prosecutor without worrying about his characterization. The two are fundamentally linked. Certainly, Phoenix's unclear motivations invite questions in the beginning, but this feeling soon fades. As time passes, it becomes abundantly clear that there exists absolutely no circumstance that could justify such a rapid rejection, or perhaps perversion, or violation in multiple senses of the word, of Phoenix's prior character. No excuse for this can possibly exist, and I believe anybody who has played the canon games should be able to see this.

    On Trucy, I would expect more from her at the defense lobby. That Apollo has become more even-tempered over the course of Apollo Justice and the oddities of his bracelet justify ghosts makes absolute no sense. While I understand that Bourne is not a major character, this in no way excuses his numerous instances of bizarre behavior. As for the rest of your responses, they seem to assert nothing contrary to my complaints.

    Lastly, your argument for my thoughts being completely off betrays a rather worrying idea in your head. That something has happened to change character personalities will make those characters seem out of character until a clear reason is supplied. No clear reasons have been supplied, so they are out of character.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Then the story... That made no blasted sense. Can anybody explain... any of that to me? There was random Phoenix being a really corrupt prosecutor who now hates Mia and travestied the entire Ace Attorney canon to justify his behavior, random Apollo sulking at the beginning and end, random Mia, Maya, and Godot showing up... That... I'm sorry but the story made no sense. Oh, and the judge was murdered in there somewhere, wasn't he? However, we're making no progress on that, so I don't really care all that much. The story was... not that great either.
    I'm not sure how I can acknowledge this. While I appreciate the honesty, your explanation doesn't help justify the criticism. Let me give you a hint that could probably clear some things up for you: Go take a look at the boxart. Notice anything different about it from your typical AA/AJ boxart? Notice the implications behind the box-art?

    I have done my best to incorporate them in the story as naturally as possible, without it being forced for the sake of it being forced. Maybe there's a reason why Phoenix is rejecting the philosophy of Mia, and instead going to the prosecuting style of his former rivals/opponents. Maybe Mia is showing up for a specific reason too. Hey, maybe Maya IS showing up, possibly because it's in relation to Mia being involved. WHO KNOWS?

    Arguing that the story may, for some Unknown Reason X, make sense is the height of folly. The player ought to at all points understand the story.
  • Enthalpy wrote:Generations on the other hand... It's definitely after Apollo Justice. It definitely doesn't have Phoenix defending anyone, Thalassa being the defendant, Apollo or Trucy being the victims, resolution of the "Apollo and Trucy's family" arc, Phoenix dying, Maya acting as a defense attorney, or emotional aspirations. In other words, it's a completely different alternate universe version of Ace Attorney 5. But what version is Generations? On that, I'm mystified. It seems to not only be an altered universe in terms of changing the events of Ace Attorney 5, but Phoenix's character is subverted without explanation, and this occurs to a level that I thought impossible. Anybody who has played the trial should tell you that Phoenix's personality has completely reversed, and the reason for this is poorly explained. Even worse, Phoenix ties his reasoning to figures from his past, which Phoenix has always used to support his old personality. This reversal on the part of Phoenix is extraordinarily worrying, and I have the creeping suspicion that this case is going into nihilistic territory.
    Okay Enthalpy. This is where I think you may have Dual Destinies clouding your judgement, specifically when saying this: "It seems to not only be an altered universe in terms of changing the events of Ace Attorney 5, but Phoenix's character is subverted without explanation, and this occurs to a level that I thought impossible."
    WHETHER or not you played that game yet, it still doesn't matter. THIS CASE WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE RELATED TO DD. This case came out three years ago, prior to any DD release. It was only meant to serve as a "what-if" GS5 SCENARIO. With DD out, of course you're going to say it's an AU version of AA5. The hell? Did you not remember me mentioning that you had to pretend as though DD didn't exist when playing this case? :/

    All I meant was that it is an alternate universe AA5, which is exactly what you told me. With this clarification, which should not have even been necessary, your entire response is trivial, and my concerns stand.
  • Enthalpy wrote:As regards the other ways in which this is post-Apollo Justice, they are few. Apollo is not developed, and if anything, seems to regress. As noted earlier, Apollo's reactions to things, especially the appearance of Mia, are markedly different than how he should react from Apollo Justice, and not in a way that seems like he has developed, but as if he has simply lost his personality. Trucy and Ema are largely unchanged. I very heavily suspect "Cell Phone" of being Godot and would think anything less would be a cheap trick, but I feel that Phoenix must be understood before we can deal with Godot. Maya and Mia are incorporated into the case, but not really in a coherent way. They both feel pointless and extremely random. Apollo's bracelet is thinly more developed by the changes that occur to it, but they have no real explanation and seem haphazardly thrown in. So, while Generations and Heartbreaking are different attempts at an AU!AA5, I do not feel that Generations makes this attempt well in any respect.
    This I will disagree with, not simply because of the AU!AA5 comment, but because of the characterizations aspects you mentioned, which I have already pointed out earlier. You're not even consistent with your assessment on Ema's characterization :lol: However, you at least shown how differently you can take a post-AJ game storyline/plot. Even if you say neither of us does it well, it's still something worth knowing about. You have to think long-term here. INTRODUCTORY case.

    I stand by my comments on characterization, and I am puzzles as to how Ema is inconsistent. Ema remains largely the same, yes, except for her peculiar hate towards Phoenix, which seems more a trait of Phoenix than her.
  • Enthalpy wrote:If I had to summarize Generations in an image, it would be the image of the faster-than-light neutrino. It was an experiment that seemed really promising and exciting, but once you got beyond the surface and superficial level, it was quite clearly flawed. In the same way, Generations seems like a nice, exciting experiment, but it doesn't work. You wanted to get information on what presentation was good, but the experiment was designed poorly. You made a behemoth case that drowns out the presentation issues with all sorts of other considerations. You wanted to make a case that was good, but the experiment was performed poorly. The logic lacks the flair and elegance that characterize Ace Attorney, and it lacks the coherence that characterizes actual logic. The story is underwhelming and undercut by the massive out-of-character-ness this forces from Phoenix, and the characters are equally underwhelming and undercut by inconsistencies between your characters and either their canon representations, or any sense of coherence. Now that this experiment is done, you really haven't gotten conclusive results, either. Blizdi, Sligneris, TheDoctor, WhiteZekrom, Alnar, ApolloGrimoire and others have all left you positive feedback, but if you haven't noticed, it's all been extremely vague. (I believe you received one comment that gargantuan testimonies and press penalties without warnings are bad, which hardly warranted any experiment.) The experiment is done, but I don't think any of the other reviews have told you that much. That you got a sharply negative review from me and yet positive reviews from others isn't even that useful of an experiment; it's happened several times, and it always comes back to my reviews being more detailed than most, and my placing greater value on themes and logic than the average player.
    But here's the thing though, as the average player, it's more about the "cinematic experience" of playing a trial, rather than the strict value on themes and logic. Should I be expected to fully touch upon the themes of the case, to just the 2nd part? I don't think that would work well. Was it an exhilarating ride for all of them? I think the answer is yes. That stems mostly from the presentation, since I believe for a first-time author that if you have a good presentable case, then its flaws can be overlooked (although it shouldn't be ignored as you point out in your reviews). However, you too have presented some vague statements on some areas of development, and I would think you would appreciate the amount of attention to detail I put on all aspects of the case (yes, even in attempting to try to solve the case logic errors as much as possible through Part 2). I don't think it's appropriate, to imply (since that's the impression I'm getting) that their reviews are worthless because of a lack of details on their reviews, where yours differentiates in a detailed report. That's not an experiment, no it isn't. But you've helped proved the point that no matter how much you polish your case, there will always be some flaws that will be covered by more careful observers. First-timers will definitely need to accept that fact that you can't please everyone, and that someone will eventually find the big flaws of your case if they try hard enough. But I can't simply dismiss the other's feedback, even if some of their reports are somewhat vague.

    For reasons already stated, this is not a first-timer case, so your attempt to justify it that way falls flat on its face. Whether Generations has one or multiple experiments has no bearing on the overall image, as they fail collectively. However, I admit confusion on what exactly a "cinematic experience" is. Are you saying that the logic is irrelevant? I never said that you had to fully touch on themes, but is such nihilism permissible, if presentation is not impacted?

    I do not believe any vague statements remain, and I never asked you to dismiss the feedback of others. Nor is it reasonable to dismiss my problems as somebody finding big flaws that are independent of case quality. I am asking you to weigh the attention paid by others against the attention paid by me, as well as the gravity of the issues I am raising.
  • Enthalpy wrote:The one non-obvious difference with the image I have of Generations and Generations is that what went wrong with the neutrino was an improperly aligned wire. Your problem here is the overall design, which is going to be much, much more difficult to fix, especially when your cumulative frame count is over 9000. For now and the forseeable future, I'm calling this experiment a failure at doing anything it set out to do to any significant degree.
    Ouch, I acknowledge the verdict, but that interpretation is HIGHLY subjective, and one I believe others would DEFINITELY not agree with. You have brought out some great points though (especially around the case logic), but the things you've pointed out are unfortunately mostly things I already knew, or explanations that aren't quite substantive to the critique. I'm looking for more details on problems you had outside the case logic, but unless they become more specific and less vague on why you didn't like the rest of the aspects, I won't have any clear idea on how to improve things. Still, there are some things from this review I(or E.D. rather) can take away that can be incorporated for Part 3 so it's improved in quality vs. 2, ;)

    That these problems exist despite you knowing about them is highly alarming, especially since almost all of the case 2 problems were not touched on. The canon issues in particular are troublesome.
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 :P. 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.
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.

"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
User avatar
Sligneris
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:22 pm
Spoken languages: English, Polish

Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Post by Sligneris »

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 ^^;
User avatar
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

Post by ApolloGrimoire »

I think he's the only one who can. :idea:
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.
Image

Case 1 - Nursing the Turnabout: Trial Former, Trial Latter
Greatest Weakness - Mis;use of; Semi;colons
Phantom

Re: [T] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Post by Phantom »

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
Spoiler : You two :
I am disappointed, even a little bit annoyed, how both of you suddenly changed your tune about what you *truly* thought about the project as a whole. Both of you have had PLENTY of opportunity to critique this, from the preview, to the betatesting. I've asked a bunch of times for criticisms. You both only provided either nitpicks, or very minor stuff (which I DID ended up addressing where I could). Why didn't either of you speak up before about this? You know how insulting hearing those two kinds of posts is to an author?
Posts like yours are exactly that kind of posts that hurts authors in the long-run. When I have to get a complete outsider (Enthalpy) to publicly reveal the major flaws of the case, then it's quite clear that the author has been mislead about its quality. And you know the interesting thing about that is? His critique goes along with my own personal analysis I made about the flaws of this case, of which I was expecting other players to point out (not obvious ones like how Ema's mega testimony is boring. But things like the awful logic in general, the gameplay, or even the story in its current state).
I wouldn't have released Part 2 if there were so many problems with the content. I would've actually delayed its release until I addressed all the issues. As Enthalpy said, the framecount is somewhere above/around 9000 frames. It's going to be hard, even *impossible* to fix some of the issues he pointed out, rolling in Part 3 now. The lack of honest feedback, especially from the likes of yall two, has led to this situation for us.

Especially you AG. As a fellow author, I thought you'd be better than this. Did you hide your true opinion about the case because you wanted to see it get torn apart from someone like Enthalpy, since you didn't like what I had to say about your HBT?
Thing is, Enthalpy isn't the only person who "has to be the only one to" provide a critical review. I don't get this thinking. But he was objective and had enough of a spine to be firm with what he believed was wrong with the case. Why do you think I constantly asked everyone "what problems did you have? Anything I can improve? Critique please"? So I can avoid a disastrous reception/review like Enthalpy's :lol:

Now the newbie guide will need to include the following precaution: "Be wary of players that provide *only* positive feedback, especially if their wording is vague and too general, not specifying what they actually liked. Nothing is perfect, and things CAN be improved upon. The reality might be that some players are hiding their true feelings about your work in fear of not offending you."

So please you two. Next time you're involved in some sort of way in someone else's project (or reviewing an author's game in general), BE HONEST about what you think of the aspects of an author's project. That's what authors hire you to do! ;)
I hope you understand why I'm pretty annoyed at y'all's post. It speaks WONDERS about yourselves :roll:.
Now that I'm done with that, let's go with Enthalpy's post.
Spoiler : Responses in general :
If you are trying to say that AAO has relatively little interest in your project, I would place the blame not on AAO, but on the quality of this trial, and your behavior in the community. Regardless of if you think you are justified, both of you have xat bans at the least, which goes to show your interactions with the community have been disruptive. Obviously, veterans would comment on your trials left, given that.
You've been only been here since last year. I've been here for 3 years. ED's been here longer than I have. It's easy to make assumptions that because we have xat bans, that we're totally disruptive to the community. You don't know ANY of the circumstances behind our xat bans, or bans in general, only what's been fed to you from the moderation announcement forums, and that’s the end of it, it seems. I'm going to assume you mean that in general, there has been a lack of interest in this project. But then why would there be remotely 10+ pages of content if that's the case? (Yes, you can argue that the latest pages have just been me providing updates, but when Part 1 was here, it wasn't really the case at all).
Like I said before, the lack of interest in this project can be attributed to many things, not simply our controversial "reputation" (which is more me than it is ED). It wasn't always like this before, with your only frame of reference about us being AAO itself in recent times.
It has no bearing on the actual contents of the case, and is out of the scope of your review.

All three aspects were extraordinarily distracting. Phantom may emphasize deviation from the norm, but deviation from the norm can have negative effects. I found the constant feeling of a new theme appearing, the disunity in the selection, and the excssive levels of energy diverted from the case.

-As a first-time author, yes, you shouldn't have new themes to pick out every couple of minutes. Part 3 would theoretically utilize what we think works best from Part1+Part 2, and not really introduce anything new. But that's all experimented on seeing what genres work and doesn't for an AA-like setting so ED doesn't have to worry about building a music list for Part 3. The music fit my vision exactly for the kind of atmosphere/mood I was going for, EVEN the ones I intentionally picked to not actually work. There are times where the energy is slowed down (such as the theme in Bourne's CE), or really high to indicate the frantic of the situation (Part 1's build of pace of CE themes, from Ema CE1, to Ema 3). This is ALL to show how you can take your music direction in a case, since we're trying to show what you can do with just one "showcase" demo. You act as though the way we designed it is inherently bad, when it's not. This is also to show you don't have to follow the original game's formula for implementing music (you may have noticed I had specific themes that played for a testimony sequence, but never again for a CE sequence).
I still don't agree with this assessment of the music aspect, and never will :P

I do not believe that sufficient warnings that Phoenix did not bluff exist. If they do exist, show them to me. If they do not, then the purpose of your experiment is irrelevant as it negatively impacts the game. Besides, what does this experiment try to show? What is its importance?

-I already explained this. It has to do with Apollo not perceiving a nervous tick from PW when he made the claim. Your issue is more to do with the fact that it was presented in a "contradiction format".
The experiment is showing that fake contradictions are possible as a way to mislead the player (tGens is the first to make this concept on AAO), but if you don't design it right, it can end up frustrating the player in an unreasonable manner. The best example of fake contradictions are in Ema CE3 in Part 1, vs. Gottem's fake contradiction about the bell in Part 2. Both end up being pointless (which is the goal of fake contradictions), but it misleads the player through different ways.

I cannot elaborate. The contradiction made no sense. I understood none of it. There is nothing else to say.
-What about Ema's CE3 doesn't make sense? This is the vagueness I was talking about. Please suggest a fix at least. The facts about the knife are circumstantial in Part 1, and cannot be used in any way to indict Telly (until Part 2 that is, where the knife was found in his apartment.)

-Incoherent puzzles necessarily create bad experiences. Also, what do you mean by "experience"? You, or rather Phantom, uses this word without it having any sort of clear meaning. In what manner does experience differ from gameplay, beyond gameplay being more specific?

Bad gameplay can be a factor that leads to bad player experience yes, but it's not the only aspect of an experience. An experience is simply the way a player digests the content. Some players do not care about the gameplay/puzzles, but they care more about the story, the plot, or vice-versa. But there are some players that only care about being immersed in a setting. Some players may only care about an over-the-top atmospheric mood of the case, with bells and whistles. So long as they *feel good*, like you mention in your review, other flaws can be overlooked ;). This tended to be the case for the average players.
For ASA, most players play that game because of a good challenge from a gameplay perspective with its puzzles/logic. But for tGens, it's more focused on the overall experience (everything else BUT the gameplay, which actually, only you have expressed in not enjoying at all…?).

I have thought about it. You destroyed his character, and this in no way corresponds to the events of AJ-4.
I'm not sure why you think his character is completely destroyed and fallen into pieces. It's shifted yes, but it all boils down to the question: why is he a prosecutor in the first place? I'm not that naive to completely overlook this. The fact you were asking questions about why he was behaving can only be seen as a good thing to me. Part 3's going to answer it all (especially with how I ended Part 2). It would be poor implementation if I rushed the explanations and made it suddenly clear in the beginning parts. I'm not sure how you're thinking about this. I've hinted many times on what his agenda could be.

I never objected to Trucy in court. My problem is that the opportunities to give Trucy a character when out of court should have been taken, but were not. I do not see a difference in parts one and two on this issue.
Seeing as this is an intro case, I've given her plenty of screen time where appropriate. In Part 2, she left for her own reasons for the majority of the lobby scene, which is completely understandable from a teenager POV "gonna say hi to my pops at the prosecutor lobby you two!". This was also to focus more on the interaction between Celly and Apollo. I don't see how I did it is necessarily a bad thing.
If I push it any further, you're probably going to say I gave her too MUCH screentime.

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.
-What's the point in trying to make sure I fix the content, if you're not even willing to provide a bug report? :s
Your suggestion is a massive undertaking as well, and not something I think is worthy of pursuing. But certainly the issue with dialogue can be addressed in 3.

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.
-Haha, NO. This is no alternate version of DD. I told you to assume that DD doesn't exist (due to the age of this project). It's just a what-if GS5 case scenario. Saying it's an alternative version of DD implies that it still somehow ties to that canon, which it doesn't.

To save yourself and myself time, please do not confuse and lengthen the issue by including such things as a "social constructivist worldview" unless they have clearly explained meanings and go to further the point you try to make. This does neither. As to what you are trying to say, the difference between experiments with and without a hypothesis is irrelevant.
-To dismiss this is baffling. Not all experiments in the world have the same purpose to it, contrary to what you may have learned in a K-12 school.
I've already described the difference between tGen's worldview, and the worldview of the experiment you've discussed, as simple as possible. Please re-read what I wrote.
A postpositivist is one which scientists attempt to disprove/prove a theory, which is the case of your neutrino experiment story. A social constructivist is one where researchers allows for open-ended interpretations from an experiment being conducted (meaning, there is no right or wrong answer, there is no validating/invaliding a theory. It's just interpretation of results).
The difference between experiments with/without a hypothesis IS relevant, since tGens is not here to PROVE anything, hence why comparing it to the neutrino experiment doesn't make sense, since that experiment has one and one purpose only. tGens is just reference material for folks like yourself to analyze, tear open, etc. That's why I've also released all the resources I can that was utilized for tGens, so others can figure out what we were able to pull off with the editor :)

This assumes that the player will recognize such mistakes. That Generations has received only two negative reviews has me doubtful of this assumption, and in my experience, people rarely learn from the review of someone else's trial.
-First, it's not necessarily their perogative to post the mistakes that they found. However, players/authors alike have recognized such mistakes, even in positive reviews. From the map, to Ema's mega testimony, although these are obvious, they have still pointed them out. You're just basing this comment based on what you've seen from the lackluster attention of Part 2. Either way, this is still out of scope of what I asked you to do.

"First time standards" has meaning because first time trials tend to match a specific pattern, and that pattern is one of very low standards. Regardless of what you think the standards for a first case ought to be, regardless of whether this is or is not your first trial, and regardless of how this trial got to its current standards, you greatly exceed those very low standards of "first time trials" to the point that applying them gives no useful information. If you would like to assume that first trial standards are indeed high, then imagine that my complaints would be leveled against any other first trial.

My decision has no flaw, but operates within reality.

-This makes no sense. A typical first-time trial may follow a pattern of quality, but that is NOT established as fact, and is a poor generalization. There are first-timer trials (including tGEns) that have reached beyond the quality first-time standards yes, but that doesn't mean you can't dismiss rating according to the standard, especially if it's still an author's first attempt at a trial. Based on your criticisms, I am getting mixed messages in how tGens surpasses even low standards, if you say everything about tGens is poor. I can't assume that first trial standards are high, but I EXPECT that authors should strive the attempt to go beyond the minimum requirement of making a passable trial. I just don't get how applying first-timer standards to tGens produces no useful information for others, considering how I've seen you review first-time trials, standards be damned.

Your nine-paragraph response seems to say nothing more than "the lack of feedback isn't my fault," which dodges the point of my paragraph. Why you have little feedback does not matter much. Without detailed feedback, this experiment fails. You have almost no detailed feedback, therefore the experiment fails. Again, I ask you not to confuse the issue with needlessly lengthy responses.
-tGen's success with its "experiment" (if we're going by how you're describing it) doesn't depend on a feedback quota dude, which you seem to be equating all of its experiments inside with. The success depends on whether or not the ideas/experiments we implemented can be feasibly put in an actual trial. Why do you think the tutorial section exists? All the guides I have ever produced have come from my experience with tGens. The templates that I've released at the art sections? All of them come from my experience with tGens. Players/authors alike are NOT obliged to provide detailed feedback on these matters, and is not the point of this "experiment". I'm not sure how I can rephrase this any better. This playground of experiments consists both good and bad that shows they can/can't be applied to future trials, and that's all that matters to us in the end. If others can learn from our mistakes/experiences, EVEN BETTER.

Why do you start with saying that you are not sure you should respond to this, and then go in to five long paragraphs? For clarity, disagreement means fail, and I found every item I did not object to either good or not worth worrying about. (Now that I think about it more, I also had problems with a lot of the sprite edits. Phoenix's edits seemed unnatural, especially Edgeworth!Phoenix, and Apollo's "loosening up" animation was horrifying. I also don't get the Ema wink animation.) My objection was to not to text colors lacking a specific purpose, but to the excessive number of text colors. The music and edit quality made little difference in the case for me, due largely to the magnitude of the other problems. By "simplify," I mean reduce the number of files.
Just because you disagree with things we did, does not automatically mean they fail. That's still subjective in the end. I disagree with ApolloGrimoire using Dual Destinies music in his trial series, but does it mean it automatically fails? Nope, not necessarily.
However, this is what I mean by you being more specific. This is what I want to hear :)
Still, others would disagree with you on this particular part of the content (the sprites). Your opinion is still valid though on this one. I believe Sligneris was the only other person to mention this (but downplayed it apparently -.-). Your solution of "simplifying", makes no sense to me, since quantity does not necessarily equate to quality. It's a shame you don't like these though, but the average player would not care as to the actual quality of the sprite edits. We take what we can get.
Again, the excessive number of text colors has already been explained. You've acknowledged their purposes, so we now learn we shouldn't overdo them.

The problems here have nothing to do with your planning for a second part. The same problems manifest themselves in parts one and two. The problem comes from these contradictions being designed terribly.
But...that relates to how we had to plan for a second part?
Either way, I agree, the contradictions (especially Ema CE3 in Part 1, and the later parts in Part 2), aren't good. I wish I could find a way to make them better, but I shot myself in the foot when I intentionally designed it not to be solvable. But Part 2 was still affected badly because of the case logic flowing from Part 1.

Phoenix's response about using our brain hints heavily against any bracelet-base deduction as to whether Phoenix bluffed. With this, the foundation for your hint collapses. As for the real contradiction of the second testimony (I note you make no solid defense of the fake), it most definitely creates severe problems. You cannot call it reasonable that if the gun belongs to Fone, so does the silencer, and neither can you cal it reasonable to rule out Fone lying to us about his job, given his behavior, or him using the black market
-Phoenix's response about using your brain hints at using common sense at that point. It's not my fault you don't understand that someone ISN'T lying/bluffing when Apollo's bracelet doesn't detect a nervous tick. That's it. It's THAT simple. You're still going by the regular AA games logic of continuing on a path that's extrapolated on the most. We've deviated from how a player expects to play. CE2 is much less complex than you make it out to be.

Who said anything about ruling out that Fone may be lying to you about his job? That's a theory yes, but not substantiated by the facts from the court record, nor Ema, nor the prosecution, including the part about the gun+silencer belonging to him. Huh, maybe that's why this trial is rushed even with the investigation incomplete...

I do not recall Jason ever saying or clearly implying that the initial on the gun corresponded for certain with a person's first initial. As for it being good that the contradiction is bad because I learned that it is bad, how many others have noticed this? I called it bad before I played, as I do not count. I also question the wisdom of experimenting with frustrating or boring the player. Surely it should be obvious that overcomplcating contradictions, not resolving issues, and creating boredom creates problems.
Then you must've been skipping dialogue too fast if you missed that? The only reason PW called him up was to testify on the matters of the silencer to begin with.
My betatesters all noted the way you present the contradiction, but they understood it was designed this way because this can be something a first-time author may end up doing towards his/her players. It may be obvious to a veteran author like yourself, but not to other players/lesser experienced authors. It's why they end up repeating the same mistake later on in their project (just like how I repeated this with the mega-testimony).

The player should never make nonsensical deductions, regardless of if the prosecution recognizes them as nonsense. Also, you do not address my points on the third testimony. Apollo needlessly con volutes the contradiction. Also, you are fundamentally incorrect. Logic like this should never be considered acceptable by any author, experienced or otherwise.
-I accept these explanations.

You spout absurdities in asking me to inquire why Phoenix is a prosecutor without worrying about his characterization. The two are fundamentally linked. Certainly, Phoenix's unclear motivations invite questions in the beginning, but this feeling soon fades. As time passes, it becomes abundantly clear that there exists absolutely no circumstance that could justify such a rapid rejection, or perhaps perversion, or violation in multiple senses of the word, of Phoenix's prior character. No excuse for this can possibly exist, and I believe anybody who has played the canon games should be able to see this.
Absurdities...?
Yes, they're linked, and yet you don't bother to ask yourself why he seems to be affected in such a manner in regards to his characterization? Maybe it's all part of an act. Maybe it's him taking the imitation thing to an extreme manner. Who knows? There are theories about this that players have made regarding his characterization. It's absolutely okay to use your imagination here to wonder what's up with him acting like this. It doesn't need to be explained all in an intro case.
There are some concrete reasons we have made for his behavior. But it's being hidden/not-so-obvious as much as possible.
Just remember Takumi got flak for the way PW's characterization was handled in AJ, where the fanbase cites the exact same wording you're using to describe him "violating" PW's prior character.

On Trucy, I would expect more from her at the defense lobby. That Apollo has become more even-tempered over the course of Apollo Justice and the oddities of his bracelet justify ghosts makes absolute no sense. While I understand that Bourne is not a major character, this in no way excuses his numerous instances of bizarre behavior. As for the rest of your responses, they seem to assert nothing contrary to my complaints.

-On Part 1, I'm pretty sure I gave her reasonable screentime. Part 2, I understand what you're saying. But that's only because she did legitimately leave the lobby for a time :s. And I did have an explanation of why she's off-screen in Part 2 (she even says it herself), which will be FURTHER explored in Part 3.
Good point about Apollo, and something I agree with. It's certainly being downplayed ;)
I'm not sure what you mean by Bourne. Can you elaborate?
But I could say the same thing about you. Not all your complaints seem substantial from the explanations you've provided.

Arguing that the story may, for some Unknown Reason X, make sense is the height of folly. The player ought to at all points understand the story.
So basically, I need to spoil everything in a short segment...like a movie trailer? You make sense of it by being exposed to all the details, right? But why would I want to do that?

All I meant was that it is an alternate universe AA5, which is exactly what you told me. With this clarification, which should not have even been necessary, your entire response is trivial, and my concerns stand.
Nono, when I say a what-if "GS5" scenario, I don't mean it follows canon, nor does it follow a specific universe. Again, DD doesn't exist considering how long ago this was first out, which is how I wanted you to review this. I think this is producing too much confusion, and will drop it if this is not a satisfactory explanation.

Are you saying that the logic is irrelevant? I never said that you had to fully touch on themes, but is such nihilism permissible, if presentation is not impacted?
When it comes to a cinematic experience, yes, it CAN be irrelevant. Remember what I said earlier: No one plays tGens for the gameplay. They play it for the experience. If all the players who've played this enjoyed how we thrust them into an energetic rollercoaster ride through the polishness of a presentable case, these things can be overlooked. The biggest trials we've had on AAO usually stem from how a player "enjoys" a case, even if there flaws to go with it. As for the nihilistic aspect...that's up for debate, as I've never heard tGens described that way. Anyways, it seems you want everything answered in a case that's also meant to be an introductory one, which again is sending me mixed messages on how this exceeds first-timer standards :s

That these problems exist despite you knowing about them is highly alarming, especially since almost all of the case 2 problems were not touched on. The canon issues in particular are troublesome.
-If this were a serious developed trial, yes, I agree it would be alarming. But tGen's case is absolutely low priority. We care more about the experiments we do than the actual case.
What you're saying is this: That for a first-time trial, tGens performs poorly in terms of the case, story, characterization, etc. If so, then i understand your point.
"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 :P (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 :lol:.

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.
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] T. Gens [Pt. 2: Need Feedback!][UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT

Post by E.D.Revolution »

Responses in Red... You took my color...
Enthalpy wrote:Response to selections from E.D.
E.D.Revolution wrote:
Spoiler : Response :
I'm still waiting on a report on the neutrino experiment...

For the actual puzzles/mystery. When Phantom first wrote that in 2010, this literally was supposed to be a demo, intentionally leaving loose strings at the end. Due to the success back then, it backfired spectacularly, in which we HAVE to continue this. Of course not much planning was done back then, so now you get to the mess I keep emphasizing in my Newbie Guide.

I objected to the unfairness of every single contradiction except the very last one. Explain to me how this paragraph relates to that.
Easy. It was designed to be that way and to be picked apart. It may not have been noticed by the average player. But for authors, this is designed for you. Potential authors are expected to take what's good and take what's bad and make it good in their own trials. After all, it's hard to create a case if you don't know how things are supposed to run, as well as what works and what doesn't work. For purposes of a trial with plenty of experimentation, those will be kept in and not changed unless something breaks. (likely to happen in AAO v6.) This is the kind of trial that thrives on experimentation, good and bad.

Of course when it comes to lack of responses now, we take what we can get. AAO has kinda become the Republican party of today: we didn't leave it, it left us. Hence why veterans are not commenting on it.

I cannot understand your comparison to the GOP without further elaboration. How exactly, has AAO left you? If you are trying to say that AAO has relatively little interest in your project, I would place the blame not on AAO, but on the quality of this trial, and your behavior in the community. Regardless of if you think you are justified, both of you have xat bans at the least, which goes to show your interactions with the community have been disruptive. Obviously, veterans would comment on your trials left, given that.
Even if that was lifted, would I want to go back? If so, why? It sill proves my point, though I wasn't talking about xat. I noted something else about the community a few pages ago, and I wasn't talking about TGens at length. I've been here for a long time. The implication that I don't know what I'm talking about is extermely naive at best. Don't talk about what you don't know. If I were to really apply politics now, we'd be RINOs, and they'd be the Tea Party Libertarians. (For the record, I'm not a Republican. I won't divulge into how I vote.) It would be in our interest to not continue this.
As for the presentation, I liked that you liked most of it. But I do have a something that needs to be clarified.
Enthalpy wrote:The soundtrack also felt far too large, disjointed, and oddly energetic.
Besides loading issues that come with it, how is that a bad thing? Especially the last part? On the music aspect, Phantom emphasizes experience and deviating from the norm.

All three aspects were extraordinarily distracting. Phantom may emphasize deviation from the norm, but deviation from the norm can have negative effects. I found the constant feeling of a new theme appearing, the disunity in the selection, and the excssive levels of energy diverted from the case.
Good point. Also proves my point in Newbie guide "Harmonious set of music"

Now for some of the testimonies... Ema 2 was definitely a trap. We expected people to go there. The purpose of that one was to see if people would think that since PW is known for bluffing, he must be. And I think there were warning signs that PW is not bluffing this time around.

I do not believe that sufficient warnings that Phoenix did not bluff exist. If they do exist, show them to me. If they do not, then the purpose of your experiment is irrelevant as it negatively impacts the game. Besides, what does this experiment try to show? What is its importance?
I'm a little surprised that this was brought up now (the warnings, that is). Not to say the issue wasn't there; it was, for sure. And forgive me, I will concede that beyond that warning when you get into it, there may or may not have been enough about it, itself. This experiment and a similar one in Ema 3? An exercise in poorly designing CEs.

I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on Ema 3. I'll admit that the fake contradiction on that one was badly done. I was a young nursing student who thought that, well... See the fake contradiction for yourself, not going to spoil it. I realize now that it makes no sense from a medical POV and a gameplay POV.

I cannot elaborate. The contradiction made no sense. I understood none of it. There is nothing else to say.
Un. Helpful! For a rather thorough review, this is something I consider unacceptable.

In general, this is what Phantom says about gameplay vs experience.
Phantom wrote:If you want to play for the experience, you play ''Turnabout Generations''. If you want to play for gameplay, you play "Ace Spirit Attorney."
This kinda summarizes why the puzzles may not be coherent. For pts 1 and 2, I merely helped with the technical aspects. Now that I'm taking it over for part 3, perhaps you can get some better puzzles to solve.

Incoherent puzzles necessarily create bad experiences. Also, what do you mean by "experience"? You, or rather Phantom, uses this word without it having any sort of clear meaning. In what manner does experience differ from gameplay, beyond gameplay being more specific?
I'm sure Phantom can explain this one better. My interpretation of that statement? Similar to how one feels about seeing a movie and immersing oneself in it. I'm talking about overall here vs specific parts of the trial. Some people play trials for the story. Some people play trials for the experience of playing it. And some people play trials looking for a challenge. And some people play trials to see what's new. At the end of it, it's the experience of this that counts (whilst not dismissing anything else). It's hard to read you sometimes. Without thinking too much of the trial itself and all the flaws, what do you feel about the trial as you were playing it? I did not get any of that in the review.

Character wise...
I thought so, too. We are talking about the Canadian Judge, here, and he did lose some of his mannerisms.

Change some to all.

Well, well. As far as PW is concerned... You could say that's Phoenix Wright from the 5th Dimension *shot*. No. But anyway, that 180 change was intentional. As far as him acting that way, him in AA5 also makes no sense in light of 4-4 (and not regarding the Gramarye family thing). Think about it. Speaking of which... I think you have played AA5. We have not, and don't have the means to ATM, and would rather not get spoiled on major stuff regarding it. Regardless, there's a reason he acts this way, and we are disregarding Dual Destinies. Again, think about the implications of AJ...

I have thought about it. You destroyed his character, and this in no way corresponds to the events of AJ-4.
I love how you attribute this creation to me, when I didn't create this iteration. Now to actually respond to it. You think we destroyed his character? Good. Still surprised it wasn't really panned for a long while. And as to 4-4. Still does. Again, change the circumstances that lead to 4-4 (the case that lead to the disbarment, NOT the disbarment NOR the overall setup that lead to the disbarment. Ceteris paribus, still would lead to the same result). Think about the implications of what he did. I do believe there are hints about why PW is acting this way, both stated and implied throughout the trial. If you are still not able to pick up on what I'm saying, then you haven't been paying attention to what's has been stated/implied throughout. It may not be complete, obviously, but there should be a good reason to pick upon. A good enough picture until pt 3.

Well, well. I think you might've missed a point there. Co-councils are supposed to be sattelite characters when in court, and upgraded to supporting character outside of court. You missed the mark on co-councils. Compare Pt 1 and Pt 2.

I never objected to Trucy in court. My problem is that the opportunities to give Trucy a character when out of court should have been taken, but were not. I do not see a difference in parts one and two on this issue.
You're right. I misinterpreted.

Now that I think about it, I think you might've missed an important point about experiments. Just because an overall experiment failed (in your opinion) doesn't mean there wasn't something to learn. Sure, there were good and there were bad experiments. But dismissing an experiment as a failure outright benefits nobody. Even you can learn from these experiments. The implication from the review and the comparison to the neutrino experiment... is that because it's bad and proven false, no one should attempt to learn anything from it. You, of all people, should know that science is an evolving process of learning. Just because one experiment does not work or a law has been debunked doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be derived from it. It does mean that someone can, in the future, refine laws or improve experiments or come up with new theories based on the lessons of the debunked ones. It is elaborated later on.
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.
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.
Image
User avatar
TheDoctor
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:13 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

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

Post by TheDoctor »

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.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Sligneris
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:22 pm
Spoken languages: English, Polish

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

Post by Sligneris »

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...
Tap
Posts: 4799
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:01 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

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

Post by Tap »

Okay, I think enough has been said. Let's try and move on now, okay?
ImageImage
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 »

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.
And that guide is a very good start. See if you can add any more to yours. Observe, analyze, apply, learn. :)
Image
User avatar
DWaM
Posts: 1763
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:23 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: The Kingdom of Ellipses

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

Post by DWaM »

... 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...
Post Reply