Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The FRED Workshop => Topic started by: spuds on September 24, 2009, 04:45:26 pm
-
Hey, if i was to post a freespace 3 campaign in several months to a year would anyone be interested. It's looking to be about 50 missions not limited to the player flying fighters and bombers, and the end of the Shivans. This modding is chewing up all my free time so it will be a while still, I've been working on this for 2 years.
-
You must mean you're making a mod for FreeSpace 2.
-
Yes we're interested, but by then we could be playing FS4 on our sextuple core 16tb ubercomps.
:welcome:
By the way.
-
Interrested yes, but I'd pick another name for it....
-
Hi spuds and welcome to the HLP and might i congratulate you on stumbling on the biggest hornets nest in the community :( . to clarify things I think what TopAce is on about includes but not limited to the following.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=65606.0
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=65467.180
on the last one
It comes back again and again to who holds the rights to the franchise, and unfortunately, that's not :v:.
Interplay owns the rights, and unless that changes or they decide to hire someone to develop a new installment (not likely, as they're just barely getting back on their feet financially, and Freespace is not a likely money-maker), the franchise will not move forward.
It's been discussed a hundred times already. When Scotty said "a very long time", he was talking years. Three months is no time at all.
by V/ :v: Dark Hunter dark hunter means Volition
FS3 is a topic that grates on us all because I think 80+% of the community agrees there should be a FS3 but due to ownership of development and publishing rites it probably wont happen for a long while, you could go your own way and create a mod to the FS2 engine using SCP but the chances of it being accepted as canon are low and might put you in the firing line from Interplay and defiantly will as a commercial venture
-
Yeah. Spuds, if you are serious about this, please rename the project to something else. Whatever you do, no matter how great your campaign is or will be, it will never be FS3. The only people who can make a game called FS3 are the rights holders, and more specifically :V:.
-
Maybe Spuds is one of the :v: memebers who knows the storyline that was planned for FS3 and he is writing a campaign using this storyline. :)
You know, hope dies at last. :) (not to mention that it would be exactly what I would have done if I was :v: member who wants to release FS3, when releasing such mod I wouldn't have to worry about copyrighting)
If you're not from Volition, rename your project, most of sequels have individual names (for example Star Wars chapter III: Revange of the sith), so if you already prepared the subtitle, it should work as normal name.
-
Good luck matey.
-
Another (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)iolently (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)icious and (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)oracious (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)iolation of (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)olition (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)anquished. :p
-
Another (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)iolently (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)icious and (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)oracious (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)iolation of (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)olition (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)anquished. :p
(http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif)erily
-
:v: agina :o
So are you just going to rename it or what? if you've spent loads of time on it, any chance of episodic release? ie a demo :nod:
-
I think by Freespace 3 he meant it was going to take place after Freespace 2 rather than "this is FS3 for real yeah I'm the best" or anything like that.
Anyway. Spuds. We'd all love to play your campaign when it's finished.
Keep trucking!
-
Still a stupid idea to use that name for a fan campaign.
A very stupid idea.
-
Even just calling a fanmade campaign FS3 makes me think of The Second Great War: Part II for some reason. Though it's possible that this campaign will turn out quite well.
[...] I've been working on this for 2 years.
Can we have any screenies yet? :D
-
Still a stupid idea to use that name for a fan campaign.
A very stupid idea.
Dude. It's his first ****ing post. Obviously, he's NEW here. Give the guy a break.
-
Then he should have lurked moar.
Being new is never an excuse. It's not like the forums will disappear if you don't post as soon as possible.
It's wiser to read up and make a well-informed post, rather than to rush to it and look like a n00b.
Ah well...I guess it's the impatient world we live in.
-
I'm an advocate of lurking before you post.
Being new is never an excuse. It's not like the forums will disappear if you don't post as soon as possible.
So what all new members are supposed to become intimately familiar with the forum before they post to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of the resident elite? Give me a break. How about instead, the existing forum members display maturity and realize that any silly taboos that new people intrude upon are simple mistakes and explain this to them while at the same time appreciating their choice to join the community and in this particular case, expressing some enthusiasm for the huge amount of work that this particular person has already done.
-
Then he should have lurked moar.
I think it's really an excusable mistake. After playing FS2 and discovering FRED, the obvious thing to do is to invent FS3. And apparently I'm not the first to think this (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/5_easy_steps_towards_your_FREDucation#Step_4_-_Linking_missions_together).
That said, I would put SGWP2 on the must-play list for new campaign designers, because when I first thought I had a slew of great campaign ideas, I played SGWP2 and realized that was exactly what I was considering.
-
Perhaps it is an excusable mistake in some cases, but in this, I feel it is not. I feel that there is a good reason a campaign designer should lurk before attempting something, rather than impatiently going about and starting it.
He is attempting to create a fifty mission campaign, and I doubt it will be any good if he hasn't looked at any other third party campaigns, and just started doing the thing on his own. I say this because he may be wasting is effort. If he comes back a year from now and releases basically another SGWP2, then the "huge amount of work" he has done was all worthless.
I'm not saying that this will definitely be the case, but I am skeptical.
The logic being that without having the benefit of having lurked and reading story idea threads and tips on campaign design, it can't possibly be very good. It may have a good concept and good execution, but it could have been done before, or have some contradictions that were widely discussed. If he has lurked, then he should know that calling your own campaign FS3 is dumb. But he hasn't, so there's always the worry that this will be a) crap, b) something that was already done before, or c) something decent but with more (plot)holes than a fishing net.
Of course, I could be wrong. In fact, I'd probably rather be, and have spuds come and clarify, then proceed to show some screenshots of his awesome work.
Dropping a three-line post and calling it FS3 has me worrying, though.
Perhaps I shouldn't have been so...hostile about it...
-
Then he should have lurked moar.
I think it's really an excusable mistake. After playing FS2 and discovering FRED, the obvious thing to do is to invent FS3. And apparently I'm not the first to think this (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/5_easy_steps_towards_your_FREDucation#Step_4_-_Linking_missions_together).
That said, I would put SGWP2 on the must-play list for new campaign designers, because when I first thought I had a slew of great campaign ideas, I played SGWP2 and realized that was exactly what I was considering.
I am sure I'm not in the minority here but I have lost track of the number of times I have though of a freespace 3 type mod/tc. The most recent musing only a few months ago got as far as a basic how do we get from FS2 to FS3 set 30 odd years down the line and how the political landscape changes running.
-
He is attempting to create a fifty mission campaign, and I doubt it will be any good if he hasn't looked at any other third party campaigns, and just started doing the thing on his own. I say this because he may be wasting is effort. If he comes back a year from now and releases basically another SGWP2, then the "huge amount of work" he has done was all worthless.
That's why I think playing SGWP2 should be mandatory. If your campaign is better than that, then great. But if your first campaign involves the end of the Shivans, explaining Bosch, multiple juggernauts, etc., then chances are it's turning out like SGWP2.
-
Perhaps I shouldn't have been so...hostile about it...
Your hostility was maybe somewhat unwarranted, but I do agree that there's a lot of inherent value in lurking for a bit in a particular community before starting to post, especially if your first post involves some community-directed project that you're planning on creating. Lurking helps you get a feel for the overall mood of the community that you're intending on joining, pick out some of the more notable members, and see what other people are working on, so that when you do decide to make your first post, you'll be able to fit right in without much trouble. I don't think I've joined a single forum that I planned on having long-term involvement with before sitting back and reading for a significant amount of time; I know for a fact that I did it here. The situation kind of changes if you're doing something like trying to run FS2_Open for the first time and running into some sort of technical trouble, in which case you'll obviously want help as soon as possible, but for something like introducing a prospective project, you'll definitely want to look around a bit first and see what has already been done.
(Also, this is all making me really want to replay SGWP2. :D)
-
In my opinion new users have NO obligations to this community beyond the basic cordial conduct expected between human beings.
On the other hand, this community has EVERY obligation to welcome new users in a friendly manner into this forum. What if this individual is the next Blaise Russel, the next Darium, the next Ransom and because of an unfriendly welcome they become discouraged and decide to not bother getting involved. And even if the campaign in question is not brilliant, the sheer amount of work he's already committed to it shows that he can be a very positive addition to this community. And this obligation to be friendly and accommodating to new users does not just apply in this specific case. In ANY case, it is a duty of all of us to be welcoming because quite frankly Freespace (or "FreeSpace" for the anal among us) is a dead game. It has been dead for a decade and the only way it will continue is through a vibrant community. Members are leaving all the time, the only way to continue it is through the addition of new members. Even a new user who never contributes anything in the way of user-generated content is a valuable addition because they can help motivate existing modders or simply spread the word about the community and lead other people to this website so that they too can join and contribute.
Everyone seriously needs to drop this holier than though bull**** when it comes to "noobish faux pas" and try to approach new users in a meaningful, constructive and helpful manner. If people can't take the time to be helpful to new users, why should those new members take an infinitely larger amount of time to bother generating user content for your benefit.
-
In my opinion new users have NO obligations to this community beyond the basic cordial conduct expected between human beings.
On the other hand, this community has EVERY obligation to welcome new users in a friendly manner into this forum. What if this individual is the next Blaise Russel, the next Darium, the next Ransom and because of an unfriendly welcome they become discouraged and decide to not bother getting involved. And even if the campaign in question is not brilliant, the sheer amount of work he's already committed to it shows that he can be a very positive addition to this community. And this obligation to be friendly and accommodating to new users does not just apply in this specific case. In ANY case, it is a duty of all of us to be welcoming because quite frankly Freespace (or "FreeSpace" for the anal among us) is a dead game. It has been dead for a decade and the only way it will continue is through a vibrant community. Members are leaving all the time, the only way to continue it is through the addition of new members. Even a new user who never contributes anything in the way of user-generated content is a valuable addition because they can help motivate existing modders or simply spread the word about the community and lead other people to this website so that they too can join and contribute.
Everyone seriously needs to drop this holier than though bull**** when it comes to "noobish faux pas" and try to approach new users in a meaningful, constructive and helpful manner. If people can't take the time to be helpful to new users, why should those new members take an infinitely larger amount of time to bother generating user content for your benefit.
Verily. :yes:
Oh, and:
Darium
Element Darius has been discovered! :lol:
-
Urgh.
I thought this community was beyond the stage that any mention of FreeSpace 3 would cause a ****storm. That was like, so 8 years ago.
-
Sheer amount of work doesn't amount to anything if it's meaningless busywork, unfortunately.
I came off as an ass, but the real intention was to make sure that his efforts aren't wasted. If you're going to spend two to three years working on a project, you don't want it to flop horribly. If you're going to spend so much time and effort on something, then it should be as good as it can be. I just didn't say it very well (ok, I didn't say it at all, but that's what I meant).
Honestly, I'd feel worse if three years of my work was absolutely wasted because I didn't get people's opinions, than if I was told to do so by someone else.
-
I came off as an ass, but the real intention was to make sure that his efforts aren't wasted. If you're going to spend two to three years working on a project, you don't want it to flop horribly. If you're going to spend so much time and effort on something, then it should be as good as it can be. I just didn't say it very well (ok, I didn't say it at all, but that's what I meant).
Sometime's its better to finish a piece of garbage than it is to not finish a masterpiece. A masterpiece that goes unplayed because it was never finished is worth nothing, but a lackluster but released piece of work can be built upon and give someone a sense of accomplishment.
-
Honestly, neither is any good. I see what you're getting at but I don't think it's right for this case.
You won't get a very good sense of accomplishment from releasing sub-par work that you worked on for a very long time but people do nothing but criticize, or worse, just outright ignore.
Unfinished masterpieces have legacies - sometimes they experience revivals, and at the very least, if you do a modeldump or something, people will remember it.
A three-year project isn't something you do just for "experience" or "sense of accomplishment". It's not worth it. If you're going to spend so much time on it, shouldn't it be memorable in some way? (and no, being memorably BAD and being the laughing stock of the decade like SGWP2 isn't really idea, I think). I'd imagine that it'd have a negative effect if it didn't do well.
Of course, this is going into the 'feelings' department which can vary greatly from individual to individual.
-
I'm a strong believer in finishing something. If you're continually starting projects and never finishing them you're just wasting your time (as I often do). You're not accomplishing anything except filling the passage of time. When something is finished, it gives you something to compare to, something to build upon and look back at and say "wow, I've improved a lot". My own campaign, despite being significantly shorter than what spud is proposing, was not that well received. But it doesn't mean I didn't want to continue the story. Criticism is healthy, I can say "oh yeah the dialogue in the last mission was kind of lackluster, I can do better".
If spud has already completed most of this campaign, he might as well go ahead and finish it. If it's not that well received, that's fine, if he gets motivated he can do better the next time.
If someone releases a campaign and receives nothing but negative criticism then it's the fault of the critics and not the campaign author. Any good critic will give both positive and negatives to a review to help the author build upon their skills and improve. In the end, nothing but positive reviews is just as unhelpful as nothing but negative reviews. One might argue that positive reviews help to motivate an individual but that depends upon that individual because negative feedback can be just as good if not a better motivator. The best approach to any review is to overall be positive while at the same time pointing out things which the reviewer feels can be improved upon. That's the best way to enable the author to both continue on and grow in their skills (assuming they intend to generate more content).
-
Urgh.
I thought this community was beyond the stage that any mention of FreeSpace 3 would cause a ****storm. That was like, so 8 years ago.
I'd hardly call this a ****storm at all, at least not to start with. Four years ago or so, there probably would have been flat-out flames as the first few replies; as it is, people got a bit snarky, but nothing near that level. The sad truth of the matter is that we've all heard the spiels and seen these sort of proposed campaigns many times in the past, so it's human nature that we'll wind up becoming a bit sick of it. That's not a new user's fault in the least, since they wouldn't really be expected to know that, but I think it's an understandable emotional response on our parts.
Akalabeth, I didn't mean to say that we should place certain particular expectations on newbies, or that we shouldn't welcome them in a friendly environment; especially on the latter point, nothing could be further from the truth. I simply meant that, from my perspective, waiting a little while before first posting often entails a much easier transition into a new community and helps the newbie avoid certain issues. I think that this is especially true if one intends on releasing a new project or application into a community; at the very least, you want to make sure that no one else has done the same exact thing before you. There's obviously no real way that we could force people into lurking for a bit before posting, so we have to deal with both those that do and those that don't in an equally friendly manner.
Personally, what I really feel right now is sorry for spuds, since he's going to come back into the thread he created and see a whole mess of people talking about a side-topic he probably knows nothing about. Maybe it'd be best for someone with mod-fu in here to split off the posts not directly pertaining to the topic.
-
what if, as a community, we feel out what Interplay would want for the publication rights and Volition would want for dev rights? Not easy, by any means, and it would most likely be beyond what anyone would want to be a part of....but there's the idea.
-
what if, as a community, we feel out what Interplay would want for the publication rights and Volition would want for dev rights? Not easy, by any means, and it would most likely be beyond what anyone would want to be a part of....but there's the idea.
Considering the discussion above this, this will come out all kinds of wrong. Kaloonzu, that question has been asked many times. One, Interplay is the only owner of the rights. Two, if Volition themselves (or rather THQ) say that the asking price is too high, what do you think does that say about the chances that this community can get in on that deal?
-
I'm a strong believer in finishing something. If you're continually starting projects and never finishing them you're just wasting your time (as I often do). You're not accomplishing anything except filling the passage of time. When something is finished, it gives you something to compare to, something to build upon and look back at and say "wow, I've improved a lot". My own campaign, despite being significantly shorter than what spud is proposing, was not that well received. But it doesn't mean I didn't want to continue the story. Criticism is healthy, I can say "oh yeah the dialogue in the last mission was kind of lackluster, I can do better".
If spud has already completed most of this campaign, he might as well go ahead and finish it. If it's not that well received, that's fine, if he gets motivated he can do better the next time.
If someone releases a campaign and receives nothing but negative criticism then it's the fault of the critics and not the campaign author. Any good critic will give both positive and negatives to a review to help the author build upon their skills and improve. In the end, nothing but positive reviews is just as unhelpful as nothing but negative reviews. One might argue that positive reviews help to motivate an individual but that depends upon that individual because negative feedback can be just as good if not a better motivator. The best approach to any review is to overall be positive while at the same time pointing out things which the reviewer feels can be improved upon. That's the best way to enable the author to both continue on and grow in their skills (assuming they intend to generate more content).
It's not that people only give negative reviews, but if I see largely negative reviews, I'm less likely to try it. I believe there are many people like that which will avoid something that's known to be bad. If it's not as good, fewer people will play it, meaning fewer comments in total. You also can't fault the critics sometimes for only giving negative criticism, if there's really nothing that's good (merely things that are marginally acceptable).
There's nothing saying that you can't finish it if you get some other people's opinion before releasing it. If you do, the end product will be better, and more worth the time you spent making it. You'll get more reviews because it'd be good rather than mediocre, and that in turn allows you to improve even more.
I've held off releasing a campaign I finished FREDding basically last year just to get people's opinions on it, and make it relatively bug-free before releasing. I'm making significant changes to some of the missions and they're turning out better for it. Between the improvement in my FREDding skills between now and last year, and because I was told which parts were illogical, so I could patch up plot holes as best as I can.
I don't see how stepping back, evaluating what you've done on the project, getting/considering some other people's opinions on it, and making adjustments can be a bad thing.
Conversely, I don't see how just doing your own thing and ignoring everybody else can be beneficial - even if it is good, having people to bounce ideas off of only makes it better!
-
It's not that people only give negative reviews, but if I see largely negative reviews, I'm less likely to try it. I believe there are many people like that which will avoid something that's known to be bad. If it's not as good, fewer people will play it, meaning fewer comments in total. You also can't fault the critics sometimes for only giving negative criticism, if there's really nothing that's good (merely things that are marginally acceptable).
There's nothing saying that you can't finish it if you get some other people's opinion before releasing it. If you do, the end product will be better, and more worth the time you spent making it. You'll get more reviews because it'd be good rather than mediocre, and that in turn allows you to improve even more.
I've held off releasing a campaign I finished FREDding basically last year just to get people's opinions on it, and make it relatively bug-free before releasing. I'm making significant changes to some of the missions and they're turning out better for it. Between the improvement in my FREDding skills between now and last year, and because I was told which parts were illogical, so I could patch up plot holes as best as I can.
I don't see how stepping back, evaluating what you've done on the project, getting/considering some other people's opinions on it, and making adjustments can be a bad thing.
Conversely, I don't see how just doing your own thing and ignoring everybody else can be beneficial - even if it is good, having people to bounce ideas off of only makes it better!
Have you considered that instead of redoing past missions and revamping what is a finished campaign you could be creating new missions and an entirely new, second campaign? Both arguments have their merits and I tend to favour the latter.
Alfred Hitchcock once said, "Films aren't finished, they're abandoned."
I think this is an idea that some campaign creators really need to learn and take to heart. And while we're at it George Lucas should learn it too. At some point in time a person needs to step back and say it's finished and just ship it out. The problem with most campaigns created for Freespace 2 or any other game is that the projects don't have hard deadlines so feature creep and revision time sets in and work is redone again and again and again.
Of course seeking input during the course of work can be beneficial, but it can also be a detriment. No one is going to share your exact vision for your campaign, and while you never have to take people at their word they can ultimately draw you off from what was once a singular vision, for better or for worse. It will be interesting for example how BP2 turns out, since Darius seems to have single-handidly created the first campaign and the second seems to be much more of a design by committee.
Having multiple people work on a campaign only exacerbates the situation because then consistency of quality or design goes out the window, unless each task is accomplished by only one individual. And in terms of mission balance and plot, sometimes its good to both have unbalanced missions and plot holes. If someone told Darius "Forced Entry is too hard, no one will like it" and then Darius made it a lot easier would many people remember the mission? If some unexplained events in FS2 like the sabotage of the Colossus or the fate of Bosch were spelled out in plain English would anyone talk about them? Or would they say "oh yeah, I know what happened. Whatever". And if Ransom had me playtest Transcend for him I would've told him the missions are repetitive, and after x amount of time I stopped caring and just wanted it to end. So then maybe Ransom goes back and changes all sorts of stuff and then perhaps the campaign doesn't have the same impact for everyone who loved it. Sometimes flaws or mistakes (which are not bug-related) can be happy accidents and when someone erases those mistakes then that aspect of the campaign is lost.
In short what I'm saying is that the more people who are involved in a campaign, the more diluted the original vision for that campaign becomes. That's the downside to bouncing ideas off of people. Though sometimes the original vision is flawed and needs some "dilution".
An artist, such as a storyteller can distance themselves from a campaign and then come back to it and make their own revisions if necessary. But there should be a limit to revisions and a deadline in mind. Maybe for example someone says "okay, I'm done my campaign. I'll leave it for a week, or a month and give it another go. Then after I see what's wrong with it, I have one month to fix whatever i can then it's out the door".
And finally, bouncing ideas or getting help from someone else has another downside. There is more value in a person figuring out a problem for themselves, rather than simply being told what is wrong and how to fix it. Because the latter can be used as a crutch. I know, in art school I used to always talk to a certain teacher about drawing in perspective, or to a friend. Then when they were busy, or they couldn't help, I had to figure it out for myself. And that's when I really started to learn and things clicked. I believe it's the same with any sort of skill.
-
Critique is extraordinarily valuable. You need to be prepared to disregard some of it, but you still need to seek it out in the first place.
Something like the recent 158th release shows the incredible important of beta testing and feedback. That campaign needed it badly.
-
I don't get why you keep thinking that a little polishing up prevents it from ever getting released, AA. They're not mutually exclusive in any way.
Honestly, I prefer reworking existing missions than making new ones, on a principle basis. (When it comes to enjoyability, making a new mission is obviously more fun). It's the same principle as doing corrections on a test paper - you don't learn from your mistakes unless you fix them. You don't improve your FREDding unless you fix your mistakes. If you just speed off and make a new campaign and your first one was ****, expect your second one to be **** too. If you haven't taken the time to figure out why, then that's what will happen. If your first one was good, your second one can still be **** because you didn't take the time to reflect on why it was good and what its downfalls were. Obviously the reverse can happen because of flukes, but that's hardly a reliable aspect.
Happy accidents don't happen that often. I'm not saying that it won't, but I definitely wouldn't bet everything on it. It's like that story about the guy who finds a rabbit under a tree, and then never bothers doing anything again but sit under the tree waiting for another one. You don't let everything ride on luck unless you really have no choice.
-
I don't get why you keep thinking that a little polishing up prevents it from ever getting released, AA. They're not mutually exclusive in any way.
Honestly, I prefer reworking existing missions than making new ones, on a principle basis. (When it comes to enjoyability, making a new mission is obviously more fun). It's the same principle as doing corrections on a test paper - you don't learn from your mistakes unless you fix them. You don't improve your FREDding unless you fix your mistakes. If you just speed off and make a new campaign and your first one was ****, expect your second one to be **** too. If you haven't taken the time to figure out why, then that's what will happen. If your first one was good, your second one can still be **** because you didn't take the time to reflect on why it was good and what its downfalls were. Obviously the reverse can happen because of flukes, but that's hardly a reliable aspect.
Fixing mistakes and improving one's skill set is not specific to any one set of work. Mistakes can be "fixed" in new work just as well if not better than in old work. You said yourself you're making some major changes to some of your missions. Are you really fixing the missions, or are you more re-doing them? Could you not "re-do" that error in an entirely new mission? To give you an analogy of my own, as an artist if I'm drawing the human figure and I screw up the proportions I don't get out the eraser. I simply start a new drawing. Now maybe you consider this re-doing the old drawing or starting a new drawing but in both cases the principle is the same. The only difference is that at the end of the day I have two drawings on my page to look at, not one. And maybe the first drawing is a piece of crap compared to the second or maybe it has some value in the line and the energy of the stroke that the second does not. It is not inherently inferior because it is technically less sound.
In addition to that I personally find major revisions a serious motivation killer. Any time in my profession where I have to re-do work entirely I am not particularly impressed. Especially because such revisions are seldom an issue of technical quality but are rather arbitrary decisions by the director. People learn by doing, and if someone loses their motivation to rework their campaign then they're not learning anything because they're not DOING anything, they're simply delaying doing it. It would be more beneficial to them to realize their mistakes, revisit them in an ad-hoc manner and then fully address them in future work.
Learning is not dependant upon specific work, it's dependant upon the individual's mental approach to what they're doing. If a person is continually challenging themselves to improve, they do not need to re-do old work they only need to realize the mistakes therein and apply the lessons learned in future work.
In addition people need to realize that while perfection is always sought it can never be attained.
I am not saying that you are wrong for re-visiting your campaign. That is a choice which appeals to you and you should continue with it. But it is not an approach I would take. And given the inordinately long development times of some campaigns I'm not sure it's an approach that they should take either. I suppose in some ways it depends upon what you're striving for. Do you want your campaign to be one of the best, recommended to noobs as they join the forums. Or do you simply want to create something that people will enjoy. And with regards to the latter, how many people need to enjoy it before your work has been worthwhile? Even a "bad" campaign will have its fans. If even one or two people enjoy your work was it worthwhile? How many positive reviews are required before your work is justified? What percentage of negative reviews constitutes a failure?
Some people don't hold Trashman's campaigns in the highest regard, but a lot more people have enjoyed playing them than they've enjoyed playing BlackWater Operations. That isn't a commentary on what approach is good or bad, it is simply the reality of the situation. You can't enjoy something that isn't released.
Critique is extraordinarily valuable. You need to be prepared to disregard some of it, but you still need to seek it out in the first place.
Something like the recent 158th release shows the incredible important of beta testing and feedback. That campaign needed it badly.
Or maybe it's just the opposite. Maybe it needed to be released badly. How long has that campaign been in development? How many campaigns die a quiet, unnoticed death. How close was this campaign to dying out for good? At least with something out the door, there is an idea to be built upon. Something to garner interest. Maybe the team knew it had its flaws, but by releasing it they gain momentum to create something better. Sometimes it's best to just finish something, ANYTHING, so you can just move on instead of having past work drag you down into the depths on inactivity and disinterest.
-
Or maybe it's just the opposite. Maybe it needed to be released badly. How long has that campaign been in development? How many campaigns die a quiet, unnoticed death. How close was this campaign to dying out for good? At least with something out the door, there is an idea to be built upon. Something to garner interest. Maybe the team knew it had its flaws, but by releasing it they gain momentum to create something better. Sometimes it's best to just finish something, ANYTHING, so you can just move on instead of having past work drag you down into the depths on inactivity and disinterest.
Bull****. Campaigns die because they never complete their mods, feature creep the mods for new and shiney ones that never materalize, or because they don't build their missions. I've been inside the delay spiral a few times by now, sometimes as FREDder, usually as a tester. BWO radically rebuilt a mission based on tester comments that it just wasn't working in its current form in three days, counting intermediate steps. Other campaigns I've tested for have accomplished major changes to their missions based on the existence of plotholes in less time.
Testing and revision is never the cause of significant delay. There is absolutely no excuse for releasing a mission to the public with major bugs in it.
-
Fixing mistakes and improving one's skill set is not specific to any one set of work. Mistakes can be "fixed" in new work just as well if not better than in old work. You said yourself you're making some major changes to some of your missions. Are you really fixing the missions, or are you more re-doing them? Could you not "re-do" that error in an entirely new mission? To give you an analogy of my own, as an artist if I'm drawing the human figure and I screw up the proportions I don't get out the eraser. I simply start a new drawing. Now maybe you consider this re-doing the old drawing or starting a new drawing but in both cases the principle is the same. The only difference is that at the end of the day I have two drawings on my page to look at, not one. And maybe the first drawing is a piece of crap compared to the second or maybe it has some value in the line and the energy of the stroke that the second does not. It is not inherently inferior because it is technically less sound.
In addition to that I personally find major revisions a serious motivation killer. Any time in my profession where I have to re-do work entirely I am not particularly impressed. Especially because such revisions are seldom an issue of technical quality but are rather arbitrary decisions by the director. People learn by doing, and if someone loses their motivation to rework their campaign then they're not learning anything because they're not DOING anything, they're simply delaying doing it. It would be more beneficial to them to realize their mistakes, revisit them in an ad-hoc manner and then fully address them in future work.
It is easier to see your mistakes when they're right there in front of you and you have to fix it. If you "fix" it in a subsequent, seperate work, you could very well have not fixed it at all. When I fix my missions, I am more fixing than redoing. Only specific parts are redone, and it's always involving essentially the same principle, just carried out in a better manner. I can't stand dropping something I know I could make better if I've spent effort getting it as far as it did - I would feel all the time and effort I spent was wasted. I wouldn't have done it unless I liked the idea behind it, and I can't stand to have it sit below generally acceptable standard. Of course, if I know its un-salvageable, I wouldn't bother. I'm more motivated to fix mistakes that have been pointed out than to make something new. (In fact, I find myself unable to make anything new if I know there's something to be fixed.)
Maybe the difference here is that I'm mildly OCD and you're mildly ADD. :P
I didn't play TrashMan's campaigns, because I heard about all the bugs. I hardly think I would enjoy it even if I did. I did try Ch1, but I was bitten by so many bugs it started hurting, and I ragequit. I treat them as a modeldump now. Quite useful in that regard.
Same thing happened with 158th. :/ The "Ah! I'm dead!" thing reminded me of DEM, except it was meant to be serious rather than comical. It was...bad. I couldn't finish it. I expected something decent given the long development time, but I was sorely dissapointed.
-
Same thing happened with 158th. :/ The "Ah! I'm dead!" thing reminded me of DEM, except it was meant to be serious rather than comical. It was...bad. I couldn't finish it. I expected something decent given the long development time, but I was sorely dissapointed.
Yeah, the 158th campaign never should have been released in its present form. There is something to be said about finally getting content out there, but when said content largely consists of completely disconnected missions that seemingly only serve to feature new models and skyboxes, you'd almost be better off just doing an assets dump. It doesn't help matters that no one from the team has commented on any of the real concerns raised as of yet...
-
158th shouldn't have been released in its current form. A few days of testing would have caught the major problems.
-
Bull****. Campaigns die because they never complete their mods, feature creep the mods for new and shiney ones that never materalize, or because they don't build their missions. I've been inside the delay spiral a few times by now, sometimes as FREDder, usually as a tester. BWO radically rebuilt a mission based on tester comments that it just wasn't working in its current form in three days, counting intermediate steps. Other campaigns I've tested for have accomplished major changes to their missions based on the existence of plotholes in less time.
Testing and revision is never the cause of significant delay. There is absolutely no excuse for releasing a mission to the public with major bugs in it.
No? Well as an example, taking the recent interview with Ransom. On the gamewarden forums he expected to release Project 03 in October 2006. Now it's almost October 2009, 3 years later, and in the interview he said he has revisited/reworked 2/3rds of the missions? Of course I don't know the full story behind the project but I would call 3 years, for revisions, a significant delay wouldn't you? Even Droid's campaign, he says he finished it last year, it is now 9 months into 2009. I don't know how lengthy his campaign is, but 9 months is a significant amount of time as well.
I'm not talking about bugs either. Of course playtesting should be done to get rid of most of the bugs which make the campaign unplayable. I'm talking about re-doing entire missions because the design no longer meets the standards of the FREDder. Or perhaps the mission isn't "just quite right" anymore. With every mission a FREDder makes their skills potentially improve, if someone wanted all their missions to be at the quality of the last mission at the time of release, then they'd be perpetually re-making all the missions and there'd be no end to it. At some point you just have to release the thing and move on.
158th shouldn't have been released in its current form. A few days of testing would have caught the major problems.
Realizing that there are problems, and addressing those problems are two different things. There is only one real bug in the 158th campaign that I've encountered, that was in mission 3 (aside from project limits being broken). It may take only a few days to playtest, but it will takes weeks or months to rework it because most of the flaws that I perceive were in the overall mission and campaign design itself. So a person is stuck with the same thing, never finished, and loses motivation and just quits working on it . . .
Creating campaigns and other content is all about motivation and momentum. You can concentrate on a campaign, and get a lot of work done, or you can lose focus, go play Halo or join your 5th campaign project and leave the other 4 projects on the six year backburner. And when it comes to motivation and momentum, doing revisions is a real killer. Again, this is not about fixing bugs, any campaign should be play-tested for bugs by at least the author before release. But story revisions, re-doing entire missions, so on, that can be a terrible drain on motivation and it's the loss of motivation to do work that really kills campaigns.
Maybe the difference here is that I'm mildly OCD and you're mildly ADD. :P
No I'm the sort of person who starts many things and never finishes any of them. So in that mentality, finishing something is where the real value is. That being said I never half-ass things, which in itself is part of the problem because I often overdo things and they then become unrealistic and unattainable. Also I'm a terrible procrastinator, and so I often find any way I can of avoiding work. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the work I've done for Freespace wasn't done when I should've been concentrating on something else.
-
No? Well as an example, taking the recent interview with Ransom. On the gamewarden forums he expected to release Project 03 in October 2006. Now it's almost October 2009, 3 years later, and in the interview he said he has revisited/reworked 2/3rds of the missions? Of course I don't know the full story behind the project but I would call 3 years, for revisions, a significant delay wouldn't you? Even Droid's campaign, he says he finished it last year, it is now 9 months into 2009. I don't know how lengthy his campaign is, but 9 months is a significant amount of time as well.
Well, truth be told the only reason it took that long was because I was too cowardly to look for testers, sat on my ass, and waited for...I forget how many months until ShadowGorrath got fed up with my shyness asked for testers for me. :P The actual fixing of the missions doesn't take very long for the most part.
During that time I was working on other things like ASW and another project which the first part is almost done (FREDding that is, noone has tested it yet, and it's not done till it's tested), so it wasn't like I was wasting time.
No I'm the sort of person who starts many things and never finishes any of them. So in that mentality, finishing something is where the real value is. That being said I never half-ass things, which in itself is part of the problem because I often overdo things and they then become unrealistic and unattainable. Also I'm a terrible procrastinator, and so I often find any way I can of avoiding work. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the work I've done for Freespace wasn't done when I should've been concentrating on something else.
Ah, that's where the difference is then. I like to finish one thing before starting another. It's kinda hard sometimes since I get 'stuck', but I usually try and push it through till I get it tested and released. I do find it difficult to stick to one thing sometimes, but getting people's opinion and getting testing results have never hurt my drive to finish something. It always helps motivate me when I get new ideas from people, and have some other people's opinions about what should be done. It actually streamlines things like bughunting, I find. Even re-doing parts of a mission (or possibly the mission entirely) takes less time than building the original in the first place. What kills my drive the most is setting up the initial mission, strangely enough.
-
Ah, that's where the difference is then. I like to finish one thing before starting another. It's kinda hard sometimes since I get 'stuck', but I usually try and push it through till I get it tested and released. I do find it difficult to stick to one thing sometimes, but getting people's opinion and getting testing results have never hurt my drive to finish something. It always helps motivate me when I get new ideas from people, and have some other people's opinions about what should be done. It actually streamlines things like bughunting, I find. Even re-doing parts of a mission (or possibly the mission entirely) takes less time than building the original in the first place. What kills my drive the most is setting up the initial mission, strangely enough.
What kills my motivation is playtesting the same mission for the 20th time and becoming absolutely sick of it. :(
Anyway, it should come as no surprise that I'm procrastinating doing something right now and it's about time I got to it. . .
-
Did anyone else get a serious Takashi vibe from the guy's first post?
-
I think we drove him off.
@Scotty: a bit, yes.
-
I think we drove him off.
Last Active: September 25, 2009, 03:25:16 pm
It's possible he hasn't even seen the debate.
-
how about a Masters of Orion mod? of stand alone?
-
how about a Masters of Orion mod? of stand alone?
Is that a new idea or related to this campaign somehow?
-
No, it's just very off-topic.
-
well, for this freespace 3 thing, it could work if enough people come together and do something, just puoting around isn't going to do much... but if we actually do this "V" will have to accept it for:
1. its not for profit
2. its made by the community
and
3. "V"'s parent company interplay practically gave up the rights by giving out the source code... (that might be iffy)
-
I think you'd do well to go back and read the whole thread, champ. :p
-
Read this (http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/FreeSpace_3), too. The release of the source code doesn't mean Interplay gave up any of its rights.
-
oh... never mind, but if its made for free, then its not infringing any rights right?
-
:wtf:
This is about an upcoming user-made campaign. It has nothing to do with FreeSpace 3. And yes, as long as it's a mod, he can call it whatever he wants. (Although some names might be better than others....)
-
;-)
-
... what if it becomes a Very very good game? then what?
-
;-)
-
Just rename it.
-
Hey, Max, you're back! Or if you never left, this is my first time seeing you in a couple months.
I agree. However, playing the Devil's Advocate here, if Volition hasn't published the ideas, we can't really call it taking them away from them.
Back on the other side, FreeSpace is a copyrighted title, quiaff? Calling any campaign "FreeSpace #: Subtitle" is a No Go. "Title: FreeSpace" MIGHT be a go, but I wouldn't press luck.
Anyway, moot point, as the guy wanting to do it hasn't shown up since the first few posts.
-
The thing is that without some guys from :v: helping out any hypothetical "FreeSpace 3" mod would be useless. The whole point is that is should be canonic, and for that to happen they would have to help with story writing and ship design, as well as mission design. I think that with SCP we have a very strong engine, although I would like to see damage mapping, (Stay on topic Stuart) so it would be possible to build a very nice campaign out of this.
But as I have already said we would need guys from :v: to work on this in their spare time, and I have a feeling that they will have a clause in their contracts, banning them from doing that. For time being we will have to stay working away on our user made stuff and let FS3 live on in fantasy.
-
;-)
-
Sounds like Mobius may have had his ass whipped one too many times. GD does get a bit harsh for the unprepared.
-
Mobius is still monkeyed, is he not? He was a couple days ago.
A quick check of my inbox confirms. He's not just not posting there because he doesn't want to, though I imagine that's part of it.
-
Back on the other side, FreeSpace is a copyrighted title, quiaff? Calling any campaign "FreeSpace #: Subtitle" is a No Go. "Title: FreeSpace" MIGHT be a go, but I wouldn't press luck.
Warning, warning. Hard Light Productions has been infiltrated by a battletech nerdboy. Release the hounds! :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
;-)
-
well i have been getting PMs from spuds about 2 days ago asking questions...
hey, i have a quick question...
what would happen if you made an expansion for a selected game... starcraft, mechwarrior, fallout?
-
It would be completely and utterly artificial. For the first, because there are already three (two bad ones and a good one) and a second full game SHOULD be coming out someday soon. For the second, because another game is the next best thing to in the works. For the third, which one?
Alkabeth: I'll let that affront to my honor stand. The next time, be prepared for a Trial of Grievance. :P