Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Quote
Originally posted by Martin Turner: **I was thinking the other day about production values for plugins - the same sort of values that make art-house movies visually and intellectually satisfying, without going down the path of bigger and bigger explosions, larger and larger sets and more and more highly paid stars.
Looking at the Nova Bible draft, it looks like it will now be possible to virtually anything. This means that we are likely to be indundated by plugins that try to use every feature, whether or not it is called for in the story line. I think we need production values if we aren't going to be Hollywood-ised.
So how about these as production values for an EVN plugin:
**
Some planets(the main ones) definitely need to be unique. But background planets are okay. Anything that takes a major part in the plot needs to be unique.
Should we be a democracy and vote on whether or not to have a group of people who checkes plugins?
Will anyone make a Expected Values Guide for Nova?
I would have to say that the quality of a plugin should be greater than or equal to the original. I have not played Nova, but if the quality is high (I am guessing it is) than the plugins must also keep that same high quality. While in EV, quality is not as much of an issue (yet I still like Matt's work). Having goals in quality to work for is a good thing when making a pluging.
------------------ Silent Night will be going into beta hopefully sometime in the summer of 2002! ----==========---- If you look far enough on the horizon, there will always be a cloud.
i'm with antihero: if we start having a censorship committee for plugs, i will no longer post plugs here, and i don't think that'll be a rare reaction. but hey, if the rest of the ev community wants censorship, who am i to tell them they can't make their own mistakes? often the best way to teach someone to avoid a trap is to let them fall into it
------------------ if tin whistles are made of tin, what's a fog horn made of?
Hmmm, I get the feeling that we aren't all on the same wavelength, hence I am going to summarise, paraphrased (and in some cases slightly changed) the production valuess as set down by Martin Turner.
(list=1) () As far as possible, every planet should be somehow unique beyond having a different name. () Every government involved in the storyline must be given a chance to woo the player. () All graphics must be stunning. () Do not make your plug out of pure technobabble - you have to have a real story in there as well. () Make pers real people as much as possible. () Don't be afraid of using new features - as long as they will add to the scenario, don't just use features for the sake of using features. () Everything in the scenario must add meaning to the scenario - it doesn't, however, have to be explained to the player at the start. () As far as possible, your text should be powerful and moving. (*) The game should inspire players, not depress them. (/list=a)
Some of you have said that you are incapable of making good graphics or writing excellent text. Well, my suggestion to you is go ahead and try, but be aware that people may well think less of your plugs because of your inability (for whatever reason) in those areas. Having said that, if you are hopeless at graphics, you can always avoid the issue by making a plug that doesn't introduce any new graphics, but adds a whole heap of missions.
Also, the list isn't definitive, it's to make you think. When we started Nova, we said to ourselves pretty much the following:
We want to create a plug that is graphically superior in every way to the base scenario. We want to create a plug that has a storyline that we would be happy to read in a novel form, and we want to create a plug in which the entire scenario is a seamless whole, rather than just a bunch of parts tacked together.
Those are all production values, and generally we stuck with them (and now Nova has gone from being a plug to being the scenario for EV3). In many ways, the above three statements are the reason why the Nova plugin is now the Nova scenario.
All Martin Turner is saying is that before you start a plug, you should sit down and say to yourself, what am I trying to do, and how will I make my plugin stick out from the rest? What you come up with in response to those two questions become your production values. The above list is Martin Turner's suggested list of possible production values. If you don't agree, that's fine, what would your possible list of production values be?
-------------------
As for the plugin judging panel, that is something I don't support. Nor do I really support a 'user rating system'. Let people download plugs and play them if they like them. One persons junk is another mans art.
Cookie @ ATMOS
------------------
I agree absolutely.
Let me add, if you can't do graphics, why not take a leaf out of the Old Professor's book and create a plugin as Frandall suggests which is just missions, but where you set yourself the task of making a plugin which goes beyond anything else ever seen in terms of its missions. One of the Old Professor's production values was 'the maximum gameplay for the minimum download time'. I think he achieved it.
It is actually possible to make a TC which doesn't involve any graphics - there were a couple for EV. However, most players will feel a bit cheated because they expect to see something different.
One fringe benefit of making a plugin that only adds missions would be that if it really was a gem, absolutely everyone would download it - a missions-only plugin could be just a few kb, which is seconds, not half an hour, as with some well known TCs.
------------------ M A R T I N T U R N E R
Of course, if you can't maekexcellent graphics yourself, go to one of the online "shipyards" or go ask someone online (like Meowx) to make them for you.
As for landing pics, there are some out there on the Internet, as well as the excellent "Incomplete" plug by UniversalWolf, which contains many good pics, and I think you can take all the landing pics from F-25 v1.x (I'm not sure about 2.0).
As for design limits, I agree w/Martin Turner that each plug maker, before making a plug, should sit down and think, "Now, what do I want in this plug and what will make ti different from the rest of all the other plugs out there?" I also do not believe there should not believe there should be a "plugin inspection committee" which reviews each plug before it is on the Ambrosia website. I would like, however, a plugin review site, kind of like (url="http://"http://sleague.apolyton.net")The Scenario League(/url) for Civ II scenarios- the maker voluntarily asks for his plugin to be reviewed, and the reviewer makes a reviews it, puts some screenshots on it, and then people can post their comments, too. And, ideally, it would be on the Ambrosia site (like the Chronicles and the Image Gallery are.)
Also, on Martin Turner's basic suggestions:
that it had been beta tested by at least four people other than the author that it had a proper read_me file that the descriptions had been run through a spell checker
I know that "Reign of the UE" would not have made it, as the only beta tester was me.
God bless,
UE Patriot
------------------ "Turn me over, I'm done on this side."- St. Lawerence at his martyrdom "The glory of God is man fully alive"- St. Iraeneus Voinian lovers are ignorant of the UE marines taking over Borb Station. (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiasw.com/cgi-bin/vftp/show.pl?product=evo&category;=plugins&display;=date&file;=ReignOfTheUE.Bin")Reign of the UE(/url): Get it today!
I personally would like a group of people to look over plugins just to up the quality on OK plugins (the makers would make it better to make sure it passed) and still have what I call junk (1 syst, 5 missions, ect). What they could do it put like a little check somewhere (in the place where people download the plugs) just to let anyone downloading know that they can expect something good. I feel that "bad" plugins would not get that check- leaving the person looking through them saying "this might be good for me but not everyone." Any more ideas to toss around?
I would just like to add one quick note about the (current) plug-in rating system - I'd like it better if it were more like VersionTracker's, with space for players to give their names and add text comments. If a plug has an average vote of 75, I'd like to know what it's still missing (graphics, storyline, game balance?) If it's rated 45, I'd like to know what redeeming features it possesses. If a new plug has 8 votes and an average of 100, I'd like to know whether it was rated by actual players, or by the author in a computer lab. The current rating system is just too anonymous and unhelpful in my opinion.
------------------ The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. - Groucho Marx Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding. - Albert Einstein Hardy har har! Little do they know: They are ALL going to hell!! Hardy har har! - God, attributed
(This message has been edited by Glenn (edited 06-28-2001).)
Originally posted by Glenn: **I would just like to add one quick note about the (current) plug-in rating system - I'd like it better if it were more like VersionTracker's, with space for players to give their names and add text comments. If a plug has an average vote of 75, I'd like to know what it's still missing (graphics, storyline, game balance?) If it's rated 45, I'd like to know what redeeming features it possesses. If a new plug has 8 votes and an average of 100, I'd like to know whether it was rated by actual players, or by the author in a computer lab. The current rating system is just too anonymous and unhelpful in my opinion. **
That's seems like a much friendlier system for "rating" things. It allows you developers/players to find what people think are missing from a plug whithout making you worry that it will be "censored" or not posted.
------------------ GIJew, the real American Hebrew - Aunt Bea's Marauders
I also agree with Glenn. I would suggest that Martin's list of suggestion be included in the EV Plug-in Developer FAQ on this site for future developers to consider strictly as suggestions (I believe that Martin, among others, has access to do this?). That way we'll have a better ratings system (as suggestd by Glenn) and hopefully before developers even start planning their projects they'll be thinking more about quality than just making the "biggest and best plug ever".
------------------ Phoenix (url="http://"http://commonwealth.cjb.net")EVO : Nemesis(/url)
Martin, perhaps your production values are best suited as an appendix to the bible. while i personally believe that the only truly essential ingredient is a good story and the desire to tell it, a gentle reminder to some developers to try just a little harder won't hurt. and one would hope that the knowledge that some people actually do care about quality will inspire those efforts.
it is unfortunate that the mention of standards raises the specter of some kind of plug-in review committee. these boards seem relentlessly democratic enough that no such self-appointed committee could ever amount to much.
one thing to keep in mind is that a lot of plugs are mostly for pure experimental value. i have posted only one, after weaning myself of ev-edit and learning res-edit. and i confess to have downloaded many plugs solely to steal graphics and ideas (for my own benefit, not for re-release).
one suggestion i take issue with is finding four beta-testers. i have comminicated directly with only 2 other human beings who play EV, and one by accident. if something is buggy, then the bugs can always be worked out in a later version.
------------------ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And if you have a little extra money (or something that people would like) you could make a contest for something like best plugin that is small than 1 meg.
Maybe we could get a rating on several different catogories this plug has a 95 in graphics, 2 in story, 25 in balance, 514 people have rated this, and maybe something else.
Originally posted by astro: **one suggestion i take issue with is finding four beta-testers. i have comminicated directly with only 2 other human beings who play EV, and one by accident. if something is buggy, then the bugs can always be worked out in a later version.
The reason I say four is because a buggy plugin can do serious damage to someone's system, but the bugs may well never surface on your machine - or those of a couple of other people. I have personal experience of this, which is why Frozen Heart reached 1.0.4 until we decided that the QuickTime movies function in EVO just doesn't work on some machines.
Femme Fatale was tested by 20 or so Beta Testers, and only ever had to go through one release. As far as I know, it's never crashed anyone's system. Hence my suggestion that if we were to have minimum standards, beta testing would be one of them.
BTW, I have never physically met any of the beta testers, or anyone on this board.
Originally posted by astro: **one suggestion i take issue with is finding four beta-testers. i have comminicated directly with only 2 other human beings who play EV, and one by accident. if something is buggy, then the bugs can always be worked out in a later version. **
Finding beta testers? That's why we have these webboards. I had no difficulty finding testers for Secession (thanks Xopher, Jim, Jim Stephens, and Chris Howard, if any of you are still around these parts!) Except for Chris, who went to my high school, I've never met my beta testers in person. And I would suspect that that is standard for most plugs.
And I must disagree strongly with the statement that "the bugs can be worked out in a later version." If at all possible, version 1.0 of a plug should be the only release, barring major upgrades such as a v1.5 or 2.0. Bugs are tremendously frustrating for the player and make the developer look bad. Several developers who make otherwise great plugs have lost a good bit of my respect simply because of their tendency to release the plugs before cleaning up the bugs. Bug checking doesn't take all that long to do, and if you are careful in developing, there shouldn't be that many to begin with. Fix 'em before you release; it will be better in the long run.
Originally posted by Martin Turner: Let me add, if you can't do graphics, why not take a leaf out of the Old Professor's book and create a plugin as Frandall suggests which is just missions, but where you set yourself the task of making a plugin which goes beyond anything else ever seen in terms of its missions.
It's a great idea for people to do the best absolutely possible in their specialty, but you still need other specialties. For example, the desc resource in EV Nova allows pictures. Pictures would obviously make the missions better. If everyone else is doing missions with pictures, then your's are less likely to go beyond all of them.
This is why I'm in favor of development teams. One of my graphics would detract from the plot of the entire game. But I like to think of myself as better than most with descs. If I teamed up someone as good with graphics as I am with missions, then a mission-only plug would definitely surpass others done by single developers.
Originally posted by Martin Turner: **I was thinking the other day about production values for plugins.... **
I think those are very good values, if somewhat difficult for mere mortals to acheive.
Whether everyone should adopt the values proposed by Mr. Turner is another question entirely, but he has done us all a service by presenting his ideas.
I would also like to add my opposition to the idea of some sort of "standards committee," I believe that plug-in developers should be free to develop their projects as they see fit.
I would hope, though, that everyone would do thorough beta testing and bug fixing, as bugs can actually damage a user's system besides being really annoying and an indication that the developer has no regard for the end users of his work.
Thanks for stating an interesting topic, Mr Turner.
Oh my gosh, my eyes began to spin trying to read these posts... I've read most and skimmed the rest. Let me summarize my view:
Why are people 'dead-against' an approval committee? Sure, your work may be judged in terms that don't fit your ideas, but I don't think it has to be that way.
I think that the original guidelines were good. However, I don't think that if there were an "Ambrosia Stamp of Approval" that each plugin would have to "pass" inspection to be available. I think the criteria for such approval should be much more loose. And, for such a committee, each section should have a rating of 1-10 which would give the evaluation much more flexibility.
In addition, just because a plugin doesn't recieve a stamp of approval, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be available for download, it just means that it doesn't fit the criteria for it. Plugins shouldn't be censored, but there should be some generalized guidlines so that downloaders don't have a mind-bogglingly large amount of plugins to sort through.
------------------ Gentleman at arms. (url="http://"http://stevdevelopers.tripod.com/")Star Trek: Escape Velocity(/url) "My definition of an educated man is the fellow who knows the right thing to do at the time it has to be done. ... You can be sincere and still be stupid." -- Charles F. Kettering, American inventor (1876-1958).
I think that recommendations should be provided, but only with a notice saying that these are only guidelines, and shouldn't interrfere with creativity.
But more importantly, I think enforcing these standards would discourage developing developers(no pun intended). My first plug-in was Paralell Universe, and it has a lot of room for improvment if I ever go back and do a second version. But if you just reject plug-ins, it would discourage developers. Instead, I think having a team of seasoned developers test incoming plugs is a good idea, but for a different purpose.
I think that if they come across a plug-in that is lacking in some of the discussed areas, they should hold the release and e-mail the developer with suggestions, and possibly offers to help and teach. Instead of weeding out the bad plugs, this would at least attempt to turn them into good plugs. Of course, if the developer wanted to release it anyway, they should be able to.
Ambrosia proably can't spare the people, but if a whole bunch of us were to volenteer to do it independantly from Ambrosia, I think we could handle it.
Then, if the developer worked through all of this and released a polished plug, they could recieve our stamp of approval. Since we're not Ambrosia, it wouldn't much more than saying "this plug has been reviewed by us and we find it to be a worthwile plug".
I for one would volenteer to do this. If we do, then we could work out the details later. Let me know what you all think of this.
Oh, and lastly, I think that spell-checking, beta testing, and I forget the third thing should be mandatory. In each case, it doesn't take much time and it infinatly improves the plug. Also, I don't think censorship of inappropriate content would be a bad idea either.
------------------ Cuz I'm a 21st Century Digital Boy I don't know the Monty Python but I've got a lotta toys My daddy is a Renegade, his name is Hellcat Helian Wait a second...
Interesting values. Salut to all of them. I was just curious how many people here would try to follow them when Nova is out. After periodically checking the downloads section here for the last year, I'd say that the first plug-ins for Nova are gonna be cheaters. Sorry for being too pessemistic.
Pecimistic, yes. But, sadly, also acurate.
I believe that we will have to let cheat plugs in though, as some people do enjoy them for approximatly 3 seconds. But this brings up a good point. One we want to avoid but is inevitable: should these values apply to cheat plugs?
Obviously some can't, but what about the rest? Shouldn't even cheat plugs have some level of quality control? Or do we need a whole new set of values for cheats?