| A word about collaborative tracks. | 22 Dec, 2011 |
| eyebo | (2 comments, 1043 views) |
|
First, a word about the blogs.
This is my first entry on MX. I'm really happy to see the blogs live. I'm sure there will be some bugs to work out over time and people will have an adjustment period to see how best to use them. It's my hope that they won't turn into a spamfest, but will be a nice place where users can share helpful tips and tricks about the game, feature exceptionally fun or creative tracks that they run across, or notify fellow players about interesting events or projects to participate in. I will start out by posting about collaborative tracks. This was originally posted in the forums, but I've saved it out, because I think it's something we're all faced with every time we go to build a duo track with someone. Just how much control do we give them? How far do we let the collaboration go? This is something I wrote in October... --- When I first started building duo tracks, it was with my clanmate Kent. I had a lot of fun making tracks with him, but also a lot of frustration. If you touched anything he made, he'd get really annoyed. The result is that most of our duo maps felt very disjointed. Scenery, flow, route, style ... everything differed a lot between our parts. I still had fun making them, but I feel we could have done better. I've always had aspirations to make duos and community maps where everyone has a say in the entire map, at least as much as is logistically possible. Everyone should allow any other member to change and modify their parts, as long as the general concept behind their part is kept. And if the concept itself is bad, then the author of that part should have the chance to change it, and should be willing to sacrifice their first iteration for the sake of the common good of the project. I'm building a duo map right now with Exploding Lemon for the October MTC. More or less we're each building 5 seconds, and then passing it off to each other. We've both changed each other's parts. We've both contributed bits and pieces of scenery. Because of so much cross-collaboration, the track is coming together as a more focused and unified effort than if we both had said "don't touch a single block of my part, that's MINE"... because then... where's the collaboration? I really don't think it's the ideal way to work. I appreciate Exploding Lemon for letting me change his parts, and I appreciate the updates and refinements he's made to my parts. I respect people who want to make community or duo maps that are actually nice to drive. It's inevitable that some people's toes get stepped on in these types of projects. But maybe it doesn't have to be that way. The thing is, I've seen too many community maps go down the route of keeping crappy parts just so that someone's toes didn't get stepped on. Everyone involved is responsible for the quality of a community or duo track, and everyone should be happy with it, or that part shouldn't be kept. Simple as that. After all, the goal should be to make an awesome map to drive. Don't let pride get in the way of making great collaborative tracks! 
|
|
| eyebo writes ... | 22, Dec, 2011 |
First, thanks for taking the time to comment on my blog post. 
Of course communication is key ohei2. But it's much easier to change a part and check with the author if it was okay than it is to try to explain what is wrong with it. I would expect them to do nothing less with what I've made. And Exploding Lemon did just that on our last duo. If things were actually made worse, you can always revert to a previous version. No harm done. Allowing a constant back and forth exchange of ideas can meld every part of the track into a seamless one, instead of having disparate parts that can become disjointed. I've deleted many downloaded duo maps because the parts just didn't feel right together. Obviously many tracks have been made using the method you mentioned, with very specific parts that each author can claim. Some have even turned out quite good. I just happen to prefer my method because it feels more fun as you're building it and I like the end result more. I think it's easier to learn from each other that way too. As I said in the blog post, there's no room for pride in an arrangement like this. I guess that's a pretty hard thing for most builders to leave at the door. |
|
| ohei2 writes ... | 22, Dec, 2011 |
|
I think it is more than okay to critisize and suggest in collaborations, but I can't follow you with your call for yours is mine and mine is yours as far as changes are concerned.
From my point of view a collaboration lives from the different contributions and if all is mingled together and nobody really can claim any part anymore, something failed in the first place. Personally I like to keep creative authorship over my part in collaborations. If there is an extra person doing the scenery and signage then that's okay, but changing something without dialog out of the 'I know better' motivation is easily overdone and a failure in communication. If one thinks something does not work out in a collaboration it should be communicated properly, but the last word should always be with the respective builder. I once had my entire part skipped and redone in a collaboration without a captain and without any communication. I withdrew from the track and I can assure you that I will never again do a collaboration with the person in question. I just add that I had used that very part in one of my own tracks then, and the track was liked by quite a few people. Too many cooks spoil the broth. |
|