User talk:Geyser: Difference between revisions

User talk:Geyser (view source)

Revision as of 10:12, 30 July 2008

4,898 bytes added , 30 July 2008

oh my

Geyser

Administrators

5,389

edits

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 :::P.S.: I don't speak for Ed, but it seems unfair to say '''"You can see those pages, Ed"''' as if the Edition is a completely democratic collaborative effort, when really you're the one with the plans for the Edition, and how can Ed know what you're thinking? I would be glad to be a substitute taskmaster, trying to corral people's efforts towards AE stuff, ''if'' I had any idea what specifically you had planned. If Ed hadn't pointed out those AE: pages, I wouldn't have ever seen them. They're orphaned, yet don't show up in the "Orphaned pages" list. All things considered, I still think the only efficient way for the AE to move forward is for you to use whatever time you can spare to manage it yourself.  It would help if you made a page like "AE:Content needed" to let us know what's going on in your head, with needs listed item by item. The more we work together, the faster the AE can get finished.
 ::::--[[User:Iritscen|Iritscen]] 19:33, 29 July 2008 (CEST)
+:::Perhaps I didn't make it clear up there, but I sorta hoped for some kind of creative resonance with "fellow geysers", open-minded and patient enough to take in the to-do that I've been outlining for a year or so (primarily on OCF). I expected those motivated and talented people to contribute modular things that are prominently featured in the AE forum (I mean, the DeLorean has been around for ages, you'd think someone would have retextured it by now, right?), and if they can't find a subproject suiting them, they'd go and find me (that's what's been happening with Gumby; we kinda sat down and figured out he'd do particles for new weapons). All in all, this hope for a "team of geysers" is not totally delusive, but I understand the frontend is less dense and "itemized" than most of the potential contributors would expect it to be. One reason why I'm not too motivated to draw a roadmap is that I'm not confident that major much extra motivation and organization would ensue: I wanted to see at least one "fellow geyser" show up first... and all I see is people like Loser and coool who could do great but keep goofing around without consolidating anything ^_^  There are ready-to-work-on items all over OCF and all over the wiki, and no one is working on them; how would an itemized list change that? that's just bureaucracy, that's what.
+:::About the meta-orphaned AE pages, don't get me wrong: I was just encouraging you or Ed or whoever to link to them from OCF or [[Current events]] or wherever. I meant to add more of those and I meant to consolidate them as a roadmap, but I haven't done so yet, OK? and, the situation being what it is, I'm not the only one who can do something about those pages being completely invisible, am I? If you identify me as the project lead ''and'' shy away from ''any'' initiative, you're in for a ''long'' wait and possibly a ''big'' disappointment at the end. If I didn't have a job, I'd design and author the Edition pretty much by myself, but that is not gonna happen. And you can't expect me to consistently detail in words everything I'd do and how exactly I'd do it, because that's even more time-consuming for me than sitting down and doing it all myself. The best I can do is mini-pages like AE:BGI, AE:Ninja, AE:Training, when I'm in the right mood for delivering accurate and concise summaries of my visions. I could also make other, more specific mini-pages, like AE:DeLorean, and then I'd just let Iritscen slap a nice little "cat" onto all those (something like "Category:AE_roadmap", maybe embedded in a template). Then the category's page could eventually be filled in with a nice big outdated list (really, who'd keep "AE:Content needed" up to date? the same people who look after the OniSplit page, huh? would you leave it all to me? why, thank you...), but I doubt that'd be necessary: just a category, and specific mini-roadmaps and discussions on the respective mini-pages.
+:::'''get criticized by an occasionally-active geyser who drops in once in a while with a bombshell after lots of work has already been done''' if those look like lots of work to you, then you're simply not fluent enough. Every development process involves a few iterations, and unless I give you lots of concept-art and verbose-like-crazy explanations aforehand, there's no reason why you'd create something beyond revision (unless you're a "fellow geyser"). I'm ready to work closely with Gumby and Loser and coool and whoever, but this implies a repetitive (if not intensive) back-and-forth exchange of tentative content and constructive criticism. When I tell you "your HD Griffin doesn't suck by design, but the mesh is FUBAR and overkill, here's one I did in response to yours, why doncha scrap yours and work off mine" - that's one such iteration, and it's supposed to get "the AE to move forward". Then it all depends on how much my analysis and authority are worth to you, of course, but you can't avoid iterations altogether.
+:::'''you're the one who works closely with Loser, Neo, etc''' only with Neo and SFeLi, and previously Alloc. Loser is secretive, unreachable, maybe because he actually wants to preserve that autonomy of his.
+:::Anyway, like I said to Ed, don't expect anything in "Category:AE_roadmap" from me right now. It's much more of a priority to define/design/author specific content for the Trailer. In that respect, the closest thing to a roadmap is a list of needed scenes. Once you take those scenes in, you can try to figure out what they imply for the Edition, or you can just author those scenes blindly, concentrating on the intrinsic awesomeness. I hope to do a brainstorm dump on the AE:Trailer page tonight. Actually, I ought to have done so ''instead'' of writing all of the above, but probably those things needed to be said as well. Hope I made myself clear.
+::::[[User:Geyser|geyser]] 12:12, 30 July 2008 (CEST)