 |
| |
|
|
Cam
|
|
Australia
Jan 1970
time: 14:43
|
|
Updates to the Scenario League's site have been relatively minor in the last few months.
Much of this has stemmed from 'personal obstacles' confronting the three editors' involvement with Civ2 - Dr. Blackclove's moved house, changed jobs, possibly got married, etc., while William too has changed jobs... and his computer 'got fried'. My own career is undergoing a degree of turbulence too, and I've recently struck a technical glitch that won't let me run Civ2 (although I've got ToT OK)  .
All that aside, there is still apparent interest in the League. Every week I seem to get e-mails from people wanting to join.
One big difficulty for me has been getting reviews that have been submitted up onto the site. William has informed me that there are some which he has been unable to process. This delay, I suspect, has led to waning involvement of the community.
The point...
If you have done a Scenario League review that's not been posted, please send it through to me at c.hills@bigpond.com where I will try to get it up quickly. I can't open the files, so if you could also post a full screenshot of the scenario as a 'gif' file, I can use that to add some graphics.
One future addition, WarVoid has noted; quote:
I'm also working on a new streamlined version of the review form which will hopefully make it a LOT easier for people to review scenarios.
|
... so I look forward to posting that when it's done.
As always, there are plenty of scenarios up for review - so please feel free to 'pass judgment'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cam
|
|
Australia
Jan 1970
time: 14:43
|
|
Quick news update...
William's just e-mailed me to inform me that he will send the reviews he has on hand through to 'yours truly'.
Shadowstrike,
I'm largely unaware where Blackclove's at with Civ2, having had practically no contact with him in recent months.
Please feel free to take another look at the scenarios for review - I suspect a few are well worth exploring.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain Nemo
|
|
Red Front
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
There were several Civ2 players that were going to do a review of Second Front... Did you ever get those?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cam
|
|
Australia
Jan 1970
time: 14:43
|
|
... and three reviews posted. Thanks to John Valdez and Adrian Bates for their contributions.
Please advise if you believe you've sent something to the League that remains unanswered as I *hope* that we're now up to date.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cam
|
|
Australia
Jan 1970
time: 14:43
|
|
Draft change in policy....?
I've found that the Scenario League is quickly becoming the repository and promoter of scenarios from
many people who have had no involvement in the League in terms of providing reviews, offering design
tips, or any meaningful participation in the League's forum.
We've found ourselves in the position where we have about three times as many in the 'To be reviewed'
than reviews themselves. Furthermore, the reviews we are receiving are often not even on this list (which is
fine, but worth noting nonetheless).
'Would it fly' with the community if the rules were changed so that if you want the League to include a
person's scenario in the 'To be reviewed' section, that they must make some prior contribution such as reviewing some other scenario first?
Views appreciated!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Civfan
|
|
Toronto, Canada
Sep 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Rick Westera's "Rome 280 BC: Conquest of the Classical World" is missing the actual scenario file. Everything else seems to be there except the actual game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cam
|
|
Australia
Jan 1970
time: 14:43
|
|
d-oh! I've literally just fixed that up, (not really my fault though but...) sorry for the inconvenience! I think by the looks it could be well worth the while though.
Please note - three more additions;
Kosovo, Star Trek: Battle for the Alpha Quadrant, and Lord of the Rings (for Test of Time).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cam
|
|
Australia
Jan 1970
time: 14:43
|
|
Just a quick note to advise that the Scenario League's site has had an update - a review plus a swag of scenarios put forward for judgement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
I read all the responses, since you bumped it, Cam, and I'd like to comment on reviews. First off, I'm not a designer, I won't be a designer in the future either. That said, I think it's a great mistake to limit reviews to other designers. I have no axe to grind (altough I count many of the designers as my friends), and can be completly objective in a review. An example: I wrote a review for the league, and someone else also reviewed the same scenario. Our scores were very different, yet I have spoken with a number of people, including other designers about the scenario, and they generaly agree with my position. I did not (and can not) break down the nuts and bolts of how it works. I only know it's fun, looks good, it plays well, and it portrays what it's supposed to. What else do you need in a review? If you want a design clinic, there are plenty of them both in the league and on the net. How does it help the player who just wants to have fun? I disagree with many of the reviews that now appear in the league. After all, do novel writers serve as critics? Do TV wrtiers? Objectivity issues can also surface here. If the reviewer is a fool, it will quickly become apparent when the scenario is played by others. Limiting who can submit what is your decision, but it's just what I think about it.
------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cam
|
|
Australia
Jan 1970
time: 14:43
|
|
Chris,
Thanks for both your review and your thoughts as expressed above.
I'm sure you're aware, but just to clarify for others, the Scenario League will host any well-considered and at least semi-articulate (  ) reviews, be they from people who have authored scenarios in the past or not. It would seem natural however that the bulk of the reviews come from other designers who have an interest in Civ2 scenario approaches. Ironically, some of the best regarded designers have not contributed a review since the League's inception.
On the reviews of Kobayashi's 'Star Trek: The Battle for the Alpha Quadrant' I welcome the other people you mention to also submit a critique of the scenario so the average weighting moves towards a score that you consider to be more fitting.
You are of course correct that in general a scenario should be firstly 'fun'. While the parameters for scoring were not my own creation, the 'x/10 for playability' should consider this very point. My understanding of what you're saying is that the reviews focus to much on the rigour of scenario construction techniques rather than the ultimate 'enjoyment factor'. While I suppose there is an intrinsic flaw in that, this critical approach has, I believe and hope, contributed to the betterment of scenario construction over the last few years - doubly so when a designer chooses to take on a scenario review for the League, in that things not normally considered extraordinary in play might under more conscious scrutiny (when writing a review) start to stand out. These revelations often contribute to new approaches and ideas - one constant reminder for the designer though is to not get lost in the technical wizardry at the cost of game balance and imagination, or as you say, 'fun'.
However I believe that the designers themselves benefit greatly from the review process, which would lend to the explanation as to why the League has been approached fairly frequently by people asking for their scenarios to be reviewed. Designers are seeking feedback and constructive criticism, as well as probably a bit of praise / congratulations and the knowledge that the six months of work that went into a scenario was appreciated by somebody!
As for players, there are a plethora of scenarios out there, yet few safe guides as to what may be worth playing. I would hope that the League reviews contribute something to pointing people towards scenarios that others have found to be worthwhile downloads.
Hopefully this blurb above addresses your first-mentioned points.
On your other points;
Objectivity vs. Subjectivity: El Khan, Blackclove, William Keenan, and now myself all assess(ed) reviews before posting them to ensure scores and opinions are at least fair. If a review comes in giving a scenario that has practically no new ideas or graphics 9/10 for 'artwork and originality', usually there will be some response from the Editors to 'rethink' the scores. Ultimately we will accept the reviewer's final decision, however it is hoped that this editorial involvement will curb excessive subjectivity. Scoring scenarios remains somewhat of a thorny issue.
Foolish reviewers: Sadly there's not too much the League can do other than provide editorial input as per above.
Limiting who can do reviews: At this stage there's little to be gained here. The League is hardly being overwhelmed with reviews, and while not all of us agree with all of them, I believe the reviews received in the last year or so have been on average much better than when the League first started out. Then again, so have been the scenarios! 
Thanks again for outlining your views.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I have always been under the impression that the review scores aren't important, but the review's explanations are. At least that is the impression I get from scenarios by reading their reviews. I mean, there is no prize for getting a high score and no set in stone scoring system, so the amount of points the author gets doesn't matter much, unless the author is on a quest to score a 30.
------------------
"There is no more illustrious history than the history of the Magyar Nation... The whole civilized world is indebted to Magyarland for its historic deeds."
-Theodore Roosevelt, to the Hungarian Parliament,
April 2, 1910
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cam
|
|
Australia
Jan 1970
time: 14:43
|
|
kobayashi,
Perhaps that's something you might want to raise with War Void and Stefan when they take over management of the site. Food for thought though.
M-Crusader,
It would be great if most people viewed it like that. Looking at a score is a fairly expedient way of capturing the value of anything under assessment - be that computer software or movies. I've always acknowledged that the scoring system is fraught with danger, and seems to be the cause of much angst re. The League.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain Nemo
|
|
Red Front
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
Cam,
Do you or anyone at the League have the reviews of "Second Front"? Several people told me they were doing a review, but I never saw one posted?
I just read "some of the best regarded designers have not contributed a review since the League's inception"... I guess I am in the group. I will try to remedy this as soon as I finish my current scenario work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dan Silverwing
|
|
Europe
May 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
I always the thought the principle behind Sleague was critical review of a scenario, not a popularity contest: the public voting on Apolyton offers that. I don't really think SLeague needs a scoring system as such. I mean, what do they really signify? If a reviewer liked the scenario and would recommend it, s/he should simply say "I recommend this scenario" - not give it an automatic score in the high 20s. If the score is merely used as a guideline to make people want to play it, and the score for playability isn't enough, then why not have 3 simple categories: average, recommended, outstanding. Even then, the scores are only going to be fair at the time the review was made. Sleague goes back years, so how many of those early scenarios scoring quite highly are going to be as well regarded now. That has to remain the main argument against any established scoring principles. Even the very broad categories in the reviewing policies are outdated - it's unavoidable. Having a 'checksheet' for scoring purposes merely ties the league's policies to a fixed point in scenario development. All the later ones are going to score near maximum - it doesn't equate a good scenario.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cam
|
|
Australia
Jan 1970
time: 14:43
|
|
Captain Nemo,
Thanks - I'm aware from another posting of yours that you were anticipating some reviews on Second Front. I have posted everything I have, bearing in mind (a.) I haven't been able to access the League's mailbox for about a week so something may have come in very recently, and (b.) Blackclove has been out of touch for at least half a year, and he could possibly have something. Sadly, I suspect that no reviews have been sent to the League on your terrific work.
As for "some of the best designers"... yes, you were one of five that immediately came to mind. I'm sure 'the community' would be delighted if you were to get into review writing or possibly better still, design tip authoring.
Dan,
A couple of excellent points. A 'thumbs up', 'thumb flat', and 'thumbs down' system could achieve pretty much the same thing and with less contention. Personally I think the checklist approach is probably too prescriptive, and in stark contrast to cpoulis' position about 'At the end of the day - is it a fun scenario?'. With that said, a checklist could provide a useful tool to assist in writing a good review.
Your point regarding old vs. new scenarios is valid. There are a few that could 'hold their own' amongst today's games, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't pretty well universal acknowledgement that the standard has lifted in the last eighteen months a lot.
All,
At this stage I might suggest that WarVoid and Stefan take on these points and we stick with the original system until change-over. I will be pleased to accept reviews with no scoring system applied if the reviewer is passionately opposed to providing scores.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hell, I'm not against a scoring system. It's just another factor that makes the reviews a little more fun. I'd say it mostly rates the author's overall opinion of the scenario at a glance. It's just I've never given it much importance... especially when my 7 Years War Scenario got a higher score than the 2nd Reich. Anstieg got a perfect score but Red Front didn't. I personally didn't like Red Front very much, mostly because I had to play as the Russians, but if I reviewed it I would have given it a 30. But Anstieg I enjoyed playing but I probably wouldn't have given it a 30. No offense inteded to either authors, this is just an example of why people shouldn't take the scoring system so seriously. Maybe a little disclaim on the SLeague website stating "Scenario reviews reflect the opinions of the reveiws and not the opinion of the SLeague". That'd be lame though, but it'd work I guess.
------------------
"The Rumanians are really the most reliable people in the world when it comes to depending upon their breaking any promises they make." - General Harry Hill Bandholtz, US Army, 22 NOV 1919. General Bandholtz was the one who saved the Crown Jewels from the Rumanians. His statue sits in front of the American Embassy in Budapest.
Truth
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
There seems to be a bit of truth in everyone's view on this subject. I have seen a similar situation years ago, in my old hobby of board wargaming. Reviews of games from the 1970's still had high marks in the 1980's, even though the state of the art had passed them by. Cam has said that reviews are not flooding in, so changing those on record isn't likly to happen any time soon. A compromise solution might be best: A score for technical merit(i.e.New units, outstanding use of events,terrain), historical accuracy(does the scenario portray what it's supposed to?), and lastly, it's playability(Is it blanced? Does the game crash? are there an excessive amount of units?). I stand by my opinion that the enjoyability factor is paramount to me. That's why I play them. To have fun. I don't really care about design analysis. To me, that is pointless from the point of view of a game player. Design Clinics are very important, but doesn't the league provide a forum for analysis here, and in the tips area of the site? When I go to buy I car, do I ask how an internal combustion engine works? No, I only want it to work as intended when I get it home. What matters more to you, how your television transmits signals over a cable, or how it looks when you watch it? Red Front is a good example to use: Technical merit? outstanding in every area I mentioned. Is it historically accurate? Absolutly. Playablity? here we see a value judgement in the extreme. I love it. But I know that some people think there are too many units, and as Magyar has pointed out, you can only play as the Soviets. To some, this is a major drawback. I am indifferent, and don't have a problem with that. How do I score it? It is clearly state of the art scenario design, but there are other factors at work. From a design standpoint, it's clearly a 30/30. But for a player how hates large numbers of units, or playing as the Soviets, it can't be 30/30. That's why the 'only analysis' fails to be convincing. If we were giving awards for technical proficienty, then it would be valid. I have seen posts on the creation forum that the SL ignores those who arent 'one of them'. Is that what is wanted? If you limit things in this matter, interest will sink like a stone. A reviewer must have his whole audience in mind, not the select few that speak his language, or the site being an open forum becomes a mockery. If you just want downloads, there are plenty of sites. But if you want more, you come here. Limit it, then what's the point? That what I think of it.
------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-12-2000 05:48
|