 |
| |
|
mrtemba
|
Bloomington, IN, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
and archer should have been illegal too, weren't we supposed to use the mdaumen map?
my own entry (not saying anything) isn't complete, neither do I think are any of them, did you people really expect high quality multi part scenarios in three months? Most of the authors, ok at least me, were working on other project(s) at the same time, not to mention all the non-computer activities there are in life. Spartacus took a year to make.
so far barron and baum are my favorites, but I haven't played much or got the sounds yet.
Some points....
I like it better when the world ISN'T revealed, that was one of the main reasons I didn't like Archer or Dietz, where is the joy of exploring?
Some of the events file were very very bad. Some were very good. Oh well, I need to play more before I make more comments.
|
|
| |
|
Saint Marcus
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:13
|
|
Yeah, Archer is illegal to now I think of it...although water still looks like water it is in fact land. I don't think this is allowed, is it?
Well, I did expected more of this to be honest...but 3 months isn't that much time of course. Well, there are still some great entries though.
MD: I really like some scenarios a lot Mongols, New Germany, Ansteig, Up the Deadly Boot, Dawn of the Dead, Shanarra, etc...
I don't know, I just expected more of you guys (whoever you are). I mean I'm a relative rookie in scenario building and some creations some of you created before really blew me away. Naive as I was I expected this contest to deliver some nearly perfect scenarios...this isn't possible of course since the time constraints. But after playing some again I find them quite good. I think my expectations were just a bit to high 
After playing again I liked Sagan a bit better then at first sight. Archer isn't that good anymore I think since it totally lacks an apropriate atmo. I still find battles between McDonalds and Sony a bit to weird, and those OT names really ruin it a bit. It's more of a parody then a "realistical" scenario. so I think it'll be between Foster, Sagan and Barron...
|
|
| |
|
Overdrive
|
GD of Luxembourg
Mar 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Most are new...some are very funny!
|
|
| |
|
mrtemba
|
Bloomington, IN, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
i said i had a lot done, but nope given six months I could improve it a lot, I still think its pretty good given the short notice. But I don't have time yet to play more so I'll comment later.
|
|
| |
|
Overdrive
|
GD of Luxembourg
Mar 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
You seem to be right about ARCHER, but I thought it was a courageous act...
I am still playing first scenario SAGAN and that means i enjoy it.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Overdrive (edited September 11, 1999).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
blackclove
|
I am on the whole very pleased with the entries. There were a few that I really got into. Some of them have a lot of potential but need a bit of work - they feel rather first-draft-y.
|
|
| |
|
|
Allard HS
|
I would prefer to keep this in the other topic, but let's take that quote again:
quote:
Some editing of the map is permitted, and is limited to the inclusion of extra rivers, changing a
limited amount of terrain squares from ocean to land (or vice versa), and changing a limited amount of terrain squares to allow more customization as long as the original vegetation is left more or less intact. |
As i remarked in the other thread, i haven't yet seen the scenario, but I assume that the map isn't really changed apart from the land->water and water-> land thing.
So, i can see that all land terrains have been modified into sea terrains in the terrainx.gif's. So.. what actually did change then? if we follow the rules it would be ok.
|
|
| |
|
|
Allard HS
|
If you'd change all land squares to grassland it would turn out rather boring, i guess...
|
|
| |
|
Overdrive
|
GD of Luxembourg
Mar 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Well, I must agree with Mark. Now how far do you want to go to fight for originality?
|
|
| |
|
|
Archangel
|
hmm...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Archangel (edited September 13, 1999).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
mrtemba
|
Bloomington, IN, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
j'accuse!
|
|
| |
|
|
Allard HS
|
Alright, i agree. I propose a change of the rules to: "[..as long as the original vegetation is left more or less intact] or a good reason has been given and clearly described in the readme or in any other way for changing this."
But since the submissions are in, changing the rule hardly makes any difference.
The question now is, did anyone have any problems with this rule? I mean, did anyone (please use your codename when replying of course, or email me (ahofelt@hotmail.com)) change important things in his scenario because he was not allowed to change the terrain.
Personally, i don't think anyone has had a problem with it.
And I definately don't think Archer should be disqualified for this, since he asked me and i allowed him, so i take the responsability.
|
|
| |
|
Overdrive
|
GD of Luxembourg
Mar 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
My guess is thst it does not matter anyhow, as the Archer entry is not very playable due to lack of atmosphere.
|
|
| |
|
mrtemba
|
Bloomington, IN, USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
yeah, let archer stay in this time. I don't think the rule was a problem, and I was just wondering because I doubt that that had "slipped by" you. I thought we had to use the map provided, but my scneario wouldn't have changed much if it had been different.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Amazon
UK
|
Amazon DE |
Amazon FR |
