Where is my review of ACW2000?

[MagyarCrusader]

Why isn't it posted, but other reviews recently were? Just wondering because I know Dracon has been waiting forever.

[Cam]

It's a fair question Mike. I believe the problem lies in part with 'Thomas', the recent volunteer for the Scenario League, who was supposed to process the last batch of reviews but it seems he has not. Also, I believe Blackclove is very much tied up with university commitments, which has slowed the process further.

Unfortunately I don't have a username & password for the site, so I can't help you either.

I'm curious as to what you made of the scenario. As I was involved a little bit in the revision process (although it's still very much Dracon's work), I hope you think it's stronger than #1.

[blackclove]

It's coming soon. I recently recovered it from the file I sent to the now-vanished Thomas.

Also, as Cam mentioned, I am in the process of writing my 50-page Ph.D proposal (and running the pilot experiments) while applying for jobs, so I am super-busy. I do intend to get your review posted tonight (I'm doing about 1/night so far). Mike Daumen's will go up Thursday or Friday night, and I wrote one a week or so ago that should go up some time over the weekend. I also hope to fix the buttons on the front page and try to revive the "by date" section some time this weekend if I have time.

Cam's got posted super-fast because he included the banner and all three screenshots already. Yours should be next because you sent me a screenshot, too

[Cam]

Michael's Review: sleague.apolyton.net/Reviews/mj_acw2.shtml

'Ouch!' - personally I was expecting scores (as Michael sets out in the footnote) closer to the 'low twenties' for this scenario.

I think the scenario still has some room for further improvements (isn't there always?) - particularly doing more with the graphics, continuing to fill out the 'pedia beyond the start that was made, and extending the tech' tree - but even still I'm particularly surprised it didn't score a little better in some areas, such as the 5 out of 10 for art and originality...

Michael's quite right in acknowledging that while the Civil War concept is not new (the League has no less than three on the current 'For Review' list) but it is the only Australian adoption and pretty well the only Australian Civ2 scenario about. A problem I think with the initial version was that it was a 'cover' of Nero's 'U.S. Civil War', however this game has now taken on a clearer identity of its own. The map's fine, the plot is imaginative, and while much of the artwork is rehashed there is some original input. I should point out that I gave Dracon the four tech' icons and about six of the Wonder icons - not the bare breasts b.t.w.

The author has stated that the scenario is "deliberately uncomplicated" in the 'read me' file, and while the newer-style of scenarios such as 'Sparticus' and 'Shannara' are terrific in their own right, there's arguably still a place for the traditional, if not 'elementary' Civ2 scenario.

In terms of vulgarity ("sickness"), this has been markedly toned down from version #1. Michael has said that version #2 is his first look at ACW1999, so clearly it has not been 'toned down' as much as I thought!

It was my impression that Dracon did try and get on the shock-value bandwagon with version #1, but this second version endeavoured to capitalise on what may have been some of the strengths of the first but inject a better structure to it. I found it much more 'playable' than the first version, and am not sure why Michael scored it a lowly 4 out of 10 which really is getting into the 'quite faulty' end of the points spectrum.

I think it was worthwhile to read Michael's review - particularly as he has a wealth of experience in scenario development, while also being able to take a fresh look at this particular scenario.

[This message has been edited by Cam (edited November 04, 1999).]

[MagyarCrusader]

Thanks for the feedback Cam.

About the low playability, that part was pretty subjective I guess. I mean, you said you still enjoyed so called "elementary" scenarios, while I don't. I thought this scenario was very basic. A few units with no real big twists, in a modern era. Reminds me of all those WW3 scenairos just without nukes. Those bored me back when I played them several years ago.

But I definetly think the strongpoint of the scenario was all the text editing, despite the fact that I took ofense to it. Maybe Dracon should sit down and use his skills for a less obnoxious theme.

But I'm curious, what was the first version like?

[Dracon]

This is a very unjust score, because I got practically the same for the original version, and this new version is so much better than 1.0, and I put a LOT more work into it and the toning down of it, and Cam will back me up on this.
MJ's review reflects his dislike for me, for one or two months ago he revealed his hate when posting some feedback on my new site: The Mod Asylum.

First off, I'd like to say a big **** YOU *****!!! Do have have any idea how insulting that is? Dracon, you are a worthless little ****head. Your scenarios suck harder than Gambia, your cult joke isn't anywhere near funny, and you are wasting everyone's time by posting this senseless crap.
Oh and in repliance to that site, Jesus may love you, but I sure as hell don't. Go to hell you goddammed bastard.

I request that someone else review it as well, because I beleive that MJ's review was biased.

[MagyarCrusader]

Boohoo cry baby. If I would have taken a biased account into your score I would have given it a 3. So don't give me any of that crap. Nobody wants to hear it. I did you a favor by reviewing the scenario. Its not my fault that it was terrible.

[mrtemba]

mjs a tough grader. so am i usually. And i agree completely with standards rising, and I agree with a lot of his review. I probably would give it a score of around 18. It would read mostly the same though....so why bother. I'm playing Cromwell right now, which is very intersting

[Cam]

Ahh... I see...

Mike - fair enough - it seems you're looking for something more than a traditional-style scenario, and it's certainly your entitled prerogative to score it as you see fit. Personally I found that I did 'get into it' and it proved to be a fault-free and quite well balanced game. The case that it's another WW3-style shoot 'em up with vulgarity is possibly a very harsh but not necessarily all-wrong summation. I thought there were some strengths to this game that you seemingly didn't rate all that highly. That's OK, different opinons.

You ask what I thought the first version was like, and I would point you to my own review - the harshest of all five of them. There were several problems with it, however I thought that once these were addressed there was an opportunity to make a good game from it. Dracon willingly took on-board the suggestions set out in these reviews, rolled up the sleeves, and gave it another shot.

Dracon - yes, I see Mike is possibly not you're 'number one' choice for reviewer, and it would be good to get some more feedback. (Not wishing to repeat myself, but doing so...) Perhaps the review errs on the harsh side and may not give a lot of credit for some of the stronger aspects of the game beyond the editing of the text files. You do have a method of recourse in sleague.apolyton.net/Features/newpolicy.shtml .

Mr. Temba - how could you give it only 18? You gave #1 a score of 16, and this version is vastly improved!

Blackclove and others - What about this new position appearing on the horizon of scoring scenarios harder now than say a year ago? Is that fair or not? I personally don't think so. What about it?

[mrtemba]

Cam,

You must realize that all grading done by sleague is purely subjunctive. There are no set scales, no marks that must be met for certain grades etc. If I like a certain part of a scenario I give it a high score, If I don't , I give it a low score. Its that simple.

A year ago I would have given Mark Ls Fall of Rome a 40/30. I mean back then it would have been INCREDIBLY good. This year I gave it what? 24/30? I mean Artaxerxes, which was really damn good you must admit, got 28/30 but that was an exception. Spartacus, Shannara, Prince of Darkness, I can't name all the incredibly good scenarios made in the past year or so but they have all raised the standards. If I reviewed the first version of Australian Civil War today I would probably give it about a 9 or a 10. So an 18 would be, as you say, a tremendous improvement.

[MagyarCrusader]

Well Cam, you probably got into it because you are Australian. I have no idea who the political leaders are that are being bashed by Dracon. I am relatively unfamiliar with the geography of Australia. I mean, if Dracon did the scenario aobut Hungary, I probably would have been much more into it, and would have given it a higher score. But that wouldn't be the average person's perspective, just as the average civ2 player isn't an Australian. And I did say in my last post that the playability rating is extremely subjective.

[Cam]

Chaps,

Look, you're of course right - the whole thing is very subjective. Indeed I've dished out scores that later I wish I'd have changed, so not only does the subjectivity vary between reviewers, but also within the reviewer themselves. (Indeed as I type I'm still thinking I gave Cromwell too higher score!)

Perhaps the Australian thing is a factor. In our to-ing and fro-ing, it became apparent that Dracon and I do differ politically, and in some respects this may have worked against him if I wasn't so worldly and open minded . I do presumably better understand the sense behind the Wonders and the background behind the conflict - heck - I even understand the humour in the 'read me'! Subjectivity? Maybe a little, but with the apparent exception of shield-production deficiency (this wasn't a matter when I did the beta test, so something's gone astray) the scenario is as far as I'm aware, basically fault free.

The real problem seems to be from Mike's perspective the lack of complexity (Dracon's mentioned that this was deliberate in the read me), the extent of 'borrowed' graphics (most scenarios I see have a lot of borrowed graphics), and the level of coarseness (also addressed in the read me, and really a 'PG' version of what we put up with in the inaugural ACW1999).

I'm just a little surprised that a fault-free scenario with a workable 'read me', the 'pedia' file included, a good map, plenty of work on the text files, reasonable playability, and an original plot should score so disappointingly. I'm not challenging Mike's right to give the score, just a little surprised by it.

As for scoring differently over time, I still think it's a little unfair. We are using the same software with the same limitations. I'm not insensitive to the opposing argument, but if you intend to make this adjustment, then do as Mike has already done, and say that the score has been changed. Perhaps this should be highlighted more than it has however?

[Dracon]

Okay, okay, so maybe I'm kidding myself, maybe I am a crap designer, but I'd like another review for people to compare. Version 1.0 got 5 REVIEWS, most of them bad, I must admit, but still....
If you want to play version 1.0 and compare the two, Mike, I can email it to you.

Anyway, this is a completed project, I'm now working on a new project for ToT which will make MJ cringe with revulsion I'm sure

[Cam]

Dracon,

I think the idea is not to get too despondent about the whole thing, but to assess whether the reviewers' comments are valid or not, and if so, learn from them. This does not necessarily mean you're obliged to do a Version #3 or more (until you can make the reviewers happy), but instead learn from these reviews so your upcoming projects will hopefully be stronger in light of the feedback here. As far as version #2's concerned, I thought it was a long way from being "terrible", and it just might not be Mike's or Mr. Temba's 'cup of tea' right now.

(From your last post indicates you're doing another 'shocking' one, so you may find that you'll run into the same problems).

Please note that ACW1999 version #1 did receive an abnormally high number of reviews, and it's rare for a scenario to receive more than two.

Also, please consider contributing critiques to the League. It's often the case that there are more people asking for their scenarios to be reviewed than reviewers themselves. A vibrant Scenario League (in its current form) requires a regular flow of submissions.

[This message has been edited by Cam (edited November 05, 1999).]

[techumseh]

Dracon, I enjoyed your scenario, although some of the humour was lost on me because of my unfamilarity with things Australian. I enjoyed 2nd American Civil War more, but I live closer to them and so am more familiar with their politics and culture. It made me laugh out loud, not because of immaturity, but because I enjoy social satire. I got a similar negative reaction to some satirical/political elements I put in my Earth3000 contest entry. There's an opportunity in scenarios, as in any art form, to make a point if you're so inclined. And that will always make some people uncomfortable.