These guidelines are outdated and retained for archive purposes only. Please use the
current Review Guidelines for your reviews. Before I detail what I expect for each category, there are some general scoring guidelines to make note of. All of the categories are subjective, some more than others, but try to be as consistent as you can with your own scoring. Also, take special note of a few things that should NOT affect the score of a scenario. These things should be noted in the review, but they should not affect the rating scores in any way. First is the length of a scenario, or how many scenarios are included in a campaign. There is no rule that says a scenario must last more than 15 minutes or that a campaign must include at least 3 scenarios. The scores should only reflect how good the scenario was while it was being played. A great 5 minutes should score much higher than a mediocre 2 hours. No reduction in score should be made based on the length of a scenario. Second is the number of triggers in a scenario. This is simply irrelevant to how good or bad a scenario scores. Lots of designers like to brag about how many triggers their scenario has but if the triggers are poorly constructed and don't contribute to gameplay, they might as well not have any triggers at all. A scenario does not need to have very many triggers to be a lot of fun to play. Scores should be based on playing the scenario, not opening the designer and counting the triggers. Lastly, a scenario should not be penalized for not including special extras like music files or custom ai files. These extra items are great if used effectively and certainly can boost a score but a scenario should not be rated poorly just because of a lack of extras. A scenario should still be able to achieve a score of 5.0 even without using special extra files. The AoK design tool is so rich with extras already that a designer should not be required to use custom files if they can achieve their design goals using what is already built into the design tool. Category Scoring Playability Playability is probably the most subjective element of the scoring. It is simply a gauge of how much fun you had playing this particular scenario. One thing to look out for when reviewing is to only play scenarios that use a style you enjoy. For example, if you hate playing RPG scenarios, don't try to review one since you are bound to not enjoy the scenario. Try to keep within styles that you enjoy. There really is no specific criteria on how a score is given in Playability but there are quite a few things that can effect playability in a negative manner. Trigger bugs, victory condition bugs and any other playability-destroying bugs obviously can ruin a scenario's playability. Lag is another playability issue that a scenario can be marked down for. If a player is ever confused about the next goal to accomplish, that's a playability problem. If a player can complete an objective in a way that the author obviously did not intend to be possible (i.e. there's a hole in a wall that allows the player to skip half the scenario), that's a playability problem. Anything that adversely affects your enjoyment of a scenario can be deducted from the Playability score. Balance Balance is also somewhat subjective since each player is a different skill level and what might be perfectly balanced for one player, might be way too easy or way too hard for another. As a reviewer, you must take your own skill level into account when giving a balance score. A perfectly balanced scenario should provide a challenge for a veteran player. Most people who are downloading scenarios from the internet have at least played through the campaigns included with the game and have a good knowledge of the game. Most perfectly balanced scenarios should not be able to be completed without the player losing a few times. If a player is able to complete the entire scenario the first time, the scenario is probably too easy. On the other hand, a player should not need to reload 15 times to get by a certain part of a scenario. That is frustrating and the scenario is probably way too difficult. The ideal scenario balance happens when a player gets stuck, but he knows that it's possible to complete the objective if only he did something a little differently. A player should not win by luck, the scenario should be constructed so that a player can learn from mistakes and use his skill to complete the objective. One important item to note about scoring the balance category for scenarios where no fighting takes place, such as cut-scene scenarios, some puzzle scenarios and some rpg style scenarios, is that just because the player cannot die in such scenarios, that doesn't mean the scenario isn't balanced. You also need to take the author's original intent into account, giving the author some benefit of the doubt. If the author never intended the player to face a struggle to survive, then there's no reason to knock down the balance score if there isn't any fighting. So keep in mind that you do need to take the intent and goals of the scenario into account when scoring the balance category, especially for those scenarios where fighting is not included. Multi-player scenarios are reviewed a bit differently in terms of balance. Each human player should start out in an equal position with equal starting resources and equal starting units. Obviously, the players don't have to match exactly, but they should be balanced. The map should also be examined to determine if all players have access to the same amounts of on-map resources. There are a lot of creative ways that map designers can use to make each player different, yet still balanced. If you choose to review multi-player scenarios, it's your job to ensure that each starting position is balanced with every other starting position. |