Survivor Review Board: Discussion

[Nyalite]

the Survivor market is very stale. One of the reasons I did Redemption Island in Greece was so that there would be something new in the game, and I think that when you're designing any game, one of the first things you should ask is "What am I bringing to the table that's new?"

I agree very much with this, this has been one of the driving factors for Jal and I.


I think any survivor review needs to be viewed from two angles. First, whether the mods are properly prepared to mod. This is the easier part, and as Xalxe pointed out, hasn't been an issue recently. However I do think that with a queue of 6+ months it's very easy to say "yeah let me save myself a spot" and then 4, 5 or even 6 months down the line they really aren't ready. This either leads to a delay of the start of the game which affects every other survivor game down the line, or a substandard game. I'd rather this issue be identified earlier, so steps can be taken to remedy it. Again this may not be an issue currently, but when you weigh the cost of having one person look at a game with a very specific set of criteria and say, "Yeah these guys are making a good faith effort to be ready for their game and mod it properly" against the potential risk of having a botched game? It seems like it's worth looking into.

The second angle, and really the harder to execute one is deciding whether a game is really adding to the Survivor discourse. I do personally believe this is worth looking into, but it seems extremely subjective and would need to be handled in a very delicate way. I have many personal feelings about this, but I think that's best to be discussed elsewhere.

I think my final thoughts on any review committee is that we need to create a separate space where it can be discussed by a diverse group of people. This means people who are in support of it and those opposed. I also think that the committee aspect needs to set standards and that no more than two people should be actually reviewing the game. I do not think it should be an ad hoc set of people who you can message to have them look at your game. That was already an option, so it wouldn't change anything but moreover I think any review group needs to have firm, non-subjective things they are looking for. These need to be written down, not just whatever the reviewer finds important personally. We should also minimize how much their personal opinion influences their review.


I want to say a few words about Bahamas itself. I want to thank D3f3nd3r and Snakes for modding it. I know I did my fair share of complaining, but I regret a lot of it. I also agree with Shii comments about complaining during the game. It's fun to complain sometimes, and some of the challenges were frustrating. But I think it created a negative atmosphere around the game, when players all complain publicly it normalizes it and erodes the essential respect I think players should show to the mods. There is no doubt in my mind D3f3nd3r and Snakes both worked hard on this game and whatever our thoughts on what they produced, we need to first give them credit for their hard work.

So again, thank you D3f and Snakes for your hard work and diligence in modding the game.

[Nyalite]

I am also against the idea of a skype call. That limits the discussion of this to those in the circle of friends willing to talk to each other on skype.

[Nyalite]

I share KA's concern about players actively disqualifying themselves from games. Also I feel having people publically declare that they are willing to review the game is a bad idea. It saying they won't be joining which actively harms the anonymous nature of most survivors. A better solution is for the mods to post and say "we are ready for a reviewer, please PM us if you are willing."

I also think Jal raises a good point:

Not enough effort or caring put into the game? How so? What qualifies as effort and what qualifies as enough effort or giving up on caring?

We need to avoid subjective based decisions entirely.

I think the problem is we haven't even established the most basic goals of this review process.

This review process first and most important goal is to make sure mods are taking their commitment seriously, and that they understand what that commitment is. It's a commitment most importantly to the players who sign-up for their game, but also a commitment to the mish mash survivor community as a whole. The commitment isn't complicated. Just two things,

run the game from start to finish in a timely and smooth manner and make sure it is a fun, challenging and fair game.

Everything else stems from those two things. Co-mods? Back-up documents? Pre-prepared post? Faithful deadlines? Those are all under the first. New, exciting, fun challenges? New, exciting, fun twist? Those are all under the second.

I don't think this process should be conducted in the way Ani's quote laided out in the OP.

This should not be viewed as analogous to the Mafia game review board. A reviewers job should not be to scour over every challenge and twist. This review process must respect the right of the mod to create their own game. The way this process is heading it makes previously successful mods gatekeepers.

This process should only be used as the most cursory check to make sure the game creators understand and are willing to make good on their commitments. I think we must have faith in the mods themselves that once they understand their commitment they can execute on it.

[Nyalite]

No where in the Arkham rules did it say that it was going to be a bastard game.


Edit: I think Ani and Jal beat me to condemning the Robin mechanic. But I want to say I think that issue is tangential to the review process.

[Nyalite]

While I agree that mods should create their own game, I don't think it would hurt for the reviewer to make recommendations regarding the clarity of challenges and things like that, if the reviewer is willing.

I don't have an issue with a mod allowing that, and once a reviewer has been "read in" they can become a resource for you.

But what I don't want is a reviewers going through every twist and challenge. I don't think that's what this should be about.

[Nyalite]

What happened in arkham

The thing we are specifically talking about is one player who was a "mod character" who was played by one of the mods and a spectator.

[Nyalite]

ANYWAYS, back on point. I disagree with the looking at the challenges and whatnot. There are multiple challenges which are used time and time again and practically no one enjoys them anymore. Things like that and apparently any challenge that requires creativity (because that results in no one submitting) should be looked at and removed.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are challenges that have been overplayed or weren't fun to begin with. But I don't think that means a reviewer should looking in depth at every challenge and twist. I don't know that a review process is the correct way to eliminate that from happening in games, nor should it be used in that manner. If there are challenges that are particularly bad, create a banned challenge list or something. What's more important is that we assess whether a mod is aware that she can't just go copy challenges from the last 4 survivors and call it a game.



Chesskid -
We all thought he was a regular player, but at the end of the game we found out he was played by a spectator/mod. This meant the whole time he was able to read confessionals and knew what people were thinking/doing.

D3f3nd3r - I certainly did not take those to mean there would be a mod character in the game or that it would be a bastard game. Further I think if you are going to run a bastard game, you better be pretty damn clear of that from the start. You also can't count it as a regular survivor. Twist heavy insanity =/= bastard

[Nyalite]

Admittedly, it's the legendary box that makes me

want

to check twists for annoyingness and/or brokenness. That's all I'd want to check it for. If the players perceive it as annoying, or it's broken, then we've got a bad twist that should've been looked at. Similar deal for challenges - check to see if it's annoying or broken. That's it.

I get that this is coming from a good place, you want to make sure there aren't any bumps in the otherwise great game. But the problem is the only way to accomplish this to the level you are talking about is by having you scrutinise every challenge and twist in the game. That's just not something I want as a mod personally, nor do I think it is a very effective way to screen "annoying" challenges. Just too subjective.

I think we need a system that verifies you can trust mods to be doing the best they can. We

need

to trust that mods are doing their best. The only reason this review idea came up is that the trust between mod and player was eroded. I think my ideal system would have the mods give the reviewer a representative presentation on what their game has to offer. It should prove to the reviewer that their game is meeting the standards this review board sets. The exact nature of the presentation is up to the mods. Maybe they just let the reviewer see their planning material/threads. Maybe they make the reviewer an account on their forum and throw up a couple of the challenge post. It should be a sizeable amount of material, it needs to be enough to clearly prove the mods are making a damn hard effort to make their game as best as it can be. I think the reviewer and mods can find a way to make it work. Followed by a questionnaire. "Do you have a backup of all game material?" "Do you feel your challenges have been overused?" "Do you think your game is bringing something new to the table?" If they can answer those questions in a satisfactory way, they have made a promise. A promise that they are endeavouring to make sure their game is fresh, fun and fair. And that it will run smoothly. Once a reviewer has been brought up to speed with a game, the mod and reviewer can look at other things as they see fit. There are assuredly things a mod would like advice on once they have someone they can bounce it off of. But I think the mod should ultimately decide how much to share.

I think that's as far as this system needs to go. I think it should be used to reaffirm the trust between mod and player that they've worked hard on to make their game as fun as possible.

|04| We have worked extensively to produce a game that is enjoyed by all involved.

|04| I have worked extensively to produce a game that is enjoyed by all involved.

04 We have worked extensively to produce a game that is enjoyed by all involved.

The only thing this review group should be doing is ensuring the mod has proof to back up those statements.

[Nyalite]

This Very Much This.

I think we need to actively try to avoid running an Anon and Non-Anon game at the same time. My problem also in Bahamas is, I really didn't care that much as I was more focused on Greece at the time. Ironically I was Voted out the Second Time in Greece at almost the same exact time I was voted out in Greece. It's just really hard to stay focused on two games at once.

Crazy and Kdowns have a very good point. I was still finishing up MES when Arkham started and my beginning in Arkham suffered greatly for it. I am clearly going to prioritize my FTC over the begining game, and that just means Arkham had to suffer.

[Nyalite]

I don't think the size of the game should be the qualifying factor. The reason (in my mind) survivors were singled out for review is because there is a 6 month queue to run them. What happens in one game effects the 18-24 players who are playing it, but also the 3 or more games down the line and their 20ish players each.