|
Yes, just base it on Originality, Design, Gameplay, Content, and Lastability. That covers all areas, and it's broad enough not to be restrictive.
If people send in crap that's not even worth the reviewers time, they shouldn't even go through the review and just auto-fail the person. Obviously if they make some totally generated playerworld with no new features, and a bunch of stolen npcs and graphics, they aren't going to pass.
Playerworld reviewing is just common sense and good judgement. I think it should just be up to the reviewers to decide if it's original enough, if it has enough content, if the gameplay is good, if the design is good, if people will play the playerworld for a long time, etc. That is why the PWA exists. If you just had penalties for all the things warcaptain listed, you wouldn't have reviewers, you'd have inspectors, that are just making sure the pw passes the requirements.
The only requirements I see fit to have are:
1. The playerworld and all it's content must be put in a zip (or ace or rar or whatever file) with a text file entitled README.
2. The README text file must contain information about the playerworld, such as how many levels there are, what kind of stuff players can do, what isn't working, what needs to be done online, new features, just basically all the stuff about the playerworld.
3. The starting level name, and any other instructions needed for the reviewer to start.
4. A website url to the playerworld website
Then whatever else the pwa decide they need to have or explain.
I mean any playerworld worth it's salt has some documentation on it. My playerworld has pages and pages of information about the new features, systems, storyline, towns, creatures, npcs, quests, fighting, everything. If a playerworld doesn't even have any of the ideas written down, maybe it shouldn't be submitted in the first place. |