Well, i feel like telling my own opnions about how to review a scenario.
Playability: Some scenarios might show an obvious lack of effort or you might just know that it was utterly crap, however you never know when some little, perhaps stupid thing, will strike your fancy. To me playability is just that: if the scenario struck your fancy, then give it a 5 in playability. Example: To me, "Gyda's Challenge" is a scenario that deserves a 5 in this aspect just for two small things: seeing your envoy being thrown to the sea and getting to know that my ally was loyal. Stupid reasons? Perhaps, but it struck my fancy.
Map Design: Indeed the tutorial says what it should about this. However, i'd like to add that the map has to be friendly with the player, without making the scenario unbeatable because of some bug, or presenteing a challenge it wasn't supposed to present. Examples: The first and last scenarios of "The four seasons", which can be obtained in the "Pabsthooligan boxed set", is the best example of great map design. Not really because of the four seasons themselves and the effects of each season, even because the third scenario had a big problem that didn't allow you to win. The map design there was great because it was beautiful and provided you with just the kind of B&D challenge that was expected. "Gyda's Challenge" is a scenario that is truly beautiful to look at, however the narrow and sometimes confusing passageways are frustating for building and troop placement and movement, making micromanagement a disgraceful job in the end.
Balance: It's not really if you won, lost, if you lost, if you had to play twice or if it had different difficulty levels. It's all about hope and subestimation. The player must never lose hope to win because the scenario SEEMS too hard or lenghty, nor should he get preemptive boredom for thinking that the scenario is too easy. The player must FEEL challenged. IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL if the scenario was hard or easy, it's how you feel it was. Example: "Omaha 1492" was a scenario that should be praised for its creativity, but also for its balance. If you happened to play it once or twice, you'd see it was actually easy. However, after hearing those sounds, and seeing the first enemy legions for the first time, i bet you would be keeping back your every soldier, sneaking and taking your time to see which is the best way to attack, the challenge was on.
Story/Instrunctions: This is also subjective. It's easy to judge instrunctions: if you didn't get stuck, then they are adequate. I't's all about getting stuck or not. Story is harder, but not much. Basically, did you feel as part of the story? Basically, a story is good if, when you think to yourself about your strategy, you refer to the sides and units by the names of the scenario or the names of the game? In a scenario where the russians(goths) and dzungarians(mongols) are fighting, when you think about the best way to get your huskarls to the castle, do you think in russian or goth huskarls? ANd is the castle a mongol or dzungarian castle? Example (of a case where the story was not good): "The four seasons" is a campaign where you play a certain japanase clan, and there is a somewhat deep story, however it fails in making you think about your foes using any term much different to "enemy". You don't think of the enemy clan as "the opposing clan", you just get to think of them as "the enemy".
Creativity: to quote Sun Tzu, in the art of war:
Quote: |
There are only two kinds of strategic moves: attack and defense. However, the limitless combinations of the two that present themselves offer likewise limitless strategies. |
With scenario design, everything is unique, even if it doesn't seem like it. A scenario, to get a 5 here, needs to have something that will cause you physical reaction. You might open your mouth in awe, or widely open your eyes with unpreparation, perhaps even smile wickedly with the exciting situation presented. It can be the stupidest or oldest thing, but when presented the right time or way, it shows it is creative. Example: "1066 - The year of three kings", one scenario that changed my scenario designing forever, has large balance problems and somewhat bland maps. The story is told in the way of a man remembering his past, and this is quite common, the ES campaigns are a clear example of that. The scenario, however, starts and develops itself in its own unique way, which perhaps isn't a new way or anything, but it just keeps you wanting to see what happens next. To couple with that, the author added his own unique way of preventing you of getting the "cartography" tech. It might be an old trick but it was presented the right way, the right time.