I had a power outage for a day, and then internet loss for a day. I had to go back to college to post this. Also, for this reason, there will be no reviews for at least a week.
Letter Scores: Grades can be F, E, D, C, B, A, and S in order from worst to best. + and - modifiers indicate slightly better or slightly worse. An A is essentially a 5/5 while an F is similar to a 0/5, but the letter grades are purposefully meant to be ambiguous. I am aware that Europeans may be unfamiliar with letter-based grade systems, and I apologize for any confusion this may cause.
Replayability: Score ranges from 0 to 5 with + and - modifiers. It follows a logarithmic scale; the difference between 4 and 3 is much more than the difference between 2 and 1.
Review:
On occasion, someone will create a rare map that attempts something new and experimental, with a low chance of success. Most mapmakers avoid situations like this because most mapmakers care too much about the success of their maps to consider doing work in vain. Debates is Rodrigo’s social experiment that forgoes any sort of standard gameplay or graphics in order to force the players to use logic in order to beat their peers in a battle of eloquence.
A game of debates will have three to six (or was it five?) rounds depending on the number of players involved. Each round starts with the players choosing whether to change the topic of debate or to judge, oppose, or support the thought. Depending on the players’ selection, a random set of people will be designated to judge the debate between the guy selected to argue against it and his counterpart who will defend it. Both players will get a minute, in turn, to argue their point. After that, both players each get an additional 40-second argument to wrap up their points. After the debate, the judges determine the winner of the argument. The winner gets points toward his ongoing score, though tied players will both earn half the score. The game ends after the last debate.
A typical scene in a game of Debates. This is as interesting as the graphics get, though.
There is no clear winner or loser in each game of Debates, as each player will usually argue only once. The closest thing to winning the game is winning the argument, but half of the players in the game will also win their arguments. There are no units, no models or sprites; only a light interface and a lot of text. This is a stylistic choice with its own merits; the players can focus on the debates, the map is easier to run, and the black void is an effective thinking backdrop. However, some kind of atmospheric background terrain, even if it was dark or mostly static, or some kind of way to replace the matte black backdrop with something more visually appealing would improve the feel of the map considerably and raise the flavor score from the near-rock-bottom level it is currently at. There are multiple ways to approach this, but I do not think that the minimalistic look is the best look. However, this is not nearly enough to make the difference between Silver and Gold.
It is always a difficult task to pin down what makes a social game such as Debates work out. My best analysis is that Rodrigo spent a long time fine-tuning how the debates are handled and picking a good group of thoughts to get discussion going. Plus, the round-based setup with player judges and random selection works well toward the goal. The equilibrium between the players’ ability to skip thoughts and the usual forced discussion topics creates an interesting blend of choice and obligation that strikes a chord with me. It all works together very well and proves that, with proper direction, social experiments like Debates can be successful. It’s in a very similar vein as my Mafia map (WarCraft III), which is its own kind of social experiment involving a type of debate, though the topic is usually either “Who should we lynch?” or “What role is player X?” Take my word for it; Rodrigo nailed the social direction down admirably well.
When a social experiment goes well, it’s extremely rewarding. When a good debate gets going, even the players know, to an extent, that they’re witnessing something special. Socrates would be proud. Well, except for the fact that some questions are ambiguous, worded weirdly, or have typos.
I find it difficult to talk about the actual gameplay of Debates because it depends entirely on the crop of players you happen to get. When the players are good at debating, the game is entertaining and fun. When the players are amateurs, the only fun you’ll be getting is a good laugh at their stupidity. This is most of the reason why Fun and Gameplay are not scored as A’s. It’s mostly out of the mapmaker’s control and remains a problem in every type of multiplayer map, but it’s especially bad in a social game. I might have given an A, however, if there was more to the game than just debating a handful of times and then calling it quits. Pardon my shameless self-promotion, but Mafia keeps it interesting and causes the debating process to be much less ephemeral, simply because everyone’s words and actions carry a lot of weight. After all, what you say can get you killed, and once you die, you’re permanently out of the game. Debates cannot do exactly the same thing, but having a greater goal of victory, a supplemental gameplay mechanic, or some other creative addition or change would be a great help for this map: this would make the difference between Silver and Gold.
Ideally, Debates is played with a group of open-minded intellectuals, but often the game will be filled with trolls of various calibers. It can be fun to see two trolls trying to out-troll each other, though, but that’s obviously outside of Debates’ intended entertainment value. To Rodrigo’s credit, he added a method to kick trolls. However, in games that are under the maximum player count, mustering all of the kick-votes required is almost impossible, especially if the trolls are organized. To prove my point, I intentionally trolled a few games with a group of my troll friends. We couldn’t be kicked and we effectively raped the game.
Trolls trolling trolls. Luckily, there are many kinds of trolls. You can see two distinct types in this screenshot.
There’s not much else to say about Debates. It’s a simple game that accomplishes its stated goal well. Just like any other game, there is room for improvement and expansion, but even without such changes, Debates remains a solid map that ought to be played by everyone at least once, just to say you did it. As of the time of writing this review, Debates is the highest-scoring map in the Central Review Conglomerate.
We even trolled Rodrigo. This is supposed to be encrypted, but my friend is a special troll called a hacker. He cracked the encryption in a couple hours and essentially released a “virus” spread by playing debates. The effect: have you ever seen this as the “All-time Best Players”? However, a few days after the event, I told Rodrigo about it (the whole thing was just for the lulz, anyway) and he released something of an “anti-virus” to nullify it, just so you know.
Kudos to whoever actually reads these reviews.
RATING:
Silver: This map is not perfect, but is entertaining and of good quality.
I think I'll probably be avoiding this game though since the majority of people I've met on SC are trolls or civil until they start losing at which point they start whining and blaming their opponent's 'lack of skill'... which might I just add, doesn't make any sense. Why do people say their opponent sucks when they lose to their opponent?
Hey! BlastYoBoots and Procyon. Haven't seen those names in a while. So, when is BattleMages for SC coming out?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had a power outage for a day, and then internet loss for a day. I had to go back to college to post this. Also, for this reason, there will be no reviews for at least a week.
Letter Scores: Grades can be F, E, D, C, B, A, and S in order from worst to best. + and - modifiers indicate slightly better or slightly worse. An A is essentially a 5/5 while an F is similar to a 0/5, but the letter grades are purposefully meant to be ambiguous. I am aware that Europeans may be unfamiliar with letter-based grade systems, and I apologize for any confusion this may cause.
Replayability: Score ranges from 0 to 5 with + and - modifiers. It follows a logarithmic scale; the difference between 4 and 3 is much more than the difference between 2 and 1.
Debates by Rodrigo
Fun (Enjoyability, Thrill) - (B+)
Gameplay (Balance, Dynamics) - (B)
Content (Completeness, Assets) - (C+)
Polish (Bugginess, Presentation) - (A)
Flavor (Style, Charm) - (E)
Replayability - [3]
Failures
Easily Ruined - [-]
Replays Don’t Work - [-]
Bonuses
Intellectual - [+]
Social - [+]
Unique - [+ +]
Review:
On occasion, someone will create a rare map that attempts something new and experimental, with a low chance of success. Most mapmakers avoid situations like this because most mapmakers care too much about the success of their maps to consider doing work in vain. Debates is Rodrigo’s social experiment that forgoes any sort of standard gameplay or graphics in order to force the players to use logic in order to beat their peers in a battle of eloquence.
A game of debates will have three to six (or was it five?) rounds depending on the number of players involved. Each round starts with the players choosing whether to change the topic of debate or to judge, oppose, or support the thought. Depending on the players’ selection, a random set of people will be designated to judge the debate between the guy selected to argue against it and his counterpart who will defend it. Both players will get a minute, in turn, to argue their point. After that, both players each get an additional 40-second argument to wrap up their points. After the debate, the judges determine the winner of the argument. The winner gets points toward his ongoing score, though tied players will both earn half the score. The game ends after the last debate.
A typical scene in a game of Debates. This is as interesting as the graphics get, though.
There is no clear winner or loser in each game of Debates, as each player will usually argue only once. The closest thing to winning the game is winning the argument, but half of the players in the game will also win their arguments. There are no units, no models or sprites; only a light interface and a lot of text. This is a stylistic choice with its own merits; the players can focus on the debates, the map is easier to run, and the black void is an effective thinking backdrop. However, some kind of atmospheric background terrain, even if it was dark or mostly static, or some kind of way to replace the matte black backdrop with something more visually appealing would improve the feel of the map considerably and raise the flavor score from the near-rock-bottom level it is currently at. There are multiple ways to approach this, but I do not think that the minimalistic look is the best look. However, this is not nearly enough to make the difference between Silver and Gold.
It is always a difficult task to pin down what makes a social game such as Debates work out. My best analysis is that Rodrigo spent a long time fine-tuning how the debates are handled and picking a good group of thoughts to get discussion going. Plus, the round-based setup with player judges and random selection works well toward the goal. The equilibrium between the players’ ability to skip thoughts and the usual forced discussion topics creates an interesting blend of choice and obligation that strikes a chord with me. It all works together very well and proves that, with proper direction, social experiments like Debates can be successful. It’s in a very similar vein as my Mafia map (WarCraft III), which is its own kind of social experiment involving a type of debate, though the topic is usually either “Who should we lynch?” or “What role is player X?” Take my word for it; Rodrigo nailed the social direction down admirably well.
When a social experiment goes well, it’s extremely rewarding. When a good debate gets going, even the players know, to an extent, that they’re witnessing something special. Socrates would be proud. Well, except for the fact that some questions are ambiguous, worded weirdly, or have typos.
I find it difficult to talk about the actual gameplay of Debates because it depends entirely on the crop of players you happen to get. When the players are good at debating, the game is entertaining and fun. When the players are amateurs, the only fun you’ll be getting is a good laugh at their stupidity. This is most of the reason why Fun and Gameplay are not scored as A’s. It’s mostly out of the mapmaker’s control and remains a problem in every type of multiplayer map, but it’s especially bad in a social game. I might have given an A, however, if there was more to the game than just debating a handful of times and then calling it quits. Pardon my shameless self-promotion, but Mafia keeps it interesting and causes the debating process to be much less ephemeral, simply because everyone’s words and actions carry a lot of weight. After all, what you say can get you killed, and once you die, you’re permanently out of the game. Debates cannot do exactly the same thing, but having a greater goal of victory, a supplemental gameplay mechanic, or some other creative addition or change would be a great help for this map: this would make the difference between Silver and Gold.
Ideally, Debates is played with a group of open-minded intellectuals, but often the game will be filled with trolls of various calibers. It can be fun to see two trolls trying to out-troll each other, though, but that’s obviously outside of Debates’ intended entertainment value. To Rodrigo’s credit, he added a method to kick trolls. However, in games that are under the maximum player count, mustering all of the kick-votes required is almost impossible, especially if the trolls are organized. To prove my point, I intentionally trolled a few games with a group of my troll friends. We couldn’t be kicked and we effectively raped the game.
Trolls trolling trolls. Luckily, there are many kinds of trolls. You can see two distinct types in this screenshot.
There’s not much else to say about Debates. It’s a simple game that accomplishes its stated goal well. Just like any other game, there is room for improvement and expansion, but even without such changes, Debates remains a solid map that ought to be played by everyone at least once, just to say you did it. As of the time of writing this review, Debates is the highest-scoring map in the Central Review Conglomerate.
We even trolled Rodrigo. This is supposed to be encrypted, but my friend is a special troll called a hacker. He cracked the encryption in a couple hours and essentially released a “virus” spread by playing debates. The effect: have you ever seen this as the “All-time Best Players”? However, a few days after the event, I told Rodrigo about it (the whole thing was just for the lulz, anyway) and he released something of an “anti-virus” to nullify it, just so you know.
Kudos to whoever actually reads these reviews.
RATING:
Silver: This map is not perfect, but is entertaining and of good quality.
@DarkRevenantX: Go
Great review. An enjoyable read!
Looks interesting. Maybe i should check it out ;)
Nice review. Hope to see more of these.
I think I'll probably be avoiding this game though since the majority of people I've met on SC are trolls or civil until they start losing at which point they start whining and blaming their opponent's 'lack of skill'... which might I just add, doesn't make any sense. Why do people say their opponent sucks when they lose to their opponent?
Hey! BlastYoBoots and Procyon. Haven't seen those names in a while. So, when is BattleMages for SC coming out?