DEnGVECSCEL: DEnG-VE_CrystalSpace_reviews.txt

File DEnG-VE_CrystalSpace_reviews.txt, 4.3 KB (added by kickvb, 2 years ago)

Reviews of the paper

Line 
1We are happy to inform you that your paper "Developing video games and virtual
2environments with the Crystal Space engine", is accepted for the "Design and
3Engineering of Game-like Virtual and Multimodal Environments" workshop. Below this mail, you can find the reviews of your paper.
4
5Both the reviewers and the organizers feel that your paper is interesting. However, in its current form, it falls a bit outside the scope of the conference. We
6therefore ask you to revise the paper in order to make it reflect your position
7more: please elaborate more on needs and on design and/or engineering aspects and less on functionality.
8
9Please change your paper according to the remarks of the reviewers and our view and send it no later than May 14. Your paper will be published
10on the workshop's website (http://research.edm.uhasselt.be/~craymaekers/deng-ve/)
11
12---------------------------------------------
13
14Paper: 1
15Title: Developing video games and virtual environments with the Crystal Space engine
16
17
18---------------------------- REVIEW 1 --------------------------
19PAPER: 1
20TITLE: Developing video games and virtual environments with the Crystal Space engine
21 
22OVERALL RATING: 1 (weak accept) 
23
24The authors present the architecture of Crystal Space, a framework for the
25development of video games and virtual environments.
26The paper presents a nice review of related projects, i.e., projects providing
27frameworks for users to develop their own games. The references are all links to
28websites, and I think that there must be papers about those projects. Why do not
29cite them besides citing the website?
30Regarding the Crystal Space description it is a large project and as such the
31authors are selective about what to say and what let behind. However, a brief
32explanation or an example about the methodology one should follow to develop a CS
33application would be helpful. What exactly is the workflow in section 3? It seems
34that the referred section only presents the general architecture.
35Since the Crystal Entity Layer seems to be the major contribution of the paper, it
36might be well explained.
37Finally, in the conclusion, it is quite awkward to put the plan for building a
38better website as an improvement. Conclusions should be more technical.
39However, although the paper lacks some characteristics for being framed as
40technically correct, the project is indeed interesting.
41
42
43
44---------------------------- REVIEW 2 --------------------------
45PAPER: 1
46TITLE: Developing video games and virtual environments with the Crystal Space engine
47 
48OVERALL RATING: 1 (weak accept) 
49
50The paper reads fluently, and it keeps attention of the reader.
51
52When accepted, I suggest the following adjustments to make it more suited for the
53workshop.
54
55Currently, the papers describes a lot of information: commercial + open source
56history of game development, Crystal Space architecture, and hidden in the
57conclusive section some views on the future.
58Maybe you can change a bit the focus, and make either the history or the
59feature-based architecture description a bit shorter, to make room for more
60contemplative paragraphs.
61Please try to enter some paragraphs focussing on the goal of the workshop, and
62stressing the point you want to make. Stating that Crystal is a nice system is not
63enough; try to come up with needs, what has to be done,...
64Some of the thoughts expressed in the conclusion (currently rather long part of
65paper) might give you some inspiration, but try to make this more central in the
66paper and formulate it as a strong position statement.
67
68
69
70---------------------------- REVIEW 3 --------------------------
71PAPER: 1
72TITLE: Developing video games and virtual environments with the Crystal Space engine
73 
74OVERALL RATING: -1 (weak reject) 
75
76The paper describes the engine Crystal Space and explains the architecture and
77workflow. CS is a great engine for
78games, well established and available since 10 years ago, according the authors.
79Even if the engine is a good work, the
80paper does not present something new and original, which is fundamental for a
81conference paper.
82
83In this way, I wonder authors can, for example, explore in deep the comparison with
84other engines. I suggest to
85compare CS with other game engines that were not mentioned on the paper, as: Unity,
86ORTS and Spring Engine, for
87instance.
88
89