We are happy to inform you that your paper "Developing video games and virtual
environments with the Crystal Space engine", is accepted for the "Design and
Engineering of Game-like Virtual and Multimodal Environments" workshop. Below this mail, you can find the reviews of your paper. 

Both 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
therefore ask you to revise the paper in order to make it reflect your position
more: please elaborate more on needs and on design and/or engineering aspects and less on functionality.

Please 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
on the workshop's website (http://research.edm.uhasselt.be/~craymaekers/deng-ve/)

---------------------------------------------

Paper: 1
Title: Developing video games and virtual environments with the Crystal Space engine


---------------------------- REVIEW 1 --------------------------
PAPER: 1
TITLE: Developing video games and virtual environments with the Crystal Space engine
 
OVERALL RATING: 1 (weak accept)  

The authors present the architecture of Crystal Space, a framework for the
development of video games and virtual environments.
The paper presents a nice review of related projects, i.e., projects providing
frameworks for users to develop their own games. The references are all links to
websites, and I think that there must be papers about those projects. Why do not
cite them besides citing the website? 
Regarding the Crystal Space description it is a large project and as such the
authors are selective about what to say and what let behind. However, a brief
explanation or an example about the methodology one should follow to develop a CS
application would be helpful. What exactly is the workflow in section 3? It seems
that the referred section only presents the general architecture. 
Since the Crystal Entity Layer seems to be the major contribution of the paper, it
might be well explained. 
Finally, in the conclusion, it is quite awkward to put the plan for building a
better website as an improvement. Conclusions should be more technical. 
However, although the paper lacks some characteristics for being framed as
technically correct, the project is indeed interesting. 



---------------------------- REVIEW 2 --------------------------
PAPER: 1
TITLE: Developing video games and virtual environments with the Crystal Space engine
 
OVERALL RATING: 1 (weak accept)  

The paper reads fluently, and it keeps attention of the reader.

When accepted, I suggest the following adjustments to make it more suited for the
workshop.

Currently, the papers describes a lot of information: commercial + open source
history of game development, Crystal Space architecture, and hidden in the
conclusive section some views on the future.
Maybe you can change a bit the focus, and make either the history or the
feature-based architecture description a bit shorter, to make room for more
contemplative paragraphs.
Please try to enter some paragraphs focussing on the goal of the workshop, and
stressing the point you want to make. Stating that Crystal is a nice system is not
enough; try to come up with needs, what has to be done,...
Some of the thoughts expressed in the conclusion (currently rather long part of
paper) might give you some inspiration, but try to make this more central in the
paper and formulate it as a strong position statement. 



---------------------------- REVIEW 3 --------------------------
PAPER: 1
TITLE: Developing video games and virtual environments with the Crystal Space engine
 
OVERALL RATING: -1 (weak reject)  

The paper describes the engine Crystal Space and explains the architecture and
workflow. CS is a great engine for 
games, well established and available since 10 years ago, according the authors.
Even if the engine is a good work, the 
paper does not present something new and original, which is fundamental for a
conference paper. 

In this way, I wonder authors can, for example, explore in deep the comparison with
other engines. I suggest to 
compare CS with other game engines that were not mentioned on the paper, as: Unity,
ORTS and Spring Engine, for 
instance.