Reviews and Submissions

Started by Forge, 08 December 2011, 16:29:29

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Gambini

#45
Strange coming from a mapper... That he uses as an example of "a whole map with scarse shading and trimming" a small hallway in which cycler sprites are dancing and yelling "hello, Scott we need all surfaces on these sectors to be the same shade value to work!!!". So yeah, that´s the best counterargument you could come up with? You go in mapster checking adjacent walls to see if they share the same value everytime you rate a map? Last pair of shots also make me wonder where you got this map from. I have 5 different revisions lying in my HD and in all of them those walls are 12vs6 and not 6vs6 (You should download my maps from my blog).

Gambini

"editlike post"

Actually there are no downloads in the blog and DNR had version 1.601 vs the map I posted which is 1.607. That very last wall is the only difference I can see regarding the matter of discussion so everything else stands.

http://infosuite.dukerepository.com/index.php?page=ae_lighting_b

Forge

#47
I chose sites from the map by going to them at random. One small corner just happened to have cyclers. Still doesn't account that there is no differentiating wall shading for that entire area of the map (especially where the cyclers are not present). Of course when the cyler is "off", all the walls in that area have the same shade value. The map has trimming, just not where it's needed, like in the corners to give some depth, since the mapper decided to give all the walls the same shade value. Also doesn't account for the rest of the majority of the map (which doesn't have cyclers) and suffers from the exact same problem; all the walls have the same shade value. Noticing that the other screen shots showing the same problem were ignored. You know, the ones also showing the opposing walls having the same shade value. Maybe I should have posted several dozen of them, but I have the feeling you'd still find some strawman argument to counter anything I say.

I only go into mapster to show that what I'm saying is valid when someone insists on bitching about a subject over and over and acts like screen shots are doctored or that I'm not playing the map right. For example: all the walls in any given area pretty much have the same shading value.

I don't make it a habit of looking for newer versions of each and every map I review. If I did It'd take me 5 times as long just to get one done.

Instead of blowing all that hot air because you got bent out of shape, you should have just posted up the newest version and asked for that one to be used to revise the old review in the first place.

Nothing positive is going to come out of carrying on with this. You've made up your mind and I'm not changing my opinion. You can go ahead and lambast me now with what ever colorful remarks you find appropriate. Get in the last word because I'm done discussing it.


I still love you though.  :-*

Take it down to the beach with a hammer and pound sand up your ass

Gambini

#48
We could carry this for ages, but still you can´t deny you have pushed your point to a too specific aspect, of which i still disagree. I was surprised the low rating the map got (in comparision to other maps reviewed here of course) and I noticed it was mostly (according to your dissection) by shading and trimming. establishing how many adjacent walls have the same shade value will lead to nothing at this point. Except by Bob Averill maps (which you extremely underrated) most maps rated even ten points above surely have less shading and trimming work but that´s OK. By no means I want to change your opinion, if that´s the impression you got, fine. You could have rated it even lower by standing on things like the confined spaces and unfair explosions, the overuse of the green bricks wall and I would have had to shut up.

You don´t seem to love me so much, you have cheated on me with Puritan. His long and blond hair seduced you. lol i got goosebumps for writting that uuhhh

Puritan

Quote from: Gambini on  22 March 2012, 07:16:34

You don´t seem to love me so much, you have cheated on me with Puritan. His long and blond hair seduced you. lol i got goosebumps for writting that uuhhh


;D ...me too....
Buried under dirt, a diamond in the mud
Infinity is waiting there 'cause nobody can burn a glass cathedral

Merlijn


Trooper Dan

Quote from: Forge on  30 March 2012, 15:24:50
is the way Duke Nukem ex mortum has been rated, here's it simplified out:

Texturing; 3/5
Lighting-Shading: 4/5
Sprite Work: 4/5
Detailing & Trimwork: 4/5
Ambiance: 7/10
Architecture: 17/20
Layout: 17/20
Gameplay: 11/15
Design: 12/15
Overall: 79/100

I don't understand how all those different things can be separated and judged independently of each other.  It seems to me that a map is a blended whole where the many different facets contribute to each other in complex ways.  Making a very general distinction, like separating the gameplay from the look of the map (although even that is somewhat controversial) does make sense, but giving separate scores for all that other stuff just gives a false sense of precision to the review.

It also makes your review more open to criticism.  Take the texturing score, for example.  3 out of 5 is 60%.  That's pretty bad.  I have played maps with bad texturing, and this wasn't one of them.  Then it gets docked a point in each of the following areas:  shading, sprite work, and detailing/trimwork.  A point in each area doesn't sound like much, until you realize that makes each area only 80%.  Compare that to, say, Red 3, which you gave perfect scores in all of those areas.  I like Red 3 a lot, but was it really that good looking?  You scoring system forces you to say about each of those areas that it is either perfect (5/5) or very flawed (4/5 or less).  And more importantly, the way you break it down does not allow you to evaluate the map as a whole.  The only way to get around that would be to decide on the overall score first, then go back and make sure that the different areas add up to what you already decided.  But of course that would be cheating and would make a joke of the whole reviewing scheme.

Forge

It's a rating method I've been screwing around with for awhile.

If I break it all the way down like in the above post, then the obvious problems with it are more apparent because as you said, everything is pretty much dependent on and related to everything else. Also that either something is perfect or flawed.

The more subjects there are, the more chances the map will lose points. The result is very low rated maps.

The less subjects the rating is broken into, the higher the rating of the maps get.

The current break down I use with seven subjects seems to fit my scale on how I perceive maps should be rated. It's also useful if you want to tell the difference between two maps with the same rating where one of them looks better, but the other plays better.

The alternative is to not break anything down and just give it a flat score.

Bottom line: Any method used to score a map is subject to criticism

Take it down to the beach with a hammer and pound sand up your ass

Micky C

What does design mean? I'd interpret it to be layout/architecture but those already have their own separate scores.
Wall whore.

Forge

#54
In this instance design encompasses aspects of the construction that can effect game play. Technically I can remove the word "design" from that part of the rating breakdown, but I keep it around because other "physical" aspects of the map also affect game play. The layout and architecture are the two usual apsects that are considered when thinking about how the design affects game play. i.e.  Are the corridors really narrow making it difficult to move around or have a fair chance at fighting enemies? Narrow corridors are by themselves not a problem, but when you surround the player with fat commanders in narrow corridors, then it becomes a design issue by the definition I'm using.

edit: another way to think about it. If the architecture is oversized. Then the architecture score is affected. But if the oversizing affects the players ability to move around and messes up the flow of the game, then the architecture score is affected as well as the gameplay score because of the design.
Take it down to the beach with a hammer and pound sand up your ass

Hank

Quote from: Forge on  02 April 2012, 03:11:36
In this instance design encompasses aspects of the construction that can effect game play. Technically I can remove the word "design" from that part of the rating breakdown, but I keep it around because other "physical" aspects of the map also affect game play. The layout and architecture are the two usual apsects that are considered when thinking about how the design affects game play. i.e.  Are the corridors really narrow making it difficult to move around or have a fair chance at fighting enemies? Narrow corridors are by themselves not a problem, but when you surround the player with fat commanders in narrow corridors, then it becomes a design issue by the definition I'm using.

edit: another way to think about it. If the architecture is oversized. Then the architecture score is affected. But if the oversizing affects the players ability to move around and messes up the flow of the game, then the architecture score is affected as well as the gameplay score because of the design.
What about narrow corridors intended to be a player's challenge, with Commanders? If you have the Shrinker I gave you, use it. If you did not find the Shrinker, well, entering those corridors, armed with only a shot gun are deadly.

I think it should not be just the layout but also how the layout challenges the player with actors and accessories, or as Trooper Dan mentioned.

Keep in mind I am just mouthing off. :P
Lieber reich und gesund als arm und krank

Forge

#56
Quote from: Hank on  02 April 2012, 04:56:16
What about narrow corridors intended to be a player's challenge, with Commanders? If you have the Shrinker I gave you, use it. If you did not find the Shrinker, well, entering those corridors, armed with only a shot gun are deadly.

I think it should not be just the layout but also how the layout challenges the player with actors and accessories, or as Trooper Dan mentioned.

Keep in mind I am just mouthing off. :P

I don't see it as mouthing off.

In the instance you use as an example, it's done by design, not because of poor design. I would say that the portion of the map you're describing was put there with intent and is easily recognizable as such. More times than not, the instance I'm using as an example is prominent throughout a large portion of the level.

Those are just examples and there are as many different situations as there are mappers.

"Layout challenges the player with actors and accessories"? If I understand your intent that falls under game play.

most aspects are related to each other in one way or another, so trying to break everything down into "pieces" isn't perfect, but it works well enough for me and I prefer it over giving one flat score

A brief breakdown on what certain areas cover

Layout = floor plan (can depend on architecture)

game play = aliens, weapons, supplies - ratios, placements, variety. Puzzles, spawns or lack thereof (also when backtracking), behind the back spawns, unfair explosions, etc.

design = flow of the game & navigation of the level (dependent upon layout and architecture to some extent)

ambiance = interactivity with the environment, things blowing up (and not in your face), crashing skycars, ambient sounds, etc (dependent upon texturing, shading, lighting effects, detailing, sprite work, trimwork, and to a minor extent architecture)

there are aspects that demonstrate where the breaking things into individual pieces isn't perfect

examples: trimwork can be of sprite or architectural in nature. I lump it in with sprite work/detailing under the pretense that it's a detailing feature.
              sprite constructions? Depending on the extent of what they are. A bridge would fall under architecture, a chair would fall under
              sprite work/detailing. It somewhat relies on whether it's there for looking at, or for using as a "platform" to get somewhere. What about a chair 
              used to jump off of to get on top of something? No different than if a barrel where used instead, it's sprite work not architecture.
Take it down to the beach with a hammer and pound sand up your ass

Hank

Quote from: Forge on  02 April 2012, 06:01:36
game play = aliens, weapons, supplies - ratios, placements, variety. Puzzles, spawns or lack thereof (also when backtracking), behind the back spawns, unfair explosions, etc.
I think I've got the gist. :)
BUT!!!!!!!!!!
What is an unfair explosion? Yes, I am asking. I am reusing my maps with modern cons, I can do stuff now I only dreamed about, but if parts of it are unfair – no point.

Example, you should have a lot of guns collected by now. There is a gorgeous shot gun resting on an altar, contrary to your previous finds, in plain sight and visible for the proverbial miles. Would you be surprised said gun to be booby trapped?

I always use nasty traps. You either get a visual or audible hints, so watch your step and keep your ears and eyes open, you snooze, you loose, yet, what is fair?  ::)
Lieber reich und gesund als arm und krank

Puritan

Quote from: Hank on  04 April 2012, 05:15:52

What is an unfair explosion? 


Example: You're facing a crack in the wall. You throw a pipebomb. You step 20 meters away. The explosion comes out of the hole and keeps on going for ages and spreading out on the entire available player area.
That's what I call unfair. ( and unrealistic)
Buried under dirt, a diamond in the mud
Infinity is waiting there 'cause nobody can burn a glass cathedral

Forge

@Hank

Again, the example you use is not unfair or unavoidable

Puritan uses a good example.

Also constant exploding traps set up along the main path with no warning is annoying.
Take it down to the beach with a hammer and pound sand up your ass