Review Queue

[milb]

How could I miss this thread...?

Actually I don't know why some of the ppl are so pissed just coz there're no reviews. I never downloaded a map especially coz it got a good review, I dl maps coz they got good ratings.
So it's more important to me to see more people rate maps. I mean honest ratings, not those silly 10's of some clanmembers who rate the crap map of their clanmate...
Like hostile said. Ratings are as good as reviews. Ok, they are shorter, but it they hit the point (n00bish or l33t). And the more ratings a map gets the more the rating speak for it self.
On the other side I want you to review my maps (there're all reviewed so I don't have to ingratiate...^^). Think thats what every mapper wants...
P.S. I like the Idea of guest-/user-reviews...

 

[Swanky]

I care for reviews when they are written the way they reflect the strenghts of the map but also the downsides. Most of the time the reviewers on NC make a wonderful job. A review has to help the mappers to understand faults and make better maps next time.
If there's a suckage review of about two sentences that try to justify the reviewer's score I can't understand that. For me, a mix of both user comment and professional review counts. A review often is more, but not completely objective, whereas the comments give you a wide range of subjective ratings may they be good or bad.

 

[cooloola]

I agree with Swanky and milb but the prob is that most comments are too subjective and are definitely not as in depth as reviews. Plus reviews don't only point out the good stuff or the bad stuff (as most comments) but point out both so people know what to expect and mappers know what they're already good at and what they need to work on, something he can't learn from comments like "Great map, dude!!" (like most of my comments).
And i don't expect every person to post looooooooooooooong comments whereas i do expect that to be done in reivews.

 

[milb]

Thats the other side...as mapper I want to get a review for sure. As you said, it's more helpfull then the most ratings are (to mappers).

 

[ReD_Fist]

If a map gets reviewed it DEFINITLY 100% gets more downloads, it also shows up on a bunch of other websites fronpage.
But I agree I could settle for user comments, but dang, nalicity got to do somthing.Not just be a filespace for maps.

 

[Twrecks]

So You Want To Be A Nali City Reviewer?
^^^please apply^^^

 

[Swanky]

I've seen this one before.
"Pick 3 maps, fill out the document and voila. But please don't be too busy with RealLife." If that would be possible, we'd all be reviewers.
I might sign up, but only for a couple of months, before Reallife catches me again.

 

[Ironblayde]

That application says you should have time to test and review three maps a week (!) but don't let that stop you from applying. Nobody has enough time to do that. I can't speak for the powers that be, but in my opinion even just two or three reviews a month would be very welcome.

 

[ReD_Fist]

I am not elitest enough to be a reviewer, a lot of comments I see from these so called pro mappers on my maps say absolutly nothing of whats wrong with maps other than looks.
Thier several mappers wich around here don't give much thought to ,Soma The real.Reason being, they can't map as good so they just ignore adding comments because they know it all.
He makes maps that make sense but none of those guys ever pay much attention.
If I reviewd they would treat me like pres Bush lol. and I would have to make an appeal to foxnews.

 

[ArcadiaVincennes]

I am not elitest enough to be a reviewer,

I'm sorry you think of us/me as elitist. If I come across that way it's certainly an accident.

[/offended]

 

[ReD_Fist]

I'm sorry you think of us/me as elitist. If I come across that way it's certainly an accident.

[/offended]

Not exactly "elitest" but lets say lowly ol red fist did a review, it wouldn't have any merit because I don't make elitest maps.

Going back to my quake1 maps wich got slapped with zero's, 95% of the commentors along with cursed soul have NO IDEA what the merit of the maps were.
They don't relise it took me like 3 months or longer to do one map, and they also wouldn't know why it took so long.
I mean I didn't work on them 1 hour a day, hell one map i spent frickin 8 hours or more a day for like 3 weeks, just allighning the textures to match up to quake1.

All they could say is "redo" I don't think you will find any other "redo's" of q1 maps out there wich look like whle in q1.
Wich was the soul purpose of doing them, more than play or looks.

Then rather than much fanfair hourences just said" well if we reviewd redo's then everybody will think it's a good thing to make remakes". pffft.

If I re upload another q1 map it will still have the same comments stored on it after it gets approved and you would see.

I dunno I look for what the author was trying to do and create more than comparing to pro maps.

 

[Ironblayde]

Not exactly "elitest" but lets say lowly ol red fist did a review, it wouldn't have any merit because I don't make elitest maps.

The word you seem to be looking for in this context is "elite." If someone is "elitist," it means that he is (or believes himself to be) a member of an elite, and looks down on everyone who isn't. So when you say that you're not elitist enough to be a reviewer, you're basically accusing all the current reviewers of being snobby bastards. Which is why Arcadia was offended. It seems like it was a mistake, though?

By the way, you don't need to be an elite mapper to be taken seriously as a reviewer. I'm certainly not a great mapper, and I probably never will be, but people still ask me for reviews. It's more about how well you understand how effective level design is carried out, even if you have trouble doing it yourself.

Regarding your Quake map(s) -- which I haven't seen -- I can understand getting upset when people look down on something you worked hard on. But I also understand the point of view of someone who rates such a map badly. The vast majority of people assign scores to a map based on how it stacks up to other maps released for the same game -- its visuals, its originality, its gameplay, etc. Of course a direct port of a map from an old game is going to do badly in such a system. If people were grading the accuracy of your conversion instead, you'd do a lot better. But people don't do that, because that's not what most players care about. People assign scores based on how closely your map fits what they want to see.

Of course, many people are not worth listening to. When you get a comment that's not relevant to what you're looking for, just forget about it. If you're going to release maps, you have to have a thick skin.

 

[ReD_Fist]

True ^

I put this link for the other thread, but go look at the side for the way they scored games, it looks a lot more accurate than the way its done here. and more fun too.
But any or every suggestion I ever made in more than a year is allways shortcircuited by hourences,bot40,mass chaos, and any other person.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/unreal-
But i would not want to run the site so I don't have much room for complaints on the user score system or the review schema wich is so convoluted.

instead of this
"AWE" when i first got back to nalicity and even still AWE wtf is AWE hehe.
"CAST" cast? wth are these movies?
"whatever the other one is"

but it should read
"gameplay"
"AI"
"graphics"
"build"

and i really like that graph or the "personal slant" they used on there scoring.in that link.

 

[ArcadiaVincennes]

instead of this
"AWE" when i first got back to nalicity and even still AWE wtf is AWE hehe.
"CAST" cast? wth are these movies?
"whatever the other one is"

but it should read
"gameplay"
"AI"
"graphics"
"build"

Awe - go to dictionary.com. It means pretty much the same as 'graphics' in your list. So we have graphics, and build, and cast is gameplay. The only thing we're missing from your list is AI and that's covered in build & cast.

Anyways, thanks for not thinking I'm elitist (I think).

 

[cooloola]

In a very good week i could maybe hatch down 2 full map reviews max. 3 is too much as one review takes minimum 3 hours so imagine 9 hours of reviewing a week. Maybe someone should change teh application form as it's too intimidating

 

[Ironblayde]

I agree, cooloola.

 

[ArcadiaVincennes]

I'd support bringing it down to 1 or 2 per week.

 

[ReD_Fist]

But then we should be garenteed the reviews, a constant drip to keep the front page happening.
So say four reviewers, 2 a week 8 reviews per week.
10 reviewres, 1 per week leaving 2 to dropout for real life. 8 reviews.

i my mind 2 a week per person is too much, but if each did one consistantly things would run pretty smooth .
So in reality 4 people would stick to it giving the slackers to fill in whenever so four solid reviews one per person per week, would be the best situation.
so garenteed 4 reviews per week.plus the slackers when ever they do one for fill ins.

 

[ArcadiaVincennes]

There's no way to 'guarantee' them, plus, the goal to reducing the 'required' amount would be to increase the consistancy of reviews... so ... yeah.

 

[Hourences]

I agree that it might be intimitating and that 2 or perhaps even one would be better.
The problem is only Masschaos can change that. Believe me I would make a lot of misc. small text changes on the site if I could but I cant.
Mass around ?