Schema scheming

[Twrecks]

Well lets compare what was/is out there:

Insite breaks maps in half=
AVA (Atmosphere, Visuals & Aesthetics)
-lighting (is the place just lit, or has there been careful thought to add to atmosphere)
-texturing
-audio (music, and sound effects)
-atmosphere (this is a broad term that is the result of good use of lighting, textures, audio etc. Essentially, does the map give you a sense of "being somewhere")

Gameplay
-bot play
-flow and layout
-map strategy
-suitability (ie if its a CTF map, does it promote team work to capture flag)

Yet again, "Gameplay" is hugely subject to Architecture, I guess that what is meant by "flow and layout", and "atmosphere" taking the place of Theme.

The ol'NC schema was more or less the same, dividing the groups into Gameplay and Environment. Both ignore that je'ne sai quoi that makes maps art, a.k.a. AWE.

UnrealPlayground gets back into the grit, scoring several aspects individually akin the Ol'NC:
ENJOYMENT
FLOW
TECHNICAL PLAYABILITY
AI
ITEM PLACEMENT
THEME
ARCHITECTURE
TEXTURING
LIGHTING
and SOUNDFX

But you can see how Theme, Architecture, and Texturing can be very interdependant. Architecture drives a lot of stuff, even lighting is largely dependant on the architecture. Providing good locations for item placement and space for AI to occur. It gets difficult to really seperate anything.

Now the Nucleus does a similar break down:
Architecture/Design
Navigation/Flow
Inventory Placement
Texturing
Lighting
Botplay
Gameplay
Originality
Bonus Points
Music/Sounds

Each can get upto 10 points, the total out of a 100.

It does account for stuff like Continuity and Connectivity with "Architecture/Design" and "Navigation/flow", and I like the "Originality" and "Bonus Points". But to say Achitecture/Design only accounts for 1/10 of the score?
Guess you don't really want to say "Architecture" at all in a schema, but rather reflect on the effects it has as seperate results/oppurtunities.

The whole idea behind the current schema was to make is as simple as possible and be fair to the equal weight of each header (keep the math simple). It cannot be as simple as a way a map plays versus the way it looks. As mappers know, there is also the way it was constructed and the technical merits involved that should not be ignored. "looks" however encompasses "sound" and other SpecialFX (terrain, fluid surfaces, emmiters, projectors, movers, meshes, etc) it goes way beyond textures and scale.

You see it is a very simple task; reduce the number of catagories, give each a equal share, make it fair, easy to understand and keep everyone happy at the same time.

 

[AMmayhem]

I don't see a problem with our current system still. Except maybe a few minor details. Under 'Awe' it includes architecture, texturing, and lighting. Architecture drives the texturing I think. Boxy maps with few surfaces will have ugly texturing because there's only space enough for one texture. Lighting can affect architecture, and vice-versa; making proper little spots for torches, etc.

On to the minor details. Sound is listed under 'Build' which I don't think it belongs. Sound is one of the key factors in atmosphere. A map can have dark lighting and dreary textures, but if there's no sound, the effect is nill. I think architecture, lighting, texturing, and sounds help build that awe factor. Which, if we decide to change from "Awe" to something else, should be "Environment," because as I've already stated, sounds aren't included in the definition of "Visuals."

Another thing, is now with static meshes beginning to dominate the architecture, I'm not exactly sure how that properly fits in with the schema. Making it part of architecture isn't a problem, as long as they're made by the author of the map, and not a compilation of stock meshes on some random terrain. But where do we figure in texturing? I've tried to look at the texturing of the meshes to figure it in that way. Not exactly sure if I haven't a complete point here, but it's something we might need to look at to clarify or whatever...

As for the renaming categories:
Awe --> Environment
Build --> Build (I don't think there's much of a problem really with build)
Cast --> Gameplay

 

[Frieza]

I didnt have time to read everything thoroughly.
My views:

1. In my reviews I always thought 9/9 would basically mean a 10 rating on a 10/10 scale and have adjusted my scores to fit so. Apparently I was wrong (Or maybe Im not, clearify that for me). Because if Im indeed rating on a 10 point system with 9 being the limit, then I would've rated Deck40 for example a 9. But as I thought I was rating on a 9 point system I gave it an 8. So on what system am I currently rating on?

2. I agree the names should be changed

3. I would like to go to a REAL 10/10 system again. Ofcourse dont expect me to ever hand out a 10

4. What I currently feel is lacking is that the AWE, CAST and BUILD scores can only be rated up to a 3. This is in my opinion not enough. would rather get a full 20 points system and then (awescore+buildscore+castscore)/3. That way it's much more clear how good a map actually is in a certain deparment. At current there not enough points to differentiate maps from eachother, because a decentish looking map would get a 2.0 for Awe, while a obviously better looking map would get a 2.0 aswell, because awescores above 2.0 are reserved for the top maps. While on a 20 points system you could for example give the decentish map a 6.5 and the better looking a 7.5.

 

[Ironblayde]

Another thing, is now with static meshes beginning to dominate the architecture, I'm not exactly sure how that properly fits in with the schema. Making it part of architecture isn't a problem, as long as they're made by the author of the map, and not a compilation of stock meshes on some random terrain.

I'd say that an assessment of mesh use belongs with architecture and other aesthetic concerns regardless of whether the author has created his own meshes or not. Even with stock content, one still must be careful to use it correctly and effectively. There's a world of difference between a map in which stock content has been used properly, and one in which the author obviously just inserted a bunch of meshes, thinking that their mere presence would make his map better.

 

[Bot_40]

edit: nm didn't realise there was another page of discussion will retype the post in a min

I am strongly against super small catagories. imo, it becomes almost impossible to get a decent weighting and in some cases, certain things become irrelevant. Example:
You have the old NC catagories. Architecture only gets a 1/10th of the score when nowadays it's a hell of a lot more important than texturing since a whole lot more detail comes from geometry rather than textures.
Imagine a map where every detail is actually made in geometry and just uses base textures for everything. If it's done well it will overall look a hell of a lot better than a UT99 map. It has better architecture and it doesn't rely on textures at all but the result is the score gets dragged down by the textures catagory.
Then you have the opposite happening yet again when Unreal Engine 3 comes out. Everything flips back round because with normal maps you start to go back to using textures (and normal maps) to pull out the detail in a map rather than actual geometry.

Another example, why have a seperate catagory for sound? May be very few cases, but sometimes you might actually want very little sounds. It might be in one certain location in a map you want absolute silence except for perhaps the sound of a water drip in order to get some suspense or whatever, but how can that get a good mark for sound when it's just 1 drip sound, however, when you are just looking at the overall environment score, it all fits together perfectly.

erm anyway, did I get off topic?
Back to the old scoring scheme. I think gameplay and visuals should have a higher weighting than awe. 3.5 3.5 and 3 would give a /10 score, but I can also see what Frieza's point is about a 3 or 3.5 scale not really being accurate enough.
Actually, when you think about it, you could probably just take 20 maps and just looking at the awe scores, you already need more than 7 levels (0 to 3 in 0.5 steps)to catagorise them. Obviously you are going to get some rounding whatever scale you do it on but 7 seems a bit too smaller scale.

I can't even remember whether I already suggested it actually, but how about 3 scores out of 10 and just take the average to get the overall score (similar to NC2 but with just 3 catagories). Of course that then brings up the issue of Build having an equal weighting with the other 2 catagories or not.

 

[Twrecks]

AWE: (an Middle English,Old Norse word) To marvel, astound, revere, wonder or admire: to inspire, esteem, hold in regard, breathtaking. However AWE also has a negative connotations: bewilderment, confusion, dismay, consertation, to aghast, appal, muddle, dishearten, dismay.
You need Atmosphere and Environment to get looks and feeling that AWE conveys.

BUILD: To form by combining materials or parts; construct, The physical makeup of a person or thing; physique. To assemble, compile, manufacture, model, evolve, produce. How technical one gets to achieve the BUILD is considered, using new tools provided by the matching engine (Ued), and whether or not oppurtunity exists to use those tools, or requirements.

CAST: To bestow, confer, contrive, delegate, devise: To assign a certain role, embodiment, semblance, personae, substance or conformation. Think of the Fit and Function as it is applied to BUILD (form). Gameplay does not mean Perfomance, both must be considered. Is there any replay factor? How well the map appeals to the intended gametype and audience is what CAST is about.

Perhaps sound should be part of AWE, I agree. Is performane a result of BUILD?, it is, but it is not BUILD. AWE is also be the result of BUILD if you look at BUILD as architecture; an imposing ediface is Architecture. That is why BUILD is in between AWE and CAST. "Gameplay" is kinda a good choice because it can mean "has it got game?" and "does it play well", yet it doesn't fit the theme of the schema. I just don't think words like "Environment, Techincal and Gameplay" convey the emotional depth or understanding that the current names possess. They sound dry and trite and have a scientific air that has an arrogant undertone.

Remember, we want to keep the scoring simple. Changing the system will require some coding (Mass). Adding them together is better than adding em up and then dividing by 3. Changing the scale is a bad idea. It has to be x/10. Making each catagory a different weight also sucks as it leads to confusion, saying someting is more important is wrong, dividing attributes to give the illusion of equality is more harmonious. We changed the schema twice, is it better? Does changing it now make for a better schema or just something different? The best cure for the apparent lack of understanding is to REDEFINE the schema and POST A LINK on each review. Make it easy, make it simple, you don't need to make it stupid.

 

[Bot_40]

You need Atmosphere and Environment to get looks and feeling that AWE conveys.

No. Environment = "The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings", this includes sound and it already includes atmosphere (the feeling an area has is part of the environment, part of the surroundings) etc.

And awe still doesn't fit anyway imo. A map can be visually pleasing but it doesn't have to have to marvel/astound/whatever to do that.

Don't really have an issues with the Build name

CAST: To bestow, confer, contrive, delegate, devise: To assign a certain role, embodiment, semblance, personae, substance or conformation. Think of the Fit and Function as it is applied to BUILD (form). Gameplay does not mean Perfomance, both must be considered. Is there any replay factor? How well the map appeals to the intended gametype and audience is what CAST is about.

I still think cast is a vastly over complex definition when "gameplay" already covers everything you are trying to say. Someone sees "Gameplay" they immediatly know what the score is about, they don't even have to think about it. It's just wrong to have a review catagory where you have to go scouting out a dictionary definition, then read a schema just to understand what the hell the word is on about in the context of a review. You already should know the average NC visitor thinks thorns is a decent map, how the hell are they supposed to understand what you just said

And yes, to a certain extend, gameplay DOES include performance since a map with 0.1 fps doesn't have good gameplay. It's unplayable -> Not fun to play -> No gameplay. Simple. Of course, the main performance is/should be covered under build imo. If a map has bad performance it's because the author didn't build it right

I just don't think words like "Environment, Techincal and Gameplay" convey the emotional depth or understanding that the current names possess. They sound dry and trite and have a scientific air that has an arrogant undertone.

Emotional depth? I thought this was supposed to be a craft and not an art? In which case you wouldn't have any problem using scientific terms

Remember, we want to keep the scoring simple. Changing the system will require some coding (Mass). Adding them together is better than adding em up and then dividing by 3. Changing the scale is a bad idea. It has to be x/10. Making each catagory a different weight also sucks as it leads to confusion, saying someting is more important is wrong, dividing attributes to give the illusion of equality is more harmonious. We changed the schema twice, is it better? Does changing it now make for a better schema or just something different? The best cure for the apparent lack of understanding is to REDEFINE the schema and POST A LINK on each review. Make it easy, make it simple, you don't need to make it stupid.

ya, I am just kinda throwing ideas around in my last post.
My only issue with the scoring itself is this out of 9 review scale. You keep saying it is supposed to be out of 10 with 9.5 and 10 not being possible but it is blatently not used like that by the reviewers or understood like that by the general public.
Frieza already said Deck_40 would have been given a 9 instead of an 8 if the scoring system worked the way you say it is supposed to.

 

[Bot_40]

Perhaps sound should be part of AWE, I agree. Is performane a result of BUILD?, it is, but it is not BUILD. AWE is also be the result of BUILD if you look at BUILD as architecture; an imposing ediface is Architecture. That is why BUILD is in between AWE and CAST. "Gameplay" is kinda a good choice because it can mean "has it got game?" and "does it play well", yet it doesn't fit the theme of the schema.

I'm gonna say exactly what I define as being the 3 catagories because it seems to me we aren't actually defining the 3 areas in the same way.

Environment (= surroundings by definition)
- Architecture/Textures/Theme/Lighting
- Sound
- Atmosphere
- Wow effect
- Originality of theme/style
- Artistic Style (OMFG ART LOLOLOL)
- And anything else you can come up with that is similar to those. There's a pretty clean border where Environment ends and other catagories begin

Gameplay
- Flow/Layout/Item placement
- Bot paths
- Stragegy
- Is the map fun to play
- Do you get caught on stuff/get stuck
- Basically, anything that wouldn't change if you substituted the map for a box map with no visuals/etc

Build
- Framerate
Not really any items I can define for this, but it's bascally, how well the map was technically executed. Might include polycount, overdraw, antiportal placement/zoning, possibly even stuff like memory usage (bad if they used a different texture for every surface in the map)
- Basically, is there anything in the map that could have been built better to improve the framerate. If a map looks brilliant, plays brilliant, but is 50,000 polys when adding an antiportal in 1 location could have reduced it to 10,000 then that's pretty bad build.

The only issue I can find with these catagories is that Build and Gameplay sometimes might overlap slightly, but I say gameplay is the dominant catagory. For example, let's say a map has a framerate of 50 when you expect 100 for a map with that detail level. That's bad build and doesn't affect gameplay, it's still playable.
As soon as something technical affects gameplay then it's in both catagories. If you have a map that could get 100fps but instead it gets 5fps then it's bad build, and it's bad gameplay because the level is simply not playable.
Yes is should be in both catagories because the problem really so severe. It is bad build, and it's bad gameplay, simple as that.


Also a note, if someone puts something such as a creaking floorboard in a certain place then that also affects BOTH environment and gameplay because of course it enhances the environment and feel of the place, but it also gets extra marks in gameplay because you can hear your enemy.

And things work both ways, let's say someone made an ancient themed map then put a police siren when you stepped on a plank of wood. Of course that does get credit in the gameplay if it helps a lot to tell where the enemy is, but it's also obvious it reduces the environment score since it's going to ruin the overall atmosphere of the place.

 

[Twrecks]

If you want to bring back headers like "Gameplay" and "Environment" that's fine. Remember when we changed the schema we wanted to appear that WE CHANGED THE SCHEMA
So keeping those headers was not something we wanted to do, ppl would say "what change?" . The word "Construction" better fits the the renewed names.

ENVIRONMENT
CONSTRUCTION
GAMEPLAY

Agin about the 9/9, 9/10, x/10 scale. If a reiewer gives FULL POINTS (9 out of the possible 9 he can award) that's pretty damn good map one would think. Any other person looking at scores on BU or whever sees NC gave so and so a 9/10 they still think that's a pretty darn good score regardless that they may not know we can't give it a ten. Only the users can do that. We will not appear as morons again for a reviewer doing it. They can't, period. Argueing over 1/2 points is ludicrous, even +/- a point I don't waste any time on. If someone disagrees by more than 2 points I might take notice. But is giving a 90 percentile score bad? It's an A if you were awarding letter grades. Really, it is enough. We reserve the 10 because we know there will always be something better and there's no such thing as perfection. We acknowledge that with the 9/10 scale.

BTW Bot, I recognize both science and art, they co-exsist. I would not deny either a place in our schema. Reviews need to honor the Art, the Science and the Game. Atleast by the scores, if not by the text

 

[Twrecks]

Sorry Bot, if you really think about it EVERTHING can be considered Gameplay, it is the overall score, just as architecture is all encompassing when it comes to the physical nature of the map, even sound. But wait!, Gameplay is a product of the environment, therefore without good environment you cannot have good gameplay. So is "construction" intertwined. You can't have an good environment if it is not well constructed. These "words" don't work for me, even if someone might have an innate clue by what we mean... or what they think it means.

I tried to avoid those ambigious terms by choosing AWE, BUILD and CAST. Ppl actually believe these to be seperate issues and so it works. By renaming them do we really make it clearer? or are we setting ourselves up by conforming to industry used words and introduce the blur yet again.

I retract my suggestions for changing the names. They should remain the same or an entirely new schema needs to be drafted.

 

[AMmayhem]

I'd say that an assessment of mesh use belongs with architecture and other aesthetic concerns regardless of whether the author has created his own meshes or not. Even with stock content, one still must be careful to use it correctly and effectively. There's a world of difference between a map in which stock content has been used properly, and one in which the author obviously just inserted a bunch of meshes, thinking that their mere presence would make his map better.

Well, back with UT mappers actually had to build their architecture. There wasn't static meshes for buildings, halls, stairways, catwalks, etc. Greater looking architecture almost always showed the author had great talent. So are we supposed to give just as high scores for architecture that the author didn't create?

 

[Zarkazm]

So are we supposed to give just as high scores for architecture that the author didn't create?

Hmm, I suppose this might affect the "build" score.

 

[Hourences]

No

Art ppl have nothing to do with mapping, yet do comment on maps, and may even make maps, they do not own mapping nor are all mappers art ppl, just as all maps are not art. Maps may have an artistic quality, and that is why I included Awe. I do not deny it, I embrace it. If I offend art with the phrase "art ppl", then **** art, some art offends me.

someone once said, art is only art when it offends

your art rant crap is absolutely unbelievable
the best people i know are all art based, and are extremely good in doing so, they make absolutely mind blowing crap and then i dont just means a few simple ut maps and have far more skill and understanding then most people
just browse trough some cg galleries for example
www.3dtotal.com, take environments category or something that comes close to mapping
that is art, that is where mapping will head to as well and for people who can make those things i have most utter respect
saying art people have nothing to do with mapping is plain stupid, saying they know sh1t about it is plain stupid, and everything else you just said is absolutely plain stupid as well

I did not say "the greatest artists are always ego fuks" nor did I imply it. They could be, or not, just as all Americans are fat and lazy. Do not attempt to tie stereotypical equations with my definitions. You want names? How about every pompous ass that made unbased commentary on maps, search the User comments, you're smart, you find them. Those are the "art ppl" I speak of.

what has posting "pompous messages" to do with art ?
you put art next to fu<ked up
what do comments have to do with it anyway ?
id call someone an artist if he can a. show me lots of good and original work with emotion or very special visual design in it, and b. can explain everything he does to show he understands it and that its not just luck

If the term "Art ppl" annoys you, if I sound rediculous, confused, or am being played by your posts. I think that's up to your interpretation.

wait, youre asking if the term annoys me and that it might only do so because of my interprentation
i think its your interprentation whos fu<ked up here, as you put art next to fu<ked up
and its also rather understandable that it annoys me after your earlier replies that all come down to the same thing "they are fu<ked up"

If a level designer gets core architecture direction from a senior designer, art concepts from an artist and AI elements from a coder, is he/she really the artist here? When does the Draftsman become the Engineer? As a solitary pursuit, mapping CAN BE an art, it CAN BE recreation, it CAN BE an experiment. Good maps can result from various approaches

i highly dislike that way of working and imo its absolutely not the way to create top content and get a good flow in the team + create a coherent style, and i say that out of experience
the mapper must have full control over the entire map for best result
any company doing the opposite is working unoptimised imo
+ your above also only holds truth for pro mapping at a some companies
all other companies + ALL community maps are made by 1 guy only, and on nc we only get such maps
next to that its also not because if several people with different professions work on the map that its not art, some paintings or music or whatever other type of art are also made by more people sometimes

mapping CAN be just an experiment, and you would TECHNICALLY still call it a map then, but if you look closer you simply conclude that the map prolly totally failed in being anywhere near good
and thus is more of a file then really something thats worthy of "map"

we judge maps, so we also jude the above, is it good or not
i said it before, a good map has art
only bad maps lack it in 99 percent of the cases
that means that if a map has no art at all it failed...
i dont see why we want to support bad maps in reviews schemes or whatever, or set them as standard

So, is mapping an art?
Many would agree that it is. Or is it just a waste of time? No one will remember the maps we created. They will not stand the test of time. Their value will not increase with the passing of generations and new gaming engines. Who will remember Pong and Asteroids? What Unreal1 levels will end up in a gaming museum? We did it all for fun, and maybe some money for the lucky few.

you never know what happens, people in the future might look at it in an entirely different way

you said before "maps are made to sell"
they have a purpose and are not just for the art, thats what you said
they said that too in 16th century, using paintings to make portratis of people, so the paintings were an object of use and not truly intended as art while nowadays those same paintings they made back then as objects of use as considered the top of the top art wise
things change

Call it art if it makes you feel better, just enjoy what you do, or stop doing it. You don't need to be informed, educated or even American to follow that advice. The choice is yours, I made mine years ago.

i already decided long ago what i enjoy
iits not about what i like, its about getting mapping to the next level, and making it follow the cg art render stuff, next generation mapping which is done far too little right now but will be far more important in the future because of higher polycounts
it already became art right now, and itll become a full grown one in 10 years when everyone catched up and pc's became powerful enough to display anything you have in mind

nice shed btw but looks weirdly placed in the pic

about scheme comparisation to other sites:
ours IS simpler, and that IS good, but imo things can still be improved on it and that was the point
its not because its already better then most that it cant improve some more

Agin about the 9/9, 9/10, x/10 scale. If a reiewer gives FULL POINTS (9 out of the possible 9 he can award) that's pretty damn good map one would think. Any other person looking at scores on BU or whever sees NC gave so and so a 9/10 they still think that's a pretty darn good score regardless that they may not know we can't give it a ten. Only the users can do that. We will not appear as morons again for a reviewer doing it. They can't, period. Argueing over 1/2 points is ludicrous, even +/- a point I don't waste any time

we already have this review approval thing , so that should stop 10's unless if they are truly justified, which is prolly never
its not really about the 9 either, 9 is good
but the 9 affects the other scores too because people start to scale everything because its a 9 scale
if i were a noob and id be interested in some custom maps and i visit nc for the first time, id browse the reviews and first down maps that got 9, then 8.5's, then if i still dont have enough maps all 8's, but i wouldnt down anything below that prolly because they are most likely less content
while those 7.5 maps are in fact 8 quality..
a 7.5 or an 8 is a big difference
as is a 7 or a 6.5
6.5 is average, 7 is almost good, floats in between
8 is really good, 7.5 is good but misses that something extra

it scales everthing and thus sometimes giving the wrong impression
and that is a problem imo

and no not all reviewers rate with the 9 in mind but some do, and others dont, and then some viewers do too, and others dont again.. a mess

if you really think about it EVERTHING can be considered Gameplay

like placing a steamvent 50 meter above the ground on a wall ?

the environments is also a product of the gameplay
ofcourse they all connect to eachother, but htat doesnt mean that they ARE gameplay too, they just help it, just like the gameplay helps the environment too

Well, back with UT mappers actually had to build their architecture. There wasn't static meshes for buildings, halls, stairways, catwalks, etc. Greater looking architecture almost always showed the author had great talent. So are we supposed to give just as high scores for architecture that the author didn't create?

no
cause lack of art in such case
which is what i mean with the whole art thing

 

[MassChAoS]

I think this thread should be renamed "Entertaining discussion about art"

 

[Twrecks]

Okay H, I'm wrong for associating "Art" with "Opinion". I should say Unjustifiably Opinionated PPL" rather than "Art PPL". I can see how saying "Art ppl" may on my part unjustifiably include talented individuals that are passionate about their art. Very stereotypical of me, and that is something I don't want to be. My bad. Some ppl just make an art out of being annoying. 3dtotal.com is already in my favs. Good resource site too.

About scores, 7.5 is still a 7.5, averaging in the "lost 20th" (since 10 is impossible you really can only go up to 9.5) accounts for .5, like I said I don't argue over +/- .5
If the reviewer is thinking 9/9 as they must, then no foul, if they are thinking x/10 at most they might be off by .5, so what? Since a reviewer can'y give a 9.5 either do they rate maps higher or lower because of it? If NC score are 1 less that other sites isn't that better than being over generous? since that what NC was accused of before the schema change. Keeping the scores down was the intent, and the reviewer's 9/9 and site 9/10 does just that.

LOL, maybe we should call the catagories:
ART
SCIENCE
GAME

wait... "science is an art"

I've always considered 0-3 maps bad, 4-6 maps average, and 7-10 maps good. Building a larger scale, like 1-100 makes for more arguement "how is that 68 map better than that 73 ?". It's bad enough we went the .5 route. I would have prefered intigers. The .5 really makes our scale 21 steps from and including zero to 10 and each catagory 7 steps where 1.5 is really average, and an overall score of 5 an average map. Insite breaks the down even further:

10 = Perfect map, I dont believe there has been or will be one, but you can always hope

9 = This is an excellent map. It has astounding gameplay complemented by equalling astounding AVA. This is a must download.

8 = This map displays a high level of competence with the editor. No rough edges, detail (in both AVA and gameplay) is duly addressed and perhaps excellent in one of those fields.

7 = A very good map. This level may have great atmosphere or gameplay but possibly not in both these areas. This map deserves a spot on your hard drive.

6 = A good map where the author is obviously competent in the editor. Gameplay and AVA are decent but the map overall is lacking that something that yells ownage.

5 = An average map that is worth a look. The author may require some refinement in the technical side of the unreal editor, whether this is in the field of gameplay or AVA.

4 = Lacks in both gameplay and AVA. There is much room for improvement, but it is not a total waste of space.

0-3 = Not worth the download, and not worth reviewing. You probably wont see this low a score at insite because we wont review maps of this standard.

heh, thanks for the kind words on the shed. It was placed there because one side is open to my house. I built it for my wife because she didn't want the dogs to go "outside" at night or in the rain. The back window open onto my garbage and recycling cans and the skylights open for additional ventilation. You're welcome to come by for a better look at any time :tup:

Hey, if some player stops to look at the steam vent and gets fragged, They would argue in defense of gameplay

EDIT: (Mass, this is a thread on sheds!)

 

[Chrysaor]

For what it matters, if you refuse to drop all the names, then keep build. But Cast and Awe are confusing. Besides, let the awe be factored in to the reviewer's choice point that makes it x/10. We've done this arguing, I've read the schema 4 times, and I still am never quite sure which is build and which is cast. They need to be changed. Or one anyway so the other is clearer. Craftsmanship, Execution, Technique, something instead of whichever means that stuff. It's not pretentious or arrogant, it's professional sounding. We could search for another adjective to Gameplay too, if it needed to be different.

EDIT: The 9/9 thing keeps the scores down, but I do think some people, especially those searching the site by map score (as Hourences stated and which is how I started here) will be confused or misled. We're just rating maps, why all these loopholes to "keep the man/score down". Why can't we be simple and just rate maps out of 10 just like the users?

People complain about that 10 and too many high scores, but with the new schema people are just as likely to complain about low scores, reporting only the first digit and not noting it was out of 9 or being confused further by the fact that they got to rate it out of 10.

It's a freakin Rube Goldberg device for reviewing. Why can't we just turn on the light bulb ourselves?

 

[MassChAoS]

Oh, of course, sheds... how could I have forgotten.

 

[Manticore]

Manticore hops into his flame retardent underwear

I know I am over-stepping the mark and should probably stay the hell out of this thread (which I still haven't got around to reading properly yet due to it's length) but perhaps there appears to be three areas that computer gaming generally and the maps created seem to atttact people to:

Technical SKILL: The ability of people to use editors to do it. (Ued, GTK Radiant, DeepSea etc...) Something I am continually envious of when I see and play a good map.

GAMEPLAY: There was even good gameplay back in the "dawn of time" when games like Mercenary and Elite were just ray-traced wireframes that turned me on to virtual world possibilities.

3D/virtual ENVIRONMENT: The ahem, aesthetic experience (love it or hate it; objective or subjective responses expected from the player) which seems to be the reason people walk, shoot or fly their way through maps instead of going out into the sun and getting some vitamin E. (Oh NO! I've wasted my life! Drag man.......... meh, maybe not).

With the greatest respect to Chrysor I think some of the choices of descriptors for your tentative changes to schema are too long and wordy for the average reader; particularly if they do not have English as their first language. And by the same token the parties in this thread have indicated that the current words for the schema are too "vague". What you all are proposing creates fundamental changes to how your site is viewed by the average gaming freak (audience), in my opinion, and word usage will count as you have all stated previously.

That's my ten cent pitch and I fully expect to be "railroaded" for commenting in this thread as it is really none of my business.

Look:

I'm just a gamer............ oh, and I love UT in all its manifestations!

 

[Chrysaor]

Yeah, I know I like big words. I'm in that camp that wants to make this into an art, and not just leave it as just mapping. So I used big academic words to sound more official. Gotta represent, bitches.

 

[Manticore]

Sorry..........

Yeah, I know I like big words. I'm in that camp that wants to make this into an art, and not just leave it as just mapping. So I used big academic words to sound more official. Gotta represent, bitches.

Don't get me wrong. My comment was not meant to be a bring down or criticism of you at all. I am in a big word business myself these days but, as any "Writing 101" class will tell you, it's important to write for the projected audience. In that case the writing is a craft. If you are writing creatively for yourself it may be art (or it maybe garbage).

It was my observation of your comment on word usage that set off my previous rant but there was no disrespect intended.

In closing I am not going to get into a heated debate with you or anyone else re: Art vs. Industry or craft or whatever.............

Your opinions are totally valid as far as I am concerned and, if anything, I am the least appropriate person to be commenting in this thread.

I must repeat sincerely that my comment was not meant to cause you any disrespect.