Schema scheming

[Twrecks]

I've never met Hourences. The debate was over absolutes, Skol!

I was defending the Schema, because only a ghey art person would think a single unjustified score was a good basis to build a review site. (see NC1) /jk

 

[Chrysaor]

You don't think that if a reviewer can come up with that single unjustified score easily it speaks less of the them, do you? Just that it's a poor way of substantializing a rating at a review site.

 

[Bot_40]

Nah, I can see exactly where hour is comming from. Often I see a map and just "know" straight off that the map is worth 5/10 or whatever. A lot of the time it's obvious what score the map should have. Other times yes you do have to look at individual elements to get an overall rating (for example, in extreme cases when you have a map with stunning visuals but poor gameplay it's not so obvious) but of course that's up to the reviewers' descretion.
It just seems a bit closed minded to say "ok everyone that doesn't have to look at every single element my way is wrong and a ghey art person"

 

[Twrecks]

*cough* USER COMMENTS *cough*

1 score is alright for that "gut feeling", but for a review? The schema makes a reviewer atleast think about that other stuff even if they don't address it directly in their review (fills in numbers). It is the illusion of objectivity, and NOT pompus unfounded statements, that must be conveyed in a review.

Hey, some maps, uh "art", piss me off and result in a tyraid. very unprofessional of me. But then again, I don't get paid. We are entertainers, sometimes we inform and conform to the rules, however we must not lose our public. Apparently I am not a "good" or "fair" reviewer based on the number of requests I recieve. Most of my "bad" reviews were deleted by Luquado.

If you look at any other review sites you will find schemas, most more complicated and conviluted (akin NC2). It helps the less informed to be rational and learn the in-and-outs of what makes a map "good", err... "art". There are nOObs that don't know what "gameplay" and "technical" mean. Schema's for all intent and purposes implies that reviewers are making an informed and educated guess at the score, conciously or otherwise (flashes neon sign). Comparing and contrasting what they know with what they are writing about, k.

First impressions are typically correct statistically, they just should not be paraphased to read "I know better than you and don't need to explain myself have faith in the number given and don't ask about details you ignorant uninspired cretan", because only a small percentage of maps get high ratings. The better the knoweledge base, the better those "Hunches" will be, no arguement there.

Now NC could get uppity and not review "bad" maps, ala Frag Facility (R.I.P.) and Insite. Whatever. Reviewers are free to choose from a list and those specifically requested of them. During a moment of poor judgement all reviews of 3 or less were removed from the database, and guess what? many got re-reviewed, with low scores again!

I get Houences point too, but what is the point of a review site? User comments fill H's requirements and many players needs aswell. Schema's are more rigged for mappers, because sometimes reviews address the author as an "artist" or "craftsman" and not as a gamer. Most reviews are requested by the author because they want an opinion from another mapper/someone in-the-know. User comments are then just icing on the cake.

"my way" was distilled from another long thread long ago. It was a comprimise between a totally compehensive multi-point systematic schema, and a one-score there you go review choice. At the time it seemed viable and was agreed upon in a general concensus.

Ppl will always respect the opinion of those they hold in high regard (recognized industry professionals), unfortunatly we don't get a lot of those ppl as reviewers (Hourences is an exception). Yet it is interesting that CliffyB's Ownage does not award points, then again you won't find too much c4rp there or 100's of reviews.

Anyway, all of this is getting pretty rote. I feel like a senile 40 yr old having to say stuff over and over. I thought I made this all clear before. Thanks for pushing my buttons and have me spew this out again.

 

[Bot_40]

pffft, you started that one

 

[Chrysaor]

word. I guess we let this simmer on low for 20 minutes and come back for NC4 with guns drawn then?

 

[AMmayhem]

User comments are then just icing on the cake.

I'd say they're more like the creamy filling in a pastry. Some people like different flavors, others opt for none at all...

 

[X22887]

I'm not a huge fan of user comments, as there are a number of tards that will give a map a 0 without playing it, or if they arent a fan of the chosen theme.... Modsquad had terrible problems with their user comment system, which was coded poorly to begin with, but never the less. I prefer a loosely objective(as this is a fourm of art) look at the map based on gameplay, execution of theme, visuals over all, and preformance.


anyways... just my 2 cents

 

[Twrecks]

I'm bored and don't have access to Ued at work, and when I'm home have no time to spare so... Comments like "ok everyone that doesn't have to look at every single element my way is wrong and a ghey art person". Call me a complete lunitic, but that wasn't the message I was trying to get across.

More like
Quote Bot40:
"btw, getting your friends to play your map isn't really a decent form of testing. Unless you have really honist friends (very rare!) they will almost always say there's nothing wrong with the map because they don't want to offend/whatever. Not to mention they probably lack the technical ability/experience to be able to spot mistakes and areas for improvement in a map."

And Bot40, I would trust your judgement on an off the cuff score than some fanboy in the User Comments. But then I know your work and have read your posts to give it credability. nOObs logining into NC prolly don't have clue who you are, or me, or even Hourences

Schema's simply help learn an evaluation process. Hourences probably weighs many factors when evaluating a map, as do we all. More adept ppl can process this information faster where it becomes a natural conclusion, similar to athletic training where learned moves become a reaction to stimulus. It becomes a Zen thing (concious vs unconcious) However, I hope that every NCreviewer opens the map they are reviewing in Ued anyways, just for any depth they would otherwise miss from a walk through or play just to confirm their first impressions, or maybe get some additional insite.

Now with advances in the engine and new gametypes more training is needed and old lessons replaced with revised counterparts to maintain that Zen edge some ppl possess. That is why NC has a reviewer application in place, to qualify would be critics. NC would be a far worse place if we let "every dickwit" write reviews, she already has me and the tripe I write

 

[Twrecks]

You don't think that if a reviewer can come up with that single unjustified score easily it speaks less of the them, do you? Just that it's a poor way of substantializing a rating at a review site.

It is a poor way of substantiating a review site, and I would think less of anyone making an unjustified numerical score. They should atleast do more than look at some screen shots, especially a reviewer. They might get a vague score in mind for "awe" from some pics, maybe even how the map might play if the scope of views were comprehensive enough. Even get a clue as to how the map was built. But does that tell you if the map was pathed? Do the lifts work? SoundFX? Dynamic lights/projectors? Optimization? etc.

Yes one might get a general score from a few screenshots, and upon further investigation confirm that assumption. It is NC's job to differentiate those unjustified individuals that don't even look at the pics, from NCreviewers. Reviewers should will perform that extra investigation. It is NC's job give the reviewer a means that they may weigh a map's merits to give a justified score if they lack the innate skill to do so otherwise. Leave jokes, spam and flames in the User Comments where they belong (you can be serious there too BTW)

 

[Chrysaor]

Okay.

 

[Zlal]

Argh. I have so much to "argue" with twecks about but I don't cant be bothered. I have better things to do.

Twecks, I can see your points, but the way you've been putting them across is... dunno. Not pissing me off. Closer to make me laugh, though not in a bad way.

YOu say one thing I agree with then say something I don't. Weird.

I will say that every person who visits the site would know what "Visuals/enviroment" is, everyone would know what "gameplay" is and they would know what technical is. Maybe not what they exactly stand for but tbh you'd be asking too much if you expected them to. It's easier and better than "awe" "cast" (havn't a clue without reading the schema) and "build" IMO

 

[Manticore]

Hmmmmm.........

*cough* USER COMMENTS *cough*

Yet it is interesting that CliffyB's Ownage does not award points, then again you won't find too much c4rp there or 100's of reviews.

Please don't forget the freedom of speech argument that you have put forward in other threads for other reasons.

Generally though, if user comments are such a pain why have them at all? If you removed all the user comments from the BU/NC server farm think of how much storage space you could be freeing up. That's more space for map submissions. From a managment point of view it may be seen as a better use of available resources and, therefore, a financial saving for the owners.

As for Cliff B.'s Ownage, at least 2.0, I visited it about a month ago and there is not that much happening. New reviews there seem to be few and far between. I looked at one of the maps in the forums there that was left for Mr. B.'s perusal and it was, truly, a piece of s**t. So I don't know if Cliff B.'s site is a good benchmark for what NC does. He only seems to go for the commercial release quality stuff (i.e., CBP's etc).

I'm not a huge fan of user comments, as there are a number of tards that will give a map a 0 without playing it, or if they arent a fan of the chosen theme....

If that is your opinion why have you been posting comments on maps? Is it because you are a mapper and you think you have some divine right that users don't?

If you are going to go down the above path it really lowers the tone of what you have said in previous user comments because your attitude now appears 31337ist.

Now I see that you have posted a map in this site which is for review and comment. I have downloaded it but I haven't had the chance to play it yet but it had better be the best damn map in the history of gaming because I keep a loaded clip of teflon-coated hollowpoints next to my keyboard.

Watch out for the spawl...........

 

[MassChAoS]

Generally though, if user comments are such a pain why have them at all? If you removed all the user comments from the BU/NC server farm think of how much storage space you could be freeing up. That's more space for map submissions. From a managment point of view it may be seen as a better use of available resources and, therefore, a financial saving for the owners.

A few mb. Not really enough storage space to consider that action... with all the maps currently taking up GB of space.

 

[Manticore]

Smilies.....

A few mb. Not really enough storage space to consider that action... with all the maps currently taking up GB of space.

You could use that extra few megs for a few more smilies and emoticons.

Or to be more serious you could have emoticons/smilies/minicons INSTEAD of verbal comments. That way all the users who want to make subjective comments have an immediately available insult delivery system. And they can still leave a rating, no matter how relevant or irrelevant that score might be....

 

[Bot_40]

Hmm, I think we should scrap the current score system and let the reviewer just select from a drop down box one of the options:
0 - OMFG TO MANY STATC MESHS TO GET STUK ON!!!111
10 - WOW COOL

 

[MassChAoS]

No no... 10 should be "THIS IS BETER THAN ANYTHNG OUT THERR!"

 

[Bot_40]

I dunno, that has a little too much reasoning behind it for my liking

 

[Twrecks]

I like the emoicon idea. We could improve on the SunSpire Codex principle by adding a two thumbs up for Art's sake:

:tup:
:tdown:
You could then sort maps by smileys /jk

 

[Manticore]

Graphical User Flaming

I like the emoicon idea. We could improve on the SunSpire Codex principle by adding a two thumbs up for Art's sake:

:tup:
:tdown:
You could then sort maps by smileys /jk

Some graphic design head (and there should be a few of them floating around this site) could provide a set of custom-made NC minicons which adequately convey the level of insult that is intended by the user. That way users can abuse each other and the mapper without a word of English being uttered on-screen. No language barrier.

A sort of Graphical User Flaming system........

...but seriously......... I always liked Sunspire......