UT Unlimited is offering two new reviews. They've also opened up their very own forums where you can comment about the reviews, talk about the site, or whatever. Here's your reviews:
UT Unlimited Reviews
- Thread starter hal
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I liked my review, it seemed honest and fair. I'd like to say to myself "better luck next time" but I really don't have the time anymore. And not getting at least an honorable mention in the MSUC has left me.. slightly bitter 
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
I liked my review, it seemed honest and fair. I'd like to say to myself "better luck next time" but I really don't have the time anymore. And not getting at least an honorable mention in the MSUC has left me.. slightly bitter
thanks for the feedback
glad you like it
Maybe because your map wasn't dark enough and had no 'grungification'
Epic likes not colourful things anymore, remember!
Heads up and keep on mapping!
[OT]something i noticed (might just be me, though) is that colorful things don't look as good/realistic in UE3. i can't really describe it all that well. maybe it's just that UE3 seems to be way stronger at dark and grungy environments.[/OT]
i liked the reviews. pretty detailed imo. only gripe was that the screens of dm-maris could have been a bit brighter but that's really just nitpicking i guess
good work.
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
I don't like this review scale. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Performance is unique to each computer setup yet it gets as many potential points as gameplay, the most important part of what makes a map worth playing? Makes no sense.
If performance should get any points at all it should be no more than 10, IMO. Also, "The Details" is total fluff and is of no real importance. The things in there should affect other sections if anything.
There are two main things that make up a map: gameplay and visual/auditory stuff. Those have subpoints, of course, but I don't feel like typing much more. My point is the bulk of the points should fall into those things. Fluff and details is maybe 10% of what people care about.
Performance is unique to each computer setup yet it gets as many potential points as gameplay, the most important part of what makes a map worth playing? Makes no sense.
If performance should get any points at all it should be no more than 10, IMO. Also, "The Details" is total fluff and is of no real importance. The things in there should affect other sections if anything.
There are two main things that make up a map: gameplay and visual/auditory stuff. Those have subpoints, of course, but I don't feel like typing much more. My point is the bulk of the points should fall into those things. Fluff and details is maybe 10% of what people care about.
I remember Mapraider and their scoring mechanism. ;-) Gameplay, construction (iirc) and bot support I guess. I always used bot support just to get to the final score I felt just for the map. Gameplay and construction somehow didn't cover 100% of the map for me, bot support is hard to tell exactly ("was it 6 or 8 out of 10 this time?"). Any final result made as an average of some splits is tricky and somehow the final score is different than the overall feel comparing two maps.
However - it's good that there are some reviews anyway.
However - it's good that there are some reviews anyway.
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
First off, thanks for the feed back.
I appreciate it
That's why I put a link to the hardware that the map is tested on in the review next to the performance score. There is no way for me to know what people's systems are. You compare your system to mine and therefore are able to judge. My system is an average system (AFAIK). Give me feedback about this. Have I got that right? Is my rig an average UT3 rig?
Why so low? If a map wont run well then it's not playable. It's as important as gameplay.
The details only account for 15 percent in total. What "things" do you suggest?
10% or 15% What's the difference?. I wanted to keep the scoring simple. Most people don't want to wade through huge amounts of text and have a review spilt into loads of overlapping sections.
You are, of course, free to start your own review site. One site certainly isn't enough for this community. It can support many review sites and many different ways. That's one of the things I loved about the community of old. Lots of second opinions about any given map.
I appreciate it
That's why I put a link to the hardware that the map is tested on in the review next to the performance score. There is no way for me to know what people's systems are. You compare your system to mine and therefore are able to judge. My system is an average system (AFAIK). Give me feedback about this. Have I got that right? Is my rig an average UT3 rig?
Why so low? If a map wont run well then it's not playable. It's as important as gameplay.
The details only account for 15 percent in total. What "things" do you suggest?
10% or 15% What's the difference?. I wanted to keep the scoring simple. Most people don't want to wade through huge amounts of text and have a review spilt into loads of overlapping sections.
You are, of course, free to start your own review site. One site certainly isn't enough for this community. It can support many review sites and many different ways. That's one of the things I loved about the community of old. Lots of second opinions about any given map.
Last edited:
Hehe, I guess that T2A` has enough of reviewing for a while (http://insite.beyondunreal.com/). Roughinery (UT2004 stock map!) performed pretty poorly, even various fixed versions (Slain's) could not eliminate the problem completely - yet it was one of the most played map because of the quality. I used to mention FPS drops in UT2004 maps (because my rig was little bellow average) but it had to be serious to really lower the score. If cube map performs perfectly - is it 3/10? I don't think so. Will the same poorly performing map have better score one year later (when average rig means something different)? I don't think so. Just my opinion though - I'm still glad that someone cares and does reviews. You can rethink the structure any time anyway - because it's sort of blog. ;-)
Will the same poorly performing map have better score one year later (when average rig means something different)? I don't think so. Just my opinion though - I'm still glad that someone cares and does reviews. You can rethink the structure any time anyway - because it's sort of blog. ;-)
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
cheers for the comments.
Some valid points virgo47.
BTW One of my old UT99 maps was reviewed there.
DM-Brickdust
Some valid points virgo47.
BTW One of my old UT99 maps was reviewed there.
DM-Brickdust
Performance is a gameplay concern, but it's not something you can objectively measure because everyone's hardware and settings are different. Therefore, it should have no effect on the outcome other than there being a note of its crappy performance somewhere in the text. What Virgo said is 100% right -- you wouldn't give a cube map 3/10 because you got 400 FPS, would you?
If I reviewed anymore and wanted to create my own site (which, by the way, I have absolutely no interest in for UT3) with a somewhat detailed point system, I'd do something like this:
Gameplay (50 points total; split up however you want)
- Layout (construction, flow, etc.)
- Viability (balance, suitability for gametype, etc.)
- Stuff (pickups, spawns, bot play, etc.)
Artsy Crap (50 points total; split up however you want)
- Visuals (prettiness, construction quality, etc.)
- Atmosphere (sounds, sense of being somewhere, etc.)
- Stuff (similar to the "details" you have)
That's kinda like what Insite had, but Insite was informal and never outlined points or had specific sections, so it was more an assumed 50/50 split between gameplay and the rest.
If I reviewed anymore and wanted to create my own site (which, by the way, I have absolutely no interest in for UT3) with a somewhat detailed point system, I'd do something like this:
Gameplay (50 points total; split up however you want)
- Layout (construction, flow, etc.)
- Viability (balance, suitability for gametype, etc.)
- Stuff (pickups, spawns, bot play, etc.)
Artsy Crap (50 points total; split up however you want)
- Visuals (prettiness, construction quality, etc.)
- Atmosphere (sounds, sense of being somewhere, etc.)
- Stuff (similar to the "details" you have)
That's kinda like what Insite had, but Insite was informal and never outlined points or had specific sections, so it was more an assumed 50/50 split between gameplay and the rest.
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
Of course not. My scheme accounts for that. I evaluate how one section effects another. In the case of say a redeemer cube the final score would be lower than 30%. The final score isn't just the smaller scores added up. If that was the case I would state that in the review. I'm human not a machine
If you're not using the points to score the map, why have them at all? Let your words do the talking instead of meaningless numbers. D:
Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
