Who can be blamed for believing that the version of Alin'Gar which clearly has a higher version number (3 rather than 2) is not the latest one? Regardless, the review has been taken down. It couldn't be taken down earlier because I was, you know, asleep...

Most I could say to Kew has already been said in Prophet's and Jet's posts. You seem to misunderstand the nature of this site. It is no longer 1998; Unreal's community is no longer as active as it once was. Considering that, you should regard the amount of replies and hits, and attention paid to your Illhaven thread as very high, because it really is! Wildly throwing around accusations of elitism and condescending writing is also pretty rich considering the way you behave at the moment. The reactions to your work are already highly positive and way more than most current-day Unreal mappers could ask for, so you really should re-consider whether it is wise to be upset over some feedback and minor criticism in light of the great praise you are receiving.

Also, UnrealSP's reviews generally work with very high standards due to the existence of modern, technically advanced projects such as Operation Na Pali, 7 Bullets etc. which obviously make older Unreal-era works look pale in comparison, believe it or not. Don't forget that this isn't IGN; UnrealSP.Org makes use of the full score palette rather than purely handing out scores from 7 to 10.

This is also the reason I strongly disagree with Delacroix' review scores (which, by the way, have been updated with his newly proposed Technical Execution values... which don't change anything at all, really, chipping off 2-3 points per map pack at best). For instance, Rajal Castle has been previously reviewed as "One of the best releases from the first year of Unreal custom mapping"... and received 25%. This seems adequate in comparison to modern UT99 packs, while scores as high as 50% for packs created around Unreal's birth date really do not.

Delacroix, I would, once more, like to kindly ask you to compare your scores to those of other map packs on the page (preferably reviewed under Hellscrag's administration) and to re-evaluate them.

Indeed I shall. It's still mostly the numbers that'll change though.

Once Great Temple new numbers:

Arch: 4
Lighting: 4
Texturing: 5
Technical Execution: 4

Indeed I agree that previous grades were too high.

Greek Island new numbers:

Arch: 4
Texturing: 5
Technical Execution: 4
Conceptual Grandness: 4
Gameplay Balance: 4 (that last boss is unbalanced after all).

Satanic Church I cannot force myself to raise my hand at it. I just cannot. Scores will remain as they are.

Updated site with new values.

I have a question about the review of The Once Great Temple

The reviewer states


Frankly, gameplay balance here is completely off (for me). You start with a DP and the automag (very limited ammo) but immediately meet Skaarj with rifles, rocketlauncher, and Slith. Oh, I forgot ... a couple of pupae, and flies. The only way I managed to reach (near) the end was by running as fast as I could, trying to evade all enemies and crossfire but near the end engaging battle is unavoidable.
Oh BTW, there are gasbags (also Giant Gasbags), a Titan, Mantas, Krall, Mercenaries, all kinds of Skaarj, Flies, Pupae, Brutes, can't remember a Queen but IIRC there was a Warlord.
I have played this years ago and recognised the screens in the review so I redownloaded it and got clobbered before I manged to pronounce Chizra, then I read the review attentively and started wondering whether the reviewer played the same map I did. It's one of those very few maps where my hypothetical scores differ seriously.
Gameplay balance: 6 > What? I'ld give it a 2 max. In the beginning it's just too damn dangerous to try and get a stronger weapon by fighting.
Story Implementation: 7 > Huh? What story? I don't see all those creature fit in there in any way.


Short? Even when I tried to avoid most enemies (which means a lot of hiding and judging when to run for a new hiding place) it took me about 3/4 of an hour to reach the end (and about halfway I switched to Godmode because of too many loose hits.

So: my question is: Does the link to the map point to the correct map (because if so, then I must really suck at Unreal this map)

Edit: corrected about 20% of my typing errors
Edit2: corrected another 20% of my typing errors and opened the map in the editor: couldn't see any Warlord or Queen so memory didn't serve me right.

What the hell? It seems to me that there's some difficulty level variations or you have a mutator installed that popped a couple things in. I'll replay.

I won't exclude that but I seriously doubt it since I don't really have major problems with other maps (which are considered hard). That basically which I think I've got a different version than the one which was reviewed.

I'll verify that as soon as my repacked Mass Effect 3 installer finishes compiling. If it is true, I'll update the review accordingly, either with a link to the proper map, or with changed statements and grades. Apologies, everyone. This should've been looked into more closely BEFORE the reviews were published.

I find the new review scores much more agreeable, nice work Delacroix.

It seems AlCapowned, Mister_Prophet and Sana covered everything in their own way. I'll just add that, in light of the constant controversy over issues in game journalism such as publishers holding back previews, paid advertising and review copies because of games they've released getting scores they don't think are high enough, I find someone who's coincidentally worked in the industry threatening exactly that sort of thing to a site that needs no affiliations kind of hilarious.

Kew... I, as a player, am a fan of your work. So I have a question: are you makimg maps for players like me, or for journalists, regardless of whether they are professionals or hobbyists? Because if you are making maps for the reviewers, you might as well stop right now -- you'll never fully satisfy a reviewer, no matter how hard you try. I honestly don't know anyone who can. But if you are doing it for the players, then please continue what you're doing and ignore the reviews, OK? Just please, say it to our faces, what is your target audience?

As has been said before, reviews are in one way or another biased BUT still provide information for the reader. The advantage of the USP system is that there is a review AND a score per section. But even that doesn't provide all the information a potential player may want.
So let's get down to the funfactor which, IMHO, is the most important. Oops, sorry: what is fun for me may not be fun for another player (example: for me ONP and Xenome are great fun-wise but opinions differ greatly about those packs). So basically, what do we have left after the reviews, the scores and the accounts of players? A lot of information with which one may, or may not agree. But is is completely objective; I think not; it tries to be as objective as possible according to a strict set of rules.

OK, if a map gets a 10%, chances that I'll download it to play immediately are minimal, but I will download it and play it eventually and some of those low-scoring maps were fun to play, on the other hand, I have been disillusioned by high scoring maps.

Anyway, back to the reviews. I just played the Satanic Church and thought it wasn't hard at all. I had in fact even wasted too many rockets and had to finish off the Warlord (who actually disappeared instead of dying) with the DP (before I found out that there were still rockets available against the cliff wall).
So, disgreement with the review in that respect but does that change the value of the review? Not at all, it just shows that the gameplay in that map perhaps suits me better than it does the reviewer.

@ Kew
Like Delacroix stated: if players have fun playing your maps, then take that as a compliment and just use the reviews as a source of information which you may or may not take into account when (and I emphasise when, not if) making another map .

Delacroix, that is a fair question. I am certainly not making maps for journalists. I would be surprised if journalists had any interest in Unreal, given that it is not exactly a current game! I make maps primarily because I like making them and, as I have often said, because people like playing them.

Yes, every now and then I blow my top and look where that gets me. What really annoyed me about the Alin'gar review, apart from anything else, was the tone of the review. Quite frankly, I do not like to be the subject of ridicule and when the reviewer refers to my lighting as being "ridiculous" I do not like it. I admit it. My lighting might have been bad, terrible or totally ineffective but I find "ridiculous" just outright rude. A review is not a carte blanche to make disparaging remarks. And if a review does cross the line, forgive me for speaking back.

You reacted the same way to Mr. Prophet's review of Illhaven. Somehow I think it has less to do with the reviews crossing a line than it does with your ability to handle criticism.

AlCapowned wrote:
You reacted the same way to Mr. Prophet's review of Illhaven. Somehow I think it has less to do with the reviews crossing a line than it does with your ability to handle criticism.

Perhaps my ability to receive criticism is not as good as it should be, but you, sir, are always quick off the mark to give it.

That's because you insult people who don't think your maps are God's gift to Unreal, not to mention your posts often coincide with me viewing these forums. I'm curious, what scores do you think your maps should receive given the current schema?