[usp] 10 reviews added

[TheIronKnuckle]

I must admit, I thought the blue fog was neat and magical. The comment in the review had me going "hmmm".

[Mister_Prophet]

EDIT: For Teridax, Del, and any new reviewer.

Typically when an aspect of lighting needs to be mentioned in a review (in terms of a negative factor) it ought to be because of two reasons:

1) If it somehow slights gameplay or player enjoyment. Examples I can think of would be a crucial hallway one needs to follow to get through a level whose entrance is shrouded in shadow in a poorly lit section of an otherwise unremarkable region of the map, and the player is not given a flashlight or an indication of where to go. Another, more direct way I can think of is if a level simply overdoses on a particular color scheme or volume use that blinds the player unintentionally.

2) If the lighting choice clashes with a level theme or is put into the map poorly. An example of clash is the comparison shot of a foggy section of an ice cave I posted in my lighting tutorial on the main site. An example or poorly executed lighting, as I see it, is when greenings occur or any instance where the player's attention is taken out of the game because something looks strange. A perfect example of this is some fog usage in Legacy, where, fog columns would rise in some rooms with the zone portals placed visibly at a room's exit, and the adjacent zone was not set for fog. So what would happen is that "holes" would appear in the fog depending where the player was standing, as if there some anomaly. These are harder to determine for less played reviewers/new players, but perhaps the easiest to talk about since players can often argue lighting use in gameplay situations when the mapper is not present to explain intent or neglect.

All other reasons for mentioning it will be times when a reviewer might let slip a bit of their own preferences, and while I think that's fine to not sound like a robot in a review I do not think a map should ever be counted down for such a thing. It's up to the reviewer to decide if the thing they are criticizing is essential to the level and how other players will receive it, or not.

[Hellscrag]

Just a note about scores...

When UnrealSP first started, we fell into the same trap as many other review sites at the time, in that very few maps scored less than half of the available points. With maps like Jiganara Kingdom getting scores like 6 or 7/10, the review schema was working a bit like a school examination, in which anything in the bottom half of the score range was a "failing grade".

Although I challenged some early criticism of this practice at the time, I did realise before too much longer that the situation was ridiculous. What was the point of having a range of ten points available if the bottom half of it was completely unusable? As such, we made a decision to re-review everything to a new benchmark: From now on a score of 5/10 (50%) would be genuinely average, meaning that it would sit in the middle of the range of maps on offer. A map wouldn't become poor until it reached a score of 3/10 (30%) or lower. Scores above 5/10 (50%) would be reserved for the above average, the very good or the exceptional. Finally, maps would have no special pass by virtue of being older or pioneering. Maps would be assessed, as objectively as possible, against the schema and each other, judging them by modern standards.

Kew, nobody who was mapping back in 1998-9 should be ashamed of one of their early maps from that period getting a score of 38%. It may have led the pack at the time, but things have come on a long way, and the benchmark has shifted. And, if you look at other maps/packs on the site with similar scores, you will see that it is in good company. Many of those early, lower scoring maps still have plenty of interest and entertainment to offer, and this is usually recognised in the text of the reviews. If you have issues with the way things are expressed in the review then take it up with sana and/or the reviewer, but don't sweat the score.

For my part, three of my own releases have been reviewed on the site, and in my opinion the score for at least one of them (The Landing) is way too high, possibly to the tune of at least 20%. I say that with the benefit of hindsight and an emotional distance from the project that I didn't have at the time it was released.

[Kew]

Mr Prophet, I think you missed my point. Whatever the quality of the lighting might have been, I took exception to it being described as "ridiculous", which, as I have said, is insulting and rude. It has nothing to do with the finer aspects of lighting upon which you have elaborated . It makes the point that a review is not a license to make derogatory remarks. I do have a certain pride in my work, yes, and I resent that remark from anyone.

[Mister_Prophet]

I posted that for the benefit of our new reviewers so they might have a better understanding of how to direct their assessments on lighting. If someone is going to use words like "ridiculous" in a review they need to be able to tell us why, and if the why doesn't include reasons like the two examples I described, perhaps they would be apt not include such comments. So Teridax, (or anyone else writing a review for the site) it's just better to elaborate a point if you are going to put it in there. Mappers read reviews too and they'll want to know if something is wrong as well as a player. Most of them, anyway. It has happened often enough where mappers see something in a review (or mentioned by players) and are compelled to better their work.

[Kew]

Mr Prophet

"Apt" does not cover it. "Ridiculous" is defined in Oxford dictionary as:

"exciting ridicule or derisive laughter; absurd, preposterous, comical laughable"
"To make fun of, treat with mockery..........."

If Teridax doesn't understand the word, then he should not be using it. If he does then that makes it worse.

This has NOTHING to do with "elaborating" a point. It is just rude. Do none of you agree with me?

I know, I am beating my head against the wall....

[AlCapowned]

Where were the rude remarks in the Illhaven review, since you bashed that one as well?

[Kew]

Al,

There you go again.................

[Delacroix]

Al, it seems you need to cool off a little bit. It's Mr. Prophet's review that's being challenged here (the Illhaven one I mean) and he's perfectly capable of defending his point himself. Your continuous stingers don't help. Dissist.

[Kew]

Al,

FYI, I do not believe I "bashed" the Illhaven review. Mr Prophet and I exchanged some thoughts on thread about it. He was civil to me, as I was to him. I believe I told him that he was fair albeit a bit harsh in his review.

[AlCapowned]

FYI, I do not believe I "bashed" the Illhaven review. Mr Prophet and I exchanged some thoughts on thread about it. He was civil to me, as I was to him. I believe I told him that he was fair albeit a bit harsh in his review.

You were not that civil in your first rant. You dug up an old article that mentioned Illhaven as being one of the best Unreal map packs just to prove your point.

Al, it seems you need to cool off a little bit. It's Mr. Prophet's review that's being challenged here (the Illhaven one I mean) and he's perfectly capable of defending his point himself. Your continuous stingers don't help. Dissist.

The only reason I'm posting is because Kew seems to have ignored all of the other posts (including the well-reasoned ones) after that one on page 2. I wouldn't have posted in the first place if Kew wouldn't have insulted the reviewers personally. But fine, I'll stop.

[Delacroix]

Yeah, Al, trust me that it's all for the best. The atmosphere was getting a little toxic here. None of us wants that, neither you, nor me, nor anyone else. We're supposed to have fun here

As for the old review from IGN -- Kew, Hellscrag pretty much nailed it to the wall: The current review schema makes sure to properly compare older maps or packs with the currently reigning ones. It's not like that tech wasn't available in 1998. It was, save for some super-duper renderers. The reviews are to point out the complexity of the technical solutions in the map, combined with either properly replicating Unreal's feel or successfully making one's own - and at the same time be used to compare a reviewed map against others. Does it fare better, or worse? That's what we're getting at here. And no, there are hardly any failing grades here at all, so being upset about not scoring 75% shouldn't make you bitter -- instead it should get you motivated to try a different approach in your next mapping endeavor.

[Mister_Prophet]

If Teridax doesn't understand the word, then he should not be using it.

And that is exactly what I am implying, and more. Like I said, again, it was for his benefit and any other new reviewer. Don't say something unless you can back it up with evidence in the map(s) being discussed. Where is the confusion here?

Edit: I added a preface edit to my previous post so those affected know who it is meant for.

[Teridax]

Kew, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at being able to get my points across, but when I said the lighting looked ridiculous, I genuinely felt that it did. I couldn't think of any other way to describe it, and I probably could have said it in a way that was less offensive. I did not know I played the wrong version, and I'm sorry if I came off as being elitist. It was my first review, and I wasn't familiar with the whole process. That review is gone, and it's not going back up. Can everyone just drop this and move on?

P.S.: I haven't been snatched up by the gaming industry because I don't want to work there. Making maps is a hobby for me, but just because I don't work in the industry doesn't mean that I can't play and critique Unreal maps.

[Kew]

I can see that this is a futile discussion and I am signing off.