Custom Map Review Site!

(SirLiveAlot) #1

So I was looking for a website one day that reviewed custom maps. 20min and 2 pepsi later I decided it would be easier to make a site. So, countless more pepsi and 2 days later I created it. It’s at http://www.deathillustrated.com/sirlivealot/et/index.html . If you want me to review you map just e-mail me where to find it and i’ll give a review of it. Tell me what you think about the layout and such.

(Lockeownzj00) #2

heh, very interesting But I think you’re harsh on some. King of the Hill for example: I love that map. Have you played it on a 32 person server? Corpses glying, panzers shooting, wild attempts to grab the flag…it’s quite fun.

(Blockbuster) #3

do something about the blue… its hurting my eyes the first sec i looked at the site

(DeAtHmAsTeR) #4

Excellent site - just work on lay out :slight_smile: agree with your reviews

(Velorum) #5

eh…so so

Layout is not good. Sorry to be harsh but it just isn’t lol.

Also your ratings are a bit strange. If your rating on gameplay then the dust deserves more than pool desu yo…i mean the difference in ratings between the two maps is astonishing. Not to mention the numbers for your ratings are a bit strange too…its almost as if you have a feeling instead of an actual process. Most of your ratings are in the 6 range…and i for one would like to know how you assessed that rating.

And as far as your ratings go i think Carnage Canyon is much better than Flak Cannon not because of level design…but because of gameplay. CC is a lot like Flak…both have 2 objectives and both are pretty free form in level desing. What makes CC better is a more realistic feel, more variety in spawn point options…and a better balance between the objectives and both teams abilities. I would rate CC higher than Flak IMO…but again there is no process to your ratings and your layout is pretty blah.

However considering your one of the first review sites out there you should be commended for your dedication to the game and if someone want’s your opinion on all the current maps they sure know where to look. Good job and keep the reviews comming. :drink:

To give your website more credibility…i would form a staff and pool different opinions into one overall score. Also come up with a process.

Gameplay
Visualizations
Style
performance

etc

(SirLiveAlot) #6

Thats the kinda harsh reply I was looking for. I’ll start working on a better layout and work on the reviews. The site was thrown together within 2 days and I was just looking for some feed back how to improve apon it.

(Slippery Jim) #7

The layout is fine. You can never please everyone so don’t bother trying. If you personally like the layout then keep it.

The only thing I would highly recommend is to use a less saturated colour for the background. Instead of #6600ff try this colour instead #6065A0

(Shallow) #8

Things that immediately strike me:

The bad:
Site layout is tiny, also looks broken in Opera.
Why review alphas and betas? It’s unfair to the mapper to review something that is clearly stated to be a work in progress using the same criteria as completed maps, wait for a final and review that.
Would be good to clearly state whether the map properly exploits the areas of the ET feature set (constructibles, command posts, team doors, etc.) in which many custom maps have been lacking.

The good:
We could do with a review site and you’ve got yours up and running.
You’re not afraid to speak your mind.
You seem to be thick skinned!

Suggestions would be to add more screenshots, even for the rotten maps, and to keep calling it as you see it. You seem to have a hold on the idea that a really good map has to possess both great gameplay and a sense of aesthetics, which seems to pass by so many people. My capacity for enjoying a fullbright box is limited, however great the layout is :slight_smile:

(Velorum) #9

perhaps he can’t please everyone…but he can please a greater majority if he simply uses a free layout from the many free layout websites available out there. It doesn’t take any effort either finding a good free web layout, or asking someone to make him one. I make web layouts and the colors simply just dont go on his current layout.

(evillair) #10

I have to agree, my beta wasn’t meant to be regarded as a playable map. A beta is used to refine gameplay and overall layout of the maps etc.
I’m glad you noticed FC but I would like it if you ‘do’ review betas, you don’t review my betas.

Thanks.

(bsimser) #11

I agree with most of the posts in this thread. I would hope that you take some of the suggestions as constructive.

I would look around for some help with the design of the site. Content is most important but trying to be fancy for fancy sake just makes the site look poor. You can please more people with a simpler design (i.e. default fonts if you really don’t know HTML and web design) or use one of the many free web templates available.

Secondly I wouldn’t try to be the reviewer of all the maps. Everyone has varied opinions on what’s right. I would think a reviewing strategy that anyone can use would be a better approach. Rather than one persons opinion about a map (much like a movie review) I would think a successful review site would be one that follows a standard for map reviews based on gameplay, technical design, historical accuracy, etc. and leave the opinions to a simple paragraph by the reviewer. I would look at getting as many reviews as possible and scoring them (based on similar criteria as above, but be consistent) then averaging it out.

Personally I would welcome having several different views of my map from independant sources rather than one persons opinion. Also don’t review alpha or beta maps. It means nothing because what you slight in one version might be fixed in the final.

An example map site (not the best, but a good breakdown of a map objectively):
http://utbooty.unrealism.com/reviews/dm-essence.shtml

Allied has a nice writeup of map scoreing and reviewing here:
http://www.planetwolfenstein.com/allied/info_review_guidelines.asp

The scoring system is broken down into common pieces that everyone can agree on and and overal value is derived from it. Come up with your own scoring system or adopt one you find with a little searching.

(Ifurita) #12

Good concept, needs graphical work, and as alluded a process behind the rankings. I’d suggest a 1-5 scale for the following categories:

Creativity
Gameplay
Design
Technical (r_speeds, lighting, no missing textures, etc)
Overall

Here are two Quake sites which I think do a really good job of reviewing things:

LVL (maps) http://www.planetquake.com/lvl/
Polycount (Skins): http://www.planetquake.com/polycount/

(Machine for to kill) #13

Kudos on the great idea.

Please review the official maps so people know where you stand. Meaning how much does my opinion agree with yours cause I haven’t played most of the maps that you have reviewed. And please don’t give them all 10 because we all know that Rail Gun and Radar suck.

P.S.
Forget about site layout…content is all that matters.

(SirLiveAlot) #14

Wow! :banana: I’m suprized at all the helpful tips i have gotten, I’ve updated the site with a simple layout. The improved reviews will be up in a couple days :eek3: . thanks all for the helpful feedback

(DeAtHmAsTeR) #15

Site is much better - make some pictures with photo shop :slight_smile:

(lennyballa) #16

Cool site, you’ve even got my map on the prevriew :slight_smile: .

And please don’t give them all 10 because we all know that Rail Gun and Radar suck.

I don’t think you are “all”, cause i like those maps. Also i think you may not call a map sucky, unless you can do it better. And I haven’t seen a map of you. Well, “sucky” maps are better maps than no maps!

(Mlehliw) #17

My site layout review: better than before, but it now is way to bland.

(ziege) #18

Great job on making a site for reviewing maps, it’s great to know mappers have some more exposure for our work, and a great way to get feedback.

Content is probably the only important thing with your site, so my comments on the layout/design might not matter at all but… it still looks ugly :slight_smile: The first one you showed us looked far, far, worse and the new design at least is readable and OK on the eyes - but it’s still ugly. I would at least add a header graphic and change the ‘Times’ font to something a little nicer like Arial or Verdana. Maybe have a pastel colour background too instead of white. It looks so empty and bland, more like you’d expect a technical info page to look like or some help documents.

(Velorum) #19

awsome job on the revamp. I love simplicity much more than your previous design. Nothing flashy but definently convineninet. I can hook you up with a cool banner if you so desire.

As far as comments, all i can say is come up with a good process for getting a score and put together a map review team.

If you would like i would be glad to give you my opinions on the maps featured on your site, because i am a map hunter and i have every map on your list including a few you don’t have. So let me know if you want to hook up.

Otherwise great job and keep those reviews rollin’ :beer:

(SirLiveAlot) #20

So, after :beer: many more pepsi(I drink too much pepsi) updated my site for tommarow and put in a review for carnage cannon. Tell me how you like the scoring for it/review. Also that would be sweet if you could help me with reviews. Also I need to point out I did that banner by my self. It may suck but I like it.