I’ve always known I am too soft when it comes to reviews of maps and mods listed on the site. Well, no more. IT’S TIME TO BE A BAD ASS…..
Let me start by saying that I respect any author who makes and releases something playable, but over the life of the site I know I have been too soft on many maps and mods released on the site. I think I probably did that because I didn’t want people to refuse me permission to host their mod.
I also dislike reviews and reviewers who simply rip into a map or mod simple because they can’t find anything positive to say or because they think that ripping said map or mod is cool. Too many people get recognition from complaining about stuff, be it maps, mods, books, movies tv shows etc.
Whilst it is certainly time for me to toughen up and say what I really think I will always try to be honest and not gloat at somebody’s inability or failure.
Well, I have been thinking about it for a while but these comments from Nova Prospekt Under Attack, jolted me into action:
“This shouldn’t even count. Is that all it takes to get a “Play it Later” recommendation these days?” and “And I agree with Kyouryuu, what passes for “Good Maps” these days is ridiculous.”
They are right and it’s time for me to stand up and admit I was soft.
There’s always a proviso with me! Sorry about that. One thing that I think needs exploring in more detail and has been re-raised by Mel in the Forum in a slightly different view is whether being a developer clouds your judgement regarding maps and mods.
Now I used a very subjective word in “cloud” because in a way the purest could argue that the player with no mapping experience is the target audience. Of course each player and mapper has their own criteria but what ultimately matters is whether the player enjoys playing something. Forget the technical aspects of whether textures align properly or whether the building looks out of place, if the average player doesn’t notice or doesn’t care then that’s all that matters.
So, to bring us back to the main topic of this article. If I enjoy playing a map or mod I will say so, but at the same time I will try to reach a little higher in my expectation.
Now, I day dream about the site all day and one thing I would love to have is a membership system where each member completes a form before they join and a database records the information and allows of readers a detailed look at how the rating of a map works.
For example, a member would have to say whether they are a mappers or not. Then, readers would be able to see the split between “mappers” and “players”. Split between “years playing” and perhaps “age”. I know this might seem a little off topic but it’s not. I am trying to point out that different people rate things differently and probably the biggest difference is whether they map or not.
Having the most technically perfect map doesn’t automatically make it have great gameplay, but it is possible to have a map with great gameplay that has many flaws. Sure, we all love maps and mods with both but honestly, if you had a choice which would you choose?
(I think we will explore this another time)
From now on I am going to say exactly what I think without fear of hurting anybody’s feelings. If mappers don’t want me to host their map because I am honest then so be it.
Let’s get ready to rumble!
PlanetPhillip (2349)
andyb (1022)
Mel (819)
Goddess Alyria (424)
Stef (401)
Jasper (359)
AI (314)
piledriver (311)
Grey Acumen (298)
Kasperg (282)
23 February 2009 at 3:04 pm
Good thinking. I support all of your ideas above. Sometimes (if not always) being harsh in a reivew brings more good than being soft. Also membership and “Mapper” , “Player” thing is a good idea too. Good luck.
23 February 2009 at 3:24 pm
PlanetPhillip, now being honest?
I had hoped you had been that all along, but yes, some of the content on this site shouldn’t have been posted in the first place. Let alone be praised so much. But that’s just me; I’m one of those annoying mappers.
The “Ideal Rating System” would perhaps be hard to pull off successfully, that’d probably produce all sorts of graphs and “Mappers’ Rating” and so on. Though being able to watch some personal information regarding the commenters might be useful. I would, for instance, have written “Mapper for seven years” near my name/comment. Then people would be able to see what people with technical knowledge of the engine thinks of the product.
Though I like the existing system. I am usually able to get a good impression of the quality from the screenshots, and then the comments. In addition, it’s easy to tell the average gamers apart from the more dedicated players, the dedicated players write longer and more well thought comments.
Oh and of course, the development areas might not limit to only mappers, but coders and other tasks as well.
Hmm and having “permanent” accounts on this site might be nice as well, though I might just be blind.
23 February 2009 at 3:53 pm
I feel I have been but perhaps in retrospect I was not direct enough.
I strongly disagree with this. The site’s objective is to list ALL the playable maps and mods available. It’s up to the reader to decide whether to play them or not. Otherwise the site would turn into a filter and I don’t want that to be the case.
Probably quite easy, just too expensive for me!
In the footer is the option to register. Once done, this should allow you to visit and post comments without having to enter your details each time. It’s a permanent registration and used to be requisite to rate the maps and mods.
True but the mappers and artists are the most difficult to please.
23 February 2009 at 5:13 pm
I strongly disagree with this. It’s fine, and very interesting, for experienced modders and mappers to dissect something and give an expert opinion of its pros and cons, but mods and maps are made for players.
Nova Prospekt Under Attack is a good test case – it is difficult, flawed, has several bizarre and illogical moments BUT I found it interesting to play and it immersed me.
If we go down the road of slagging off stuff that isn’t all that polished it will only serve to discourage people who would otherwise get better and better. I prefer a world where we encourage and praise rather than one where we seize on small imperfections and give people grief for them – this site is so pleasant to visit precisely because it does, by and large, follow the former philosophy. Watching a pack of attack dogs tearing someone’s brainchild apart is not fun.
23 February 2009 at 6:37 pm
Do you think that custom game developers are designing mods for you or are they trying to live out there own fantasies?
I am troubled and find it difficult to see where this new approach by Phillip is leading, bearing in mind that he is a fickled person with a tendency to change his mind, it may be going no where.
Regarding how you approach and review new mods/maps, that easy, just be honest, fair and polite. I do understand that at the moment on the site, for me any way, there is a conflict between reviews written be players and those coming from custom game developers. It’s great to see such developers so active on the site and long may it continue, also the views and reviews make interesting reading, but as I said during my piece on the forum, they see a game through total different eyes then most players. However, no attempt should be made to curtail these views and opinion or in any way sugagate them from the mainstream of comments. You could argue that reviews are valuable on two fronts, one to enlighten the prospect player the other to give feedback to the author, here the second express by the mapping members can be so valuable to both the aspiring and established author.
But honest I must be, I have found some recent reviews here on PP by the few, to read both a bit elitist and condescending, however, I see no harm in this as long as the overall balance is sustained and people like me and others continue to give a players perspective to counteract some of the technically based critical reviews being posted.
I am not sure I have stayed with the point, Phillips new desire to be honest may not amount to much, his short to the point style is very readable and normally gives a good first insight to the mod, which is exactly what’s is required, so leave the honestly or dishonestly to others Phillip.
23 February 2009 at 7:04 pm
Phillip said;
‘Now I used a very subjective word in “cloud” because in a way the purest could argue that the player with no mapping experience is the target audience. Of course each player and mapper has their own criteria but what ultimately matters is whether the player enjoys playing something. Forget the technical aspects of whether textures align properly or whether the building looks out of place, if the average player doesn’t notice or doesn’t care then that’s all that matters’
I whole heartily agree with the above, although I would prefer to believe that the average player does notice many technical aspects, although not all, and certainly issues such as texture alignment, out of place incidental and background content plus the use of poor mapping technical aspects such as invisible walls, repetitive environments and down right poor and boxy designs, are all noted by most players. What matters is do any of these issue effect one’s enjoyment or playing experience? Clearly in some cases they do, certainly when all or most are present in any single mod or map, but in isolation they don’t.
23 February 2009 at 8:41 pm
I have to say this. Mappers are also players.
How you decide to separate people who create content from those who just play makes no real sense to me. Do we see things with different eyes? No. We see exactly the same things you see. They just catch out attention more and we comment on them more often. Usually because we know why some things happen and how to avoid them.
To continue with what I just started, I have to say that separating devs and players is contradictory because those people creating the maps in question are already part of the developers group.
How come they aren’t bothered by the same issues as the other mappers are?
Maybe because as players, they didn’t care either.
Your real separation (if there is any) would be
1) People for whom gameplay can be fun regardless of the technical foundations and who don’t really care if a map doesn’t add anything new or interesting as long as it keeps them busy and entertained for a while.
2) People for whom the visual and technical aspects of a virtual world define the sense of inmmersion and real enjoyment of the whole experience.
Both of these groups have mappers and players in them. I know a lot of players who have never completed a map yet spot problems and comment in screenshots all over MODDB. And of course we’ve seen countless maps in which the mappers have no intentions beyond making the level “playable”.
23 February 2009 at 9:18 pm
I agree. Don’t worry I am not going to slag maps and mods off just so I can sound cool. I will still encourage mappers but I will just be a little more honest. I hate to admit it but in the past I have said stuff that I wish I hadn’t. I did it because I felt I should or needed to. So, let me reassure you. Ripping into mappers is not what I plan.
Unfortunately you are right about my fickleness. But I don’t want to be a sheep any more. I want to stand up and say that I think Minerva is WAY overrated and I found lots of it boring. Beautiful but boring.
I completely agree. Of course being fair is a little subjective. I have probably given too many maps the benefit of the doubt.
Perfectly stated.
I wouldn’t hear of it. Their views make the site way more interesting.
Sometime the style of writing clouds the real intent; that of helping.
Hopefully that won’t be lost, just modified to reflect as slight hardening of my opinion.
Of course you do. In the same way that a film director would view a film with different eyes. In fact you see things from another perspective still by being an architect student. The same way a soldier may view the way a particular weapon works. Your experience, skills and viewpoint change everything.
You don’t just comment on them you may even start to consciously look for them. Making that step into making mods shows you “what’s behind the curtain” and all your innocence is gone.
Your separation is definitely better than mine but I would still argue that group two would contain a higher proportion of mappers and than players.
23 February 2009 at 9:23 pm
Sorry about the quote issue. I have no idea why that’s happening. I’ve made no changes to the software!
23 February 2009 at 10:35 pm
Ok, let’s agree that the point of view is different. It still doesn’t change what’s there to be seen. As Mel sort of said, misaligned textures are still misaligned for whoever plays a map. I don’t consciously look for that sort of thing. It just “is” there, clashing with what I expect to see. Not from my own work and experience, but from the actual retail game (which after more than 4 years doesn’t feel as hard to imitate or surpass) and the higher rated works. Any player who has played HL2 should be able to tell which user made maps look better or worse than it. Or at least I hope that’s the case.
I’ve been a player longer than I’ve been a mapper, and I’ve been a mapper longer than I’ve been an architecture student. As you say it does have an effect on how I do things, but not so much as in how I see them or rather, it doesn’t affect my comments that much. Most of my older maps and of course maps from the best critically acclaimed games (HL2 included of course) have certain things about them that would make any architect cringe (mainly stuff related to notions of construction and destruction. Layers and dimensions that make up walls, floors ceilings, the amount of structures needed to support other structures etc.). But I seldom comment on those things because indeed the majority of players will never care how architecturally accurate something is. Nor do I expect anyone to do extensive research before mapping just to please architects. That’d be ridiculous, although it sometimes happens and I appreciate it.
Now here I can’t agree at all. If the group of mappers (even if they are beginners, intermediate of experts) is represented by the maps you host in this site (which are basically all, I think), then I’d say (without trying to be disrespectful at all) that most mappers are in the first group. As for the second group, people who appreciate good craftsmanship in maps, I think there are A LOT of players who do (they are sometimes called graphic wh***s), and probably a lot of them wished they had the time and dedication to be able to take level design as their hobby.
Also, seeing how some of the best rated maps online (here, in moddb etc) boast a very above average technical aspect (Minerva, Eye of The Storm, Powerstation 17 etc) instead of being extremely original in any particular gameplay aspect, it seems that the majority of players (not mappers) are in the second group I mentioned.
Answer this question sincerely. Do you think those highest rated mods around would be rated the same without their looks? Obviously not.
24 February 2009 at 3:01 am
(no more mister nice guy) isnt that what alice cooper (vincent furnier) said in one of the songs on the album billion dollar babies?
sorry, i think thats one of the greatest albums ever…
see ya…
Surf’s up!
24 February 2009 at 3:23 am
I am not too happy with Kasperg two group definition;
1) People for whom gameplay can be fun regardless of the technical foundations and who don’t really care if a map doesn’t add anything new or interesting as long as it keeps them busy and entertained for a while.
2) People for whom the visual and technical aspects of a virtual world define the sense of immersion and real enjoyment of the whole experience.
Both have a very narrow band of reality, taking first the group 2 definition; I am not sure who would fit this band? It’s so restricted I can’t imagine either HL2 players or mappers fitting comfortable here. Where is the sense of excitement, suspense, adventure, where is the challenge, the combat, the achievement and the emotional joy ride that is Half-Life as we know it. If you where creating purely form a visual and technical aspect, I doubt that you would have selected HL2 as your vehicle to the virtual world. I am sorry but these groupings define nothing relative to who enjoys or plays what for what.
Group 1 is equally ill defined and I doubt that the average HL2 player is so restricted and limited in his views, likes and wants. I think the two groups are not typical but extremes and neither would hold the bulk of either HL1/2 players or mappers.
In some ways gamers and mappers must be drawn to HL for similar reasons, however, saying that I do realize the fact that Valve have given the community the tools to do the job, which must be a big consideration for budding mappers.
I would just like to pose a question? Is there anyone custom mapping for HL2 that has not actually played HL2?
What initially drives most HL fans is the need to repeat the experience of HL1 or HL2 and such a drive can be applicable to both player and developer alike, or are we saying that the developer is only mapping HL because it’s possible to do so?
Well, we have gone a long way round this issue and whilst you could argue that we all see things with the same set of eyes, I doubt that we will conceive and/or translate what we see the same way, and the array of reviews posted here on PP proves the point, you don’t need to be an expert of any kind to spot the reviews written by developers.
Both sides of the debate are beneficial, the mappers needs to know that irrespective of what drives him the end user is not as naive or easily pleased as some would make out, equally we the players can up our expectation with due consideration to what critical reviews developers are making.
24 February 2009 at 6:33 am
Players and modders certainly can survive without each other, but this site is about bringing them together, and so there are going to be clashes when the wishes of each side come to play: Modders want to make their art, and players just want to play stuff (generalizing and simplifying). When these groups interact well, you can move things foward with better feedback (like a poetry workshop or a brainstorming session), and ultimately better quality releases. Even if a modder doesn’t care what the public at large thinks (and that’s okay) this comes back and helps them make their stuff more enjoyable for them too.
A little while ago I posted a comment on a mod where I had been listing (actually very carefully) the specific faults I found in a certain mod (no doubt released long ago by a group that is no longer a part of the scene, though that didn’t influence how I wrote it). Then another person came by and said of my review, “This is too harsh” and threw the obligatory “you’ll drive people away from the scene” objection at me.
An interesting discussion to be sure. What’s the cost of having the community review your stuff? Perhaps it is putting up with a bit of vented frustration at having attempted to play something that doesn’t quite work flawlessly. Certainly a mapper can retreat to a private Forum, or from the public sphere entirely if they wish to avoid all negative feelings, and unplug their computer from the Internet as well for maximum insulation. They lose the benefits I mentioned previously. By the same token, there certainly are things that can be written which are not justifiable.
I think the art of reviewing is not just “calling a spade a spade,” and declaring mods good or bad, but moving on to more productive topics. Even a map by a long-dead (heh, at least it seems that way after ten years of Half-Life) mapper can demonstrate how to make maps and what to avoid. This doesn’t need to conflict with the popularity measure aspect of the site: A person can say that they like this and that but not the other. Moddb, like Youtube, certainly has its value in gauging public opinion. So even if it’s a “better” review that gets into the nuts and bolts of why something is working or not working, the general short “I didn’t like this mod because” reviews are fine too, at least to a point.
I think the benefit of a smaller and more focused site like PP is that you can have more civil discussion, and even a sense of community, than is possible on one of the bigger anarchic sites, but I don’t think that sacrificing truth for the sake of not “driving away” mappers is a good goal. A reviewer should be able to express their frustration at having played something they didn’t like, but not do so in a way that is so over the top that it’s hurtful.
24 February 2009 at 6:43 am
Whoops, the edit time window closed, so I’ll add a second part.
I also wanted to comment on Kasperg’s comment above. It’s absolutely right that technical issues are important, and distracting. While somebody might say “don’t be distracted then, look at the big picture,” I submit that this is missing the point of what games are supposed to be. You’re meant to be able to inhabit a virtual world as fully as you would the real one (with some distinctions, of course; nobody dies!) and seeing misaligned textures (for example) kills the buzz. In any case, not pointing out artistic mishaps and geometry boo-boos is not helping improve the product.
For what it’s worth, I’m not a “mapper” (at least not yet), but I have some experience with the stuff I talk about (including mapping). I would hope that somebody all puffed up over having put their stuff on the ‘net will respect that I’m taking time from my own commitments to help out in the way I know.
24 February 2009 at 7:14 am
If you are being overly generous to amateur mappers, but critical to more experienced mappers, it can put some maps of vastly different quality right next to each other. As a experienced mapper I always thought it was rather unfair when this happened, because here was something you spent a ton of time on —true, perhaps not the best map there ever was, but something all the same— with the same recommendation as something somebody spent an hour on while they were figuring out how to use Hammer.
It creates a double standard, especially if you maps are not graphically oriented; it can mean they are looked over and their review not taken seriously because people assume the reviews are being kind —when they are actually more being harsh.
24 February 2009 at 8:13 am
Arbitrarily trying to define two different groups is silly. Yes, we designers can see into the Matrix, but that doesn’t mean that all we see is green lines of code. We’re hardly infallible and that’s why we need testers to look at things with fresh eyes. I’m not going to condemn a mod for having a texture out of place or one poorly planned battle and I never have. Rather, the things I cite as criticisms are usually repeated mistakes or symptomatic of a larger issues. While I don’t think many players understand the technical aspects of map design, they know when something is amiss if it happens frequently enough.
I don’t mean to be elitist or condescending and I don’t doubt that I often come across that way. But I do it with the intent of being constructive. I don’t really care how many others write glowing reviews of something or how many others were willing to overlook faults. I’m just calling it as I see it.
To kind of go off on what Dante said, I do think I’m especially critical of mods that decide to invest a lot of time and effort in self-promotion. There’s a vulnerability about overpromising and underdelivering that you open yourself up to when you go big on promotion. As a developer, it’s your choice if you think the risk is worth it or not. But it is undeniably a risk, which is why the assertion that all mods need lavish promotion is a bit naive.
24 February 2009 at 10:34 am
I spoke about those 2 possible groups because I think they’d make more sense than just saying developers and mappers.
For some people, all of this needs to have a solid ground in which to stand. Regardless of it being free and created by amateurs, maps and mods still need to meet certain criteria to become immersive entertainment for many people. My sense of adventure is easily broken if a map is constantly screaming “I made this in 10 minutes and didn’t care about the result” at every corner.
No-one (as far as I know) was born knowing how to use the Hammer editor for Half-life. If some people take the time to carefully craft something for us, I’ll appreciate it and enjoy it much more than what average Joe has done experimenting for 3 hours with the editor.
As for challenge, that’s not the reason I play games (otherwise I’d replay Syphon Filter 2 constantly) and I don’t find I need it to enjoy a map or a game. Dying and reloading a saved game is a thing of the past for me, reminiscent of the Mario and Sonic days.
25 February 2009 at 7:03 am
Well… let’s not jump the shark here. I think one of the major features that this site offers to mod authors is a friendly review rather than a harsh critique; this is something hard to come by and very important to authors. It’s more like a forum for improvement on mods and ideas, along with a steady stream of playable maps to give a reason for people to continue coming to the website.
The main problem here is that you’re not distinguishing between an author and a player when you write a review. You can’t write a review to both audiences at once, else you give mixed messages or present an inconsistent grading scheme. I understand your need to strive for more harsh criticism as a way to speak to one audience: the player.
However, writing for the player may actually cause you to lose some readers. While the professional style of the website implies that all things featured on this website meet some standard of quality, this is a quality that cannot be met by a steady incoming stream. By taking this harsh approach, you cause less people to want to submit works to your website. By doing this, you have less to provide regularly. By providing less, you cause people to take less interest in your site and eventually your words are read by very few or not at all.
The one thing I find you need is a way to distinguish what you intend to write for the audience and what you intend to write for an author, instead of excluding one audience. Quality is important, so you might reserve the front page for mods that would be at least decent (for example: excluding works that would get a personal rating of 2 or less). In the meantime, quantity is also important, so you might consider putting greater emphasis on including a subforum designed for map releases. You could even reward mappers by putting high quality works on the front page. Even better, this approach won’t have to be prescreened by one person (yourself), as you can get input from multiple people in the forums beforehand.
This approach might be difficult, as you’ll need to start putting a greater emphasis in the forums than currently exists. However, it would help your site more than excluding an audience would.
25 February 2009 at 9:32 pm
One thing I realized a few days ago (after I did my last rather jumbled and unorganized review) is that you can definitely “soften the blow” or work in a way that provokes the reviewer to look for good things that they’d like to see again. In fiction writing “workshops,” one of my professors has a set formula: First, the author reads the piece; then we go over what’s in the story, what we think is being done in it and why, and then a point for suggestions (this is the point where criticisms can be aired, although they have to be coupled with a suggestion for improvement). I’t s a simple format, but flexible.
I would certainly be happy working in this manner, because it’s respectful of the author but doesn’t censor the reviewer’s feelings.
25 February 2009 at 9:38 pm
From what I can tell, the site started off as personal reviews and some mod-specific technical help for whoever came by and posted. It’s not clear those directions are being moved away from. I’m afraid I think most of the suggestions in this post seem like advocating censorship to me. If a person’s unhappy with a mod, being able to say why that’s so is the most valuable advice they give to an author. If the author has a reason (or even no reason) for not heeding that advice, that’s a personal choice, but we can’t figure out what will or won’t help an author before they read it. If they have a brittle ego, they can just avoid the section altogether because even well-meaning posts written by nice people can appear offensive. I don’t mean to sound mean, but seriously, if all you want is moral support, find an IRC channel or some other group of like-minded people who you get along with. The ‘net itself is most valuable when it brings differing interest together.
26 February 2009 at 1:36 am
It’s time for Phillip to beat the cr@p out of mappers.
Be afraid… Be very afraid!!
Go for it Phillip!!
26 February 2009 at 1:32 pm
It might be nice to seperate the new, first time mod makers from the others that have made more then one good mod. And maybe add a section for the mod makers to critque their peers work. Add helpful comments and maybe exchange ideas. A kind of tech support for the mods so the new guys can make changes to improve their work and get some valuable help from the more advanced authors.
26 February 2009 at 3:41 pm
i like your idea, and am quite pleased that you took the time to lay out your concerns and plans. i think this new plan will make planet phillip even greater.
27 February 2009 at 7:36 pm
Reviewing isn’t about being nice, nor is it about being mean. It’s about providing an objective critique that praises the good and criticizes the bad in a constructive manner, not a rude and inflammatory one. It’s been said that the worst thing you can for an artist/creator is to praise their work when it’s undeserving. There’s a balance to be struck. Criticize, but don’t be cruel. Pointing out flaws or things you as a player dislike is fine, insulting the creator is not.
I’ll be the first one to agree that some people take it way too far. Whether it’s because they think it’s cool to insult someone, or a weak attempt at humor (don’t get me wrong, being incredibly negative can be funny if done right – Zero Punctuation is a good example), it’s immature and achieves nothing.
But being too nice is almost as bad. I’ve spent some time in The Sims 2’s modding community (believe it or not), and I’ve found that in that community, the majority of people are seem to believe that criticism of any kind is inherently mean, so they routinely don’t say *anything* negative, whether it’s constructive criticism or not. Even the most pitiful and sub-par examples of content are routinely praised. What’s so bad about this, you may ask? When praise is offered so lightly with so little true conviction, it loses its potency. The entire critical process is diluted. If a person barely even has to try in order to get a thumbs up, if no one ever thinks to point out the problems with their work, the poor design choices, the poor aesthetics, whatever; how will they improve?
It has been said that “learning is a painful process”. That applies to criticism too. We could all ignore the negative aspects of the things we review, and only concentrate on the positives, just so we won’t hurt anybody’s feelings, but no one will learn anything. Criticism is a useful tool, like a hammer. The fact that some people use it to bash other’s skulls in doesn’t make it evil.
Deep down, no one likes to have their work criticized because no one wants to make errors, no one wants to fail. But we all do. We’re all striving to be at our best, and constructive criticism is an important part of that process. Constructive criticism is increasingly becoming a lost art. People are either too soft or too harsh, or miss the point of the exercise entirely by failing to think objectively or failing to understand what criticism even is at its core.
Everyone has different tastes in things, some things that appeal to me might not appeal to you, and that’s fine. The problem is that many people I’ve seen don’t understand the difference between the subjective and the objective: For example, I might not like a Toyota Yaris because its looks and features don’t appeal to me or don’t suit my needs. It’s still a fine vehicle, because it does exactly what it’s designed to do. It’s cheap, reliable transport. The fact that it doesn’t appeal to my personal taste in cars doesn’t automatically make it a bad vehicle. Only factors such as the vehicle’s reliability, safety, value and the like should be used to critically evaluate it.
For another example more relevant to the topic at hand, imagine that someone makes a map in which you spend a lot of time fighting Antlions, and imagine that you hate Antlions. The map is top quality throughout, is great fun for anyone who doesn’t hate Antlions like you do. Is it a bad map just because its concept doesn’t appeal to you? No, of course not.
So with all that said my point is that it’s fine to criticize, but that criticism must be constructive, not destructive. Besides that fundamental, the trick is to not allow subjective criteria to cloud the bigger picture, and to not become so jaded that you can hardly see the good in anything. Easier said than done, but so are many things in life.
For the record, I do think standards are set too low here. I do appreciate the efforts of anyone who makes a genuine attempt to create something for others to enjoy, but at the same time nothing grates on my sense of fairness more than seeing something get more praise than it deserves while its blatant flaws are ignored and other mods of equal or better quality mods go relatively unnoticed. I could cough up some examples of this, but I won’t. This post is getting too long already.
27 February 2009 at 9:24 pm
Whilst I enjoyed reading the above post its does however raise I few points worth questioning. Could you give a few examples of what you mean by low standards? I know Phillip has been a bit easy on some of his reviews but that has been explained and disgusted in length. I always try to be consistence with reviews and keep in the main to the overall experience of playing the mod in question. I think it important from the outset that you approach the mod from the point of view of liking it before you start, and then let the playing of it determine how negative or positive the review will be. If you start playing with preconceived negative views then there is no point in writing a review. It like when you interview someone for a job position, the interviewer takes the view that the interviewee has the job, now see if he talks his way out of the job.
Having been a car design engineer for over 20 years, now retired, I am not sure how to take your reference to the Toyota Yaris I have just purchased.
Apart from the name Yaris, which sounds like some Jewish Welshman this is a good little car with well styled European extern lines and acceleration that leaves without trying most other vehicles standing at traffic lights. You need to play a game before reviewing it, equally you need to drive a car before making assumptions, but saying all this I do understand that the car in question in not to everyone’s likes and my North American family have joked about my European like for small cars.
Back to the point in question, sometimes all reviewers will deviate from the balance approach, ‘Nova Prospekt Under Attack’ comes to mind, I just could not find any thing positive to say about this mod, and I think that this is a case where the author deserved to be told just how bad the mod was, in a polite but form way.
On the either hand there are the occasions when new authors submit their first works, asking for feed back, or as with this site, they have been openly encouraged to submit there work when knowing it to be poor standard, in such cases we have reviewed on the lenient side.
27 February 2009 at 9:31 pm
edit playing-up again.
27 February 2009 at 11:25 pm
The problem is, many of us start playing with preconceived positive views. Mainly everything else we’ve played before. And not making a direct subconscious comparison between “what we are seeing” and “what we know it could really be like if done properly” is very difficult.
I wholeheartedly agree with MattyDienhoff about the subjective/objective dilemma. I also try to keep my personal likes and dislikes out of the veredict/rating for a map or mod even if I sometimes mention them. That fact that I like mods to have real characters that interact with the player and new themes and materials I haven’t seen often in HL2, wouldn’t make me give “Minerva:Metastatis” a lower rating even if it is quite lacking in those aspects. As a reviewer, I would understand what the objectives of a map are and how well they’ve been pulled off.
That’s why technical aspects are so important. I don’t mind maps being abstract. But when you see something “trying” to look like a well known element (a building, a bridge, a room destined for a particular purpose) and not really achieving it, that’s what catches my attention most of the time, bringing me out of the game world. A lot of good looking things can be made with less polygons that some weird things I’ve seen over the years, so there’s really no excuse for bad design, being there SO MANY examples of maps to look at for reference.
Continuing my line of thought from the previous days, I have to add that the majority of players were in the second group I mentioned, because I’m pretty certain that the majority of HL2 owners don’t regularly download mods and much less comment on them. It’s just a feeling.
28 February 2009 at 3:15 am
Kasperg said:
Continuing my line of thought from the previous days, I have to add that the majority of players were in the second group I mentioned, because I’m pretty certain that the majority of HL2 owners don’t regularly download mods and much less comment on them. It’s just a feeling.
You could be right.
28 February 2009 at 3:44 am
I play mods regardles what anyone else says.I don’t nitpick etc etc.If I have fun its its good.If I don’t it’s bad.Seems simple enough to me.
28 February 2009 at 4:07 am
Hmmmm, mel, I don’t know where that idea comes from!! I have a 320gb drive that’s about half full of game files! I play ‘em, if I like ‘em I’ll mention so! If I don’t write something “sue me!!” I’ve played, I think, all the respected mod/map creators creations and I thank you all for them!!
BUT when I read all the picking apart that’s been going on latley, I wounder what’s realy going on?? (kinda sounds like my 2nd marriage) This is the reason I don’t listen to movie reviews, I like to make up my own mind, intsead of reading or listening to someone elses distorted/clouded/onesided views!! Trying to be “Bad A.s.s.” will do no good except drive the new/beginer mod/maper to some other site, instead of comming to a quality site like PP!!!! All I’ve got to say is “Back off and give ‘em some slack!!” If you want to read a GOOD comment that makes sense go up to comment #18 by Anonymous and read it!! I whole heartly agree with him/her!! But what do I know, I’m just a dumb old railroad machinist!!! 
28 February 2009 at 4:53 am
I don’t disagree with any thing you are saying AI, so not sure what your comment “I don’t know where that idea comes from!!” is referring to? All I was agreeing to was the fact that there are more HL players not coming to PP then actually do come.
28 February 2009 at 5:21 am
Well, one mod I never could understand the popularity of was Coastline to Atmosphere. It had some interesting ideas but it really left a lot to be desired. The level design is below average, the gameplay is often poorly arranged (running into huge groups of soldiers in corridors or hidden around every corner isn’t a legitimate challenge, it’s meatgrinding, and forcing the player to drive an awkward vehicle like the buggy through really tight spaces is just a recipe for frustration.). Anyway, it’s been a while since I played it so it’s not fresh in my mind, but suffice to say I thought it was average and an example of quantity over quality. Not good, and certainly not great, yet it gets mostly rave reviews here, including several that said it was better than Valve’s episodes. (O_o) Now, subjectively, I could understand if someone said “I enjoyed it more than Valve’s episodes”, I wouldn’t agree, but I’d understand. But comparing the two objectively is like comparing a Hyundai with a Lexus, they just have completely different production values. (Yeah, I know, *another* car analogy?
)
I was just using it as an example of the differences between the subjective and the objective. Subjectively, I wouldn’t buy a Yaris purely because its looks and features don’t appeal to me (I have my eyes set on a larger car, like a Subaru Legacy, mmm). But, objectively, I have no doubt that the Yaris is one of the best vehicles in its class. My point is I understand the difference between “do I like this?” and “is it good at what it does?”; I understand the difference between liking something and objectively perceiving its quality. The fact that I don’t like the Yaris enough to buy one doesn’t mean I think it’s a bad car.
Of course. First releases, incomplete projects and betas are more likely to be flawed, but they have an excuse and so they shouldn’t be judged as sternly as they otherwise might be. Any good reviewer takes these factors into account in forming their final verdict.
I agree completely.
28 February 2009 at 5:30 am
Phillip, you can be honest and clear without being *mean*. Just say what you think, make constructive suggestions, then toss a smiley in that’s flipping off the reader for good measure.
28 February 2009 at 5:50 am
Kasperg said:
Continuing my line of thought from the previous days, I have to add that the majority of players were in the second group I mentioned, because I’m pretty certain that the majority of HL2 owners don’t regularly download mods and much less comment on them. It’s just a feeling.
Maybe I’m offbase, but I don’t agree with this statement! What I’m trying to say is I think Phillip runs a quality site, from some of the others I’ve seen over the years. That’s why I dropped off any of the FileFront sites,HL2,FarCry,etc. Now I do respect Phillip for running a respectable site and keeping tabs on potential “problems” if I did map/mod and was new to it, do you think I’d want to be chewed to death with some of the negetivity that’s been happening?? Example: I ran a milling machine for 20+ years, and I feel I was very good at the job (no big head), when I got a new apprentice, I used my knowlage to teach every aspect about it! Sure there were problems, but they were worked out, without negitivity!
None of this “BAD A.S.S.” attitude, that simply dosen’t cut it!! Amen 
28 February 2009 at 6:22 am
I completely disagree with your comment referring to C to A being grouped ‘Low Standard’, Ok, So you may believe that the quality bar has been raised since the release of C of A, but no way can you or anyone realistically refer to Leon’s mod as low standards. Just to illustrate how ridiculous your statement sounds, there are now over 200 HL2 custom mods/maps released of which 100 are well below standard, 70 are worth playing without beening outstanding the remaining 30 are well above standard. The top 20 are very close with only one point separating 20 from 1. For entertainment value C of A still tops this list, it’s these unrealistic statement knocking about this site of late that is fueling this debate, if you don’t think C to A is the tops, then fine, just say what you think is tops and stop making ridiculous statement such as C to A is low standard. If you want real low standard I will send you a email containing between 100 and 125 mods/maps that are low standard so you can play through and get a real feel for what is low standard, in the meantime stop knocking Leon and his work and be more constructive and realistic in your comments. All things are fluid and new authors will lift the quality and entertainment level of future custom mods, but that is no reason to knock what most gamers would judge has good standards in the pass.
28 February 2009 at 6:35 am
AI, I don’t agree with Kasperg’s groupings and went to great lengths in earlier posts to totally disagree with him. All I was referring to was the fact that he may well be right when he states that the majority of HL players may not advocate this site.
28 February 2009 at 7:16 am
I don’t think you understand what I mean. I didn’t say Coastline to Atmosphere is sub-standard, per se. What I said was I think that it’s quite average, yet most people give it top marks. Compared with *every* other mod out there, its quality is average, not below average, just average. The length helps offset this, but I’ve always believed that quantity doesn’t excuse poor quality. It’s in the top 50 percent, sure. However, among the purported ‘creme de la creme’ of mods it *is* decidedly sub-standard. It’s not *bad*, it’s just not good enough to be on any ‘best of the best’ list, in my opinion. It is overrated. By almost universally ignoring the mod’s glaring flaws, the community shows low standards when it comes to what they regard as greatness.
I know my opinion of Coastline to Atmosphere is unpopular, but I’m not afraid to voice it and I can justify my criticisms of it, but now isn’t the time or the place to review the mod. You wanted an example, I gave you one. And I know there are many worse mods and maps out there, but how many of them receive such overwhelming acclaim? When I put forth C t A as an example of low standards, I mean that the community treats it as if it’s grade A when it’s really grade B.
Entertainment value is very subjective. You say Coastline to Atmosphere is (one of) the most entertaining Half-Life 2 mods? That’s your opinion, nothing more.
Hold up just a minute. Criticizing the mod is “knocking” its creator now? Where in my comment did I insult Leon? All I said was I don’t believe it’s good enough to deserve the tremendous amounts of praise it’s received.
28 February 2009 at 7:22 am
Anyway, Coastline to Atmosphere isn’t the main topic of discussion, the importance of constructive criticism in reviewing is, and Mel, I think by overreacting to criticism of something you like the way you have, you’ve shown that you don’t fully understand the distinction between the subjective and the objective. So you like Coastline to Atmosphere, that’s fine. I like “Night of a Million Zombies” but I would never put it in a hall of fame because it’s just a barely disguised battle arena.
28 February 2009 at 11:30 am
The Half-life series is one of the best selling games out there. Counting sales figures of retail and Steam, HL2:Episode One is currently around 1.75 million units sold (if we assume the number Steam sales are 25% of the number of retail sales)
If we take Moddb as one of the most visited sites for mods and Minerva:Metastasis as one of the best of them, we can see it’s been downloaded there around 15.700 times. Let’s double the figures to 30.000 to account for every other site hosting the download.
It still means that around 1.83 % of HL2:Ep1 users have downloaded (that doesn’t even mean all of them have played it) one of the most highly praised singleplayer mods out there!
I think that’s meaningful. A lot of players are so obsessed with graphics and polish that won’t even care about the mods that are coming out for a game they like. They’ll just move on to the next game. Saying that the majority of players forgives shortcomings in maps doesn’t sound so convincing now that we know they aren’t even interested that much about things that are considered the best.
28 February 2009 at 11:42 am
On a similar note, Valve’s player stat surveys concluded that in both episodes only half of all players even played the last map.
http://www.steampowered.com/status/ep1/?gamesHelp
http://www.steampowered.com/status/ep2/ep2_stats.php
14 March 2009 at 2:27 am
Phillip,
Been visiting for quite some time, just now decided to Join in.
Just need to do a little kissin-up to start off. :}
Love the site, Love the review, Love the rating system. Thank You for all you put into the site.
Now on to comment…
The reason that I return, over and over, are the reviews, FROM ALL!
Your reviews pull a little more weight for me, as I believe that our tastes in maps is similar. I really dislike the dark ones….
However when I read through all the reviews that are left for each map it gives a good impression about the overall quality and playability of the map itself due to the different postings left by all. Different comments, questions and feedback give one a ‘feel’ for what to expect. There have been some maps that I have tried based on specific comments given, even though the overall rating was quite negative.
So, Hammer away Sir! Give no quarter! (Pun intended)
As long as you keep doing it…..
Thanks again.