EvilMike
Feb 14, 2002, 03:58 PM
What do you think it means for a level to be good?
I personally think that a good level requires a layout that works, decent flow, well placed events and of course looking good. My reviews are always based off these factors, and they are usually fairly accurate (when I say accurate I mean that they are similar to the average rating of the level). I believe that a structured rating system like mine works best and rewards people more for doing a good job because it is able to analyse the detail and work they put into the level. Using my rating system, a quick review of Diamondus Warzone (in its original state, completely non-edited) may go like this:
Diamondus Warzone, while a decent level, has some major flaws to it. The layout itsn't bad, although some flow-related problems exist in it such as the V-poles located in the middle of the level. The level is slightly imbalanced due to the fact that getting from red base to blue base is slightly faster than going the other way, which can create some problems in 1vs1 play but otherwise isn't much of a problem. The ammo is placed well, but I don't like how it is possible to start close to the enemy base for either team, but red more so. DW isn't the best looking level either, with quite a few eyecandy bugs, and the scenery is quite monotonus making it hard to know where you are unless you are quite experienced in this level. There is also the huge problem of a shield being in the level and it is also very prone to flag bug. I give this level a 5 out of 10, which I think is fair.
My review of this level is quite low, but when looking at the different aspects of the level, it is accurate, assuming 5 is a straight average. Another reviewing philosophy is a more simple one, which bases the total score simply on how fun the level is. Most gimmicky levels recieve high scores by people who review like this, but it is not a bad thing. It's a good arguement that because a level is generally designed to be fun, that is what makes it good or not as opposed to the more technical review that I do. A DW review might go somewhat like as follows if this method is used:
I have had many great games in this level, and it has a reason for being one of the most popular. It's great to play in because everyone knows the layout (almost), and it it is pretty much fun no matter how many people play. I especially like the usage of the warp, as you have to end up predicting if somebody is in the carrot room or not. Lots of good strategy here. I give the level a 7 because it's just so fun.
Anyway, what do you think the proper way to review a level is? What do you think makes a level good? Pick something. Don't say both. I want to be able to debate this ;)
I personally think that a good level requires a layout that works, decent flow, well placed events and of course looking good. My reviews are always based off these factors, and they are usually fairly accurate (when I say accurate I mean that they are similar to the average rating of the level). I believe that a structured rating system like mine works best and rewards people more for doing a good job because it is able to analyse the detail and work they put into the level. Using my rating system, a quick review of Diamondus Warzone (in its original state, completely non-edited) may go like this:
Diamondus Warzone, while a decent level, has some major flaws to it. The layout itsn't bad, although some flow-related problems exist in it such as the V-poles located in the middle of the level. The level is slightly imbalanced due to the fact that getting from red base to blue base is slightly faster than going the other way, which can create some problems in 1vs1 play but otherwise isn't much of a problem. The ammo is placed well, but I don't like how it is possible to start close to the enemy base for either team, but red more so. DW isn't the best looking level either, with quite a few eyecandy bugs, and the scenery is quite monotonus making it hard to know where you are unless you are quite experienced in this level. There is also the huge problem of a shield being in the level and it is also very prone to flag bug. I give this level a 5 out of 10, which I think is fair.
My review of this level is quite low, but when looking at the different aspects of the level, it is accurate, assuming 5 is a straight average. Another reviewing philosophy is a more simple one, which bases the total score simply on how fun the level is. Most gimmicky levels recieve high scores by people who review like this, but it is not a bad thing. It's a good arguement that because a level is generally designed to be fun, that is what makes it good or not as opposed to the more technical review that I do. A DW review might go somewhat like as follows if this method is used:
I have had many great games in this level, and it has a reason for being one of the most popular. It's great to play in because everyone knows the layout (almost), and it it is pretty much fun no matter how many people play. I especially like the usage of the warp, as you have to end up predicting if somebody is in the carrot room or not. Lots of good strategy here. I give the level a 7 because it's just so fun.
Anyway, what do you think the proper way to review a level is? What do you think makes a level good? Pick something. Don't say both. I want to be able to debate this ;)