Violet CLM on April 28, 2003 06:00
Actually, the fact of the matter is, the official SP levels are better then much of the stuff out there, and the tilesets are better then almost all of it. The multiplayer levels are kind of sad, but IMHO each and every file that came with JJ2 is above average, and most in the 8+ range.
Waz on April 29, 2003 06:00
I don’t believe you really understood my point there, Violet. Read the article again.(or maybe I should edit it, so that people understand better…)
Violet CLM on April 29, 2003 06:00
I am not responding to the article as a whole, merely these parts of it:
“If we follow the rating standards of some reviewers, all the official stuff, apart from the single player episodes, would be just average and mosty below average.”
“Let’s consider the official battles: these levels would get ratings of about 3 or 4 on this site.”
“Tilesets: Only good graphics. Most of the official sets are hard to use, don’t have all the extra stuff, and some have a bad eyecandy possibility. Not all needed tiles available. And some are 1.24 only.
Tilesets aren’t that great, still with the raing standards of some reviewers(I will repeat that a lot in this article). And some even, would get bad ratings just because they’re made for 1.24!” (Which, I believe, is against the rules)
“Would most of the official stuff be below average,”
Blackraptor on April 30, 2003 06:00
Gameplay: Ok, some places welcome some springs, but its pretty good, except for that dead end at the bottom left.
Cons: some minor things that could of been fixed by placing one or 2 event tiles.
Eyecandy: Nothing special, but nothing wrong either.
Pros: Basic good eyecandy.
Cons: Nothing extraordinary
Layout: I quite liked it, very strategic and all, except Im not too fond of the destruct blocks or some dead ends. A bit spaz biased.
Pros: Very strategic, nicely done
Cons: A bit spaz biased, dead end.
Ammo: Placed ok, except the freezer wasnt really needed, and so wasnt the shield at the top. Great place for seeker. I dont think Blaster generates though.
Pros: Nothing really horrible.
Cons: Some ammo not needed, Blaster doesnt generate, shield out in the open.
Overall (not an average): Its actually a great level. lots of strategy will be involved in duels that take place here. This could of gotten a 9 from me if it werent for some noticable cons.
Cons: Too many noticable ones
Final: I think you get the point from my not so well made review. I would make one for B1 or DW or some others, but you get the point.
Waz on May 01, 2003 06:00
No, Blackraptor, seriously.
For Battle1. This is the way it would be rated here:
Gameplay: bad. there’s like some sort of road you have to follow.
Eyecandy: bad, also. Very “empty” eyecandy.
Layout: Basicly, an 8 on its side. Ok, there are some strategic points.
Weapons: far from exeptional, but I can live with it.
Overall: boring level, quite empty.
Ok, it might get a 5 and not a 4 as I said, still with the way most people here rate, and THAT’s the problem.
You can all denie this, but I know it’s true. Some of us don’t really look at what’s happening. You THINK these levels get high rating, but that’s because their the official ones. If any member of this site would have made it, it wouldn’t get a good rating.
This unreasonnable rating problem isn’t such a big problem, but it makes this site not fun anymore. Note that I wrote this article for other people, who are left a bit behind, and not for me. My average rating is 7.2, and that suits me fine. I’m just one of those guys that can’t always tolerate when there’s not enough justice for some people.
Waz on May 01, 2003 06:00
Also note that I like all the official level(exept treasure 3), and that I just talked about these levels to show you my point. Some people, appearantly, didn’t understand that. I’m talking about unreasonnable ratings, and just took the official stuff to explain the facts. I’m not attacking the game. I actually love it, because it never gets boring(which is exeptionnal with computer stuff).
Bjarni: I sent a private message to you, to “Bjarni the real one”. It concerned something that might interrest you.
I don´t know what you mean, Waz! The ratings aren´t get suck! Just stop look at ratings! And say with yourself “I can´t see the rating” that do I do if someone is do something that I don´t like! Try to do that! ;)
American on May 02, 2003 06:00
I found something quite hilarious in this article. You mentioned that the single player levels were unoriginal. Can you enlighten me on what levels existed before them?
Waz on May 02, 2003 06:00
Trafton, I never said the SP levels were unoriginal!! I said “all the official stuff, apart from the single player episodes, would be just average and mosty below average.” This doesn’t mean the SP is even worse! It means it’s NOT average or below average, but it’s ABOVE average!!!! “apart from the SP episodes”! There’s average, below average, and above average. If the SP is not average, nor below average, what do we have left? Yes, above average! Am I surounded by total idiots, or something? You guys don’t get it!! I’m NOT dissing the official stuff!! Ok? I just used the official levels to EXPLAIN my point! Is that so hard for you to understand?
What counts here is NOT what I said about the official levels! It’s the fact that some people rate unreasonnably! That’s what this article talks about. And so far, you only gave comments on what I said about the official stuff.
Let us be clear now: I’m NOT saying the official stuff is bad! I like the official stuff, to me it’s all above average! I’m just using the official stuff to explain my point, which is that the rating standards of some of us are getting unreasonnable! If the official stuff was made by someone else, or wasn’t official, it would have got bad ratings!
American on May 03, 2003 06:00
“Let’s consider the official battles:
these levels would get ratings of about 3 or 4 on this site. Why? Look at the eyecandy. There’s mostly not much of it. Look at the layout. The layout of all three levels is below average(still with the rating standards of some of us). The weapon placement is just average. Originality? nope.”
But, regardless, I liked the article. I may not agree with it, but it was interesting, and I do agree with many of the points raised. Good job.
Thrifty on May 03, 2003 06:00
What Waz is trying to say, is that ratings are being influenced by the authors reputation. For example, Blade and Waz (I have nothing against these two players, but it might help explaining, what I believe is, Waz’s point here)
Blade has mostly had good ratings(8-10), because of his amazing grfx and original ideas.
Waz has received some 7s, some 6s, sometimes 8(but rarely) for average grfx, unoriginal ideas, incomplete, etc.
Now let us compare the two shall we :
Grafx : equal(for Waz’s last tilesets, especially Hustar Mk3, compared to Blade’s Space)
Originality : though originality is a more subjective criteria, Blade has been a lil more original than Waz(eg: Aztec) but from my point of view, they’re almost equal.
Now, why does Blade have better ratings?
I believe cuz we took his reputation into consideration.
Same with the official MP(!!!) stuff.
Battle 1(though I love this level) :
Originality : average(following some reviewer’s standards)
Layout : above average, very empty though the gameplay is fluid
Weapon placement : average, very little ammo, scarcely placed
Eyecandy : below average, the level is actually kinda boring if you look closely
Now, does this level deserve a 6.2(for eg)? No! Of course not! But if we follow some reviewer’s standards, we conclude with such a rating. Which means something’s wrong here. I believe what Waz’s trying to say(and if I’m right, I agree) is that some are being far to strict, always searching the smallest mistake, and taking into consideration the author’s reputation.
Some reviewers should seriously reconsider their reviewing methods.
Violet CLM on May 03, 2003 06:00
Waz: As often or not, Waz’s tilesets have no definite theme, or there is a theme but he simply gives up and starts putting in another tileset altogether.
Blade: Blade’s tilesets are, for the most part, completely themed, and do not try to branch off into nearby areas.
Waz: Waz’s tilesets consist of a few blocks, some pillars created out of gradients, an occasional texture, and occasionally some nice looking stuff.
Blade: A simple drawing style, but a consistancy of quality and it ends up looking good anyway.
Waz: The normal stuff, except little in the way of eyecandy.
Blade: Some of the normal stuff, and a great deal of tiles to fit together platforms in rare but ultimately useful ways.
Waz: Is it just me, or do most of Waz’s tilesets feel the same? Frozen and the latest Hustar thing are distinguishable, but with the rest, I’m rarely quite sure which tileset is being used in a level.
Blade: Each tileset looks different, no repeats of anything, and sometimes unexplored themes. The filenames suck, though.
Waz: For competition, a tileset needs a theme. However, the fact remains that there are better tilesets which seem to be similar to Waz’s work out there.
Blade: Usually takes hold of a theme and doesn’t leave much room for improvement.
EASE OF USE:
Waz: The tilesets are small, and as a result, are fairly easy to use.
Blade: The variety of tiles can get a little confusing, and some tiles seem to be placed with little or no reason.
Waz: Seems to work.
Blade: Seems to work.
Waz: Waz’s tilesets, while good, can not compete with people <i>who make better tilesets</i>.
Blade: Blade makes good, solid tilesets, which are also <i>not as good as some other tilesets out there.</i>
“Now, why does Blade have better ratings? I believe cuz we took his reputation into consideration.”
Ok, let’s look at reputations. Disguise is, of course, a perfect example. Think about PiGgY, ZA’s Bad Side, Rush Hour and Townsville (special case). Disguise did not spend nearly as much work on these as with his better works, and as a result, the <i>ratings were not as good.</i> Some reviewers make a point of not even seeing who the author is before they finish the review, so as not to be possibly biased.
Let’s say Agama released a tileset consisting of a single platform with a low quality green gradient, a tree made of a single vertical brown line with no texture or shading at all, and a background which is pure blue with a white circle. Wow, let’s give it an 8 because while it’s not as good as Agama’s other works, anything Agama does is great, right? No. Let’s rate it on its merits, such as they are, and conclude Agama has gone wacko.
By the way, Thrifty, I hardly think you are one to speak about biased reviewing, when you seem to review hardly anything other than Waz’s work, and that usually above the average rating.
American on May 04, 2003 06:00
Back on the subject please.
Waz on May 04, 2003 06:00
Thrifty: er… reputation? I don’t think you really understood the article. It actually concerned the fact that ratings are sometimes just getting unreasonnable. And I’d prefer you don’t use my name for the explanation thing there you did, OK? I know there’s no offense, but it makes me feel uncomfotable in a certain way.
Violet: there is a theme in my tilesets, actually. Maybe they’re to bad to notice it… And I don’t really “give up” near the end as you said, and just put some xtra tiles in the set. Though I sometimes forget a few necessarry tiles… And there aren’t many textured backgrounds, cuz I use Paint. It’s very hard to find colors for a texture with that.
Waz on May 04, 2003 06:00
Ok, Bjarni. I can also tell it here: go look at the 2 comments I posted on Jelze’s article “about autism(evryone read!)”. I talked about a possible cure for autism. I thought it might interest you.
Thrifty on May 04, 2003 06:00
Violet : True. I do rate Waz’s stuff kinda often, though I don’t know precisely why. I often download stuff, but I’m not that addicted to JJ2, so I often think:“Oh, what’s the use” and then delete the zips and presto. But, with Waz’s stuff, I don’t know, I’m more motivated than others to rate. Why ? Beats me…Stupid actually, now that I think about it…Now that you mention it…And I’ve almost always rated above average, never mind the author. I believe I’m just to kind.
And, though I not often review, I always read the reviews given by others, which made me conclude this. When I saw the article’s title (I didn’t realize it was Waz’s) I just read it through. And when I saw some comments given, I decided to motivate myself just this time to write a comment. And now that u guyz responded to it, I feel obliged to answer…which is contra-natural for me =B
And I agree Blade makes better Sets than Waz, but I still have the feeling that in some way, especially with grfx, they’re not that distant. Blade’s sets are far more complete, but hard to use, and some times several tiles could’ve been left out. Waz is just the opposite.
And a theme: Every tst has a theme. And Blades “themes” aren’t much more elaborated thanWaz’s “themes”. Or maybe we just have a different perception on the “theme” word.
Waz, I don´t read massages under name Bjarni the real one! Only the real one Bjarni, I didn´t read that because that´s banned guy! Send the real one Bjarni massage, because Bjarni the real one isn´t here on jazz2online! I hope you understand! Re-send me to the real one Bjarni, ok? Do that! ;)
That has nothing to do with Gruntz!
American on May 05, 2003 06:00
Please keep this away from a flamewar. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them wrong, nor does it mean they are attacking you. Please try to keep the flamewar-friendly comments to a minimum and stay on topic.
Waz on May 05, 2003 06:00
No, Bjarni, it had nothing to do with Gruntz. It was about a cure for autism. Isn’t that great? Bjarni, I’m just trying to help you with your disease. I don’t really care about Gruntz right now(I don’t even know the game). What counts right now is you, ok? You can get cured.
Ok, back to the subject…
Waz on May 05, 2003 06:00
JSZ Jazz: you don’t understand! I like battle1! I just explained how it would be rated on this site. To explain my point! Everyone thinks I don’t like official stuff! I do like it, ok? I like all the official stuff. I NEVER said battle 1 was bad! NEVER!! Tell me where I said that I though battle1 was bad! I just said how it would be rated on this site if it wasn’t official! Is that SO hard for you to understand? READ WHAT’S WRITTEN, D*MNED! I never said I didn’t like the official stuff! You’ve got it ALL WRONG!!
And I’m not that type of person, “my stuff isn’t liked so I don’t like other stuff”. I more like “You don’t like my stuuf? Do I really look like I care?!”. I don’t care if I get bad ratings, I just want things to be right. And, as I already mentioned, this article wasn’t written for me. I’ve been noticing that rating are getting biased, and people get left behind.
Could some you guys please tell me the parts of this article you’re reffering to, and thus, understood wrong? I will enlighten it if needed.
(Flamewar bait removal. -Trafton)
DoubleGJ on May 05, 2003 06:00
Waz, I think you’re the type of person: “My stuff isn’t liked so I don’t like other stuff”. Just think – if Battle1 is so bad why it’s the most often hosted level? Why, even if it’s so old and overused, we still play it? Think about that, and maybe some day you will understand.
PS: I forgot to mention, almost all duels are played on Battle1.
Gamer is always saying this sence! Understad, Waz?
Waz on May 06, 2003 06:00
I give up.
23 comments. Not one is really concerning the subject.
Only comments saying I said official stuff is bad, saying I don’t like it, and some even saying I’m kinda childish(JSZ Jazz: “my stuff isn’t liked, so I don’t like other stuff”)
And me trying to explain why they’re wrong and the things they understood wrong.
Were kinda running cercles here.
Now, let me make it clear, on last time:
I like all the official stuff, exept treasure hunt three.
All I said in this article about the official stuff, is the way it would be rated here, if it wasn’t official.
I used the official stuff to explain my point, it’s the only thing everyone has, so everyone know what I’m reffering to.
I didn’t write this article for myself, but for other who are left behind.
I already said it; I accept every rating as long as it makes sence.
And most important: this article was about rating that get unreasonnable.
Admins, please delete this article quikly. It’s getting nowhere. I just wanted things to get right, but I failed.
Sorry for all the bad things I said above to some people. I just got mad about the ignorence of some. I might’ve over reacted a bit, but I’m in a depressive mood these days, and there’s not much needed to make me angry.
Waz, many people dotn care about the author of the level, but the quality. I admit the eyecandy in battle 1 is a bit dull, but what makes my rating 8 is because the rest of the categories (originality, gameplay, ammo a bit, and layout) make up for the eyecandy.
True, the original levels wouldn’t get ratedd as high as they would ove 2 years ago, but thats because expectations are getting higher, they’re changing. Look at SXR, before it was considered quite good, now its just considered a bit above average by some people. You can’t expect expectations to always stay the same.
Waz on May 08, 2003 06:00
Hmm… maybe you’re right Blackraptor. But, if expectations keep on getting higher, the newbies will never be able to get good ratings, cuz when they get better, the expectations might have goten higher, and they’re still left behind.
I think we should also be more generous when rating the stuff of a newbie.
And what’s SXR?
Waz on May 08, 2003 06:00
Well, yes, we shouldn’t expect too much from new people.
“If expectations keep on getting higher, the newbies will never be able to get good ratings, cuz when they get better, the expectations might have goten higher, and they’re still left behind.”
That’s why we should consider the fact they’re new.
And thats what we are trying to do, by writing a nice and positive review for the first levels of new jj2 players. if we upgrade their rating just because they are new, it wouldn’t be fair to some of the oldies. (For instance, Cell made a good CTF level rated 8, while a noob came and made a sucky 4 worth CTF level but people are “nice” and give him an 8, which is what Cell got, though the newbie’s level isn’t anywhere as good as Cell’s)
That was just an example, no offence whatsover intended to anyone.
Violet CLM on May 08, 2003 06:00
SXR is some hideously overrated pack by Spaztic, containing standard eyecandy, unamusing levels, and poor puzzles. But that’s just my opinion.
“I think we should also be more generous when rating the stuff of a newbie.”
Whoops! There goes the anti “rating on reputation” campaign!
blurredd on May 09, 2003 06:00
I wonder if there’s anything else that hasn’t been said…
Well, battle1, according to JSZ Jazz, “is the most often hosted level.” It probably is mainly because new players are the ones who are hosting it. And they do that constantly, especially on TSF. And since they aren’t bored of the level yet and/or are too lazy to find and download better levels from J2O, they get addicted to it and like it a whole lot. And of course, this was the same for when the game was first released. With this, people wouldn’t rate the Battle Game levels incredibly low (3 or 4?!?) as you probably already know. Like a bunch of people have said before, expectations are high, but they aren’t impossibly high. New level makers just have to work a little harder for better ratings.
But I think almost everything has been said already. Waz, you’ll just have to raise your own standards for your own levels and tilesets to solve your problems.
American on May 09, 2003 06:00
What does who is making it have to do with anything? If Disguise makes a level and then john_cool_man_dude23432432 makes the same level, they are still the same level.
blurredd on May 10, 2003 06:00
Maybe I should have read some of the other comments more closely. Anyway, a lot of ratings may be unfair. But then again, a lot of reviewers can’t rate fairly. So of course, how fairly a level or tileset is rated often depends on who rates it. Reputation may or may not be a factor. Most people are more likely to download and rate a level by a well-known author than that of someone new. And other times, it could just be the name of the level. I myself probably wouldn’t download something named “Bob’s first level” over “Deep Sea Carnage.” And everyone has a different opinion on things like eye candy and gameplay. And about this “perfectionist” thing, it’s not that bad. Small bugs that look like nothing could hinder gameplay a lot. I can’t say every glitch needs fixing, but most do.
So, to get “fair” reviews, you would either have to get newer players to rate better or compromise the ratings of older reviewers. IMO, most levels are rated as fairly as they can ever get. The only real thing to worry about is the short review with an unreasonable rating.
blurredd on May 10, 2003 06:00
Wait… is that a generalization or is “Deep Sea Carnage” that bad a name?
Waz on May 10, 2003 06:00
Blackraptor: the example you gave with Cell and a newbie isn’t really correct. When beibg more generous with newbies, I meant giving maybe +1 or +0.5 on the rating, but not giving the DOUBLE. That, indeed, would be unfair to oldies.
BlurredD: “Waz, you’ll just have to raise your own standards for your own levels and tilesets to solve your problems.” What do you mean? I didn’t really understood. And there’s no problem for me, I already said that. The ratings I get suit me fine. I’m writing this for some people who get left behind.
Giving it a bonus of +1 or +o.5 isnt fair as well. We want to keep the ratings on j20 as fair as possible, and giving newbies a bonus wont really help them understand why the level is bad or stuff. You may give them a bonus if you want, Waz, but Im not going to. Just because they are new doesn’t mean they are better than everyone and deserve bonus marks.
Violet CLM on May 10, 2003 06:00
This is kind of off topic, but I would rather download “Bob’s first level” then “Deep Sea Carnage”.
American on May 11, 2003 06:00
You rate the level, not the person. You can make plenty of friendly comments in the review. But do not modify the score. It is not fair to others.
“I think giving a bonus to newbies is fair, only if their stuff is below average”
So, they get a bonus for making a <i>bad level</i>? Huh?
Waz on May 11, 2003 06:00
I think giving a bonus to newbies is fair, only if their stuff is below average(I didn’t already mention that I think). I’m giving bonus thingies to “bad” newbies(only for their first levels, mind you) to encourage them to make more levels and to practice. It’s psychological.
Violet CLM on May 11, 2003 06:00
Basically, it sounds like the name of a 7.2 – 8.5 Battle/CTF level, which is the kind of level I don’t download. Bad stuff is easier to review, though, and I’m lazy.
Also I don’t like underwater levels very much.
American on May 12, 2003 06:00
Encourage them, but do not raise the rating. Raising the rating is unfair to more experienced or talented new levelmakers. Just because a new player made the level does not mean it is better.
Again, J2O is for rating the level, not who made the level.
Waz on May 12, 2003 06:00
“So, they get a bonus for making a bad level? Huh?”
No, I’m trying to encourage them like that. They don’t need to be encouraged when their stuff is average.
Derby on May 13, 2003 06:00
While expectations getting higher might not be good news for newer level creators, it is actually a good thing for the bar to be raised, if you care about the progression of the community. On the other hand, if you want the recycling of old ideas and the lack of variety and freshness in upcoming levels, increasing expectations would not be good. To most, the latter sounds outright disappointing. That is partly why J2O is around: To boost variety and freshness, and also to inspire innovation. J2O does not reject low caliber content, although it can be admitted, it certainly discourages it.
American on May 13, 2003 06:00
Derby is completely correct, in my opinion. It is a good thing for the standards to be raised. After all, it is not the newbie’s levels which are high quality. The standards make better the levelmakers that are already good. New levelmakers may indeed get lower ratings, but you should encourage them with words.
Waz on May 13, 2003 06:00
Trafton, you’re kinda right. I shall reconsider my habits with ratings.
Another thing about what Blackraptor said: expectations get higher. That’s not good. There are always newbies coming here, and as I already said, they will get left behind cuz they won’t be able to catch up with the rest. That’s why expectations shouldn’t get higher. I think we must take the official levels as a basis of average or above average, and rate levels by comparing it to the official stuff… or something like that.
Waz on May 14, 2003 06:00
Hmm… it makes you think.
I’m getting kinda confused here…
Expectations are getting higher because levels are getting better. Back several years ago expectations were lower because not many people were good at using JCS. Now things change.
Tik on June 06, 2003 06:00
“SXR is some hideously overrated pack by Spaztic, containing standard eyecandy, unamusing levels, and poor puzzles. But that’s just my opinion.”
Hahahahaha, thanks. I don’t mind, but that’s just a funny way of proving Blackraptor’s point. Back in the day people were gung-ho about handing out perfect scores to work that nowaday would be hardly up to par. I think this is a good thing, as ratings are more accurate, and higher ratings are given to people who really deserve them for innovation and creativity.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the current status of how people give ratings. There is a better methodology, you know what to expect, and you can find quality downloads easier.
Mike on July 23, 2003 06:00
I agree with the point that the official multiplayer levels would be low-rated. That’s because they have bad eyecandy. Why is eyecandy so important if gameplay is good, anyway?
Oops, if people were following that standard, my tilesets, wich I haven’t uploaded, would get a 8. Myself, I would give them a 6.
Waz on September 19, 2003 06:00
I NEVER SAID THE SINGLE PLAYER LEVELS ARE BAD, OK?!!