Since I uploaded a set I've been spending a lot more times reading reviews than I usually do. I've also strongly noticed the way people make their points when reviewing sets.

Comparisons. Reviewers keep comparing the set to another one. Ladies and gentlemen, this just isn't a fair way of reviewing! A very typical example are sets by Agama, most sets are constantly being compared to hers. Lemme point out a few things I've thought a lot about:

1) Everyone has an unique drawing style, you cannot expect everybody to draw in the same style as Agama did. If they did, it would just be copying her and sets would look the same all over at some point. You should always form your own ideas of a good set instead of just taking standard in another set all the time.

2) Sets' styles and differences are what that makes levels vary, tile quality and quantity means a lot when creating a level. For example, a set such as Swamps by Agama would not suit very well to a simply and flat level as it's far too detailed, while a level with characteristic depths would probably require it. It all depends on what level you're making when picking the set, and having "This set would just suck for the level I've in mind" is just being a poor reviewer. I've seen sets that do not support mad slopes and insane movement used well, just as well as I've seen the opposite.

3) The funniest thing about creating more sets is improving your methods of doing it, so instead of just looking back on the older works and compare the improvements of the set, try looking at it as was it a firstborn by a completely unknown author. It's like complaining about Wisety not using the same cool textures over and over again, but that's really what makes his sets original and worthy. Creating sets isn't just about putting puzzle pieces differently together.

The point and conclusion is that it's really up to the level creator to use the set and not up to the example level as many people review from. An example level doesn't show the entire set, but only one possible idea to use it as a demonstration of the set. A set is like artwork, and you should always think of it as that when reviewing imo. All my points summed up:

- Don't critic sets from the way they're drawn, but its mistakes. A set badly drawn could still make an interesting level as long it has a variant of tiles and the important tiles, such as wines and spikes, while a set that is erroneous drawn, having tiles not smoothly fitting together, just looks plain flawed.

- Make sure on you look on the set's originality. What efforts have the author put into it? Is it just rushed textures or is it thoughtful and original? In my opinion, a set is just not good if the author haven't put his creativity and spirit into it.

/end rant

i agree with you.

This should be posted as an article.

gREAT!

While I agree with you on most of it, some drawing styles simply look better than others. When you look at a set like Swamps, or Corrupted Sanctuary by Disguise for example, the drawing style includes a lot of detail and is made to look realistic. They both also have a lot of texture. I'd personally choose those sets over sets which look more cartoon like, or more flat, because to me those sets look a lot better and pleasing, and very detailed. Apparently a lot of people also share my view, because both those sets are rated very high. If you look at other games now, (Including 3D ones), they are progressing to try to make them look as realistic and as detailed as possible. That's just the trend in the drawing style I guess.

I also disagree with you on the point where a badly drawn set can make as good a level as a well drawn one. The peices you have to work with have a lot of influence on your level. If the pieces are poorly drawn and don't look so good, your level will be impacted by it. An example of this is Box Sanctuary by Dax105. He used a set which got a 2.something on j2o. While he is a good levelmaker and the level he made should've been very good, the tileset he used was very poor quality, and his level got a 7 because of that. If he had chosen a better tileset, his level would probably have gotten around an 8.

1) Everyone has an unique drawing style, you cannot expect everybody to draw in the same style as Agama did. If they did, it would just be copying her and sets would look the same all over at some point. You should always form your own ideas of a good set instead of just taking standard in another set all the time.

Basicly what Blacky said, some styles simply look better than others however a cartoony style better fits jj2. If I were to add near realistic scenery to a jj2 tileset it would look out of place rather than amazing.

2) Sets' styles and differences are what that makes levels vary, tile quality and quantity means a lot when creating a level. For example, a set such as Swamps by Agama would not suit very well to a simply and flat level as it's far too detailed, while a level with characteristic depths would probably require it.

BlurredD's pack Jazz Unleashed features a level using swamps, which has a very simple design yet looks quite good. Although I agree that tilesets have a huge impact on how the levels' designed to some extent.

3) The funniest thing about creating more sets is improving your methods of doing it, so instead of just looking back on the older works and compare the improvements of the set, try looking at it as was it a firstborn by a completely unknown author. It's like complaining about Wisety not using the same cool textures over and over again, but that's really what makes his sets original and worthy. Creating sets isn't just about putting puzzle pieces differently together.

True, I agree that you should use your own unique talents to make sets. However a little information from other sets could help.

- Don't critic sets from the way they're drawn, but its mistakes. A set badly drawn could still make an interesting level as long it has a variant of tiles and the important tiles, such as wines and spikes, while a set that is erroneous drawn, having tiles not smoothly fitting together, just looks plain flawed.

A badly drawn set is a mistake.

Moonblaze, calm down and look at what you're posting. I posted one review of your tileset with a rating lower than you expected (which you've done to me in the past). You get mad, post a retort in the reviews area, and then post this thread demanding that people that people not review tilesets based on how well they're drawn? Whatever happened to friendly private messages?
Oh, and the Agama thing. I was only saying that practically everything in your set is in Agama's set, except Agama's set has other things as well. This is a reasonable comparison. It just doesn't make sense to make the same set over and over. You can make a basic nature tileset, but there's not much reason to actually use it in a level if it doesn't have some special features, as otherwise everything in it will be already done in Carrotus/Diamondus/Nature's Ruins/Mystic Forest/WHATEVER only with extra stuff. You want us to review on originality, and yes, that's what's going on.

I can't stand saying this, err, very scary, but I agree with MB on most of his points, I'm not going to go into detail though. But if you feel so strongly, this kinda isn't the place to post this, I say that because there are J2O people who don't visit JCF, anf vice versa. Furthermore, I recommend that you post this at the J2O articles page.

Originally Posted by Unknown Rabbit

Moonblaze, calm down and look at what you're posting. I posted one review of your tileset with a rating lower than you expected (which you've done to me in the past). You get mad, post a retort ...

It has really nothing to do with your review, I respect your reviewing very much since they're always so helpful. If I really hated your critic like you pretend, I wouldn't be emailing you TDI2 levels to get feedback. =P

Originally Posted by Unknown Rabbit

Oh, and the Agama thing. I was only saying that practically everything in your set is in Agama's set, except Agama's set has other things as well. This is a reasonable comparison. It just doesn't make sense to make the same set over and over. You can make a basic nature tileset, but there's not much reason to actually use it in a level if it doesn't have some special features, as otherwise everything in it will be already done in Carrotus/Diamondus/Nature's Ruins/Mystic Forest/WHATEVER only with extra stuff. You want us to review on originality, and yes, that's what's going on.

Yeah, there are lots of types of tilesets that haven't been done before. For example, I never saw a Wild West or China tileset. And there are lots of City or Jungle tilesets.

Originally Posted by JSZ Jazz

Yeah, there are lots of types of tilesets that haven't been done before. For example, I never saw a Wild West or China tileset. And there are lots of City or Jungle tilesets.

I did, sort of

LeSmash made a Wild West, or at least "Mexican Desert"-themed tileset, and Splash made two Japan-themed tilesets.

But you have a point. There are a few themes that everyone uses and lots of themese that are really interesting but nobody makes tilesets with those themes

Moonblaze: You're probably right. I need to stop assuming the worst of you.

I guess I should post my opinions here

1) It is true that everyone has their unique style, but that doesn't mean that all styles are equal in quality. In the end of the saw you are drawing something, and as with anything you draw the better it looks the better it will be rated. While it is true that some styles do look better than others, someone with good drawing abilities would make somehting better using a certain style that someone with bad drawing abilities could do.

While the drawing quality of a set is a big factor of it's overall rating, it is not the only one. Tilesets are not only made to look good but they are also made to create levels with. If a user is unable to create a decent level with a tileset or if the user finds that the tileset limits his levelmaking abilities (eg. lack of needed tiles, difficult to understand tileset layout or a lack of usability with the tiles given) then that user would obviously rate it lower regardless of how good it looks. Note that the above example assumes a general level of skill of the levelmaker and would not always be the case in the real world. A good levelmaker could still make a good level with a bad tileset, while a bad levelmaker could still make a bad level with a good tileset. The point is that the good levelmaker would be able to make a better level with a good tileset than with a bad tileset and vice versa.

2) "Sets' styles and differences are what that makes levels vary, tile quality and quantity means a lot when creating a level."
I agree 100% with that

"For example, a set such as Swamps by Agama would not suit very well to a simply and flat level as it's far too detailed, while a level with characteristic depths would probably require it."
However, I don't 100% agree with that.

The amount of detail in a tileset does not determine it's usability. There are a few cases where this is not true, which is at the very extreme when a user sacrifices tile usability for increased detail (eg. making tileable areas 2x2 tiles instead of 1x1 to increase the variation in the tiles). Mez01 is still a detailed tileset and has a lot of usability. While swamps is a detailed, it doesn't have the usability that mez01 has, but in my opinion this is not due to detail. In my opinion the usability of a tileset is determined by the masked image it usage. After all, the mask determines how the character interacts with the tileset, not the way the actual tileset looks. If the mask is done correctly, it will fit perfectly into the detail of the tileset and there will be no, or very little loss of usability for a great gain in detail.

You also slightly mentioned a bit about themes, but didn't go into detail about them. I do feel that it is an important topic and will expand on it a bit more.

It is true that some themes are more populat than others. In general there are three reasons for this:

a) The theme is easier to make in terms of detail. A few bricks and a road are easier to mak than textured sand and individual grass blades or the like. You could still make a very detailed city-themed set without using shapes that are difficult to draw.

b) The theme is more popular in terms of use. Face it, people like some things more than others. For most people the chance of someone actually using their tileset is low...very low. Why risk having your tileset not used and make something you know not a people like if you could make a space or jungle set instead that you know people use often?

c) The theme has more things to do with or add detail to. Compare a desert to a jungle. In a desert there are very few objects to work with, because a desert is just...well...empty. It is true that with creativity and some imagination you could come up with things like cacti or an oasis, but overall a jungle has a lot more to work with and would be a much easier choice to add detail to. It is mainly because of this reason that I tend to use some themes more than others.

3) I am not quite sure what you mean in the first paragraph even though you mentioned me, but I will try and comment on the pieces that I can interpret.

First and foremost, you are correct that creating more tilesets will improve your skills in tileset making. This is not the case when you keep reusing tiles, as the actual experience you get is when you go down to the nitty-gritty and drawing things over again. Even if the result of the second or third attempt doesn't look as good as the first, you could atleast look at the difference you made between the two and how they compare in terms of detail. I would encourage anyone not to stick to the same style but to keep trying different methods of drawing things, even if the first result doesn't look as good as what you previously did, it might just be because you lack the experience in that way of drawing things. Once you've tried it all, you can then choose a style you like based on what you like and how well you can draw with it. However, this does NOT mean that you should expect someone to rate something you've done later better just because you were experimenting with new styles. If a tileset isn't as good as somehting you did earlier, then don't expect a better rating for it.

Don't ever...ever...EVER rate an example level for a tileset...EVER!
If you do I will...do things that I am unable to say on this board. If deleting ratings on a tileset based on the example level of a tileset is not a rule on J2O already it sure as hell should be, because it is the one thing that tileset makers out there hate and hate and despise and hate more than anything.

Picture this: You spend a month on a tileset, you work your sweet hiney off on adding the detail, making the mask fit perfectly, making sure all the tiles are there, betatesting it with a group of people to amke sure nothing is missed out. After this time you finally make an example level just to show how the tiles fit together with one another and how they are used. After all this work you get a review where someone says: "The level needed a powerup. -1 points".

I would burst into an uncontrollable rage. While the above example is a worst case scenario, there are other cases that are less noticable where people just rate the tileset based on the example level alone. They don't look at the mask and they don't bother to look if there are any extra tiles or ways of drawing it based on the tileset image and just assume that the example level shows how all levels should be made with the tileset. This is BAD! DON'T EVER DO THIS! When you review, please pretty please only use the example level as a guide. Look at the tileset, look at the mask, look at how the parts fit together, look at how the pieces fit together, stare at that little seemingly insignificant little rock thingy and look at how much time and effort the creator of the tileset put into making that small piece of detail look as good as it is and how he made it fit into the rest of the tileset in such a way that it is so perfect you don't even notice it.
This is what makes a good tileset, not the example level.

"Don't critic sets from the way they're drawn, but its mistakes."
This is wrong, with that sentence you are saying that you should completely ignore the amount of detail in the tileset and only rate it's usability. It takes effort to put detail into a tileset and make it look good, a lot of effort, don't ignore it. However, you shouldn't just rate a tileset based on it's detail alone, do look at the mistakes, do look at the usability, but don't forget to look at the detail aswell.

I'm not a tileset creator, never has, never will be, so I don't fully understand what Moonblaze and the others, especially Wisey, is ranting on about. I do agree with the points that I am familiar with and I think everyone should follow the advice in here, epecially the stuff from Wisey's infinitely long and infinitely tedious post.

Originally Posted by Disguise

"Don't critic sets from the way they're drawn, but its mistakes."
This is wrong, with that sentence you are saying that you should completely ignore the amount of detail in the tileset and only rate it's usability. It takes effort to put detail into a tileset and make it look good, a lot of effort, don't ignore it. However, you shouldn't just rate a tileset based on it's detail alone, do look at the mistakes, do look at the usability, but don't forget to look at the detail aswell.

By that I meant, do not critic sets from the style they're drawn in, such as texurial, comic, realistic, ect. as your very very own personal prefence doesn't lower the possibilities with it, the theme, the details, everything. A good example is Mirrow's sets, they don't really fit Dean Dodrill's style, and so what? They're still excellent tilesets that contain a lot of originality, unique details, ect. You should be open to new styles, I've always wanted to do a style that made it look like Jazz was moving on a painting.

By the way, I <3 you Wisety.

^_____________________________________^

Talking about originality, somebody needs, sry must, make a huge library tileset filled with books, bookshelves, databanks, ladders, stairs, paintings of bald old men and of course a giant book with the title 'JJ2 Source code' that is shut with a giant lock labelled 'Epic Games'.

How 'bout we make a thread "types of tilesets that haven't been done yet"?

Or a BIG "most original tileset" contest. =3

Then someone would make a tileset made of photos or something. Bah.

That would.. look weird. Eh. You'd simply have to put up well thought-out rules.