Jazz Jackrabbit 2 Online

Pretty good level… the eyecandy is good and all, but only layers 4 and 8 were used. It’s also sort of small, but I liked it.

Download? Yes, if you feel like playing a fun, quick level.

Bad:
Way too straight level.
Too much eyecandy(that’s new. usually there’s not enough).
Bad weapon placement.

Good:
Not too bad for a first try.

I would have given a 2, but I’ve got a habbit to give a little higher ratings to first stuff.

A 3.

Well, this turned out exactly the way I expected, especially for a first CTF level. However, this levels gameplay is barely playable and not the slightest bit enjoyable. The layout is mostly straight and totally unbalanced.

They’re no borders so you know what that means… FLAG BUG. Next time you make a CTF level make sure you border the edges with at least 2 or 3 tiles to prevent this.

The flow was ok, but with the straight layout what do you expect? the layout is just too flat and uninteresting for CTF or any gametype for that matter.

Event placement was probably the worst aspect here as the way it’s placed both to unbalance the teams/bases and the evil hurt events (That can kill the server unlike the client)and another problem is that there’re two +1 carrots placed some what in the middle, this would be ok for a full NRG but not this way. Also, you can shoot the +1’s to the bottom of the level below the warps with are in the same area, I haven’t fully tested this, but they may be impossible to reach this way.

No new strategies in this level or hardly any strategy at all, your best bet is to camp at the 2 +1’s (risking them being shot to the ground. Probably out of reach).

The eyecandy is below average since it only uses layer 4 and 8, the tileset use is average. No new interesting uses to talk of. The eyecandy is simply below average and and really nothing new about it, however, i’m glad it’s not in any way ugly (though the gems aren’t very pretty when overused like that).

I feel no need to further explain this level, for a first attempt at CTF all I have to say is good try. Keep making CTF and other levels of any gametype, just take the adivce of the reviewers, practice, and you’ll make decent or even good levels in the future, don’t be afriad to try new concepts with gameplay and eyecandy (If they are good ones ;P).

Sorry, no download reccomendation.

-fs

[This review has been edited by Fire Sword!]

The joys of rating a first CTF level. Let’s begin:

GAMEPLAY:

Not good at all. No balance, no borders, lacks flow, and too open at the top. The layout is too wide and wasn’t planned too well, and the only start position at the bottom left reflects it. And on top of that, it manages to include some hurt events (which kill the server and no one else).

My advice: Use borders around the level at least two tiles thick (three tiles recommended). This will prevent the flag bug, and even if you don’t know what it is, that’s ok. It could help raise you ratings for CTF levels in the long run. Secondly, use Multiplayer Level Start events only. And place at least one of them near each of the bases. Of course, you’ll have to set them to be the same with the bases. Team=0 is for blue team and Team=1 is for red, although that’s not too hard to figure out. Also, in my opinion if you make some of the tree branches use one ways (which I recommend), you might as well make them all have it. It’s less annoying this way. And futhermore, poles are also annoying so limit the use of them (or better yet, don’t use them at all).

EYE CANDY:

For a first level (or first CTF level, same difference), it’s rather typical. It misuses the tileset in several places and it overloads on the diamond tiles in the walls. And apparently it only uses layer 4 and 8. I could probably assume that you don’t know how to place tiles on other layers well or what not.

CARROT AND AMMO PLACEMENT:

I think I only saw two +1 carrots in the level. Full energy carrots are generally better (preferably one or two spread out), but I’m not going to go into that at the moment. Ammo placement was not that good with some ammo here and there. The powerup placement was worse: just a bunch of powerups placed throughtout the level. And better yet, you placed one of the least useful powerups (the pepper spray one) in a warp. If anything, limit the number of powerups to two or three.

HOST THIS OFTEN?

Definitely not. This level needs a lot more work before it can deserve a higher rating. I’m giving this a 3.

My best advice: Read my review for Dapete’s level (http://www.jazz2online.com/downloads/moreinfo.php?levelid=2008) for some more CTF basics. And play some other CTF levels and see what makes them good. You can use some of their features in your own levels. You also might want make your levels loop in the near future. I loathe levels without next level settings.

BTW, the boss2.j2b file you used overwrites the original boss music. But that’s not entirely your fault since XpandoZ is the one to blame with his “Single-Player Time!” pack.

Well, this is not much of an improvement over the author’s previous works, but it does show some effort. Still, it needs quite a bit of work.

TILESET/TILESET USE: The used tileset was “Diamondus”. Not only is Diamondus generally overused, but this level does not use it all that well, and it ends up looking pretty bad. While there are not tons of tile errors, there are a lot of parts that look questionable or generally bad that severely detract from the overall look and feel of the level. Not very good eyecandy.
Pros: Does not have tons of tile errors.
Cons: Boring eyecandy. Questionable tile uses.
Rating: 4.0

WEAPON/ITEM PLACEMENT: There is some good weapon placement, but mostly this level consists of a lot of badly done clumping. The basic ammo placement is good, but definitely good have been better. There are far too many powerups for a CTF level and a small one at that.
Pros: Basic ammo placement was livable.
Cons: Clumping.
Rating: 4.7

ORIGINALITY: This is not very original at all.
Rating: N/A

GAMEPLAY/DESIGN: Gameplay and design is where this level performs worst. The most noticable problem is that there is quite a good deal of flag bug. In order to prevent flag bug, the level must be surrounded by a 3-tile mask on every side of it. Because of the flag bug, this level is everything but unplayable. The rest of the level does not fare well either. There are warps to the start where there should not be, and the “warp center” sort of messes up any strategy that could be planned. Gameplay is possibly the weakest aspect of this level.
Pros: No.
Cons: Yes.
Rating: 2.0

REPLAY VALUE/FUN FACTOR: This level is not enjoyable at all to play, which obviously makes for a poor replay value. Mix that in with the flag bug and you’ve got yourself a 1.7.
Pros: None.
Cons: Not interesting, bad eyecandy, flag bug…
Rating: 1.7

OVERALL (not an average): This level has quite a few problems. It is buggy, has flag bug, and even the values in which it is not flawed greatly it shows very little quality in. This level does show a tad bit of effort, but not much. I would recommend that the author test their levels more thuroughly and next time put more effort and time in JCS into them or they will continue seeing poor scores.
Pros: None really.
Cons: Flag bug. No pros.
Rating: 2.7

GAMEPLAY: D -
Flow: D -
Layout: D -
Creativity: D -
Bugs: F

EYECANDY: D -
Tileset use: D -
Eyecandy look: D -
Creativity: D -
Bugs: D

PLACEMENT: D
Weapons: D

THE FINAL GRADE: D -

THE FINAL RATING: 2.7

+ PROS: None to mention.
- CONS: Flag bug, poor eyecandy, poor gameplay, poor placement. Nothing really good about this level. Spend more time on your levels in the future, please.

- Trafton

We all have to start out somewhere and making a good level takes patience, practice and a bit of skill… bla bla you know the rest.

Anyway, despite what the other reviewers have said, this isn’t as bad as they make it out to be. Don’t get me wrong… it’s still poor quality and all, but it’s heading in the right direction.

There’s too much ammo all around, which actually makes it feel more like a CTF level than a battle one. You might wanna conserve a bit on that. While sometimes a level with tons of weapons and everyone blowing each other to kingdom come CAN be fun, a level with more strategically placed weapons tend to generally stay fun for much longer. Weapons that players have to work for and earn always keeps a level interesting.

Next, the eyecandy. Your level looks bland, despite the interesting tileset. Experiment with ways to make the level look more appealing… background layers, foreground stuff and the like. See how the author used it and try to emulate that style or even improve upon it. Making a level look better doesn’t mean you have to make it more complex.

Lastly, the design… the level is flat for the most part while other parts are hard to navigate. A level does not need to be complex, but it should be able to flow… look at the original Epic battle levels. Those frogs and Evas are, in my opinion, a bad idea because they hinder the game flow. Putting these things in levels might seem like a good, refreshing idea but make sure that it’s a working one.

Keep at it and I’m looking forward to more of your stuff in the future.

Just like your other level, this one is very straight and empty. The weapon placement is mostly also bad. There’s no good gameplay or anything, and the layout stinks.

Good things: the tileset was mostly used correctly, but I spotted a bug. There’s some sort of tree that looks too weird to be placed right.

Bad things: bad weapon placement, bad gameplay, empty, straight…

But, don’t give up! You’ll get it too!

Violet: before I start my review, I just want to tell you two things: 1-there are actually 3 tilesets included in the zip. 2-The author didn’t include three tilesets because he didn’t knew which one the level uses. He didn’t call the download “My first Battle level with tile setS”(note that “set” is plural here.

Anyways…

This is bad. I would have given it 2, but since it’s your first, I’ll go to 3.

This level has a very boring layout. It’s mainly very straight and empty.
The weapon placement sux.

a little plus: the tileset was used correctly, I think.

Spend more time on levels and avoid emptyness and straightness.

3

This is the sixth upload I have downloaded in a row that is below average. This is not a good sign.

TILESET/TILESET USE:
WOW! EVERYTHING FITS TOGETHER!
Possibly one of the best parts of this level is the fact that there are no major tile bugs. In fact, the only ones I remember seeing are the hooks, which suspend themself from nothing. I am not totally sure why this is done, anyway, but I guess it does look better that way then it would if they were attached to seriously long chains attached to the top of the level.
WHERE IS EVERYTHING?
I refer, of course, to the background. Layer 8 is a single black tile, and the only background eyecandy (if you can call it eyecandy.. I can’t) is a little hovering thing pointing towards warps for Bad Fans and Good Fans. This is inventive tileset use, I must admit, but which would you rather have? Good eyecandy, or one little bit of inventiveness? That was a rhetorical question, and I do not expect you to answer it.
Pros: Few noticable tile bugs.
Cons: No background to speak of.
Rating: 4.0

WEAPON/ITEM PLACEMENT:
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BALANCE?
All right, so it’s not that bad. Still, some places have lots of weapons, and some places (in paticular the flat bottom) have none. The author manages to place the weapons better then in his/her last level, but it still is not, sadly, very good. There is entirely too much ice (even an ice powerup) to be understandable, and there’s TNT, as well.
AND, UM.. ITEMS?
Sorry, no. There are several carrots laying here and there (..five, maybe?) but the level is big, and the carrots are small. There are (unless you count the not working Fast Feet) no real other items, and so this is a shortish subsection.
Pros: The weapon placement is kind of ok.
Cons: However, it’s unbalanced, and I can’t say I really like the carrots either. It is, however, hard to have good carrot placement in a level that is mainly flat with hooks, so I was not quite as harsh here as I could have been.
Rating: 3.0

ORIGINALITY:
ORIGINALITY? IS THAT, LIKE, EDIBLE?
The sole originality in this level (though I’ll admit it Is interesting) is the Good Fans/Bad Fans area somewhere in the level. It’s big enough I find it hard to give you approximate coordinates. The Good Fans (the invisible, easily missed warp on the left) get an ice powerup and some fastfire, the bad fans (the easily missed warp on the right) are stuck in a room with torches and told it is hell. However, it’s easy enough to get out of them, so worry not.
Pros: The part that is original is original.
Cons: Nothing else is, and I think it could have been better executed as well.
Rating: 2.2

GAMEPLAY/DESIGN:
PEOPLE LIKE EVERYTHING TO BE FLAT, RIGHT?
No, that’s in masking. Levels should NOT be flat, and this one just is. The bottom is mainly a one tile high plain, with a few slopes here and there. There are a number of small platforms floating in mid air, which can be reached by hooks, or spending long seconds in helicopter-earing to them from other platforms.
SURELY IT’S NOT AS BAD AS ALL THAT. THE OTHER FACTORS?
Well, let’s talk about events. The author, to his/her credit, did get the hooks to work. And the H-poles (though they’re just a little questionable). However, he/she did include two factors which I can not approve of. The first of these factors is the radioactive area. The author shows that he/she has no experience in online play, and so has you turn into a frog and be kissed by Eva. There are also two very wide bridges. Now, bridges are fine, IN THE PROPER CONTEXT. I.E. platforms which you go up through from below. These could just as well be completely solid and they wouldn’t effect the gameplay, other then to lower the chance of DBZ (Divide by Zero) errors.
I DON’T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THAT. LET’S PLAY IT!
No, let’s not. The gameplay, as you might expect from the design, is bad. The whole level is way too big, and way too empty to have the bigness be usable. I would be slightly (I think) more lenient here if it were a CTF level, as they are normally bigger, but this is a “Planet of Battle” and is not CTF. Add the size to the fact that hooks are really annoying to jump between, and you get non-satisfying gameplay that, in combination with the other factors, will send anyone in your server running away back to the server lists.
Pros: Ok, to be honest, there is ONE place that is almost well done. The very bottom right corner looks like it’s playable.
Cons: “Yes.”
Rating: 2.2

REPLAY VALUE/FUN FACTOR:
DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN.
I just got through telling you that it isn’t fun to play. You may feel like staying around for a few minutes to stare in horror, but unless you/the host is Very witty, the clients are unlikely to enjoy themselves.
Pros: There are one or two interesting places.
Cons: “Yes.”
Rating: 1.7

OVERALL (not an average):
SO LET’S COME UP WITH SOMETHING GOOD, SHALL WE?
Yes, let’s. There are very few bugs in this level, unless you count the Eva/Frog area’s not working in multiplayer, and the H-poles not being perfectly aligned with the thing they are on. Again, there are few tile bugs, as well. I don’t know if this was beta tested or what, but the author did seem to make this relatively functional. Functional is, of course, a rather broad term.
AND THE FINAL VERDICT IS…..
No. Don’t download this. This is worse (imho) then Auqa Zone, Dimension3, and several other recent uploads.
Pros: The layer 4 tileset use is actually pretty good, there aren’t too many bugs, and parts of it are interesting.
Cons: Too many hooks, the bridges are kind of pointless, the Eva/Frog area won’t work in internet play, and the gameplay is just bad.
Rating: 3.0[This review has been edited by Violet CLM]

“Planet of Battle” is a battle level using ET’s excellent ET Planet v2. Well, that is, if you can call it using. I find that it is a bit more close to abusing. Anyway, the level is pretty plain. It features some badly placed platforms, springs, and ammo and absolutely no background (happily, no SP blurring problem). The lack of a background makes this level look really desolate, which is accurate, since it is.

TILESET/TILESET USE: Again, it’s more like “abused” than “used”. The entire level features many attempts at eyecandy, none of which are all together that sucessful. They all end up looking cheesy, badly-done, and really messed up. This level is simply ugly in many ways. The tileset use is subpar, and there’s little more to it.
Pros: No.
Cons: Yes.
Rating: 2.7

WEAPON/ITEM PLACEMENT: Item placement was not as atrocious as eyecandy was, but it still was not much good. Weapon placement was more or less where the average player would go, and it showed a bit of though, but not enough to make it a saving grace for this otherwise ill thought-out level.
Pros: It’s not as bad as it could have been.
Cons: It’s still pretty bad.
Rating: 3.7

ORIGINALITY: This level is about as original as Diet Pepsi.
Rating: 1.7

GAMEPLAY/DESIGN: “Gameplay? Gameplay? We don’t need no stinkin’ gameplay.” At least that’s what the author must have been thinking when he made the level. There is absolutely no thought put into gameplay. For instance, there is a frog morph and Eva, which doesn’t work in multiplayer, where the level must be hosted. Oopsie. The rest of it was no better.
Pros: Not really.
Cons: Too many to mention.
Rating: 2.0

REPLAY VALUE/FUN FACTOR: I attempted to make an analogy to how fun this level is but failed. Just pretend there is something clever here regarding the guy at the fair who guesses your age for a prize.
Pros: None.
Cons: Not fun to replay.
Rating: 2.0

OVERALL (not an average): I think I have made my point. Avoid this level.
Rating: 2.5

GAMEPLAY: D-
Flow: D
Layout: D
Creativity: E
Bugs: D

EYECANDY: E
Tileset use: E
Eyecandy look: E
Creativity: D-
Bugs: D-

PLACEMENT: D
Weapons: D
Bases: N/A
Carrots: N/A

THE FINAL GRADE: D-

THE FINAL RATING: 2.5

+ PROS: The level did not explode and damage my furniture.
- CONS: It did, however, force me to play it.

Keep on working on levels but spend more time on them next time.

- Trafton

Before downloading this level (which is actually called Turtle in the Battle), I notice two things. One is that all the battle levels made by the author previously have not used tilesets. The other is that he can not be bothered to spell Hellraiser or UnKnOwN correctly.
Before PLAYING the level, I noticed one thing. This is that the author does not know what tileset the level DOES use, and so has included two.
I also do not have the time to give a full review for this, but it doesn’t really deserve one, anyway. It uses Hellraiser’s excellent Mario tileset (I don’t know if was in the .zip, though..), and as we all know, it is hard to make levels using Mario tilesets look bad. The tileset use is actually fairly good.
However, other then tileset use, there isn’t too much that is good about this level. Ammo is either clumped or non existant, it’s way too flat (I have a strong suspicion the level is 256×64), and there’s little in the way of design. Did I mention the level has an enemy (the turtle in the battle) and some other events which don’t work in MP as well?
Look, just don’t download this. I don’t feel objective right now, but it’s just not very good. Actually, if you’re good at long reviews, download this and do what I didn’t feel like doing. Long reviews make people feel goooooood.