News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
Q1SP Review
AguiRe has re-released a 1999 Quake 1 episode "Source of Power" [orginally mapped by Graham Davis] , fixing it to be playable in GLQuake and custom Quake 1 engines and generally tidying it up.

http://www.planetquake.com/underworld/quakerev030624.html
First | Previous | Next | Last
 
I loved it back then, even mailed the author asking if he had made the final part, but he moved to some game mapping (hl ?)
It has atmosphere and some interesting ideas/settings 
,,, 
you arew generous in youir marks, dude\\\!

haha :) 
Er... Uh... 
that is to say, i honestly don't think the maps deserved as high as they got. mostly because they are so old and have pretty bad brush work by today's standards.

they are cool maps, just not that cool. ;) 
Necros! 
the maps marks primarily reflected the fact that the maps contain quite unusual and imaginative Gameplay.

brush work is important, but its not as important as gameplay. 
Also... 
16/20 (the overall score) is not a particularly high score, as far as i am concerned.

I gave guncotton the same score of 16/20 and pushplay said i "only" gave the map 16/20, as though it were a low score.

For the record i regard the scores in the following way (roughly):

1-14 below average
15-16 average
17-20 above average. 
Uwf 
Btw, you havent mentioned that the whole thing is based on a story. Something to do with the "Source of Powah" rune that is reported to be hidden on one of few islands. And it is indeed reflected in the level design : you start in the city/harbor, jump onto the ship and "travel" to those islands (each map represents one island afair).
Also there was music from Orbital 'Insides' LP. Or did AguirRe got rid of those ?

I`m not objecting the score (I like this episode :)) But havent you said some time ago that score (20 max) is made from 2 marks: for gameplay and the looks (10 max each).
If you just judge maps like "this one is ok, it gets 15; that one is cool - 18" using 5 grade system wouild be less confusing 
Uwf 
the reasoning itself is fine but IMHO there's nor horizontal consistency in your scoring. For example, you rated guncotton the same but if you apply the system like speedy mentioned, I fail to see how they could get the same score even if you award source of power higher marks for gameplay. And the length of the map/episode shouldnt really count unless the map is really too small. Anyway, just my $0.02. 
 
Did you skip math class when you were at school? A score of 10/20 would be average :P 
Mr.kell 
actually, kell you are wrong.

the average is merely the all the scores for maps reviewed divided by the number of maps reviewed.

For example if someone reviewed 5 maps and they all scored 15/20, the average would also be 15/20. 
I Think You Are Both Right...................................... 
"the average" and "average" are 2 different things, you are correct about "the average", but I think on a scale of 1 to 20, 1=badage, 20=ownage, and 10=average. You may review 5 maps, all of the quality of czg07, and all get a score of 19, therefore "the average" score is 19, but does this make czg07 an "average" map? god forbid !!
But hey, who cares, it's all just personal preference anyway. 
 
Ooooh, he called me 'Mr' - I must have upset him :P

I think your reviews are top quality without needing a 'final score'; I know it's such a common way to rate things, but I've never paid attention to 'marks out of...' for anything - maps, movies, games etc. It implicitly assumes that the quality of something exists on a single linear index from, as Abyss puts it, "badage" to "ownage", but when one is actually capable of appreciating the value of a work, such a simplistic mechanism becomes obsolete.
There are too many qualities, too much context ( which we all understand anyway ) for numerical indices to give a proper indication. So I take them with a significant dose of salt. Do a comparison of the ratings over at ..::LvL.
And does anyone remember Talon's Strike...? 
Talon's Strike Was Cool 
I got so much stuff off there that wasnt any other site. And all the scores were 85+, so you knew not to get anything unless it got like 93 or more :p 
It's Just A Number 
get the fuck over it and just read the review. 
This Episode.. 
LOL scampie :D

i liked this episode! sure it wasn't very detailed and it looked a bit plain in some places but it had some really cool outdoor rocky sections, like with the waterfalls and cliffs and rivers.. totally unlike any map i've played before. Very fun to play too! It's a shame it was never finished. 
You're Just An Asshole 
get the fuck over yourself and stop posting shite 
Yes Kell, 
be we don't have to argue about that point do we? 
Er... 
be = but... 
but when one is actually capable of appreciating the value of a work, such a simplistic mechanism becomes obsolete.
That was pretty pretentious.

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep average below 10? As UWF's system is currently set up there's plenty of room to differentiate crappy maps while very little room to differentiate good from great from ground breaking maps. 
 
That was pretty pretentious.

Really? Well, I'll say it in a non-pretentious way - if you need numbers to know how good something is, you're too stupid to really know how good something is. 
Length 
I have also noticed a tendency for large maps to score better. In one way this makes sense, more good mappage IS better, but size and score are still expected to be seperate items. I'm guessing that the real reason is that large maps tend to contain more cool stuff, a small map would have to contain almost as much cool stuff as a big one to rate as high. This is somewhat understandable but it should still be reasonably possible for a small map to rate high.

An average above 10/20-11/20 presumably means that the majority are more than worth playing.

I played the pack already, liked the first map, when there was only one, a lot but felt less impressed when I played the whole thing. I'll still have to play the new version, since I'm a SPQ junkie ;) . 
I Think.. 
that size should count.. cos if it looks like the user has spent longer on it and it offers a longer playing time, then it deserves a higher score.

although if it's long and looks really crap and rushed, and if there's a smaller map which looks amazing and detailed, it shouldn't score higher, obviously.

BUT i think size/length should still count.. as part of the gameplay. 
Chainer: 
but that means i can combine two 10/20 maps into one download and get a higher score... the score should rate quality, not quanity. 
However, Length Matters... 
...for pacing purposes. There is such a thing as feeling too short. And too long. 
Meltslime: 
well.. i'm sayin i would agree with giving it a higher score, personally. Not MUCH higher, but would deserve a couple extra points for keeping me playing longer. i agree with your last point though, but i've never seen a map i would call too long... 
Hihi 
 
First | Previous | Next | Last
Post A Reply:
Name:
Title:
Body:
message
question
exclamation
idea
flame
noflame
error
skull
beer
moon
pent
rocket
sheep
pacman
pig
cheese
worldcraft
gauntlet
crate
pitfall
pimp
smile
cool
sad
frown
oi
yay
tongue
evil
wink
neutral
q1
q2
q3
ut
hl
cs
doom
dkt
serious
cube
Website copyright © 2002-2017 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.