News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
A New Review Site For Quake Maps!
As suggested by RickyT23, I decided to re-post this as a news item.

I just created a website for the purpose of reviewing Quake maps called QuakeBlast.

If anyone is interested then they can send me the maps that they create with SleepWalkR's new editor :)

Note that while the creation of TrenchBroom is what inspired me to finally create my own site there is no rule that demands maps to be created with TrenchBroom in order for them to be reviewed on the site.

I will review all maps (even horrible ones) assuming that certain conditions are met. Expect to see the site updated very soon with more information!
First | Previous | Next | Last
I like the quake background.

I would recommend that you remove all the links that have nothing in them.

I personally feel that the links "Photos", and "Videos" should not be there. I would think that links like those would only be available when viewing a particular map, but not those links in general.

The link "Review Blog" sounds funny to me. I mean, I never seen a review site in the form of a blog. Doesn't seem right. I would remove that link.

I would remove the "Members" link, because it's really not that important. Same goes with Guestbook.

If you really want to keep those links, then they should be placed elsewhere. Placed in the footer, in a menu called "Extra" or something.

Your main menu should really only be something like: "Home", "Submit Map", and "Contact" for starters.

No need for a link for "Reviews", really, your homepage should be the reviews. Your homepage shouldn't be a blog. It should be the reviews.

I would move the homepage to a page called "About" and put "About" link in that footer menu I mentioned(above) "Extra"

The right column with "Signin | Register" should be removed completely. You want as much space as possible, and that column seems useless so far. I recommend that the "Signin" and "Register" links be placed somewhere in the top right corner of the website.

I only say this based on years of experience of doing websites myself. 
Keep it in mind that the site was just being created and that everything on it is subject to change. All of those links and places that you mentioned were already there by default, and not because I added them.

You can be certain that the finished site will look considerably different.

That said, I fail to see what is wrong with having the reviews on a seperate page or even pages. It would make it easier to organize different things. 
Also I forgot to add that I am currently using a free domain (hence the "webs" being in the name) but after a while there is a real chance that I might upgrade the site to go beyond this (meaning that it would simply be called with there being no "webs" in-between"). This would give me more options and power over the site, but would also cost money. So before that I instead going to use the free version for now while I decide how I want to do things. 
Still, you were right about the "review blog" thing sounding stupid so it has been changed right away.

Anyways, I am extremely tired right now so I am going to get some sleep. Expect me to work more on the site tomorrow. 
what is wrong with having the reviews on a seperate page or even pages.
It's a common mistake that many people--including myself--make.

Many times a person will start a website, and have sections such as "News", and "Forums", etc. but eventually they realize that everyone is clicking the "Forums" only. So, eventually they make the Forums be the homepage. It's all about Web Usability, and reducing the amount of clicks a user needs to click.

If you feel the primary focus is to be a blog, then I suppose your homepage would be blog. But I have a feeling everyone will be going to the reviews page, therefore your homepage should actually be the reviews page, and everyone will love you for it.

I suppose a reviews website could be in the form of a blog. That would be a new and interesting approach. Perhaps your reviews website is unique in that sense, where each review is a blog post?

But you would still eventually have an archive of reviews, and I think people would be visiting that more often.

Also, you can display more reviews in the form of a gallery, and such.


Be careful with the domain name changing. Your domain gains reputation the longer it's alive, so, if you can somehow manage to get the correct domain for free, that'd be great. 
To get started maybe review some maps you know are good or interesting - while you wait for those made with TB to get up to speed.

Is where they are, but there's a lot :)

So I humbly suggest these;

The Living End by Necros (Grim medieval map crawler)
Zerstorer Turtle Map pack (excellent map collection linked to a classic SP mod)
The Castle of KooHoo by Vondur (Legendary)
Concentric Devastation by Lunaran (epic, single level mod)

The above is a decent cross section that anyone new to Quake would want to know about, although maybe a bit on the epic end of the spectrum.

Of course, if you get bored / are very enthusiatic you could try doing some of the multiple map packs / mods as well;

Insomnia by CZG
Something Wicked this way Comes by Tronyn / PM
Operation Urth Magik
Contract Revoked by Kell
In The Shadows by Sock 
This Is Good News Though, No? 
New review site! 
This is awesome news! Don't forget to advertise your site outside the Quake community. You are welcome to directly link to zip files at Quaddicted if you want, I do absolutely not consider that "evil deeplinking" like some people do. is still around too. never got the attention he deserves! 
Ahh, well, there you go. :)

That looks nice, for being a blog-orientated reviews site. 
Concentric Devastation by Lunaran (epic, single level mod)

too many enforcers, rubbish boss 
Made up for by an awe-inspiring, extremely useful Vondur secret! 
Boss was too complex but the layout was great and there were plenty of decent custom enemies to slaughter. 
I Figured Out The Boss Once 
And then I forgot. Exciting huh? 
also all of than's maps are crazy good: 
The Site Has Been Updated! 
Ok, I just worked on the site some more and it is now more or less finished with all unneeded sections removed and new sections/pages added!

People who want are now free to send me their maps/mods if they so desire.

While the site now has everything that it strictly needs, it is still very possible that some minor tweaks or changes might be made in the future.

Anyways, I hope people will send me their maps. I also included a link to TrenchBroom's homepage on the site. 
I forgot, if anyone knows about any other sites that might be clever to link to on my own site then feel free to mention them. 
Q: Do you use vanilla Quake to play maps?

A: No, I use the Epsilon engine for improved graphics and features.

First of all that is the Darkplaces engine with a collection of fan-made content replacement. The collection is called "Epsilon" something.

That is not good. You won't be playing Quake but some sort of absolutely moronic looking amateur-quality abomination. 
Oh God 
My eyes! Please switch to an engine such as QuakeSpasm and don't use the replacement textures and such. What you are playing is truly not Quake. 
Yeah, Ugh 
Apart from visual controversy, note that Darkplaces has some compatibility issues with certain maps; they may not play correctly or require a special setup beforehand. This has to be taken into consideration when reviewing them to avoid deathz0r-style judgement. 
We're Conservative Snobs Here 
To set it in perspective, think of it as jDoom with 3D models and other pseudo-modern stuff paired with some of the much argued-over ZDoom features. In the end, it's your decision of course. 
I wasn't aware that you guys did not like the Darkplaces epsilon engine. I will update the FAQ to make mention that I will just play the maps in whatever engine will run them. 
The site's FAQ has been updated. 
My face is melting!!!!!

To echo what others have said - it's not a good idea to use some random engine to review maps - most modern maps have very specific engine requirements, as will be explained in the readme's.

This usually means: FitzQuake, or a FQ fork such as QuakeSpasm, or Mark V. Sometimes, it is a custom engine that ships with the map, but in all cases, a correct and bug-free experience can only be expected using the engines that the designer explicitly states have been tested and shown to play the map/mod correctly. 
Re: Send In Maps 
A little heads-up on the current situation. Sadly, unlike Doom, there are only very few releases each year, perhaps around 15-20 max. This year has seen only one Q1SP release so far. News about new levels is typically posted here at Func_Msgboard and at Quaddicted.
Of course people may well send you their older stuff, but it's probably unlikely to happen. Hence the suggestion to pick some levels from the Quaddicted archive and review them just to get started. For example, you can sort the list by date (year) or rating. Rather than recommending maps myself, I'd say you could go through the Excellent-rated maps (five stars) and pick some that look interesting to you from the description and screenshot. Using the Quake Injector can make this even easier.

I certainly hope TrenchBroom will make for some higher number of releases in the future, but it remains to be seen. If it doesn't, well, SleepwalkR will have to answer for that! 
Specific Engine Requirements 
I wouldn't put it this strongly. It's more like a matter of what works and what doesn't. Generally, you can say that pretty much every regular Q1SP can be played with Fitz/Quakespasm (unless clearly stated otherwise), wheras there' a fair chance to encounter problems with Darkplaces in certain cases.

Many authors didn't/don't test their levels on a wide range of engines, so often potential issues may not even be known and mentioned in the readmes. 
First | Previous | Next | Last
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.