The poor quality of reviews

[Kablizzy]

Especially if they use them well.

*Squint*

I don't understand.

[Yoshimo]

I've seen the reason "reviewing the map already compliments it". But is the purpose of reviews to compliment the mapmaker? If it is so, shouldn't the title be "honored" maps. A good review is IMO better compliment. It shows you have played it, and that you have made a proper effort to review it well. Some fragrances of the map can only be noticed when playing it, and may require proper analyzation to really understand them.

That isn't what we mean by compliment. We mean to supplement and add to it in such a way that it improves the quality of the map.

It sounds like what you are saying here, squibbles, is that the map is inherently not perfect, or near a threshold of {awesome}, at least, and that by reviewing it, you're improving the map itself, not just pointing it out.

And I certainly wasn't thinking that, flag.

[squibbles]

I've seen the reason "reviewing the map already compliments it". But is the purpose of reviews to compliment the mapmaker? If it is so, shouldn't the title be "honored" maps. A good review is IMO better compliment. It shows you have played it, and that you have made a proper effort to review it well. Some fragrances of the map can only be noticed when playing it, and may require proper analyzation to really understand them.

That isn't what we mean by compliment. We mean to supplement and add to it in such a way that it improves the quality of the map.

It sounds like what you are saying here, squibbles, is that the map is inherently not perfect, or near a threshold of {awesome}, at least, and that by reviewing it, you're improving the map itself, not just pointing it out.

What? I never said anything like that. Look, the scale of quality is not finite, so yes, it isn't inherently perfect, however I still think it is pretty damn good. Your second claim comes from nowhere, man. There is no 'perfect ultimate map' waiting to be made. When I review, I do attempt to improve the map with it. I add a story because it makes it more interesting. I add detail because it makes the map more tangible - you can relate the objects and tiles to real life. What I don't do is tell you something that you could find out yourself by just playing the goddamn map. This is how I roll. In my opinion, this is the best method (obviously, since I do it), and really, complaining about it isn't going to change a thing, so sure, we can do the whole "OH HIS WRITING IS TOO ABSTRACTED FROM THE MAP" crap, or we can stop, think about how unimportant the style is, play the map, and just enjoy the experience of playing a map which has been given background to, to enhance the playing experience.

I'd suggest the latter, because again, I honestly do not care enough to change.

Oh, also

Especially if they use them well.

*Squint*

I don't understand.

I find that when done badly, the more unusual aspects of mapping are noticeably gimmiky, and thus if I saw a door just randomly floating in the air, I'd probably say "Yep. Glitched door".

Were it implemented well, I would think, I expect, "Oh. That's a strange place to put a door. Oh well.", and not realise it until after I began to play the map.

So pretty much, those who use concepts in a gimmiky fashion are much easier to spot.