The poor quality of reviews

[koipen]

The reviews nowadays are in places very poor, just horrible. They don't tell anything about the map and try to be "poetic" or "tell a story" instead. Like this one by Squibbles (To map 198605):

"Standing against the bleak horizon, a lone soldier trudges towards yet another piece of deserted machinery. Armed with only a flamethrower, he marches across the desert, razing the abandoned equipment as he finds it. The purpose of this mission is elusive to him, but he does not question it, silently walking on and dutifully going about his task. His captain told him that should he succeed in his endeavours, he would be granted a great reward.

“It better be better than all that gold that fucking ninja is getting”, he spitefully muttered under his breath."

Now, lets analyze that. One, it doesn't tell a single thing about the map, thus telling no reasons why the featurer originally featured this map. Secondly, it creates a meaningless backstory to a futile base. I don't think this is the right direction. Reviews are supposed (atleast IMO) why the track was featured, why it is so good.

Opinions.

[a happy song]

A reviewer doesn't have to speak literally about the map. The very fact that they've chosen the map shows that there's a quality that is felt to be of a high enough standard to be shared.

The review itself is something to read along side, to enjoy as-well-as, it doesn't need to talk you through the map step-by-step, or even mention the map at all.

It's there for the reviewer to emote their feelings in any way they wish. Many people enjoy the more poetic style, the more metaphorical approach, so you coming in here and telling everyone it's poor is a rather close minded view.

if you don't like it, apply to become a reviewer next time applications are open.

[Seneschal]

One, it doesn't tell a single thing about the map, thus telling no reasons why the featurer originally featured this map.

The reviewer doesn't need to give a reason for featuring a map: the fact that they are reviewing it shows that they enjoy the map and think that it is of a high enough quality that it deserves a feature. Reviewers have no need to say "I featured this because it's good" because it's obvious that they think it's good because they featured it.

Secondly, it creates a meaningless backstory to a futile base.

Meaningless backstory? Did you play this map, or even just look at it? Because I can't believe that you'd miss how the review related to the map if you had. The "backstory" sets the scene as it talks about the soldier approaching the tank, which, as you can tell by the tiles, is what the map is showing.

The review itself does talk about the map: it tells you that the tiles portray a soldier near a piece of machinery. But in any case, I don't think that this is terribly important anyway:

Reviews are supposed (atleast IMO) why the track was featured, why it is so good.

You're missing a verb here (also track?), but I think I can understand what you're saying: what you're saying is that reviews need to be a checklist of what's actually in the map. To this I pose a simple question: why? Why do they need to do this? The point of the review is to highlight a good map; if the very act of featuring it places it on the home page, thus showing that the reviewer thinks that it is a good map, why do they need to tell you that there are three rockets and some gold in pretty patterns? They've already essentially told you that they enjoy it, and that is why it is featured.

Another point: does your opinion of the quality of the review affect whether you play the map? Because I thin k you'd be a fool to ignore a map simply because you don't like what someone has written about it.

EDIT: *sigh* atob beat me to it, pretty much.

[koipen]

One, it doesn't tell a single thing about the map, thus telling no reasons why the featurer originally featured this map.

The reviewer doesn't need to give a reason for featuring a map: the fact that they are reviewing it shows that they enjoy the map and think that it is of a high enough quality that it deserves a feature. Reviewers have no need to say "I featured this because it's good" because it's obvious that they think it's good because they featured it.

But doesn't that imply that featurer can just feature map, and then say nothing on it, because the selection explains it's good?

Secondly, it creates a meaningless backstory to a futile base.

Meaningless backstory? Did you play this map, or even just look at it? Because I can't believe that you'd miss how the review related to the map if you had. The "backstory" sets the scene as it talks about the soldier approaching the tank, which, as you can tell by the tiles, is what the map is showing.

The review itself does talk about the map: it tells you that the tiles portray a soldier near a piece of machinery. But in any case, I don't think that this is terribly important anyway:

Yes I can quite well see the backstory thanks to the obvious picture next to it. It is extremely obvious.

Reviews are supposed to tell (atleast IMO) why the track was featured, why it is so good.

You're missing a verb here (also track? ), but I think I can understand what you're saying: what you're saying is that reviews need to be a checklist of what's actually in the map. To this I pose a simple question: why? Why do they need to do this? The point of the review is to highlight a good map; if the very act of featuring it places it on the home page, thus showing that the reviewer thinks that it is a good map, why do they need to tell you that there are three rockets and some gold in pretty patterns? They've already essentially told you that they enjoy it, and that is why it is featured.

Another point: does your opinion of the quality of the review affect whether you play the map? Because I thin k you'd be a fool to ignore a map simply because you don't like what someone has written about it.

When the reviewer can name things from the gameplay, she/he first up announces that she/he has actually played the map. Second up, if a player for example likes tight jumps, and the review says "the bounce blocks provide situations where precise jumps are needed to ensure victory", the player now knows that this is a good amp for her/him. Difficulty too can be implied, to help readers.

I don't make any decissions based on reviews. Mainly just the thumbnails, although I read the reviews too.

EDIT: *sigh* atob beat me to it, pretty much.

Sorry for my English, I'm foreigner.

[otters~1]

Dick off.

[squibbles]

I shit you not, the second I read the name of this thread, I had the feeling I would be mentioned in here. :/

See, the thing is, the question that you raise is one of style, not quality. I described the aesthetic of the map, and implied some part of gameplay in mentioning that the ninja would be getting a significant amount of gold. In fact, of all the reviews I've written, this could be the /closest/ to just describing the map.

Also,

Yes I can quite well see the backstory thanks to the obvious picture next to it. It is extremely obvious.

Uh, the backstory I described is far more fantastic then the reality of that image. He is not actually doing a single thing I described. Except perhaps walking. O_o

Finally, personally, I'd much rather have that then:

"This map is good. It has a line of bounceblocks, lots of gold, some mines and an enemy which is nearly omnipresent. You have to get a switch first, but then you go to the other side and get the exit switch. Then you get to climb up to the exit. It also is really cool, because it looks like a dude with a flamethrower, but you can see that already, because of the picture."

EDIT: BAHAHAHAHA, I love you flag. You beat me to it, and got the the crux of my post in 2 words.

[koipen]

You can do more than two styles of reviews. You can also mix up reviews, if needed. Say, "The careful manouvers that the player has to execute around the level reflect the hardships soldiers have to face in the war. In that sense, this map achieves more than one symbolic meaning."

Also not forgetting word forging. "Careful manouvers around treacherous minefield" sounds (IMO) more appealing than "jumping on bounceblocks between mines.

[T3chno]

How about you play the map instead of whining about the review? Text is just there to support the map. Hell, you should do like I do, play the map first, then read the review. I feel like they're better off that way. Regardless, people need to stop QQing about the words under the map and discuss the map at hand instead.

[origami_alligator]

If we're going to do this all over again (I'm so glad we've moved on to complaining about Reviews every 6 months instead of complaining about ratings) there seem to be three things that everyone agrees on:

1. The Review has to pertain to the map somehow, whether metaphorically, literally or abstractly. Talking about what your dog did when you left it home for the weekend isn't acceptable.

2. The Review has to have at least a(n) (Year) 8(th) (grade) reading level. A writing ability below this and you probably shouldn't be a Reviewer.

3. Large images in Reviews are not okay, Techno.

Anything outside of these two rules we accept. These are the basics, the requirements. Anything else is fair game it seems. If you have an issue with someone's abstract perception of a map, well too bad. It makes for a more interesting read than a walk-through anyway.

[T3chno]

3. Large images in Reviews are not okay, Techno.

[Spawn of Yanni]

Er, no. Verbal warning, flag. Don't try and pull that sort of shit.

[bobaganuesh_2]

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like how people write their reviews, then write your own reviews. It's as simple as that.

QQing

hahaha, what?

[koipen]

N, first and foremostly is a game. Take any review of any game on the internet, and you won't see a review talking about the latest oildeal with sheik Fadzar Knut, if the game is say racing game.. You see a review speaking about the game, the gameplay, and the things that make it good (and story too, but it is never in primary role apart from some games like Zeldas). The policies on Nmaps aren't good. They allow you to write about anything remotely associated with the map. Reviews are supposed (atleast elsewhere than in nmaps.) to be helpful in deciding should the customer buy the product. This review is excellent example where over 1000 customers have been helped. Granted, kindle costs money, but still, the principles should be the same.

I won't ever apply as reviewer. I don't have the patience to be in that spot for anymore than month or two.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

Yeah, but: a) we'en to really, there's not a lot you can say, and I doubt anyone makes

In theory, I agree, but here's the thing: we're not reviewing games, we're reviewing individual levels, and it's hard
what you can say that will convince som
I'm not b) the review isn't trying to convince you o



In theory, I agree. In practice, I'm not surefeature the map is really the most important thing. Reviews that do a good job of describing the map and what's good about it are ideal, but

re not reviewing games, we're reviewing individual levels,

and f anything—as atob said, the fact that the reviewer has chos
you can say that the sum insured will






sleutels

[Rose]

If the reviewer was inspired enough by the map to write a story about it, that's much more of a compliment than any literal analysis of the map.

I used to be in the same boat as you, but I've heavily switched over to the side of everyone else here during the last couple months. My own experience as a reviewer has told me that too many literal reviews are just boring, both to read and write.

[aids]

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't like how people write their reviews, then write your own reviews.

That's what I did! Also, if you liken a map to a movie, you don't want the trailer to summarize the entire movie for you, it's just a teaser, something that will make you want to pay ten dollars to go see it. The main difference being that you don't have to pay anything. It's a win-win situation, so just deal with it. I guarantee you that you will not take the creativity out of reviews.

[otters~1]

Er, no. Verbal warning, flag. Don't try and pull that sort of shit.

You were all thinking it.

[koipen]

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.

The second misconception is that I think that review should describe the map throughly. I said it should describe atleast the concept and the basic carrying mechanic of the map. Not "After the first curve you'll encounter the cleverly placed Zap Drone which is sure to cause you some close calls in the turn" more like "The fluid jumps in this map provide solid base to build on, which is shown with the clever placing of the enemies which create an astounding atmosphere for you to escape this barren powerplant." Note that in the second sentence the reviewer also created some story for the map. (Assuming the name isn't "Abandoned Powerplant") You don't have to be all-gameplay, but you certainly don't want to be all-story.

[enespanol4268]

This topic is very offensive to reviewers, so please don't make topics like this.

[Spawn of Yanni]

Er, no. Verbal warning, flag. Don't try and pull that sort of shit.

You were all thinking it.

No, not all of us were, and that is still not a justification for that sort of post. Don't do it.

[otters~1]

Er, no. Verbal warning, flag. Don't try and pull that sort of shit.

You were all thinking it.

No, not all of us were, and that is still not a justification for that sort of post. Don't do it.

Correction: *I* was thinking it. Sorry.

[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.

[T3chno]

It shows you have played it

Nah, I think we all just go to "Random" maps and feature some map judging by thumbnail looks.

and may require proper analyzation to really understand them.

Jebus, dude, this is NUMA, not Aperture Science Labs.

[Kablizzy]

Nah, I think we all just go to "Random" maps and feature some map judging by thumbnail looks.

Most of us know how a map is just by looking anyway. Unless you hide stuff in the level or use certain drones with overly elaborate patterns, playing levels at-a-glance is easy.

[squibbles]

Nah, I think we all just go to "Random" maps and feature some map judging by thumbnail looks.

Most of us know how a map is just by looking anyway. Unless you hide stuff in the level or use certain drones with overly elaborate patterns, playing levels at-a-glance is easy.

With all the maps utilizing nan's and glitches, though, it gets hard to anticipate sometimes. Especially if they use them well.