A complaint

[Broghan]

I have a complaint about the Featured Maps section of NUMA. It's a problem that I really think needs addressing in a big way, and the problem is the reviewing aspect. The majority of the reviews are absolutely pointless and downright awful in their execution. I have to say that this is partly due to the reviewers and their lack of tact and their seemingly unyielding need to make jokes that are unfunny and time-wasting. People make assumptions about map themes, also, which IMO is a crime to do in any art medium, whether it be a book, or a piece of art. Most of the reviewers seem to be stumbling to write anything at all.
The Featured Maps section is a very important part of NUMA, and I can speak from experience. I left this community for a period stretching about a year and a half, and in that time, four of my maps had been featured. The maps in question had been flooded with comments, ratings and demos, and not to mention, a great deal of my other maps had been looked over as a result of the curiosity that spilled over from the featured ones. My point is that featured maps can help just about any author get credibility in this community, and it can boost confidence for mappers to continue doing what they are doing. It just aggravates me to see such a good thing be handled in this way, when fantastic maps are selected to be featured, and then they are taken down a ludicrous path of musings and lame jokes by some author or another.
Feel free to state your opinion on what I have just said. I am not flaming, or trying to do anything of the sort. I am just a mapper who is concerned for the state of this aspect of this community. Disagree with me, if you will.

[blackson]

Your reasoning is sound, but sadly, you've arrived at the same conclusion that half of the community has. Look at almost any featured map and people are arguing about the reviews. This argument is so constant that it's losing weight and there isn't much done about it.

[a happy song]

It's a matter of taste rather than quality for the most part, I'm afraid.

And it's in no way a crime to interpret a theme how you will. That's the beauty of art, it's open like that and can mean something different to everyone. As long as the opinions aren't written in absolutes or from the perspective of the author when it's unknown then I see no problem.

Another thing to remember is that we're not a community of writers for the most part, and that the average ability with the written word in the format of entertaining and efficient reviews isn't professional standard. We'd be hard pressed to find enough reviewers to keep the thing going smoothly if we were too harsh with the quality control.

However, saying all of this, there does need to be a degree of QC but I'm pretty sure the staff are on top of it.

[Broghan]

It's a matter of taste rather than quality for the most part, I'm afraid.

And it's in no way a crime to interpret a theme how you will. That's the beauty of art, it's open like that and can mean something different to everyone. As long as the opinions aren't written in absolutes or from the perspective of the author when it's unknown then I see no problem.

Another thing to remember is that we're not a community of writers for the most part, and that the average ability with the written word in the format of entertaining and efficient reviews isn't professional standard. We'd be hard pressed to find enough reviewers to keep the thing going smoothly if we were too harsh with the quality control.

However, saying all of this, there does need to be a degree of QC but I'm pretty sure the staff are on top of it.

I see your point. I just find it annoying to see a one-sided thing like the review aspect. Perhaps the reviewer could ask the mapper their inspirations, ideas and such on the map in question if possible? I know that this would be a stretch or indeed impossible for some older maps by authors who are gone, so yeah, just a thought. I guess I have issues with people interpreting things in art mediums. I used to see it all of the time in school, where the teacher would force an interpretation upon you, and you would be expected to sit down and shut up, and not state your own.
Also, I get where you're coming from in terms of the lack of standard, but still, it's very important that this should have been considered at the very beginning of the idea of a Featured Map section, and of course, this should still be considered with each review, and when new reviewers are selected.

[Pheidippides]

I see your point. I just find it annoying to see a one-sided thing like the review aspect. Perhaps the reviewer could ask the mapper their inspirations, ideas and such on the map in question if possible? I know that this would be a stretch or indeed impossible for some older maps by authors who are gone, so yeah, just a thought. I guess I have issues with people interpreting things in art mediums. I used to see it all of the time in school, where the teacher would force an interpretation upon you, and you would be expected to sit down and shut up, and not state your own.
Also, I get where you're coming from in terms of the lack of standard, but still, it's very important that this should have been considered at the very beginning of the idea of a Featured Map section, and of course, this should still be considered with each review, and when new reviewers are selected.

It sounds to me like you miss the Sunday N. You're not alone.

[unoriginal name]

All the reviewers except for gloomp and palemoon are awful and should be debarred immediately. Featured Maps should just be renamed The gloomp and PALEMOON and Occasionally Brttrx or Somebody Map Hour.

[chocollama]

hehehe
gloom ids dumvb.

No really, what if somebody did bring back the Sunday N?

[Spawn of Yanni]

It would be absogoddamnlutely fantastic if people could get a consistent replacement to the Sunday N, but the current count of successful attempts is somewhere around the zero out of thirteen mark. You'll find that there are either too many people on the team, or that the people running it aren't anal enough about it.

[SlappyMcGee]

It would be absogoddamnlutely fantastic if people could get a consistent replacement to the Sunday N, but the current count of successful attempts is somewhere around the zero out of thirteen mark. You'll find that there are either too many people on the team, or that the people running it aren't anal enough about it.

I would be interested in backing up a project like this.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

If there's going to be a successor to the Sunday N, it needs to be run by one person who's willing to do all the work. Extra features and contributions are excellent if not necessary, but ultimately there needs to be one guy behind it who's passionate and dedicated.

[Pheidippides]

The problem with finding someone to replace the Sunday N is not finding someone passionate, but finding someone passionate who also has a /lot/ of time for playing and writing about maps. I'd love to take up KA's old job, but I know I could never keep something like that alive for very long. It's a huge commitment.

Quick thought, though: If we had a few writers on staff for a new Sunday N, we could divvy up the weeks a la the Featured Maps queue to better suit people's schedules. Emphasis on a /few/, though. Maybe three.

[otters~1]

People make assumptions about map themes, also, which IMO is a crime to do in any art medium, whether it be a book, or a piece of art.

O_O

You worry me just a little bit.

EDIT: That's a good idea about asking the mapper about his map before reviewing it, but all the reviews I ever wrote came to life three minutes before they were submitted. I never had a preconceived notion of, "I'm gonna write my next week's review now!" Also yeah TSN already covered that aspect better than we could hope to.

[origami_alligator]

I mean, there is a possibility of this. We could set up a system where our Reviewers do not have their Reviews come out the day they are posted but rather are submitted over the course of a week (old and new maps could be thrown in) and then on Sunday at 8am GMT or something the entire week's Reviews are published under A Week in Review, or something else catchy like that. We could drop the word minimum down to 20 words if someone is feeling like saying just a few short things about the map (much like kA often did) and we could also increase the maximum word count to 200 if someone is feeling adventurous and explanatory.

What this might do is give writers more incentive to talk about the map. It will be a publication for people to go find good maps with Reviews that describe the map itself. Metaphors and similes still encouraged but toned down much much more. The Review for mintnut's "melody day" for example would have to spend less time pretending the ninja is in a fallout shelter that happens to be a cathedral and more time explaining why the Reviewer finds the map enjoyable. One could still write something such as, "Running through this map feels like running through a church being used as a fallout shelter. There are lots of enemies that see you before you hear them, so keep up the pace and stay agile."

Thoughts?

[otters]

I think Broghan was probably complaining about stuff like this, which itself contributed mostly to my decision to hide reviews. I have to say I agree with him.

[otters~1]

I think Broghan was probably complaining about stuff like this, which itself contributed mostly to my decision to hide reviews. I have to say I agree with him.

Sod off, I already quit okay.

[BKPB58]

I agree with Broghan

Some Of The Featured Maps I Like Recently like Half Life,scharlach wald,and others I can't remember anymore used to be cool when put into words but,when reviewers take over,it's like they are teasing the ninja,author,level,enemy or any other aspect of the cool level (IMO).

If I was reviewer,I would say stuff more about the map rather than make up stories about the ninja going through an abonded city,fighting a dragon or even being a ninja-fish (don't laugh).

'nuff said

[squibbles]

I can't speak for others, but personally, whenever I write something interesting, I do talk about the map. Describing an abandoned city is talking about the aesthetic, and the various other metaphors (falling whilst on a planet, dinosaurs chasing you, ect.) are metaphors describing the gameplay.

I very much expect that others are the same.

[chocollama]

*fan of squibbles reviews*

[otters~1]

I mean, there is a possibility of this. We could set up a system where our Reviewers do not have their Reviews come out the day they are posted but rather are submitted over the course of a week (old and new maps could be thrown in) and then on Sunday at 8am GMT or something the entire week's Reviews are published under A Week in Review, or something else catchy like that. We could drop the word minimum down to 20 words if someone is feeling like saying just a few short things about the map (much like kA often did) and we could also increase the maximum word count to 200 if someone is feeling adventurous and explanatory.

What this might do is give writers more incentive to talk about the map. It will be a publication for people to go find good maps with Reviews that describe the map itself. Metaphors and similes still encouraged but toned down much much more. The Review for mintnut's "melody day" for example would have to spend less time pretending the ninja is in a fallout shelter that happens to be a cathedral and more time explaining why the Reviewer finds the map enjoyable. One could still write something such as, "Running through this map feels like running through a church being used as a fallout shelter. There are lots of enemies that see you before you hear them, so keep up the pace and stay agile."

Thoughts?

Have you (or atob) even been able to contact Arachnid about increasing the reviewer word limit yet? If he hasn't answered /that/, he's not gonna bother with rebuilding the whole queue system.

[Rose]

I mean, there is a possibility of this. We could set up a system where our Reviewers do not have their Reviews come out the day they are posted but rather are submitted over the course of a week (old and new maps could be thrown in) and then on Sunday at 8am GMT or something the entire week's Reviews are published under A Week in Review, or something else catchy like that. We could drop the word minimum down to 20 words if someone is feeling like saying just a few short things about the map (much like kA often did) and we could also increase the maximum word count to 200 if someone is feeling adventurous and explanatory.

What this might do is give writers more incentive to talk about the map. It will be a publication for people to go find good maps with Reviews that describe the map itself. Metaphors and similes still encouraged but toned down much much more. The Review for mintnut's "melody day" for example would have to spend less time pretending the ninja is in a fallout shelter that happens to be a cathedral and more time explaining why the Reviewer finds the map enjoyable. One could still write something such as, "Running through this map feels like running through a church being used as a fallout shelter. There are lots of enemies that see you before you hear them, so keep up the pace and stay agile."

Thoughts?

Have you (or atob) even been able to contact Arachnid about increasing the reviewer word limit yet? If he hasn't answered /that/, he's not gonna bother with rebuilding the whole queue system.

Not to mention the broken fullviews. :p

[scythe]

If there's going to be a successor to the Sunday N, it needs to be run by one person who's willing to do all the work. Extra features and contributions are excellent if not necessary, but ultimately there needs to be one guy behind it who's passionate and dedicated.

jerrod.

That is all.