Big Eye-candy pack - version 2
Extract the .scx file to your Age of Kings scenario directory.
||The Conquerors 1.0c
This includes at least 20 various eye-candies not seen in my other two templates, 90% of them are made entirely by me.
If you wish to use these eye-candies in your scenarios please give me credit.
Lord Yuri Ninja - email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
Play it in single player, guide your scout around to see the eye-candies and DON\'T use Marco/Polo.
Examples of eye-candy in this template are:
-Mega cathedral (NOT your one deathdart!)
-Archery range with shootable targets
-Extended Ice Palace
-And sooooo many more!!! :)
|Author||Reviews ( All | Comments Only | Reviews Only )|
Big Eye-Candy pack v2
In this eye candy pack you follow a path and look at many creative and interesting buildings and creations.
Utility: This could be very useful to someone that does not now how to use the map copy feature. On the down side if you know how to use “map copy” it will not be as useful, but it still can be even if you can use the map copy feature because it gives you great instructions on exactly how to position the map copied objects. A 4 in this category.
Creativity:This is possibly the strongest point of this utility. The map-copied buildings are set up in a way that I have never seen before. Yuri seems to have a certain kind of cluttered style which in the creativity section is great! A 5 for creativety, great job!
Quality: The quality in this eye candy pack was very good. The objects created didn’t seem rushed and were position in good places. A 5 here!
Instructions:The instructions were great very easy to follow I was never lost. To add to that the descriptions of how to create/map copy the objects in the positions was perfectly explained so that anyone could understand it. I award a 5 here.
Overall: a 4.75, rounded up to a 5.0 (The next highest option)
If you are looking for some cool looking map copied objects this is the utility for you.
Great work LoRd_YuRi_NiNjA!
Big Eye-candy pack - version 2
Review by Luke Gevaerts
A word prior to this review: the exact utility reviewing guidelines are still being discussed. For the time being, I shall keep myself to the categories that the participants of that particular discussion have agreed on. If you find this review unfair, please e-mail me at email@example.com, leave a post at the AOKH Scenario Discussion Forum, or stop by at the PDHQ Official Forums.
Well - to start my review:
UTILITY: the Utility factor checks the following:
A: is the utility useful for the designer who downloaded it?
B: is this the first utility of its kind?
C: if not, is it different from the utilities that have been uploaded prior to the utility in question?
For point A, I must say yes - but under certain conditions. LoRd_YuRi_NiNjA's eye-candy pack is mainly meant (and I say mainly, not completely) to teach the designer how to use the Map Copy function to create buildings that look pretty, but which cannot be placed in the editor by normal means. If we look at that point, the utility is fairly useful. The author has made no technical faults with the map copying, and the manually created buildings can be easily copied using that same map Copy function. In that point of view, the utility serves its purpose. The only nitpick I have is that the author is not able to show how to create a building step-by-step, since that is impossible due to game engine limitations. The other eyecandy found in this utility can be easily copied as well - and the author gives a good explanation on how to do so. I know that this belongs to the Instructions category, but I cannot explain my reasons without stating all facts.
The backside of the medal is that this utilty is not very useful to experienced designers, since 99% of that group already knows the powers of Map Copying, and how to apply it. This utility, therefore, is not useful for every designer - but if we are honest, we cannot expect that from any utility. Therefore, I will deduct no points from this category.
For point B, we must honestly say that this utility is one of the many. We have seen tons of eyecandy utilities (there's a lot of them from CheeZy_Monkey0, for example), and this one is an addition to that group. My point of view is that one can be happy that there is so many choice - that way, mostly everybody will be able to find something to his/her liking. Ofcourse, that is a subjective remark.
For point C, I must once again admit that this utility is not shockingly different from what we have already. There's not much to add for this sub-category - it's a simple yes or no. My conclusion, taking everything into account, is to award a 3 for the Utility factor. The author has done a fairly decent job, but not outstanding.
CREATIVITY: the Creativity factor checks whether the utility contains new, refreshing ideas. Before you say anything - indeed, this section looks like sub-category C of the Utility factor. I for one think that this makes clear why the utility reviewing guidelines are still being discussed. I will stick to the agreements for now, but I cannot in clear conscience award a mark to this section. If I look at this utility, I award a 1. In my eyes, it is not creative. In the eyes of others, it may very well be creative. I award a 3 in this category.
QUALITY: the Quality factor checks the following:
A: does the quality of the utility live up to decent standards?
B: is this utility better than utilities released before?
C: how effective is the utility when applied to a scenario?
I'm not certain what to award to part A. I myself am a perfectionist, and take great pride into relentlessly working on my projects, and tweaking them until they are perfect, or as close to it as possible. From my point of view, I would award a 1 to this category, because - and this is my personal opinion - it looks like crap. If I forget my point of view, however, and look at the utility through the eyes I had three years ago, I see that, for beginning designers, this utility looks beautiful. My professional opinion is that this utility can be matched with a scenario from the official designers of Ensemble Studios. It looks decent, but no more than that. A 3 for this sub-category.
Part B could result into a subjective discussion as well. For me, this utility has no value. I would not even download it. But I have been in this business for three years, and know all tricks displayed in this utility. For other designers, however. this could be far better than other utilities. The author includes decent descriptions, and lets you run around the utility with a Hussar, giving you all the time in the world to look at what the author has at his disposal. While I juggle with these two points of view, I award a 3 to this sub-category. This utility is not better than prior utilities, but it is certainly not worse, either.
Part C looks a lot like the prior parts as well. For me, it is totally ineffective. I can do all this by myself, and without arrogance I say that I can do it better. To others, this may be the thing they were looking for. A 3 for this sub-category as well - making the total mark for the Quality factor a 3.
INSTRUCTIONS: the Instructions factor checks if the utility is user-friendly. This factor is by far the easiest to judge. I look at the following:
A: are there any pre-game instructions?
B: are there instructions while the utility is running?
C: can I understand what the author is trying to say, i.e. does the author use proper English?
For both points, I must award full points. The instructions, both pre- and in-game are clear, and written in proper English. I must add that I have seen utilities less clear than this one. A 5 for this factor.
If we do the calculation, we get 3+3+3+5 / 5 = 3.5. The final mark for this utility is thus a 3.5, and I must add that this is not entirely my own, as could be read in the paragraphs above. All in all, I think this is the only fair mark for this utility.
A last word to everyone who decides to review a utility: when you do, try not to take only your own opinion into account, but instead, try looking at the utility from different perspectives. What would the greatest designer think of it? And what about an avarage designer? And what about the mere beginner, who has just learned how to fire up the editor? If you combine these views, you will see that it becomes much easier to deliver a fair review - even when you follow guidelines that have not yet been written into stone. ;-)
July 5, 2002
Luke Gevaerts (firstname.lastname@example.org)