You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Scenario Design and Discussion
Moderated by HockeySam18

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.943 replies, Closed
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Scenario Design and Discussion » Review Requests: about Reviewing and Tutorials III
Bottom
Topic Subject:Review Requests: about Reviewing and Tutorials III
« Previous Page  1 ··· 7 8 9 10 11 ··· 20 ··· 27  Next Page »
Mash
Huskarl
(id: Mashek)
posted 07-22-10 09:35 AM CT (US)         


Here you may request a review for your file or for another's, whether it be because you would like a second opinion or because you believe a certain file is rated unfairly or is even over-rated. To do so simply leave a comment and the Thread Reviewers here will take a look at it. Please be patient as a skilled review can take some time to write.

BECOMING A THREAD REVIEWER


If you would like to help out with the community and become a Thread Reviewer, you need just four approved reviews. Please post your request in this thread or send a mail to panel@heavengames.com, naming your last review. You do not have to review regularly, but keep in mind that if you have not posted or updated a review within three months you will be put on inactive. To become active again, simply find your name below and post a review. If your name is not listed inactive anymore, your last review will have dated before 01/01/09 (DD/MM/YY) and you may re-enter the thread after one posted review only.




ACTIVE THREAD REVIEWERS
(In order of number of reviews)
* = Official Reviewer

169 Possidon*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Non-Playable Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS, AI-Files
107 Lord Basse*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Non-Playable Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS
92 Mashek*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Non-Playable Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
80 Sword_of_Storm (Jatayu)*: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS, AI-Files
45 Panel*: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Non-Playable Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
35 alekshs: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Non-Playable Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, Recorded Games, RMS, AI-Files
30 dragonslayermcmx: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Non-Playable Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
27 Sarn: Single Player, Mod Packs
18 Mayank Sharma: Single Player, Multiplayer, Mod Packs, Utilities
9 RladalFatih: Single Player, Non-Playable Scenarios
6 Dead_End: Cinematic Scenarios, Non-Playable Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
4 HockeySam18: Single Player

CURRENT INACTIVE THREAD REVIEWERS
(In order of time of inactivity)

11 Leif Ericson: Single Player, RMS, AI-Files
55 Popeychops*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS, AI-Files
26 Julius999*: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios
25 Dtrungle*: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Utilities
09 joshua4missions: Single Player, Mod Packs
10 Fanica: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities
05 Jecon: Single Player, Utilities
08 hailstorm65: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities
27 Cilibinarii: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Utilities
23 FuzzyFurry25: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities
16 Guthan: Single Player, Multiplayer, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS

OFFICIAL REVIEWERS


Mashek
Lord Basse
Popeychops
Julius999
Jatayu (aka Sword_of_Storm)
Possidon
Dtrungle
Stephen Richards
Panel

HALL OF FAME


231 Tanneur99
95 Lord_Fadawah
92 BrandNewCar
61 clayperboy
54 rwilde
31 Stephen Richards*
30 zyxomma100
25 Magnum Zero
24 RF_Gandalf




REVIEW LIST

The list below consists of a number of requests and/or downloads recently rated by thread reviewers. Requests are marked R and updates U. Thread Reviewers are free to review whichever file they want, but should be aware that the designers at the top of each list are waiting the longest for a review. Files that have received a review in the time of request in this thread (whether by a thread reviewer or not) will be removed from the list unless a second opinion is requested.

AI Files: None

Utilities:
R Notepad++ AI Editor, by beladar; No Reviewer
R Enchanced Editor, by GeneralR; Reviewer: panel 3.3
DirectDrawFix - Color Update, by scripter64; Reviewer: panel 5.0
All Bitmaps of all Units, by dragonslayermcmx; Reviewer: Lord Basse 5.0
All Bitmaps of all Buildings, by dragonslayermcmx; Reviewer: Lord Basse 5.0
Advanced Genie Editor 2, by Keisari Tapsa; Reviewer: Lord Basse 5.0
SLP Editor 2.2.5, by Hawk_Ruralist; Reviewer: Lord Basse 5.0
DirectDrawFix - Color Update, by scripter64; Reviewer: Possidon 5.0


Mod Packs:
U Age of Vampires, by Khan Ivayl; Reviewer: Mashek 4.0, alekshs 5.0
Explosive Turtle Ship, by dragonslayermcmx; Reviewer: panel 4.0
AH-64 Apache Armed Helicopter, by Hawk_Adongct; Reviewer: Lord Basse 4.3
Archery Range Pack, by Rageofempires; Reviewer: Mayank Sharma 2.8
Transformers BUMBLEBEE, by Hawk_Adongct; Reviewer: dragonslayermcmx 3.3
Oriental shield king, by Hawk_Adongct; Reviewer: dragonslayermcmx 4.3

Cinematic Scenarios:
ACSC10 - The Last Samurai - Blood Memories, by Sebastien; Reviewer: Mashek 4.6, Lord Basse 4.4
A Tribute To RU42, by Hawk_Adongct; Reviewer: panel 4.6

Single Player:
R A Mans Home is His Castle, by joshua4missions; No Reviewer
R Sir Spart on Trench Shores, Demo, by Algren t l s; No reviewer
R Brotherhood of War (updated 1.3 version), by kahn1969; Reviewer: Panel;
R The Arabian Nights, by Jackrum; no reviewer
R ICE AGE ICE MAZE, by Xylon Draganthus; Reviewer: Panel 3.2
The Jaguar Gold, by Lord Basse; Reviewer: Sarn 4.8, dragonslayermcmx 4.8, Possidon 4.6
R Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, by Celebi Megatron; Reviewer: panel 4.4
The Conquest of Kent by Andrew W; Reviewer: Sarn 3.8
Phoenix (Unfinished), by Teotl; Reviewer: panel 4.2
Demon Town, by Devastator; Reviewer: panel 3.8
the TWO KINGS by Genghis, by Pro_Designer; Reviewer: Alekshs 3.0
Britannia Colonia, by Yekkelle; Reviewer: Sarn 3.0
Treasure Predator, by Devastator; Reviewer: Sword_Of_Storm 3.8
Helm's Deep by Magnus, by Lord Magnus; Reviewer: Sarn 2.4
MGC12-An evil "surprise", by Alekshs; Reviewer: Sarn 4.0
MGC2012 - The Siege of the Fort, by Mephiles5; Reviewer: Sarn 2.8

Non-Playable Scenarios:
R Forest, by Dragonslayermcmx; panel 4.0
The Jungle Thinghy, by IsuckatXbows; panel 1.5
R District of Allin, by Algren t l s; panel 3.0

Random Maps:
R Fertile Crescent, Revision 1, by OtmShankIiI; no reviewer

Multiplayer:
R Compilation of Multiplayer Games, by jburnell; No Reviewer
R Persia - Non Random Map, by Lakayaa; No Reviewer
R UDP - Deathly Cliffs - V3.2, by Heroes; No Reviewer
R Battleships, by TheReal_Hunter; No Reviewer
R The Seas of Egressa RP, by Guthan; No Reviewer
R city catastrophe(complete version), by bigboy37731; No Reviewer
R UDP Prison Break, by Alevo; No Reviewer
R Paradise Lands, by sathcooperation; No Reviewer
R SAVE YOUR @$$ (beta2), by rohit021089; No Reviewer

Recorded Games:
DM 1 vs 4 Hardest.mgx, by zebratangozebra; Reviewer: Alekshs 1.5





FILE UPDATES AND OBSELETE REVIEWS

Please edit your review after an update. A designer can ask for the removal of all reviews after an update if he feels that they do not represent the actual version of his submission. Reviews that address issues that are fixed, altered or ameliorated do not serve the visitors of our site. A review has to be a valuable tool for the designer and the downloader.

RECENT UPDATES/ REVIEWS TO EDIT
(In order of date of the update)

10/23/11 Roots to Noah's Arc, by Pancho Villa 347; Reviewer: Mashek
11/25/11 Age of Vampires - Blood Reign in Transsylvania, by Khan Ivayl; Reviewers: Mashek




Please read the REVIEW GUIDELINES

Without trying to enforce the Review Guidelines as something as law, they are still a very important part of the review system here at Age of Kings Heaven, and are used to create consistency between reviewers at the Blacksmith in order to establish fairness and equality for reviews. With the Review Guidelines’ recent update all reviewers need to take into account the new addition of rules when reviewing. However, Angel SpineMan’s primary objective for reviewing in the Old Guidelines still applies today:

“This article will provide a description of how to write quality reviews for Age of Kings Heaven that are scored consistently between reviewers and are helpful to both the file's creator as well as the potential downloader.”

In some cases, a small percentage of reviewers tend to review files according to their own rules, leading to inconsistency between reviews at the Blacksmith, which is neither helpful nor fair to anyone. To have reviews at the Blacksmith that are fair and helpful, reviewers have to follow some rules to score consistently.

If you have any questions about reviewing, please do not hesitate to post in this thread!




Single Player Campaigns and Scenarios


There are many invaluable lessons to learn when becoming a good reviewer, and a few other things besides that will result in a good and fair review. Some things are self-evident when reviewing a file; in general, do not review game styles you do not enjoy and review files according to the date of its release. There are many files back in 2000-2002 that received a score of a high 4, which would not fit the standards of today. You have to take into account the standards of the day, and rate accordingly. In addition, if the scenario is designed for original Age of Kings, review it playing AoK.

Below you will find a general breakdown of each category from a review for your convenience.

PLAYABILITY is about the fun you had while playing a scenario, and here you need to mention what affected your enjoyment in a positive and/or negative way.

BALANCE is about how easy or difficult a scenario was for you. You should mention which difficulty you played on when reviewing, although this is not mandatory. A good approach to reviewing a file would be to start with moderate and later change to standard, to see if the scenario was too easy or too hard or well-balanced overall; before ending off with hard difficulty. However, reviewers will need to take into account that not all files are difficulty-level-dynamic. In general, remember that you are rating the file according to your own skill level and not that of others.

CREATIVITY covers every aspect of a scenario. Remember that a file does not need anything new to achieve a high score.

MAP DESIGN scores compared to a random map which rates 2.0. Anything worse or better than a random map may be rated up or down accordingly. Some tips for rating this category is that you rate what you see during game play, which means no Marco and Polo. The map size and how much of the map was used should not affect the rating.

STORY/INSTRUCTIONS is a little more interesting than some. Probably the most common detail reviewers tend to overlook is that this category covers two aspects of any scenario, story and instructions. Not just one or the other. If the file is lacking in one then you can make note of that in the review and mark down accordingly. However, this does not pertain to multiplayer scenarios, whereby a story is not mandatory. In general, the presence of a functional story (while not necessarily being a good story) with instructions should be midpoint, a 3. From there you should be able to give an accurate overall rating for this category.

Non-Playable Scenarios

For files such as those where playability is void and map design is the only feature of the file (e.g. entries to the Totally-Terrain Contest), the category should therefore be used to take a look at the technical and creative qualities of the map design, while referring to how that design pushes the boundaries of realism in an AOK environment. One particular thing to note here is that just because the file is all about pretty map design, that doesn’t mean it cannot feature any creative features that might breathe life into the design, such as towns brought to life by wandering villagers, people going about their everyday lives, and other unique devices besides. Basically, anything that goes into making the map more alive and as such realistic should be taken into consideration. As the file will likely feature little anything else other than map design, a single overall rating between 1 and 5 will be fine.

Scenarios without Fighting

An exception to the balance category is when the author of a particular file did not intend any fighting, or very little of, to feature in the scenario. From the review guidelines:

One important note about scoring the balance category for scenarios is that where no fighting takes place, such as some puzzle scenarios and some RPG-style scenarios, is that just because the player cannot die in such scenarios, that doesn't mean the scenario isn't balanced. Difficulty can also be present via puzzles or other devices, and the balance of these should be taken into account.

For files such as the Pretty Town Contest entries whereby there is a great degree of walking and nothing else much, reviewers should therefore take into account the author’s intention. If it was intended that you walk around and gaze at the beauty and wonder of a landscape, then you need to rate on that account.

Rating Cut-scene Style Scenarios

Cut-scenes rate like any other scenario, the only difference is that most cut-scenes do not allow any interaction for the player, requiring only that the player sits down and watch as the story unfolds. Cut-scenes are a mixed bag of lollies; some designers appreciate them, others however do not. The purpose of a cut-scene is to tell a story, to continue or conclude a project, like in Ulio with the old man in the forest and the two travellers. In the general sense of the word Playability, we rate the fun we had while watching the cut-scene and how playable it is.

The very definition of Playability denotes many errors, some already obvious. In Tanneur99’s words, the previous Blacksmith administrator and owner of this thread, “playability is a bastard word. It does not exist in the English language and separating the word into play and ability gives an incorrect meaning for the category. Ability to play would be listed under balance, the ability of a player to play a certain difficulty level of a file. It is a common error to believe that cut-scenes are unplayable. Gordon Farrell wrote that you play a cut-scene in the same sense as you play a CD on your CD player. If the CD has scratches and/or is dirty it is less playable to unplayable. A cut-scene is less playable to unplayable when we encounter bugs and/or lag. In closing, rate the fun you had watching the cut-scene and deduct for bugs and lag.”

For rating Balance in cut-scenes, the review guideline gives us this description:

for scenarios with no interactivity, such as cut-scenes, this category should be used to examine the flow and technical merits of the cut-scene: did it run smoothly? Was everything technically put together well

This means that reviewers can now rate down in this category for all those dodgy timing sequences, overlapping music, and anything else that would not necessarily affect one’s enjoyment but the technical aspect of a cut-scene. This also gives balance in cinematic scenarios more depth and meaning, and contributes more to the overall rating of a review than previously attained. Every technical aspect is to be taken into account, and what happens on-screen should generally correspond smoothly with dialogue and the overall transition of the story. Generally speaking, the less the cinematic leaves up to the viewer’s imagination, the higher the quality of the presentation. In saying all that, a cinematic should never feel rushed or sluggish, but proceed from scene to scene as the atmosphere and story suggests.

Demos, Teasers, Unfinished Scenarios

Unfinished files, demos and teasers are common at the Blacksmith and make up a great percentage of submissions. Many designers, like writers, look for feedback on their work: to help get past a certain point in their project where they might be hindered from progressing, or to catch up on any bugs that might be bothering them. Some authors return to the file and provide the Blacksmith with a complete update of the file as a result of the feedback.

When reviewing unfinished files, it’s important not to discriminate because it is an incomplete work. There’s no reason to knock down points just because somebody put Demo or Teaser in the title to get some feedback to know what he/she could improve on in an update. Rate a demo as if it is a finished product. This will achieve the best possible feedback for the author of an unfinished file.

Multiplayer

The Official Review Guidelines is the directive for rating single player scenarios and multiplayer scenarios, with an exception to Balance only. When judging BALANCE in multiplayer scenarios, you rate nothing else but the starting positions of each player, which should be equal for all to achieve the highest rating. For more on this please read post 264 of the previous thread.

Random Map Script


AI-Files

The first question to ask when rating an AI-File is what is the AI intended to do and how well does it perform in that specific area? There are AI-Files developed for many intents and purposes: for scenario design, training, specific maps (e.g. Arabia), death match, tournament, defensive/ aggressive files, water maps or land maps only, etc.

If the AI-file is developed for Age of Kings test it playing Age of Kings only. Rating an AI according to your own experience might be biased unless the AI cheats. Cheating AI-files, as forbidden for tournaments, are meant to play against human players. A good way to test a non-cheating AI is against the standard AI. If its performance compares to the standard one, it is average and the minimum rating should be a 3. In general, rate the AI-file according to its time. Many AI-files were developed to beat another specific one. It would be unfair to knock off points of an AI developed in 2000 because it loses against a more recent one.

Modification Pack Script

A Modification Pack Script (MPS) is mainly an item for the player, which has a limited use for designers; the content will not always suit a designer’s endeavours in scenario design and is very limited to its audience. Keep this in mind when you rate mod pack scripts for USEFULNESS/NOVELTY and QUALITY/INSTRUCTIONS. The main categories are USEFULNESS and QUALITY for the overall rating of a MPS. Use NOVELTY and INSTRUCTIONS to correct the category rating. Still, for a perfect rating the MPS has to excel in all four categories.

Utilities

There is no official guideline for reviewing utilities, but for some ideas you can go here. A utility is a tool for the designer and has hardly any use for the player; keep this in mind when you rate utilities for USEFULNESS/NOVELTY and QUALITY/INSTRUCTIONS. Often you cannot rate the novelty factor because the file is another eye candy map of Lord of the Rings, a Volcano, Waterfall, Trigger Guide, Tutorial or collection of battle sounds. In other words, nothing new. Originally the fifth category was Creativity but this was too close to Novelty, better to have the two rated together if possible. When you feel Novelty does not apply, you can replace it with Creativity. The four categories are of equal importance for the overall rating of a utility.

Recorded Games

The value of a recorded game is highly subjective depending mainly on the purpose for which the submitter uploaded it. A recorded game must have a specific and defined purpose so the viewer can gain knowledge and/or entertainment value from the game. The submitter must specify exactly what to look for, what the point of the upload is.

It is up to the reviewer to check if there was any purpose and how well the recorded game met the intended goals. If it is supposed to be an example of a rushing tactic but no attacks happen until 30 minutes into the game, it is a bad example of the tactic. The rating is not about how well everybody played, if the teams were equally strong, you can mention that but it should not affect the rating.

The questions to answer: What is the purpose of the record? How well does the game show the intended goals? Is it entertaining and/or can the viewer gain knowledge from it?




Review Thread History

Luke Gevaerts started the Review Request Thread 03/30/2002. Tanneur took over 11/30/2002 until 7/11/2009. I (Mashek) have since taken over and updated the thread as best I can (disputable) to feature more relevant information according to today’s guidelines.

[This message has been edited by Dead_End (edited 05-18-2012 @ 07:04 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
John Mendl
Squire
posted 01-30-11 00:01 AM CT (US)     281 / 943       
trisatya
Squire
posted 01-30-11 00:26 AM CT (US)     282 / 943       
Grow up.
Really John? If you actually read Sebastien's second post you'd realize he makes a good and valid point.

____IN FLAMES____
WE TRUST!

StormWind Studios | BlackForest Studios
Carlos Ferdinand
Squire
posted 01-30-11 01:49 AM CT (US)     283 / 943       
What is wrong with you all?

Stop turning this discussion into a teamed "flame war".

I made a valid point that popeychops didnt play my scenario properly, he played it like playing gwyndlegard without garnas, for example.

Stop talking about things you dont know please! Not using Xavier miguel to go to the islands is suicidal.

Take my word that it is not a small thing to ignore.

If you make some points, then do it. Stop telling us WAHWAHWAHWAH we are crybabies etc.

CARLOS FERDINAND 2-- THE MEDITERRANEAN DRIZZLE

MY GOTH MEN-AT-ARMS STRATEGY
CARLOS FERDINAND - 1. A KINGDOM'S DAWN

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

[This message has been edited by Carlos Ferdinand (edited 01-30-2011 @ 01:51 AM).]

John Mendl
Squire
posted 01-30-11 02:39 AM CT (US)     284 / 943       
Sebastien's attitude is over the top. He admits he didnt play the scenario and indirectly states that he dont see anything wrong with popey not using the monk. Wtf? How can he remark (indirectly) that this hasnt taken out balance when he didnt even play the scenario? I might have still let it pass if he didnt post "OMG WAH WAH MUMMY HE DINT USE MONK". Really he's testing our patience. Incase he really wants to know, me and Carlos are brothers and most people who posted here had known that for long.

Edit: i had read his second post too. Honestly what good point is he making? Really CF2 had Zero comments/reviews for 1-2 months despite being a decent work. Those three comments were just a convo between carlos and dtrungle about his review.

Im not trying to stress on this (this isnt really related to the main discussion), just thought i answer the statement that sebastien made a good valid point.

[This message has been edited by John Mendl (edited 01-30-2011 @ 03:04 AM).]

Teotl
Squire
posted 01-30-11 03:28 AM CT (US)     285 / 943       
Carlos, your scenario has 233 downloads, a 4.0 review and a 3.6 one! You should be grateful, man!

I haven't played your scen (because I don't like B&D), but even if Popey changes the rating of the balance from a 3 to a 4, your scenario will get a 3.8. Not a big change there.

And MANY bad, decent and good scenarios have 0 comments, it's just how it is.

We should all calm down a bit, it's not like it's something so serious!

Scenarios:
Divine War (rated 4.4)
Phoenix trailer (rated 3.8)
Proud Member of Black Forest Studios

It`s hard to light a candle, easy to curse the dark instead
Carlos Ferdinand
Squire
posted 01-30-11 03:47 AM CT (US)     286 / 943       
Dude, it isnot a B&D by any means it is all popeychops trying to make it seem like a b&d....

That 3.6 review was 3.8 and i didnot change anything and he just brought the score down for the sake of this argument. I must indeed be very grateful to him for that. The review popeychops gave me doesnt deserve to exists just because of that.
Carlos, your scenario has 233 downloads
I am not talking about my scenario going unattended right now, but the fact is it has almost half the downloads of the scenarios which sandwitch it.

Also, on score- im not talking about 3.6 score etc, he just did some nonsense with his review due to his personal grudge vs me. I donot want such reviews to exist. He also refuses to acknowledge that balance will improve if he uses the hero monk for mission, and he didnt even use it so how does he tell that?

CARLOS FERDINAND 2-- THE MEDITERRANEAN DRIZZLE

MY GOTH MEN-AT-ARMS STRATEGY
CARLOS FERDINAND - 1. A KINGDOM'S DAWN

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

[This message has been edited by Carlos Ferdinand (edited 01-30-2011 @ 03:49 AM).]

Possidon
Slayer
posted 01-30-11 04:17 AM CT (US)     287 / 943       
Stop turning this discussion into a teamed "flame war".
Your the one turning it into a flame war. Just drop the argument.

Can we just have our review thread back. This is not an arguments thread. Anything you would like to argue about do via email and stop disrupting out reviews thread.

[This message has been edited by Possidon (edited 01-30-2011 @ 04:19 AM).]

Carlos Ferdinand
Squire
posted 01-30-11 04:41 AM CT (US)     288 / 943       
Apologies for my part in the offtopic discussion in thread, all i just want is popeychops' review gone, forever.

CARLOS FERDINAND 2-- THE MEDITERRANEAN DRIZZLE

MY GOTH MEN-AT-ARMS STRATEGY
CARLOS FERDINAND - 1. A KINGDOM'S DAWN

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
panel
Squire
posted 01-30-11 06:06 AM CT (US)     289 / 943       
wake up and smell the coffee dude. the review won't be gone because you say so. was that a threat? if so, then think about what it will accomplish (absolutely nothing). if people here would have to choose between popey's review and you, do you honestly think they would choose you? after all this stupid nonsensical argument you've been carrying on for the past month or so?

Try growing a set and admiting that maybe your work wasn't all that good.

PS: for my work "The successor" I received two reviews. One 4.2 and one 3.8 . Did you see me spamming this topic asking Lord Basse to change my freaking grades????? That's just stupid. Reviews are subjective. No person will feel the same way about the same game. Get USED TO THAT.
Basse
Squire
posted 01-30-11 06:12 AM CT (US)     290 / 943       
You asked for a review, you got one, now deal with it.

Quote from yourself:
I request another review for my scenario - Carlos Ferdinand 2-- The Mediterranean Drizzle. The downloadlink is in my signature.
Hmm, I dont have a problem the way people play my campaign, i am glad if people comment on it.
Carlos Ferdinand
Squire
posted 01-30-11 06:27 AM CT (US)     291 / 943       
Do you both who posted just now have a clue why asked for removal of the review?

Popeychops reduced the rating of my scenario from 3.8 to 3.6 because of the sake of this argument. I am rightful to ask for the removal of it, since he reduced the rate just because of personal grudge.

this has nothing to do with the score he gave me.

CARLOS FERDINAND 2-- THE MEDITERRANEAN DRIZZLE

MY GOTH MEN-AT-ARMS STRATEGY
CARLOS FERDINAND - 1. A KINGDOM'S DAWN

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

[This message has been edited by Carlos Ferdinand (edited 01-30-2011 @ 06:29 AM).]

Dead_End
Cavalier
posted 01-30-11 07:06 AM CT (US)     292 / 943       
Finally, popeychops is a really immature person who has no idea how he should back up his arguments/ points when discussing. I just feel ashamed because a person like him is part of this community.
*Sigh*

Dear Carlos,

Please accept the fact that no one here is out to get you. The basic principle of a community website such as AoKH is that people comment on other people's work. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with Popeychops' review. I admit not having played the file, so my position to judge may be totally unjustified (ha pun). However, to me (as an outsider) it seems that the review in question is in total accordance with the reviewing guidelines.

As mentioned here before the basic principle of reviewing is that an unbiased person gives his honest opinion about a certain work. No one forced you to submit your scenario to the Blacksmith. The fact that you did implies that you've accepted the consequences that may follow such a submission. i.e. having someone review your work.

Finally I'd like to point out something that was of great hilarity to me. Your signature.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
I'd like to know your motives behind this quote. I think your posts have shown that if anything, you do not support the freedom of speech.
Carlos Ferdinand
Squire
posted 01-30-11 08:11 AM CT (US)     293 / 943       
However, to me (as an outsider) it seems that the review in question is in total accordance with the reviewing guidelines.
Do you justify popeychops reducing my scenario's score due to me making this complaint? This is the one question i want to make to you guys.

I am not arguing right now about review guidelines or stuff. I dropped it all sometime ago, and i told him his updated review is fine by me.

Then i discovered with amazement how he ignored one of the key units to the islands mission. How would you feel if someone reviewed your scenario without using an important unit and then say "even if you use it it wont change things much"?

Answer me these questions, and i am really annoyed how everyone replied to me about "review being someone's opinion". I am not questioning his opinion right now. I am questioning his right to reduce my scenario's rate just for the sake of this argument.

I will take it as an insult if his review is not removed, or the very least changed back to its original score.

As for my quote, i dont restrict any one's right to free speech, but this act popeychops just did i.e reducing my rating for a shitty argument is over the line, completely.

CARLOS FERDINAND 2-- THE MEDITERRANEAN DRIZZLE

MY GOTH MEN-AT-ARMS STRATEGY
CARLOS FERDINAND - 1. A KINGDOM'S DAWN

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

[This message has been edited by Carlos Ferdinand (edited 01-30-2011 @ 08:16 AM).]

Possidon
Slayer
posted 01-30-11 08:29 AM CT (US)     294 / 943       
How would you feel if someone reviewed your scenario without using an important unit and then say "even if you use it it wont change things much"
NOt to bothered as long as they managed to complete the scenario.
i.e reducing my rating for a shitty argument is over the line, completely.
To be honest you were the one who started the argument
John Mendl
Squire
posted 01-30-11 08:51 AM CT (US)     295 / 943       
The thing is:

Popey tells that he played the entire scenario without monk Xavier. That is hard to believe since you will get control of him if you just ring town bell (which popey did). This took out the balance. The author asks removal of the review because of that. The review should be removed. It is that simple.
Possidon
Slayer
posted 01-30-11 08:55 AM CT (US)     296 / 943       
I haven'tr played the scenario but Even if Popey got control of the Monk doesn't mean he still had to use him.
Francis de Talking France
Squire
(id: Watson)
posted 01-30-11 08:57 AM CT (US)     297 / 943       
Not to be bothered as long as they managed to complete the scenario.
I know I am just a spectator observing the argument in silence, with very less say, but Carlos has a point here, and I disagree with Possidon's statement. it is true that nobody can make you revise your view of general works, but there are some influencing factors that do help, such as playing a game the way it's meant to be played. I for one, wouldn't like others to have a view different, and maybe negative, of what I expected, just because of some tiny thing they did wrong. Personal view factor not included in the last statement.

For instance, if you had a hero which heals, and if it were an RPG, hit-and-run tactics would obviously be important. Occasionally you get heavy hits which would make you retreat and wait for yourself to be healed. Wouldn't it then make you wish you had an important unit such as a monk, to speed up the healing (By the way, this was one of the great flaws of Jengar's Quest)?

I also want to make myself clear here when I say I haven't played this scenario yet, so I am unjustified (ha another pun) to make a point here, plus the fact that I'm not supporting anyone.

[This message has been edited by The Unconvincing Spook (edited 01-30-2011 @ 11:12 AM).]

Dead_End
Cavalier
posted 01-30-11 09:09 AM CT (US)     298 / 943       
Carlos,
You remind me of the auditions for Idols. There's always a candidate there who sings at a mediocre level and then slams the judges for pointing that out. If Popeychops played the scenario without the monk, then that's a flaw in the scenario. His game experience is what makes his review, not what it should have been according to the designer.
shitty argument
When throwing around terms like that you're not going to get any sympathy from the community. I understand that you're angry, but for your own credibility's sake, please refrain from using such words.
Carlos Ferdinand
Squire
posted 01-30-11 09:15 AM CT (US)     299 / 943       
Popeychops played the scenario without the monk, then that's a flaw in the scenario.
Wow. Can u enlighten me how is that a flaw in my scenario? omg..

I'm glad atleast someone understood my point, ty Watson.

CARLOS FERDINAND 2-- THE MEDITERRANEAN DRIZZLE

MY GOTH MEN-AT-ARMS STRATEGY
CARLOS FERDINAND - 1. A KINGDOM'S DAWN

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
Popeychops
"Cool" Huskarl
posted 01-30-11 09:16 AM CT (US)     300 / 943       
Carlos, why do you persist in insulting me and my friends?

I'm an official reviewer, which makes me deputy to the moderators and the review guidelines. My review (and my point of view) does not fall foul of either. As a reviewer it is not my job to give you what you want. I'm doing you the favour, not the other way around. You've taken over this review thread by repeatedly demanding your own way. You've now sunk to screaming about how immature I am and how you want my review removed.

Tough shit.

I have several of the nominees for various scenario of the year awards defending my review and my point of view. You have your brother.

Read Dead-End's reference to your signature which champions freedom of speech.

And stop derailing these threads, its bloody annoying.

Member of BlackForest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
"Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
"Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
"You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
Popeychops
"Cool" Huskarl
posted 01-30-11 09:24 AM CT (US)     301 / 943       
Oh, and by way of explanation.

I lowered the score on story/instructions because obviously your instructions weren't perfect if I managed to miss the monk, and also because if you will be unfairly critical of my review, I will be less generous towards you.

Member of BlackForest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
"Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
"Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
"You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
BF_Tanks
Squire
posted 01-30-11 09:31 AM CT (US)     302 / 943       
ITT: Popey obliterates the shitstorming, whining noobs who can't handle their shit map getting a shit score.

Well played, Popey me old pal. Well Played.

Proud Member of Black Forest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009
and The Seas of Egressa - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
trisatya
Squire
posted 01-30-11 09:44 AM CT (US)     303 / 943       
OT: Popey and Tanks, this might be late, but I just found out that it's a tad difficult to distinguish you between each other, thanks to your identical signatures.

____IN FLAMES____
WE TRUST!

StormWind Studios | BlackForest Studios

[This message has been edited by Trisatya (edited 01-30-2011 @ 09:45 AM).]

Carlos Ferdinand
Squire
posted 01-30-11 09:46 AM CT (US)     304 / 943       
I wont even bother to answer the Tanks who doesnt speak anything relevant.

Popeychops, i cannot see how my instructions be blamed for missing a monk LOL. Its given in hints clearly that Xavier miguel is a crucial man in your mission.

Stop lying please, you reduced the score just because of this argument. This was made clear in your post where you apparently wanted to punish me for my behaviour.

CARLOS FERDINAND 2-- THE MEDITERRANEAN DRIZZLE

MY GOTH MEN-AT-ARMS STRATEGY
CARLOS FERDINAND - 1. A KINGDOM'S DAWN

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
Popeychops
"Cool" Huskarl
posted 01-30-11 09:47 AM CT (US)     305 / 943       
I know, I noticed that immediately after tanks asked me for the code to my sig. He wanted my silent evil links and stuff.
Change the colours mate :P

Edit:
Stop lying please, you reduced the score just because of this argument. This was made clear in your post where you apparently wanted to punish me for my behaviour.
On the contrary, I'm not lying at all. I'm explaining why I wanted to punish you for your behaviour.

Member of BlackForest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
"Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
"Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
"You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile

[This message has been edited by Popeychops (edited 01-30-2011 @ 09:54 AM).]

Dead_End
Cavalier
posted 01-30-11 09:54 AM CT (US)     306 / 943       
Wow. Can u enlighten me how is that a flaw in my scenario? omg..
First of all, could you quote me correctly from now on? The word 'if' makes a huge difference in this sentence.

As for the stuff I said.. If you tested your scenario thoroughly, you'd found out about the possibility of the monk-bug. That is a flaw in the scenario.
Sebastien
Dark Samurai
posted 01-30-11 10:08 AM CT (US)     307 / 943       
LOOK! I'm zippy longstockings.



This is going no where. Ignore the trolls.
BF_Tanks
Squire
posted 01-30-11 10:12 AM CT (US)     308 / 943       
@Carlos: It's actually very relevant. Popeychops just won the argument again. I didn't actually play the scenario to know if it's genuinely shit or not, but the way you're whining about a monk that isn't even needed makes me think it's badly placed and a generally crap map.

@Andan/Popey: Yeah, I need to think of some badassery colorscheme. I'm thinking Red/Black/Purple.

Proud Member of Black Forest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009
and The Seas of Egressa - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
Popeychops
"Cool" Huskarl
posted 01-30-11 10:15 AM CT (US)     309 / 943       
What about Red/white/blue?
The words "power, death, distorted truth" are read between the lines of the Red White and Blue

Member of BlackForest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
"Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
"Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
"You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
Carlos Ferdinand
Squire
posted 01-30-11 10:23 AM CT (US)     310 / 943       
Dead end, there is no such thing as the mentioned monk bug in my scenario.

Can popeychops show a screenshot of that?

As far as i know and mendl who tested my scenario thorughly never found out such a bug. It simply doesnt even exist.

So now tell me how does that become a flaw in my scenario?

CARLOS FERDINAND 2-- THE MEDITERRANEAN DRIZZLE

MY GOTH MEN-AT-ARMS STRATEGY
CARLOS FERDINAND - 1. A KINGDOM'S DAWN

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
Popeychops
"Cool" Huskarl
posted 01-30-11 10:27 AM CT (US)     311 / 943       
Can popeychops show a screenshot of that?
I'm not going back to replay it, so you'll never know either way.

My review doesn't mention the monk, so I don't need to.

Member of BlackForest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
"Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
"Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
"You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
Dead_End
Cavalier
posted 01-30-11 10:30 AM CT (US)     312 / 943       
Dead end, there is no such thing as the mentioned monk bug in my scenario.

Can popeychops show a screenshot of that?

As far as i know and mendl who tested my scenario thorughly never found out such a bug. It simply doesnt even exist.

So now tell me how does that become a flaw in my scenario?
Please stop crying. God.
Carlos Ferdinand
Squire
posted 01-30-11 10:52 AM CT (US)     313 / 943       
Popeychops, as i already said your review doesnot mention the monk, but thats not the issue here.Regardless of whether you mentioned or not, your score of balance surely had a role to play because of not realising xavier miguel is yours, and hence not taking it to islands.

And the reason i want your review removed is not even because you didnt use the monk... Its because you unfairly deducted points, taking the stance that my scenario is at fault for the careless way in which you played. You simply deducted points because i complained on this issue.

Dead End, how does my post become "crying"?

ROFL its just funny. When i make some relevant point, this is the way to answer it.
you're whining about a monk that isn't even needed makes me think it's badly placed and a generally crap map.
LOL. Just tell me if you didnt even play my scenario how can u tell whether the monk "isnt even needed". Next you should realise arguments cannot be won or lost through internet forum... how old are you really

CARLOS FERDINAND 2-- THE MEDITERRANEAN DRIZZLE

MY GOTH MEN-AT-ARMS STRATEGY
CARLOS FERDINAND - 1. A KINGDOM'S DAWN

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

[This message has been edited by Carlos Ferdinand (edited 01-30-2011 @ 11:06 AM).]

Popeychops
"Cool" Huskarl
posted 01-30-11 11:16 AM CT (US)     314 / 943       
your score of balance surely had a role to play because of not realising xavier miguel is yours, and hence not taking it to islands.
By what right do you think you know my review better than I, the one who wrote it?
I did not give it a 3 because of the lack of a monk. The hardest section and most influential was the naval section. The section with the towers is also hard. I would have rated the section on the islands a 4, if it was on its own.

Don't you dare presume you know my opinions better than me. Its that attitude that has caused this argument.
Its because you unfairly deducted points, taking the stance that my scenario is at fault for the careless way in which you played. You simply deducted points because i complained on this issue.
AS ABOVE.
I've explained this several times, since you decided to attack me, my perfectly justified review, my opinions, and my friends, I decided that I would edit my review to be more critical of you.
As I said, you were critical of me, so I am critical of you. What do you expect? Do you think I'll let you insult me (as you have done repeatedly in this thread, and I feel very offended due to your hurtful comments towards me and the multitude of people who've taken my side), and simply rate kindly?
My review is my opinion. When you began to insult me I decided to change my opinion. Have a look at the justification I gave in the updated story section. I've given reasons that satisfy the guidelines. I haven't just deducted marks because I don't like you.

Member of BlackForest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
"Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
"Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
"You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
BF_Tanks
Squire
posted 01-30-11 11:16 AM CT (US)     315 / 943       
I'm 17 as a matter of fact and I believe every word when Popeychops says he beat the game without your "Massively critical if-you-dont-have-it-you-die" monk. If the monk was so mission-critical, you would of made it actually needed.

On playing your scenario, I totally agree with the marks Popeychops has given. They are fair.

Everyone's thinking it, so I'll be the one to say it:

Shut the actual F*ck up you whiny little brat just because you didn't get full marks. Learn to take constructive critisism before submitting your work to a professional review thread. It's obvious, no matter what crap you continue to spray from your keyboard, that you are just butt-hurt that your map didn't get 5/5.

I have full confidence that Popeychops is a damn good reviewer, and you should be happy he reviewed it in the first place.

Forward Slash, Motherf*cking Argument.

Proud Member of Black Forest Studios
Co-creator of Silent Evil - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009
and The Seas of Egressa - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
« Previous Page  1 ··· 7 8 9 10 11 ··· 20 ··· 27  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames