Q1 SP views and articles: May 2000:

Some ranting about minimum level quality.

This mini-rant and the Thought for the Day were posted a while back on the Main page, and I thought they were worth keeping here, along with some further thoughts:

Rant: Deciding what's suitable for review:
Recently I've had some levels submitted which have been on the borderline for reviewing and recommending, and this has caused me some annoyance. Having to decide whether a level is worthwhile, and balancing out the required standards for this site with what authors might expect, is a stress I can do without. I don't need the extra hassle of having to make decisions to review levels, I have enough to cope with already - I'm doing this just for the fun of playing and supporting great levels, and when I have to worry about whether to review something, that's going too far. Levels submitted to this site should inspire me straight away and convince me throughout the level that they are well worth recommending - that's what this site is for. I've come to a compromise regarding recent levels, but I don't want to have to do it gain. All submitted levels should be at least Id quality - and I mean that properly - they should kick the shit out of the best Id levels, not just equal the mediocre ones. I acknowledge I've reviewed some now-substandard levels in the past (they were worthwhile *then*), but mapping standards are rising and this site should reflect that. Whoever you are, whatever involvement you've had with me or this site, however much you rely on TSQLR as the last bastion of Q1 SP, I want levels to be of clearly high quality if you want them reviewed here - for help achieving that, pay close attention to the best Q1 SP levels and authors and learn from them, also try the Style and Theories pages.

Thought for the day:

        " A level should be judged not on how well designed the best areas are, but on how well designed the worst areas are. "

( © Shambler 2000 - pay attention to it mappers, make sure *all* of your map is of a high standard.)

Further thoughts:
1. The requirements for high quality maps are clearly marked throughout this site, and are obvious from the standard of the maps reviewed here. And of course the importance of ensuring any user made product is high quality is common knowledge. So I mean what is written above, and I make no apology for dealing harshly with people who submit sub-standard levels... Or who show screenshots that look sub-standard, as they should be representational of the level... Or who admit they have any doubts about their level's quality - if you have doubts about the quality, you make sure you improve the level so there is no doubt. The standards are very clear on this site, so if you ignore those you can blame yourself.
2. The other side to this rather negative coin is, of course, the benefits of making a high quality level. You'll get satisfaction from releasing a great product, vicarious pleasure knowing it's bringing fun to other gamers, acclaim and promotion from this site, as well as a review that offers advice for future maps. All this insistence on quality may seem offputting to the new mapper, but it IS for a good cause, and the best way to deal with these high standards and/or any criticism, is to put some effort into making a great map - rather than complaining about it. The number of new mappers who have been exposed by this site and made some great maps is a testament to that attitude working.
3. The Theories pages are getting old now, and I don't have time to update them. Standards have changed, new ideas and possibilites have appeared, so the guidelines may not apply so easily. I suspect the guidelines for quality maps should be more flexible than what I've laid out there - the most important thing is for whatever style, design or gameplay of map is chosen, do it well. Regardless of what the map is like - and that might include ignoring many Theories suggestions - it should be high quality. It may be more beneficial than reading the Theories, to look at the best maps at this site, and learn from them, and to get in contact with the top mappers and ask them for help and testing.

Balance and criticism in level reviews.

Review: To hold or write a critical assessment.

Critical: Expressing or involving analytical evaluation.

Two good terms to start with - given those terms as basics, we should be able to explain exactly how reviews, and thus level reviews, work. Now for me, analysing something involves looking, in detail, at all aspects, all facets of that thing: the large, the small, the obvious, the subtle, the good, the bad. So you analyse something, taking into account all it's aspects, then based on that analysis, you write an evaluation/assessment - a judgement if you like. And that is what a review is - a judgement based on an analysis - or the way I see it, a balanced analysis. So that's how reviews work, now their purpose. Their purpose is simply to provide that judgement and analysis for other people, to inform people about the subject reviewed - and if people are choosing whether or not to accept or use that subject, to provide specific information to persuade people to accept it, or not to accept it, based on an analysis that is available for people to see, so they can make up their own minds. All of which applies to Quake level reviews on the net: the purpose of level reviews is to provide analysis and judgements of levels, to give the Quake community both a suggestion as to whether to play the levels, and factual information to enable them to make up their own minds.

I am in a slightly unusual position in that I only review levels that are worth playing and good enough to recommend to others - I recommend you play all the levels I review, unless there is some specific detail that is abhorrent to your personal tastes. The reason is that there is no point wasting my time on low quality levels - it would be fruitless to give a detailed account of a poor level, and to finish by recommending that you do not play it and forget about the level - this site exists in part to promote high quality maps. However, given this imbalance in the choice of levels I review, I still strive for balance in each review - I attempt to mention all prominent aspects of a level, and although my judgement is always a recommendation to play the level, I try to include a detailed and balanced analysis so you can see why I am recommending it, and make up your own mind if needed. You will notice that in every single level review, I will mention negative aspects - there is no perfect level - which will vary from minor imperfections in the best levels, to noticable flaws in lesser levels. So although I recommend a level, if there is a particular flaw that may put you off or affect your enjoyment, then it will be there in the review to provide the information for you.