In defense of negative feedback

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

 

Howdy, I've been a mapper since November 2021, and have made about fifteen maps so far. Doomers are an incredibly welcoming community, and in the vast majority of cases, map feedback is positive. But not always, and I think that negative feedback is just as important as positive, if not more. 

 

Negative feedback is better than no feedback at all. 

 

Obviously, when giving negative feedback, it's good to keep in mind the mapper's feelings. After all, mapping is a form of self-expression. And so is feedback. If I spend a week pouring my heart into a map one can blaze through in ten minutes, it's nice to see my time and effort were not wasted. One should definitely enjoy the act of mapping itself, that should be the main reason to map. But being appreciated for something you enjoy doing is a wonderful feeling. 

But what if it sucks? 

Well, I think that's unavoidable. Do you think Skillsaw started making awesome maps, because of some divine power? Because of talent? No, he worked hard. There is no such thing as talent, people put lots of energy into something, and eventually, they get better at it. And because of players' feedback. 

When there's an element in a map that doesn't work, it's very important to identify it, and find a way to deal with it. Testers should never feel bad for pointing out when something doesn't work. They should be absolutely free to break your map, and find things that don't work. Whether it's an unsatisfactory combat encounter, texture issue, moon-logic progression, inaccessible areas… the list of things that can go wrong is endless. And if the mapper spends a lot of time, looking at the same area over and over again, fighting the same fights, tunnel vision comes into play. I know what to do, I know where to get ammo, I know where the blue key is. But the player does not. 

This is something that really dawned on me one day when a tester submitted a video where they get so frustrated in one fight, die several times and then quit. And others also pointed out this part as problematic. Was it their fault for getting stuck in that part, when I never did in my playtesting? No, of course not. 

Something didn't work, people told me I did a poor job, and I'm a better mapper for it. A problem arises and needs to be solved. 

 

One thing to keep in mind is that testers want to have fun playing a map. They want to help people make more, and better maps. Assuming malice is an intuitive but problematic attitude. 

Understanding how to design things that work well can only happen when one understands what doesn't work well, and why it doesn't. 

 

If any tester finds something wrong, they should point it out. And the mapper should appreciate them for it. Because they help make the map better. 

As long as it's constructive, of course. That should go without saying. "This map sucks" with no further comment is not useful feedback. And it pains me to say but "this map rocks" with no further comment is also not very useful. 

 

I hope we can all encourage testers to speak their mind, and mappers to take criticism with dignity. 

 

Thanks for reading, sorry if it's too rambly, and I'm so ears for what you think. 

[yakfak]

you gotta find testers who're in harmony with what you're trying to do, though. if you just put out a map and say, whatcha think, all the advice'll drag it towards convention. if you're doing something other than that, some of the criticism will be aimed directly at your tastes!

 

also "this map rocks" is beautiful. people aren't necessarily trying to improve, criticism shouldn't be the only way of reacting to a map.

[thiccyosh]

It all boils down to who you get for testing (practically what yakfak said). Some might see cheesing in a map as a sin, while others see it as a blessing. Some might think Fireblu is the best texture ever, while others dislike it. Not everyone on Doomworld plays Doom the same way you do or write criticisms about it. As if everyone has a different taste in terms of texturing, combat, secrets, midis, map design or heck even weaponry you place inside the map. You physically cannot please everyone with what you build or place inside your map.

 

For me (as a mapper and playtester), I don't see anything wrong with saying "this map sucks", because there is always some truth in that, may that be slightly misaglined texturing or odd enemy placement, alternatively you can just ignore it or ask the playtester to elaborate on some aspects inside your map if it bothers you that much. Same goes for "this map rocks!".

[RHhe82]

1 hour ago, HrnekBezucha said:

I've been a mapper since November 2021, and have made about fifteen maps so far.

 

I'm not trying to derail the thread, this is only tangentially related to the topic, but I rekindled my mapping fingers in August 2021, and I've managed only four maps up until this day. I can but admire the productivity of that caliber and wish I had the same creative energy!

 

On a more related note, I think there is a difference between negative feedback and criticism, latter of which is constructive which I think is the key. "This map sucks" is an indication of something, but without any further clue you don't know what it is, and as such it might feel like a personal attack and lashing out on something else than the actual map. On the other hand, if you make fifteen maps, then it might actually be of some hint; If fourteen of someone's maps are met with praise and the one is not, they probably can spot the difference and draw conclusions on how to make it better or avoid bad design (at least if the feedback is more or less unanimous).

[Biodegradable]

During my writing diploma days, I learned a great deal about how best to provide constructive criticism/feedback. The trick is to make sure that whatever you say is constructive to some degree, something that the person you're providing the feedback to can consider and apply. If you really like something, do your best to articulate WHY you like it as much as you do. I know it's not always easy to but trust me, while simple praise is nice and all, explaining your love for the thing someone's done is very helpful to them. Now, the bigger trick that a lot of people fail at in general is delivering feedback on something you DIDN'T like so much. If you just say, "your map sucks fam lol" that doesn't really give the mapper much to work with and it'll just make them feel discouraged, maybe even annoyed! Instead, you need to deliver your constructive feedback with two layers: First by highlighting a thing you didn't care for and then providing a suggestion or possible solution like so:

 

"I'm not sure I particularly like how barren most of the rooms are. I suggest you take the time to shape out different possible layouts, props and landmarks. It'll make the environment feel more immersive."

 

See how much more useful this is to someone rather than just saying that you think it's crap and not elaborating? Constructive feedback is all about being tactful and helpful. The other important thing to consider is that one who receives said feedback has the choice of what they do with it. They are under no obligation to follow what everyone else wants or thinks is good and right and true. Obviously, they should consider taking on board what people have said but it's their work at the end of the day and they get to choose what to consider, what they agree with and what to ignore.

 

Since I accidentally fell into my role here as a community playtester, I've strived to be as honest and constructive as I can with my feedback. I'm not a mapper myself and sometimes I feel a bit ill-equipped to give feedback that I think is useful and hope that the videos I provide can fill in the gaps I can't articulate with words. However, I recall a conversation I had with @Bridgeburner56 and he assured me that my player-based perspective that's not clouded by a deeper knowledge of level design or game mechanics is just as valuable on its own. Others have since echoed Bridge's sentiment to me so I'm glad I can be useful as an enthusiastic lab rat for mappers with my blind playthroughs and raw reactions that happen in my videos where the mappers can see their work in action and gauge player engagement. Just remember the following:

 

Positive feedback:

"Dude, I fucking love it. You're a legend :^)"

 

Constructive feedback:

"The balance at the beginning of the map feels a tad off as the player is overwhelmed by too many monsters with little supply. I'd recommend moving the SSG closer and perhaps providing a bit more health and ammo to at least give them a fighting chance."

 

Negative feedback:

"Your map is bad and you should feel bad. Uninstall your editor and never sully the forums with your trash ever again!"

 

Know the difference and you too can provide helpful feedback to your fellow community members without making a jackass out of yourself. ;^)

Edited April 30, 2022 by Biodegradable

[Thelokk]

9 minutes ago, Biodegradable said:

During my writing diploma days, I learned a great deal about how best to provide constructive criticism/feedback. The big trick is to make sure that whatever you say is constructive to some degree, something the person your providing the feedback to can consider and apply. If you really like something, do your best to articulate WHY you like it as much as you do. Trust me, while simple praise is nice and all, explaining your love for the thing someone's done is very helpful to them. Now, the big trick that a lot of people fail at in general is delivering feedback on something you didn't like so much. If you just say, "your map sucks fam lol" that doesn't really give the mapper much to work with and it'll just make them feel discouraged, maybe even annoyed! Instead, you need to deliver your constructive feedback like a two-pronged delivery by highlighting a thing you didn't care for and then providing a suggestion or possible solution like so:

 

"I'm not sure I particularly like how barren most of the rooms are. I suggest you take the time to shape out different possible layouts, props and landmarks. It'll make the environment feel more immersive."

 

See how much more useful this is to someone rather than just saying that you think it's crap and not elaborating? Constructive feedback is all about being tactful and helpful. The other important thing to consider is that one who receives said feedback has the choice of what they do with it. They are under no obligation to follow what everyone else wants or thinks is good and right and true. Obviously, they should consider taking on board what people have said but it's their work at the end of the day and they get to choose what to consider, what they agree with and what to ignore.

 

Since I accidentally fell into my role here as a community playtester, I've strived to be as honest and constructive as I can with my feedback. I'm not a mapper myself and sometimes I feel a bit ill-equipped to give feedback that I think is useful, but I recall a conversation I had with @Bridgeburner56 and he assured me that my player-based perspective that's not clouded by deeper knowledge level design or game mechanics is just as valuable. Others have also echoed Bridge's sentiment to me so I'm glad I can be useful as an enthusiastic lab rat for mappers with my blind playthroughs and raw reactions that happen in my videos where the mappers can see their work in action and gauge player engagement. Just remember the following:

 

Positive feedback:

"Dude, I fucking love it. You're a legend :^)"

 

Constructive feedback:

"The balance at the beginning of the map feels a tad off as the player is overwhelmed by too many monsters with little supply. I'd recommend moving the SSG closer and perhaps providing a bit more health and ammo to at least give them a fighting chance."

 

Negative feedback:

"Your map is bad and you should feel bad. Uninstall your editor and never sully the forums with your trash ever again!"

 

Know the difference and you too can provide helpful feedback to your fellow community members without making a jackass out of yourself. ;^)

 

 

This so much - can we please pin it somewhere?

99% of the times it's not a problem of content, it's a problem of presentation and general attitude. Way too often the 'harsh feedback is useful' umbrella is used as a shield for a**holeish attitudes that (and this might be just my impression) give way to venting.

Politeness, positivity and proactiveness do *not* blunt the efficacy of negative feedback, quite the opposite - they encourage its acceptance and incorporation.

[Ex Inferis]

This raises a lot of valid points. However, as a mapper always keep in mind that it's impossible to please everyone. Make a slaughter map, or a switch hunt or a puzzle or a maze, someone will probably love it and someone else will probably hate it. It's important to be able to tell when something really doesn't work on a map and when it's just a matter of a particular person's tastes. Trying to make everyone happy guarantees mediocre results, don't forget.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Ex Inferis

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 hour ago, HrnekBezucha said:

One thing to keep in mind is that testers want to have fun playing a map. They want to help people make more, and better maps. Assuming malice is an intuitive but problematic attitude.

I've tested a couple maps over the years, and to be perfectly honest, the way I presented my feedback wasn't always one that I would say lived up to extremely high standards, both in terms of depth as well as delivery and/or overall structure...

 

That being said though, if someone asked me to test a map, and I agreed to check it out, then the "having fun" part you describe is a welcome side-effect for me personally. Obviously I prefer testing the kinds of maps that cater to my "gameplay-fetishes" because it is usually more enjoyable for me personally, even if that may make the testing more complicated/exhausting in some cases, but my main motivation is to get in there, find things that I consider to be problems, and to think about how they could be solved, if something is a more elaborate or mechanical issue, and not just a mere oversight or texture misalignment. So, to me, it's less about enjoying the time I spend playing the map, and more about enjoying the process of finding things that can be improved in some way - and then seeing the improvements the mapper makes, should they agree...

 

Also, from my very own experience, a huge issue can be transparency and/or how communication does or doesn't take place... I distinctly remember testing map with a fight that I suggested to add some rockets to, because not only was the fight not very threatening (not at all, if you circle-strafed, in fact) it was also very grindy for what little it actually contributed to the map. The suggestion to add like 2 (at most 3) additional boxes of rockets has been shot down with the argument that "it's not supposed to be a slaughter map". To put that into perspective, we're talking about a square-shaped arena with 4 PEs spawning in, which could be circle-strafed immediately. As someone who does like to help with something I am interested in on one hand, who also views the act of testing as "making time for somebody else, so they get to publish a more polished product" on the other hand, I can assure you I would not have spent a single minute testing those maps if I had known in advance that my feedback would be viewed through a lens like that. Like, sorry, if that's what you're giving me after I spent well over a dozen hours on a map, so that your product is met with an overall better reception once it's made public, you're just wasting my time. It's one thing to disagree with the feedback that's been provided if it does not align with the design-goals for a particular map or just a particular setup thereof - I can accept that, and it's a "doctrine" I entertain myself - but if you dismiss suggestions like that by virtue of an assumed "animosity" in order to defend a fight that was poorly executed and lacking in terms of concept, then you don't deserve that play-tester's time and effort, whether you like it or not...

 

If you don't want (specific) testers to look for certain things (for specific reasons) - which they may bring to your attention as something worthy of criticism, tell them that from the get-go, so that they can spend their time more efficiently. I mean, the whole reason you want testers is because you want a second, third, if not eleventyfirsteenth opinion on something you have created, which is obviously not going to be "perfect", especially not while it's still a work-in-progress...

 

I understand that there are these notions some people entertain where they view their maps as some sort of extension of themselves - however esoteric that might sound, it's something I can wrap my head around, but if you give me a map, and you want me to play-test it, then I'm going to be looking for "problems" like any sensible person would. Nobody needs testers to give them a "5/5 would download again" (even though a pat on the back tends to feel good), so if you don't want criticism from testers, don't "hire" testers to begin with, and don't pretend you want to have something play-tested. You put something up for testing, any person who understands what the term "test" means will assume that criticism is fair game, so your map will be met with some criticism.

 

To wrap this ramble up, if you want to have a good time with your testers, even if not all of the feedback you receive boils down to "sickest map ever", you and your testers need to put their cards on the table, so that everybody knows how things need to run in order to avoid misunderstandings.

 

If you want the testing to yield the kinds of results you are looking for, then you, as the mapper, need to set up some parameters for your testers - and you, as a tester, need to adhere to those parameters whenever possible. That's my take on it, anyway...

[DoomGater]

1 hour ago, Biodegradable said:

(something)

 

Your posting is bad and you should feel bad. Uninstall your browser and never sully the forums with your trash ever again

 

YES, @Biodegradable is right. Criticism is one thing, but explaining the reasons for criticism is even more important and -almost always- useful.

[Not Jabba]

3 hours ago, HrnekBezucha said:

If any tester finds something wrong, they should point it out. And the mapper should appreciate them for it. Because they help make the map better. 

As long as it's constructive, of course. That should go without saying. "This map sucks" with no further comment is not useful feedback. And it pains me to say but "this map rocks" with no further comment is also not very useful. 

 

That's totally valid, though if someone is only going to pick between those two options, "this map rocks" is a lot better, because we're mainly here to have fun and it's better to encourage someone to map than it is to encourage them to quit mapping. Constructive criticism serves a useful function, praise serves another, and hate serves none.

 

I'm not sure how often I've seen a mapper actually blow up at constructive criticism, but I think that's very rare. Usually when criticism triggers an argument, it's because the critic couldn't tell the difference between constructive feedback that includes negative opinions vs. simple abuse. Usually it's not the mapper lashing back either, for reasons that make sense in the context of any social community -- when you get drug into defending your own work, it's self-isolating, but when other people turn on the critic, it's basically because they don't want abusive behavior to become the norm in their community. 

 

A good mapper can step back and look at feedback to see which elements of it are helpful for them. A good tester has to be able to do the same. Unless you're reporting a bug, you haven't found something "wrong" with the map -- you're offering your personal opinion. This is true even for the most experienced testers presenting the most "objective" feedback they can. Those types of testers should always be trusted and cherished, and most often, constructive feedback is useful. But occasionally I've seen mapsets become weaker (or rather, they felt weaker to me) because they bowed to requests that stripped away some of the things that made them feel unique. There's no definite right answer, and it's up to the mapper.

[LouigiVerona]

I think what @Nine Inch Heels is saying is that we need not only constructive criticism, but also constructive reactions to such criticism. In other words, we need a constructive attitude on both sides.

[7Mahonin]

I think the most important thing a mapper can do is decipher legitimate criticism, both good and bad, of their level design vs comments that are just being highly opinionated. I have seen people complain about things that just feel like a “you” problem, not a level design problem given too much attention over true critiques that could help shape the level more into the vision the author has for it, while improving issues to make it better. 

[LouigiVerona]

One helpful option is to let folks know in advance exactly what kind of gameplay you are going for.

 

When I post a wad, I try to explain where I was coming from and what kind of gameplay I had in mind. This really helps and I might get useful feedback because people know what I'm looking for.

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 hour ago, LouigiVerona said:

I think what @Nine Inch Heels is saying is that we need not only constructive criticism, but also constructive reactions to such criticism. In other words, we need a constructive attitude on both sides.

What I'm saying is that the attitude towards play-testing and play-testers leaves some things to be desired every once in a while... And I could go on and on about situations where - from my perspective, which is rooted upon having tested more maps than I have created myself - the importance and/or value of competent testing has been criminally underrated...

 

I view play-testing as an "exchange of privilege", for lack of a better way to say it. The mapper gets to enjoy the privilege of having someone at their side, who is going to sit down with their map in order to think about what worked well, what didn't work so well, and where there may be mechanical problems. The tester gets to enjoy the privilege that is getting their hands on something which is not always made public by that point - so before most other people see it - and to participate in the development of something which, at the bottom line, everybody involved can take some degree of "pride" in once it's available to the public.

 

So, from where I am standing, and despite the fact that the mapper is always going to have the final say on matters - as it should be - it needs to be a level playing field as far as communication goes. It is a type of arrangement that is different from the "general feedback" you see in threads once something is published, in that a tester doesn't play something just once, makes an attempt to put down in words how they feel about something and then calls it a day - there is more thinking and even more playing involved than what's required for just saying "played it, liked this, didn't like that, tho" - in some cases, proper testing actually requires a great amount of patience, and a fair degree of "technical know-how" should something require some debugging. It's a co-operative endeavour, where people need to make clear what they're looking for, what they're able to contribute, and it has to go without saying that not all feedback that will come around is going to be "10/10 map" or something similar - it is not a "top-down dictatorship" from mapper to tester (and it shouldn't be a circle-jerk, either)...

 

You wouldn't believe how, in some places I've seen for myself, play-testing was basically being treated as "bottom feeding". There was this one community project I signed up for as a tester to lend a hand (which has gone the way of the dodo, because it's been severely mismanaged), where I was on the respective discord, and asked for there to be a channel where mappers can put their maps for testing and where testers could put their feedback for the maps they grabbed and tested. The "system" that was put into place to make sure testers knew there was something new they could have a look at was to "ping" them via discord, and to post maps and the respective feedback in the general chat (where stuff could easily be missed, thus depriving mappers of potentially valuable feedback and testers of stuff to actually test), instead of giving all of that a place of its own. The effort required to set up the respective channel and the posting privileges based on roles accordingly was a mere few minutes worth of time to make the life of dozens of people, who would spend hours actively working on something, that much easier... That's the kind of bullshit - and there is no other descriptor that is suitable - mappers and testers were made to put up with, if they wanted to contribute. Oh, and did I mention the project died a silent death in the end? Go figure...

Edited April 29, 2022 by Nine Inch Heels

[GarrettChan]

How about I gave some feedback but the mapper ignored me?

[DoomGater]

@Nine Inch Heels: such mismanagement kills creativity and enthusiasm at once, that's for sure.
But in my understanding, there should be made one exception from banishing inappropriate criticism. -Let's call them trollmappers- who deliberately create shitty maps just to annoy the player (20 Cyberdemons in the first room, unescapable deathtraps and pits...) In my opinion, they'd  deserve trollcriticism and rude words in abundance. But on the other side...that's probably feeding the troll....Luckily, something like that rarely happens nowadays, we're all far too mature for that.

[DoomGater]

1 minute ago, GarrettChan said:

How about I gave some feedback but the mapper ignored me?

 

There is this old saying: He's so stupid, I don't even ignore him!
If the mapper asked for criticism, ask him back, what he thinks of your criticism.
If he didn't  - ignore him ....

[Gregor]

To demand that playtester should be always be levelheaded and constructive with their feedback ignores the fact that as people we mostly act on emotion. If i play something that genuinely sucks IMO, it makes me angry and frustrated to play it; as a result, it is only natural for me to vent my frustrations at you since you are responisble for what made me feel this way. That's just how people work. Put yourself into the playtester's minds. They are running on emotions just as much as you do yourself.

 

I think when all is said and done, you yourself are your most important playtester anyways. If you can't see when something is fundamentially wrong with your map, whether its visually or in terms balancing or flow, then no amount of outside feedback, constructive or not, is gonna shape you into a great mapmaker. Eventually, you rely on your own perception, your own criticism and your own analysis of your work to point you into the right direction. This is something that of course will take time to develop, and constructive feedback can certainly help on the way, but in the end, it depends on whether or not you have the eye to identify weaknesses in your creations and come up with the right solutions to fix them; your own compass must point you into the right direction, otherwise you'll always end up getting lost sooner or later. I think having 'good taste' is the essential characteristic here. If you don't know a bad map when you see it, then nothing much can be done about that.

 

What i am trying to say is that you should trust in your own instincts. A playtester might not be able to see what you're getting at with a map, they might even point you into the wrong directions at times, or simply demotivate you. Of course for certain projects, playtesting is essential, and some people need it more than others to get the best out of them, but an overreliance on it can also be harmful for developing your own instincts and abilities.

 

Having said all that, i agree with most of what was said above concerning constructive criticsim; i just wanted to provide a view on the matter from a different angle.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Gregor

[Nefelibeta]

33 minutes ago, GarrettChan said:

How about I gave some feedback but the mapper ignored me?

Then just stop giving that mapper feedback I guess.

[GarrettChan]

32 minutes ago, Nefelibeta said:

Then just stop giving that mapper feedback I guess.

How about I was talking about you? (JK)

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

Thanks for your comments, everyone! Lots of good and useful stuff being said. I can't respond to everybody without having my head explode, so here's some:

 

4 hours ago, RHhe82 said:

I can but admire the productivity of that caliber and wish I had the same creative energy! 

That's because I was trying to find a creative outlet for years. Music composing, and playing on various instruments, programming, drawing, PCB design, I don't know what else, tons of stuff. But nothing felt satisfactory so I dropped it. Until I gave Doom mapping a go and it just clicked. What I understood from all the previous attempts at learning stuff, it's important to iterate fast, and analyse what you did right/wrong. That's the quickest way to improve. So I do that. Making loads of maps, and trying to make each of them better than the previous. 20 minutes par time or less. Nothing earth-shattering, just fun little maps. I think that lowering expectations helps a lot. Good luck on your mapping journey.

PS: I only said that to point out that I'm not terribly experienced in this whole mapping thing.

 

4 hours ago, Biodegradable said:

Spoiler

 

During my writing diploma days, I learned a great deal about how best to provide constructive criticism/feedback. The big trick is to make sure that whatever you say is constructive to some degree, something the person your providing the feedback to can consider and apply. If you really like something, do your best to articulate WHY you like it as much as you do. Trust me, while simple praise is nice and all, explaining your love for the thing someone's done is very helpful to them. Now, the big trick that a lot of people fail at in general is delivering feedback on something you didn't like so much. If you just say, "your map sucks fam lol" that doesn't really give the mapper much to work with and it'll just make them feel discouraged, maybe even annoyed! Instead, you need to deliver your constructive feedback with two layers: First by highlighting a thing you didn't care for and then providing a suggestion or possible solution like so: 

 

"I'm not sure I particularly like how barren most of the rooms are. I suggest you take the time to shape out different possible layouts, props and landmarks. It'll make the environment feel more immersive."

 

See how much more useful this is to someone rather than just saying that you think it's crap and not elaborating? Constructive feedback is all about being tactful and helpful. The other important thing to consider is that one who receives said feedback has the choice of what they do with it. They are under no obligation to follow what everyone else wants or thinks is good and right and true. Obviously, they should consider taking on board what people have said but it's their work at the end of the day and they get to choose what to consider, what they agree with and what to ignore.

 

Since I accidentally fell into my role here as a community playtester, I've strived to be as honest and constructive as I can with my feedback. I'm not a mapper myself and sometimes I feel a bit ill-equipped to give feedback that I think is useful, but I recall a conversation I had with @Bridgeburner56 and he assured me that my player-based perspective that's not clouded by deeper knowledge level design or game mechanics is just as valuable. Others have also echoed Bridge's sentiment to me so I'm glad I can be useful as an enthusiastic lab rat for mappers with my blind playthroughs and raw reactions that happen in my videos where the mappers can see their work in action and gauge player engagement. Just remember the following:

 

Positive feedback:

"Dude, I fucking love it. You're a legend :^)"

  

Constructive feedback:

"The balance at the beginning of the map feels a tad off as the player is overwhelmed by too many monsters with little supply. I'd recommend moving the SSG closer and perhaps providing a bit more health and ammo to at least give them a fighting chance."

 

Negative feedback:

"Your map is bad and you should feel bad. Uninstall your editor and never sully the forums with your trash ever again!"

  

Know the difference and you too can provide helpful feedback to your fellow community members without making a jackass out of yourself. ;^) 

 

 

Just amazing, so much yes! That's exactly the thing!

It feels like some public testers (I haven't had a private one yet) really worry about coming off as too negative. And I get it, artists can be very sensitive about their creation, and can feel personally attacked even by a well-meaning comment on improving something. Us, mappers need to take a a deep breath, and a few steps back. Giving feedback and receiving feedback can be hard but is essential.

 

3 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

the "having fun" part you describe is a welcome side-effect for me personally

Poor phrasing on my part. What I meant to say is that testers aren't looking for things to hate. Testers are looking for parts that can be problematic, perhaps suggesting a solution. I guess it's about making sure the map works as intended. You don't necessarily have to like it to recognize an overlooked problem. And yes, proper, open communication is incredibly important.

And it's super interesting seeing your experience. From what you said, it feels like you really want to give it all you got. That's some professional, high-budget testing right here. I can't imagine putting someone through hours of my little nonsense thing lol

If a tester comes up to me, saying this one part sucked ass but could be improved with xyz, with no worry of me getting defensive, that sounds like dream come true.

 

3 hours ago, Not Jabba said:

Constructive criticism serves a useful function, praise serves another, and hate serves none

Wise words.

3 hours ago, Not Jabba said:

I'm not sure how often I've seen a mapper actually blow up at constructive criticism, but I think that's very rare

I don't want to point fingers or anything but I felt like one mapper reacted pretty unreasonably to Pistoolkip's testing video in the 64 vertices CP. Also, I feel like many testers tip-toe around legit criticisms in the public spaces. Those being the only testing environments I have experienced so far. Moral of the story is, don't call tester dumb, especially when your map is literally unbeatable.

[Nine Inch Heels]

13 minutes ago, HrnekBezucha said:

What I meant to say is that testers aren't looking for things to hate. Testers are looking for parts that can be problematic, perhaps suggesting a solution. I guess it's about making sure the map works as intended. You don't necessarily have to like it to recognize an overlooked problem. And yes, proper, open communication is incredibly important.

I don't think I'm looking for something in particular when I start testing a map. I go in with a pretty blank slate for the most part, unless it's a mapper I have worked with in the past or whose work ethics and mapping doctrines I happen to be familiar with, in which case I have at least a vague idea as to what I'm about to get involved with in terms of gameplay, difficulty, and overall design of the map. One example that comes to mind would be tourniquet, who made some of the most enthralling maps you can get your hands on in my opinion. When he asked me to play-test his vanilla project "mutabor", I knew I was in for a treat no matter what.

 

Having said that, once I played any given map at least once or twice (and maybe got lost, because my sense of direction in classic doom is miserable compared to my sense of direction in hollow knight, for some reason), I actively start to look for things that rub me wrong... As soon as the first impression is over and done, I'm looking for misaligned textures, fights where monsters don't act well, things that are meant to be tricky but can be trivialized somehow, I open the map in a map-editor to see if I can find something blatantly obvious that would allow me to break a sequence, all that stuff... So, in a sense, I am looking for things that I "don't like" or even "hate", and I bring those to the mapper's attention, if I happen to come across something. I mean, that's the reason I'm testing anything at all - so that things that don't run properly can be addressed, should the mapper choose to address whatever it is that I happen to find.

 

Mind that I make a distinction between "first impression feedback" and "feedback based on play-testing", though... A first impression can be very, very valuable, especially when there's a demo to watch, or a youtube video, for that matter. But those demos and videos, most of the time they get made once, perhaps you get some additional written feedback and that's it. So while it is potentially extremely valuable feedback, because it captures what's being how enjoyable for one person, it is still a first impression that may not catch the things that don't "operate at 100%".

 

The point of play-testing, to me personally, is to go beyond what a first or second impression is able to provide, and to get into when and where something misbehaves when given several attempts in a row, for example - or what ends up becoming laborious instead of engaging after a couple rounds in - suppose there's a fight that starts to get boring while everything else in the map still feels "fresh" and is fun after 5, 10, or even 20 runs, then that's something where I would make the case that it's a fight worth looking into, because the only thing better than a map that leaves a fine first impression is a map people are going to want to play again and again, and if there's a good way to make the "least best" part of a map better, then I think that's where play-testing is starting to show that it's got muscles in places where first impressions aren't quite as strong necessarily, because how else are you gonna find stuff like that reliably without having dozens of people doing first impressions at your beck and call..? When there's a difficult and climactic fight in a map, I'll play that fight several times in a row to see if I understood the method that was required to beat it, and if I got that right, then I also wanna see if the method is consistent in how successful it is, or if some "misbehaviour" can do me in "just because" and if it is possible to "play around" such edge-cases.

 

I wanna find those types of things, because that's interesting to me - I may not make many maps, and some of them are deliberately "unfair" in the eyes of most people, I suppose, but the fact remains that you can learn a lot about mapping by way of testing somebody else's maps more in-depth. It's not like I'm looking forward to finding stuff I dislike for one reason or another, but I am looking forward to seeing it addressed, if possible - that's what makes play-testing fun to me personally, even though I must confess that I haven't gotten around to doing much testing at all lately, due to a pretty severe lack of time... I even had to turn some people down in recent past, and any offer coming my way now would probably get turned down on the spot as well, unless it's a map I can chew up within a couple minutes, because that limits the "problem-horizon" in terms of what may need to be addressed... Life happens, if you know what I mean...

 

Now, when it comes to things that don't cater to my tastes, chances are I will just say that it's not my cup of tea, play it a couple more times, and leave more in-depth feedback on that supposed something to somebody who appreciates it more than I am able to - I want the mapper to know what I am the most likely to invest time in when I play-test, and there is no value in going over something I could never really enjoy dozens of times - I've done that in the past and it never really amounted to anything that was particularly helpful in the grand scheme of things... It's not often that I have to "pass" on something like that, because I'm pretty flexible in terms of gameplay-styles overall, but when I feel like I'm playing an IWAD-rehash with pretty window-dressing, then, yeah, I might not invest as much in that as I would invest in a challenge or slaughter map mostly due to personal preference. I can still appreciate when something's solid in terms of how it's constructed and staged, and I can still look at the mechanics behind something, to see if there's a chance that something might "misfire", but that's as far as it goes in those rare cases...

[Doomkid]

The choice to ignore feedback I disagree with or think “misses the point” of what I like to make is one of my many tools as a mapper! If I think someone is being kinda douchey it just makes ignoring them easier. As long as they aren’t berating me or getting personal or w/e, I don’t have a problem with it.

 

You’re allowed to tell me my map was bland, boring old shovelware-tier junk. If that bothers me, I can take it on board, or I can ignore it. It’s only when it becomes “you are shit” or whatever that it crosses any sort of line.

 

If you don’t want to or cannot deal with negative feedback, sharing artistic creations in general to a back-and-forth discussion board is not advisable. There are sites that allow people to post content or links to content with no pipeline for feedback (sounds like hell to me, but one’s pleasure is another’s pain)

[Bridgeburner56]

I had a chat with @Jimmy @SiMpLeToNiUm and @Major Arlene a little while back about the art of playtesting, both as someone giving feedback and receiving it. We ramble for a couple of hours so hopefully there's a couple of useful points there :D

 

 

Apoplogies if the link is starting at the 2 min mark. Youtube is a 4head

[OniriA]

I prefer it when people are short and concise with their feedback.

 

I'm usually not that interested in reading large walls of text on wads (and on the internet in general), if there's really

lot's on your mind you want to share about something I'd much prefer it in a video or audio format instead.

 

It's much more pleasant and personally connecting then a cold wall of text.

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

31 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Spoiler

I don't think I'm looking for something in particular when I start testing a map. I go in with a pretty blank slate for the most part, unless it's a mapper I have worked with in the past or whose work ethics and mapping doctrines I happen to be familiar with, in which case I have at least a vague idea as to what I'm about to get involved with in terms of gameplay, difficulty, and overall design of the map. One example that comes to mind would be tourniquet, who made some of the most enthralling maps you can get your hands on in my opinion. When he asked me to play-test his vanilla project "mutabor", I knew I was in for a treat no matter what.

 

Having said that, once I played any given map at least once or twice (and maybe got lost, because my sense of direction in classic doom is miserable compared to my sense of direction in hollow knight, for some reason), I actively start to look for things that rub me wrong... As soon as the first impression is over and done, I'm looking for misaligned textures, fights where monsters don't act well, things that are meant to be tricky but can be trivialized somehow, I open the map in a map-editor to see if I can find something blatantly obvious that would allow me to break a sequence, all that stuff... So, in a sense, I am looking for things that I "don't like" or even "hate", and I bring those to the mapper's attention, if I happen to come across something. I mean, that's the reason I'm testing anything at all - so that things that don't run properly can be addressed, should the mapper choose to address whatever it is that I happen to find.

 

Mind that I make a distinction between "first impression feedback" and "feedback based on play-testing", though... A first impression can be very, very valuable, especially when there's a demo to watch, or a youtube video, for that matter. But those demos and videos, most of the time they get made once, perhaps you get some additional written feedback and that's it. So while it is potentially extremely valuable feedback, because it captures what's being how enjoyable for one person, it is still a first impression that may not catch the things that don't "operate at 100%".

 

The point of play-testing, to me personally, is to go beyond what a first or second impression is able to provide, and to get into when and where something misbehaves when given several attempts in a row, for example - or what ends up becoming laborious instead of engaging after a couple rounds in - suppose there's a fight that starts to get boring while everything else in the map still feels "fresh" and is fun after 5, 10, or even 20 runs, then that's something where I would make the case that it's a fight worth looking into, because the only thing better than a map that leaves a fine first impression is a map people are going to want to play again and again, and if there's a good way to make the "least best" part of a map better, then I think that's where play-testing is starting to show that it's got muscles in places where first impressions aren't quite as strong necessarily, because how else are you gonna find stuff like that reliably without having dozens of people doing first impressions at your beck and call..? When there's a difficult and climactic fight in a map, I'll play that fight several times in a row to see if I understood the method that was required to beat it, and if I got that right, then I also wanna see if the method is consistent in how successful it is, or if some "misbehaviour" can do me in "just because" and if it is possible to "play around" such edge-cases.

 

I wanna find those types of things, because that's interesting to me - I may not make many maps, and some of them are deliberately "unfair" in the eyes of most people, I suppose, but the fact remains that you can learn a lot about mapping by way of testing somebody else's maps more in-depth. It's not like I'm looking forward to finding stuff I dislike for one reason or another, but I am looking forward to seeing it addressed, if possible - that's what makes play-testing fun to me personally, even though I must confess that I haven't gotten around to doing much testing at all lately, due to a pretty severe lack of time... I even had to turn some people down in recent past, and any offer coming my way now would probably get turned down on the spot as well, unless it's a map I can chew up within a couple minutes, because that limits the "problem-horizon" in terms of what may need to be addressed... Life happens, if you know what I mean...

 

Now, when it comes to things that don't cater to my tastes, chances are I will just say that it's not my cup of tea, play it a couple more times, and leave more in-depth feedback on that supposed something to somebody who appreciates it more than I am able to - I want the mapper to know what I am the most likely to invest time in when I play-test, and there is no value in going over something I could never really enjoy dozens of times - I've done that in the past and it never really amounted to anything that was particularly helpful in the grand scheme of things... It's not often that I have to "pass" on something like that, because I'm pretty flexible in terms of gameplay-styles overall, but when I feel like I'm playing an IWAD-rehash with pretty window-dressing, then, yeah, I might not invest as much in that as I would invest in a challenge or slaughter map mostly due to personal preference. I can still appreciate when something's solid in terms of how it's constructed and staged, and I can still look at the mechanics behind something, to see if there's a chance that something might "misfire", but that's as far as it goes in those rare cases...

 

Honestly, if you play some iwad-rehash, there isn't nearly as much to test as a sprawling, loopy, combat-puzzley slaughter. Okay, maybe not less but it requires a different mindset, I would imagine. Magnolia and BTSX are both meticulously crafted masterpieces with huge amount of testing required, countless unsung heroes. Different gameplay styles require different testers is what I'm trying to say.  Iwad-rehash is the kind of I tend to make (if we got the same definitions) because that's what I like to play. Like the iwads, just faster and punchier, and I'd like to say easier on the eyes. The important thing for me is keeping the player moving. To flow from one encounter to the next, and within the encounters from one pickup to the next. If people stand there shotgunning a baron, then chances are that I did something wrong. If somebody finds a way to sequence-break, more power to them. If somebody finds enough ammo and a safe sniping spot, more power to them. That's not my idea of fun but if they don't want to have fun, that's fine by me. However, I will take that into consideration for future maps, and limit such spaces.

 

1 hour ago, Doomkid said:

Spoiler

 

The choice to ignore feedback I disagree with or think “misses the point” of what I like to make is one of my many tools as a mapper! If I think someone is being kinda douchey it just makes ignoring them easier. As long as they aren’t berating me or getting personal or w/e, I don’t have a problem with it. 

 

You’re allowed to tell me my map was bland, boring old shovelware-tier junk. If that bothers me, I can take it on board, or I can ignore it. It’s only when it becomes “you are shit” or whatever that it crosses any sort of line.

  

If you don’t want to or cannot deal with negative feedback, sharing artistic creations in general to a back-and-forth discussion board is not smart. There are sites that allow people to post content or links to content with no pipeline for feedback (sounds like hell to me, but one’s pleasure is another’s pain) 

 

 

Oh yeah, I made an 90s style map and somebody complains about it being too 90s? Okay, I guess. The important thing is when an element is not working as intended. If a monster gets alerted too early, or something. I wanted to highlight that people can give negative feedback without being an ahole. But this is the internet, and if you wanna put your precious art out there in the wild, you better grow some thick skin.

 

1 hour ago, Bridgeburner56 said:

Spoiler

 

I had a chat with @Jimmy @SiMpLeToNiUm and @Major Arlene a little while back about the art of playtesting, both as someone giving feedback and receiving it. We ramble for a couple of hours so hopefully there's a couple of useful points there :D

 

 

Apoplogies if the link is starting at the 2 min mark. Youtube is a 4head

 

 

Yep, that's probably my favourite episode. Hope there will be many more bridges to burn in the future.

 

1 hour ago, OniriA said:

I prefer it when people are short and concise with their feedback.

  

I'm usually not that interested in reading large walls of text on wads (and on the internet in general), if there's really

lot's on your mind you want to share about something I'd much prefer it in a video or audio format instead.

 

It's much more pleasant and personally connecting then a cold wall of text. 

You know, I really think that more is better. Maybe it's because I'm still bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, Doom is exciting new frontier, so I would totally read a wall of text if I got one for feedback. A video is great, probably the best. But generally it feels like videos are off-the-cuff, while written feedback is more thought-through and structured. So, both please, I guess?

[Nefelibeta]

6 hours ago, GarrettChan said:

How about I was talking about you? (JK)

Hey, I did fix the mucus empire in the end. >:(

Just not right away

[Megalyth]

5 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

a thoughtful essay

 

You uh, got some free time? A spastic mapper like myself could use some cold hard criticism.

[Kinsie]

I tend to view map/mod feedback through a pro-wrestling-inspired lens (Wait, come back!) where positive feedback is great and wonderful and all that, negative feedback is typically useful at best (to find things that I've done wrong to improve on for future projects, bugs to fix etc.) or amusing at worst, and Silence Is Death. No response means no audience means you just spent a probably-disturbing amount of time screaming out into an uncaring void. I know which one I've dealt with worse, but I know others are different.

[ChopBlock223]

I got some pretty harsh criticism for my first published maps, but it was also damn fair and accurate, and it taught me what I needed to change.

As much as it stung and hurt in the moment, I'm incredibly grateful for the honesty, and yet more for what it taught me.