Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Bloodshedder

The /newstuff Chronicles #339

Recommended Posts

TheeXile said:
The ideal goal is to minimize it, I'm saying.

Not here; this is a space where each is encouraged to develop and share their opinions, either by submitting reviews to the review center, or by commenting on the published thread.

Note that the Doom wiki allows articles for any released WAD. If you like wikis, you can go and contribute there with this WAD-wiki idea. Usually, though, other than the basic technical aspects, you'll get more to say in a wiki-like context about WADs once they have more exposure, from demos, reviews and comments here or on the database, and so on.

As for copyrighted stuff, Ty, who has been generous enough to keep the archive going all these years, is open to any input on possible issues or conflicts, but doesn't have all day to spot them all himself.

Share this post


Link to post
TheDarkArchon said:

Opinions are subjective by their very nature. No amount of opinions will ever make it objective. Arguing otherwise will just make you look stupid.

Ugh. Because that's totally the point I'm trying to get at.

myk said:

Note that the Doom wiki allows articles for any released WAD. If you like wikis, you can go and contribute there with this WAD-wiki idea. Usually, though, other than the basic technical aspects, you'll get more to say in a wiki-like context about WADs once they have more exposure, from demos, reviews and comments here or on the database, and so on.

That's actually not a bad idea. But it wouldn't mean very much unless a system built upon it were part of the Doomworld /newstuff reviews process somehow, or something publicly equivalent.

Meh. It was just an idea.

Share this post


Link to post

TheeXile said:
But it wouldn't mean very much unless a system built upon it were part of the Doomworld /newstuff reviews process somehow, or something publicly equivalent.

It's not just an idea. People are making articles about WADs there, and people do visit the wiki. I mean "this WAD-wiki idea" in the sense that you have the idea of making wiki entries for WADs or the like, not that the wiki needs something new implemented on it to allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
TheeXile said:

Well you could objectively state the opinions of the people who have played the map. That happens all the time with wiki articles, for instance, and it's considered valid as long as kept clearly printed as not being the 'final' opinion on the matter.

Can you not tell the difference between when a reviewer is explaining something about the WAD and when they're giving their opinion?

The /newstuff Chronicles make no pretense of being the 'final' opinion on WADs. If it did, no one could review them on /idgames, and there would be no comment thread.

Share this post


Link to post

The rating for Da Will dropped under 4 stars :(

And what's worse, the thread containing my big list, which had Da Will on it, is now closed! So I have a wad on the list that doesn't satisfy the requirements and I am not able to take it off!

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

It's not just an idea. People are making articles about WADs there, and people do visit the wiki. I mean "this WAD-wiki idea" in the sense that you have the idea of making wiki entries for WADs or the like, not that the wiki needs something new implemented on it to allow it.

But it lacks something. Most mappers are egotistical twats (hai!) and like to see their stuff get the star treatment with a 'formal' review and front page news and whatnot. There's a layer of formality in that process that the wiki doesn't have.

All I'm trying to say is a way to encompass most possible divergent opinions a given map could have that would otherwise not be represented in single-author reviews ought to be the 'ideal' solution here. The /idgames approach sorta covers that, but again, it's not 'formal' like the DW /newstuff reviews (for what that's worth).



Did I explain it right this time?

Share this post


Link to post
printz said:

I'm quite damn sick of Doom 2 textures, such as TEKGREN or MODWALL.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, so we already know that Brandon D. Lade is unable to form opinions of his own, and apparently lacked the creativity to think of a forum username that isn't on his birth certificate. Now, this thread offers several instances where we see his near-total inability to sense sarcasm.

It's astounding how far technology has come, isn't it? He almost passed the Turing test.


@TheeXile:

I considered being a little bit mean, and rebutting all your arguments with just the word "Hush," but I decided instead to fully consider and counter your points properly. Then I changed my mind again and just wrote some stuff.

1. Reviews are not only inherently subjective, but they are also inherently entertainment. When somebody reads a review, his first and foremost reason for doing so is not actually to help him judge the quality of a work. He is not hoping to attain, through the full reading and consideration of endless conflicting viewpoints, some perfect grasp of the aesthetic truth. No. Reviews are entertainment, and we read them because we have nothing better to do. We read them because it's interesting to see what somebody has to say about something - especially if the reviewer is a good writer, and especially if pretty pictures are included. Let me point, as examples, to Zero Punctuation reviews and Penny Arcade news posts - two examples of well-written reviews which I, and many others, view despite the fact that we'll never play a single one of those games. In the reviews of both reviewers mentioned, bias is rampant even when it isn't obvious. Nobody cares, because watching/reading reviews is fun, and turning reviewing into some sort of adversarial justice system just does not fit with that.

2. There are so many established sources of alternate opinions in this community that I can't throw my own feces without it sticking to one of them. Enough is enough!

In conclusion: Hush.

Share this post


Link to post

Creaphis beat me to it but I'll put in my two cents worth regardless.

Brandon D. Lade said:

the thread containing my big list, which had Da Will on it, is now closed! So I have a wad on the list that doesn't satisfy the requirements and I am not able to take it off!

Move your list to a blog site and put a link to it in your signature - problem solved.

TheeXile said:

All I'm trying to say is a way to encompass most possible divergent opinions a given map could have that would otherwise not be represented in single-author reviews ought to be the 'ideal' solution here. The /idgames approach sorta covers that, but again, it's not 'formal' like the DW /newstuff reviews (for what that's worth).

I see some flaws in your 'ideal' solution -

1 - Authority - what's the minimum number of reviews that would have to be submitted per-wad before you could say they represent a good cross-section of the community?

2 - Administration - who'll volunteer to manage this nightmare and ensure the consensus of opinion isn't skewed by a mapper's supporters/detractors?

3 - Inertia - after attemting to reconcile divergent (and often conflicting) opinions the reader says "stuff it" and doesn't play the map.

Point 3 - information overload - is the one you really want to avoid. Give the reader just enough information to start forming their own opinion, if they disagree with the review after playing the map they can say so (and why) in one of these threads.

Share this post


Link to post

Creaphis said:
1. Reviews are not only inherently subjective, but they are also inherently entertainment. ... because watching/reading reviews is fun, and turning reviewing into some sort of adversarial justice system just does not fit with that.

Cop out. An implied priority for at least some accuracy should come about when you post reviews on the front page news of a major community site. Entertainment is (I expect) what the WADs are for themselves, aren't they?

In conclusion: Hush.

Bleh. You're no fun.

GreyGhost said:I see some flaws in your 'ideal' solution -

1 - Authority - what's the minimum number of reviews that would have to be submitted per-wad before you could say they represent a good cross-section of the community?

Until people stop caring enough to review, I guess. If one person loves a puzzle or slaughter map that a given reviewer hated (say the reviewer hates puzzle or slaughter maps in general), and that person is empowered with the ability (either through multi-review or wiki-like) to supply their own take on the map, then that ground gets covered automatically.

2 - Administration - who'll volunteer to manage this nightmare and ensure the consensus of opinion isn't skewed by a mapper's supporters/detractors?

3 - Inertia - after attempting to reconcile divergent (and often conflicting) opinions the reader says "stuff it" and doesn't play the map.

Those are why I later suggested the wiki-like approach. I say wiki-like because, as a review, it would not hold to the objective format of a formal wiki, but instead if someone makes a review that misses or skews a few points, another who cares enough could simply correct it. And then, if shit happens, you work it out like you would with a wiki in a designated talk thread or some such.

That's all I mean when I talk about minimizing subjectivity.



Anyway that's just my idea. I don't really expect to see it implemented or anything.

Share this post


Link to post

TheeXile said:
But it lacks something. Most mappers are egotistical twats (hai!) and like to see their stuff get the star treatment with a 'formal' review and front page news and whatnot. There's a layer of formality in that process that the wiki doesn't have.

Here's the deal: you pay Bloodshedder $100 a month so he can spend extra time moderating the "wiki-review-ads", suggest to each egoistical twat WAD maker to pay a base $10 per WAD to a trusted reviewer to get positive results. The WAD makers could also charge a base $5 per WAD (modified by effort and estimated worth), plus shipping and handling for the CD (if any), to cover up reviewer costs. Ty Halderman of idgames gets $5 per WAD uploaded, or $15 per megawad, and $1 or $2 per sale, to keep the archive in the deal. The forum members get charged $5 per month to help keep the forums free of "illegal links" to WADs, plus an extra $100 during sign-up and a yearly fee of $50 to pay for lawyers to handle any id Software demands, or to sue other sites linking to WADs people aren't paying for.

That should provide the formality, as well as the incentive to promote the WADs. Serious business always needs a serious investment!

Share this post


Link to post

That all goes to Linguica, to be frank, but he'll be ready for it anytime now.

Share this post


Link to post
Brandon D. Lade said:

The rating for Da Will dropped under 4 stars :(

And what's worse, the thread containing my big list, which had Da Will on it, is now closed! So I have a wad on the list that doesn't satisfy the requirements and I am not able to take it off!

Make a blog, drop the list there and everything will be fine. Also name the Blog "Brandon Dumbass Lade's Emo 4-star list". We'll be damn f` happy if you do that, we'll enjoy your emo blog as much as SomethingAwful. Have fun

Share this post


Link to post

(Self flagilation:)

A bit dissapointed with my Congestion 384 review, it basically boils down to: "This has some good maps, but it's basically a 1024 type gimmick wad and i'm a bit sick of those". It's absolutely a Gimmick, though partially a mapping challenge to myself but I've heard nothing else but glowing reviews about it and would have preferred a review that let the 20 maps stand on their own, gimmick aside.

Share this post


Link to post
cycloid said:

(Self flagilation:)

A bit dissapointed with my Congestion 384 review, it basically boils down to: "This has some good maps, but it's basically a 1024 type gimmick wad and i'm a bit sick of those".



I think you got that 100% correct - and I wholeheartedly agree with the review. It perfectly sums up your WAD - and yes, I am sick of gimmick WADs that don't have to offer much beyond their gimmick, too.

Share this post


Link to post
alterworldruler said:

Make a blog, drop the list there and everything will be fine. Also name the Blog "Brandon Dumbass Lade's Emo 4-star list". We'll be damn f` happy if you do that, we'll enjoy your emo blog as much as SomethingAwful. Have fun

What

Share this post


Link to post
esselfortium said:

What

To make it clearer, he should make a blog, post his half-assed list there and cut his own arm off if someone dislikes it

Share this post


Link to post

cycloid said:
A bit dissapointed with my Congestion 384 review, it basically boils down to: "This has some good maps, but it's basically a 1024 type gimmick wad and i'm a bit sick of those".

It seems more neutral than that. "Manage to pack plenty of monsters and traps into a tiny space while gradually increasing the difficulty" sounds pretty good, and, after all, it's not a WAD for people looking for "something different".

I had fun with it, especially on the later levels. The nice thing about the levels is that they're so short they encourage players to play them again and again. The smoothest way to get used to replaying is by doing it with small balanced maps, and this WAD certainly delivers that. It also didn't suffer from a flaw 1024 and such levels can fall into: a confined or cluttered layout.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Here's the deal: you pay $ $ $ (business plan for /newstuff)

Quick question - are we paid a finders fee for each sucker new member we refer?

Share this post


Link to post
alterworldruler said:

To make it clearer, he should make a blog, post his half-assed list there and cut his own arm off if someone dislikes it

I'm quite sure Esselfortium allready knew what you were saying in your previous message.

Share this post


Link to post
Wills said:

I just voted it back down to 3 1/2 to piss you off.


Damn, beat me to it.

Question here Brandon; say you started to play a megawad that had a rating of 4 stars. What if you got to, for example, Map20, and the rating dropped to 3.5 stars. Would you suddenly go, "Oh noes, I'm an outsider now!" and immediately stop playing it?

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

I had fun with it, especially on the later levels. The nice thing about the levels is that they're so short they encourage players to play them again and again.


I agree with myk here, it was fun just trying to complete the maps in different ways, and they weren't hard to the point of not wanting to play them again.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

As for copyrighted stuff, Ty, who has been generous enough to keep the archive going all these years, is open to any input on possible issues or conflicts, but doesn't have all day to spot them all himself.

At least the purpose of my JtRLimbo 2's mp3/ogg music was ideal for the map. Too bad it's too compressed as I remember, sounds like ass.

Share this post


Link to post

Aww, someone beat me to making a Happycat boss.

Oh well.

Edit: Forget what I said, Happycat battle is now probably one of my favorite Doom encounters ever. I could never make something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
×