"E3M8. Dis: The term 'bring your own ammo' was invented for this level. You need to kill a Spider Demon, but don't get anything like enough ammo if you're starting this level from scratch.
Overall, this guy is way too negative."
I don't see anything positive about fisting a Spider Demon.
"What about the hardcore doomers? should they be forced to play UV -fast just to take some damage once in a while?"
People are criticising my reviews without understanding the motivation behind them! My site CANNOT cater for Doom Gods as true Doom Gods appear to be few in number. When I think of a Doom God, I also think about those Japanese Final Fantasy 7 fans who queued for a week to buy the game then spent 350 hours making their characters more powerful than many deities. Eg, an elite, untouchable minority, who are so far ahead of other Doom/Final Fantasy fans as to be in another dimension. How the hell can an ordinary reviewer cater for those people? If AV on -fast is not a challenge for you then you're a Doom God and my reviews are most profoundly NOT FOR YOU. Learn to read!
"Both have a strong ego (My reviews tell the truth, and I won't change them no matter what anyone says!)"
I do not recall saying this. In fact I reworded Plutonia several times, Requiem twice, Talosian once, and I was re-working Fragport until Ultimate DooMer turned traitor.
"(writing for an audience of newbie Doom players that doesn't exist"
Perhaps I mentioned newbies too many times. But I have been contacted by newcomers so the audience DOES exist. Congratulations for being WRONG. But I realise that I should have concentrated more on Doomers who have been playing for a while. In this respect you are correct and I concede the point. A pity the rest of your argument doesn't hold water.
RESPONSE TO THE ULTIMATE DOOMER
"(even though my preferences are just about the opposite - although I wouldn't let those into my reviews)"
Well, aren't you just a saint.
"However, did anyone notice the huge criticism given to nukage bases in DSV4, HR and Fragport, but huge praise for the ones in AV? And also huge slating of HR for being too hard and huge praise/high ratings for AV maps of similar difficulty? Sounds like double standards to me.
(btw, I think that AV is one of the best wads ever, but looking at all the megawad reviews it's clear to spot the double standards)"
I was really looking forward to tearing you to shreds over this.
Here are excerpts of an email Ultimate DooMer sent to me at the same, or similar, to the time he bitched about me on the forums:
"Most of the review is fair, as I know that the detail isn't up to today's standards, and the gameplay isn't going to please everyone and that it can seem random at times…"
"On the whole, a fair balanced review, with all points covered and good and bad comments appropriately placed. I'm not pissed off at the review, as I respect your opinion on the maps, I just feel that the issue of crashes has been handled wrongly…"
Where is the mention of double standards and/or nukage problems? What a bloody joke! I thought I could rely on your opinions but obviously not as you were being a backstabber! A great shame, as I was hoping to find out more about the way Doomworld reviews work in the hope of refining my own technique. The only double standards are your own because I hurt your feelings by shitting on a wad you designed that I didn't like. That's not very mature.
The difference between your reviews and mine, Ultimate DooMer, is that your reviews tend to agree with what everyone else (on Doomworld) is thinking. Am I the only one who is a tad concerned about the identical thinking patterns that often emerge on the Doomworld forums? If someone hates something, everyone hates it. What's so wrong about having a different opinion? Oh, wait, we get compared to Fiffy if we stick to our guns.
"Another interesting 'consistency' is that in his review of Ultimate DooM, he comments how he likes the fact that the theme of E4M7 changes from a 'large wooden base which turns into a palace of hell which turns into a tech base, built over a river of lava.'
He then bashes E4M9 because there is a wooden section that 'doesn't fit in with the rest of the level'."
The word, in the context you have used it, is INCONSISTENCY.
In the review, did I give the impression that E4M7's theme variations were melded together naturally to create a good-looking wad? If not, I apologise. Texture clashes such as those featured in E4M9 detract from my enjoyment of the level because it looks bad. A level whose design progresses from area to area (such as the Egyptian AV map Mishri Halek) can look really good. I tend not to make myself clear and for that I apologise. But if you're just reading it wrong then you are to blame. This point is debatable as my reviews are sometimes open to interpretation because I don't choose my words carefully.
"One minute he likes levels to vary in design the next he doesn't."
Depends on the level.
"Also the various silly quips and misinformation are quite hilarious."
'Silly quips'? That's about as vague as you can get, especially in light of context and interpretation. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me further as to what I say that is so silly. Oh wait, you probably can't because it isn't that bad really. I haven't had any emails complaining about my reviews since Plutonia, and then only four people complained (two of whom were Dale Lunar). Of course the Doomworld forum was alight with gossip again even though - again - nobody had the guts to email me and face me on their own. What, do you think I'm going to buy a voodoo doll of you just because you don't like my reviews, or start sending you a ton of spam? Don't be stupid, I haven't got the time even if I was a sick, demented weirdo.
"Could that be because he enjoyed one of your levels -> praising as one of the best he's played ? (of course he trashed the ones you did before and after it).. :)"
This is provocation if ever I've seen it. Leave Vorpal alone, he's obviously got enough guts to respect my opinion.