I would encourage anyone interested in knowing the actual criteria to check it out in person. Also sorry I havent' responded earlier, lots goin on.
There are six measurable criteria based on a persons perception of the map they are rating, furthermore, there are a minimum of three people rating each map. Any rigid criteria outside of that system would not work for all maps, but I'm happy to say that the system thus far is working within what I expected it to. By far not perfect of course.
What confuses me, and I genuinely confuse easy folks, is why there wasn't an objection to the areas in which element td performed poorly. The map got 3/5, 4/5, 4/5 respectively for appearance, but got a 1/5, 3/5, 3/5 for fun factor.
To specifically address how it was rated for those too lazy to look for themselves, and or for those who like to guess about a process instead of just find out about it, we grade appearance based on the following criteria.
5- The game uses never before seen graphics, terrain, etc.
4 - The game uses very unique camera controls, uses wow models, etc.
3 - The game looks very good, pathing works, no eye sores.
2 - The game looks like someone spent about an hour on terrain, the equivalent to nexus wars terrain, but is still playable.
1 - The terrain looks and works horribly, pathing does not work, there are eye sores.
It works like this, you either totally qualify for a number or you do not. In essence, given the definition of appearance, I think we were spot on. This considering, one the terrain is not unique to custom maps, formation td has a similar layout and actually published slightly before elemental td, and the map has existed for some time on wc3 in the same ultimate configuration. I would encourage you to look at the squad td review as well, it rated lower in appearance because they were not responsible for the actual concept of the terrain layout, where you were karawasa. 3, 4, 4 is pretty damned good for appearance on a TD.
Needless to say, I did challenge a few aspects of the ratings provided, prior to publishing, but the replies to my challenges were acceptable. If you would like a fresh one, we'll do it with another three reviewers... remember the most important part of our process is we love to be challenged!
The fun factor is what killed me on this review, and I honestly expected a challenge on that category for sure. One reviewer hated the map pretty much and it still wasn't enough to keep it from being ranked well regardless.
I appreciate the explanation, but you did not touch upon my concern. I don't believe fun factor should be lowered due to the existence of the WC3 version. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is exactly what it sounded like earlier.
Perhaps a fresh review with people who have never tried the WC3 version? By the way, did the hater dislike the map or does he just hate TDs?
I don't believe fun factor should be lowered due to the existence of the WC3 version. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is exactly what it sounded like earlier.
Perhaps a fresh review with people who have never tried the WC3 version? By the way, did the hater dislike the map or does he just hate TDs?
It's my mistake, I had posed it in a way to where the "fun factor" appears to be confusing in the way it's rated. I used my own rationale to establish the rating based on this criteria:
5 - When you were done reviewing this game, you wanted to play it again the next morning, you went to sleep thinking about it.
4 - You bookmarked this game for personal use, you played it 2-3 times more during the week of your review.
3 - You will be playing this on your own time, you still have things to do, but you will be playing it.
2 - The map review seemed long, you don't think you'll be playing this anytime soon, maybe after you rest from it.
1 - This map flat out sucked and you wont be playing it no more.
My explanation of the rating was the influence my experience had on my ratings, and my assumption that the same influences existed in the other raters. Our fun factor is purely rated on the above statements however. The influence to my perception, affecting the rating was what I spoke to, apologies.
We can do it one of two ways, drop the lowest rater and replace or completely reboot. Also I would love to incorporate you response to whatever final rating we accomplish. It could be in a multitude of formats, even a fun one.
Regarding the lowest rater, he rated squad td well, but alot of ppl who don't normally like td's like that one, so it would be totally reasonable to request his replaced.
I am drinking coffee with the terrainer of formation td atm, (to be fair i'm married to her lol) so if you want a quick replacement rating to see what it would look like by dropping the lowest and replacing with a td fans, let me know.
Because someone doesn't like their score (not saying kara dislikes his score, more that he doesn't like what he thought was a critera) is no reason to swap out game raters. What would work much better would be to (and easier said than done) get a few more recruiters, and ask each recruiter to type up a paragraph, or even just a sentence, to explain their general thoughts on the game and their experience with that style of game; and not post who wrote what review.
If you have 8 people who love TD's reviewing a TD, it will get good scores. If you have the same group reviewing a DoTA clone, it will get bad scores. This is of course a generalization. A hardcore DoTA player might also say "this sucks, it isn't nearly as good as DoTA" Knowing what type of gamer gave what review would be helpful. If an Expert TD'er says something, it might weigh more than someone who simply loves explosion grapghics and headshots.
We always encourage a challenge, we don't mind being mistaken, I want mappers to challenge the process, it creates a great discussion at times. We've rated maps horribly and had the mapper approach to discuss, we work through any misunderstandings and make sure the mapper feels the process is fair above all.
We do articles when the reviewers have something to say, otherwise if you note the definitions of the ratings you will see a pretty self explanatory statement about what the rating means. We hope to do a video for this one later on if time permits. Ultimately any review process will not be perfect, this is purely a good way of lining stuff up and taking a stab at it.
Element TD is in a weird position. I can't play it without having flashbacks to tower defense from another era. The connections with the old WC3 version are unshakable for me. However it shouldn't be too hard to find reviewers who have never played the old version.
Karawasa, you should also consider that this is a problem that affects any game maker who is making a sequel, follow-up, spin off, or remake. I can't play a Zelda game without constantly comparing it to the last few Zelda games. StarCraft 2 was compared to StarCraft. Diablo 3 will be compared against Diablo 2. Even Blizzard's next MMO will be compared with World of Warcraft.
I just recently purchased the latest "Worms" game on Steam. I thought it was a waste of money because the game play was an identical copy of the last Worms game I bought 10 years ago, but with better graphics and a few touched-up mechanics. Even so, I'm sure the game was just a delight for anyone who was new to the franchise.
Having flashbacks is not a bad thing inherently. I see game review sites giving high ratings to sequels that are more of the same. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Generally speaking, sequels do not radically change the series. What people look for is whether the sequel upholds the standard set by the previous iteration. They then look for refinements, improved graphics, and additional mechanics.
Let's take a couple of your examples. StarCraft 2 is just a refined version of StarCraft with better graphics and a few additional mechanics. Anyone who has played StarCraft will surely find StarCraft 2 similar. Yet we all agree StarCraft 2 is a solid game (excluding BNET 0.2). The same reasoning applies to Diablo 3, yet a lot of people are dying for it.
Honestly, it sounds like you are in the minority when it comes to views on sequels. Now I haven't played a Worms game in years so it could very well be too much of a rehash.
Back to Element TD, I would describe it along the same lines as StarCraft 2. You have a refinement of the game in the form of new towers, improved balance, and some tweaks to the mechanics (removal of interest etc.). The graphics are obviously improved by default and should be judged on how well the SC2 assets were used. Finally, there are new mechanics. Most notably Tower Wars but also Teams, Casual, Race, and XP/stats (with unlockables). You may want to wait for Mazing which will provide a 180* shift in gameplay.
Glad to hear it! I really appreciate your interest in and support of the game.
I use this mousepad at home with my desktop and another on the go with my laptop. I'm sure my experience will be viewed as biased. But I will say it is very durable, has a great surface, does not slide, and looks amazing. It is after all produced by a gaming gear company (QPAD).
I'd like to request a brand new review. I have implemented two huge changes. As of 1.22b, I have included both a MAZING mode and automatic REMATCHES. Thank you!
@Karawasa: Go
I would encourage anyone interested in knowing the actual criteria to check it out in person. Also sorry I havent' responded earlier, lots goin on.
There are six measurable criteria based on a persons perception of the map they are rating, furthermore, there are a minimum of three people rating each map. Any rigid criteria outside of that system would not work for all maps, but I'm happy to say that the system thus far is working within what I expected it to. By far not perfect of course.
What confuses me, and I genuinely confuse easy folks, is why there wasn't an objection to the areas in which element td performed poorly. The map got 3/5, 4/5, 4/5 respectively for appearance, but got a 1/5, 3/5, 3/5 for fun factor.
To specifically address how it was rated for those too lazy to look for themselves, and or for those who like to guess about a process instead of just find out about it, we grade appearance based on the following criteria.
5- The game uses never before seen graphics, terrain, etc.
4 - The game uses very unique camera controls, uses wow models, etc.
3 - The game looks very good, pathing works, no eye sores.
2 - The game looks like someone spent about an hour on terrain, the equivalent to nexus wars terrain, but is still playable.
1 - The terrain looks and works horribly, pathing does not work, there are eye sores.
It works like this, you either totally qualify for a number or you do not. In essence, given the definition of appearance, I think we were spot on. This considering, one the terrain is not unique to custom maps, formation td has a similar layout and actually published slightly before elemental td, and the map has existed for some time on wc3 in the same ultimate configuration. I would encourage you to look at the squad td review as well, it rated lower in appearance because they were not responsible for the actual concept of the terrain layout, where you were karawasa. 3, 4, 4 is pretty damned good for appearance on a TD.
Needless to say, I did challenge a few aspects of the ratings provided, prior to publishing, but the replies to my challenges were acceptable. If you would like a fresh one, we'll do it with another three reviewers... remember the most important part of our process is we love to be challenged!
The fun factor is what killed me on this review, and I honestly expected a challenge on that category for sure. One reviewer hated the map pretty much and it still wasn't enough to keep it from being ranked well regardless.
@Malpheus: Go
I appreciate the explanation, but you did not touch upon my concern. I don't believe fun factor should be lowered due to the existence of the WC3 version. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is exactly what it sounded like earlier.
Perhaps a fresh review with people who have never tried the WC3 version? By the way, did the hater dislike the map or does he just hate TDs?
It's my mistake, I had posed it in a way to where the "fun factor" appears to be confusing in the way it's rated. I used my own rationale to establish the rating based on this criteria:
5 - When you were done reviewing this game, you wanted to play it again the next morning, you went to sleep thinking about it.
4 - You bookmarked this game for personal use, you played it 2-3 times more during the week of your review.
3 - You will be playing this on your own time, you still have things to do, but you will be playing it.
2 - The map review seemed long, you don't think you'll be playing this anytime soon, maybe after you rest from it.
1 - This map flat out sucked and you wont be playing it no more.
My explanation of the rating was the influence my experience had on my ratings, and my assumption that the same influences existed in the other raters. Our fun factor is purely rated on the above statements however. The influence to my perception, affecting the rating was what I spoke to, apologies.
We can do it one of two ways, drop the lowest rater and replace or completely reboot. Also I would love to incorporate you response to whatever final rating we accomplish. It could be in a multitude of formats, even a fun one.
Regarding the lowest rater, he rated squad td well, but alot of ppl who don't normally like td's like that one, so it would be totally reasonable to request his replaced.
I am drinking coffee with the terrainer of formation td atm, (to be fair i'm married to her lol) so if you want a quick replacement rating to see what it would look like by dropping the lowest and replacing with a td fans, let me know.
not that it is my place; but I will speak anyway.
Because someone doesn't like their score (not saying kara dislikes his score, more that he doesn't like what he thought was a critera) is no reason to swap out game raters. What would work much better would be to (and easier said than done) get a few more recruiters, and ask each recruiter to type up a paragraph, or even just a sentence, to explain their general thoughts on the game and their experience with that style of game; and not post who wrote what review.
If you have 8 people who love TD's reviewing a TD, it will get good scores. If you have the same group reviewing a DoTA clone, it will get bad scores. This is of course a generalization. A hardcore DoTA player might also say "this sucks, it isn't nearly as good as DoTA" Knowing what type of gamer gave what review would be helpful. If an Expert TD'er says something, it might weigh more than someone who simply loves explosion grapghics and headshots.
Just a thought.
Skype: [email protected] Current Project: Custom Hero Arena! US: battlenet:://starcraft/map/1/263274 EU: battlenet:://starcraft/map/2/186418
@GlornII: Go
We always encourage a challenge, we don't mind being mistaken, I want mappers to challenge the process, it creates a great discussion at times. We've rated maps horribly and had the mapper approach to discuss, we work through any misunderstandings and make sure the mapper feels the process is fair above all.
We do articles when the reviewers have something to say, otherwise if you note the definitions of the ratings you will see a pretty self explanatory statement about what the rating means. We hope to do a video for this one later on if time permits. Ultimately any review process will not be perfect, this is purely a good way of lining stuff up and taking a stab at it.
I would love to see a fresh review. I don't think the WC3 version should factor into the score.
@Karawasa: Go
Element TD is in a weird position. I can't play it without having flashbacks to tower defense from another era. The connections with the old WC3 version are unshakable for me. However it shouldn't be too hard to find reviewers who have never played the old version.
Karawasa, you should also consider that this is a problem that affects any game maker who is making a sequel, follow-up, spin off, or remake. I can't play a Zelda game without constantly comparing it to the last few Zelda games. StarCraft 2 was compared to StarCraft. Diablo 3 will be compared against Diablo 2. Even Blizzard's next MMO will be compared with World of Warcraft.
I just recently purchased the latest "Worms" game on Steam. I thought it was a waste of money because the game play was an identical copy of the last Worms game I bought 10 years ago, but with better graphics and a few touched-up mechanics. Even so, I'm sure the game was just a delight for anyone who was new to the franchise.
@SkrowFunk: Go
Having flashbacks is not a bad thing inherently. I see game review sites giving high ratings to sequels that are more of the same. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Generally speaking, sequels do not radically change the series. What people look for is whether the sequel upholds the standard set by the previous iteration. They then look for refinements, improved graphics, and additional mechanics.
Let's take a couple of your examples. StarCraft 2 is just a refined version of StarCraft with better graphics and a few additional mechanics. Anyone who has played StarCraft will surely find StarCraft 2 similar. Yet we all agree StarCraft 2 is a solid game (excluding BNET 0.2). The same reasoning applies to Diablo 3, yet a lot of people are dying for it.
Honestly, it sounds like you are in the minority when it comes to views on sequels. Now I haven't played a Worms game in years so it could very well be too much of a rehash.
Back to Element TD, I would describe it along the same lines as StarCraft 2. You have a refinement of the game in the form of new towers, improved balance, and some tweaks to the mechanics (removal of interest etc.). The graphics are obviously improved by default and should be judged on how well the SC2 assets were used. Finally, there are new mechanics. Most notably Tower Wars but also Teams, Casual, Race, and XP/stats (with unlockables). You may want to wait for Mazing which will provide a 180* shift in gameplay.
@Karawasa: Go
Off-Topic: I will be buying your Ele TD mousepad soon.
On-Topic: Good idea. I also encourage this.
@Enexy: Go
Glad to hear it! I really appreciate your interest in and support of the game.
I use this mousepad at home with my desktop and another on the go with my laptop. I'm sure my experience will be viewed as biased. But I will say it is very durable, has a great surface, does not slide, and looks amazing. It is after all produced by a gaming gear company (QPAD).
Shameless Ad: http://store.eletd.com/mousepad.html
I'd like to request a brand new review. I have implemented two huge changes. As of 1.22b, I have included both a MAZING mode and automatic REMATCHES. Thank you!
Guess this thread is dead?
@Karawasa: Go
Not dead, he just rebooted the process with a new team. Your map review was updated, your revisions made a difference.