Im starting to see a common trend with the way ratings are being handed out on the site. It seems like a majority of ratings are based on aesthetics primarily instead of the most important aspect, gameplay. Previous forges didnt have all of this aesthetic support and now that it does i seems as though maps that look great get most of the attention while others are looked over quickly even though they may have great gameplay. Im guilty of this and think it would be helpful to have a double rating system, one rating for visuals and one for gameplay. I think it would be a very helpful addition to finding the best maps to play and will cut out reviews like this: Rating: 10 Comment: This map is stunning. Absolutely incredible attention detail. I only tried it out by myself, so I'm not sure how it plays, but I imagine it would be fun. I mean no offense to the user who made this review but a ten without ever playing the map? I want to download maps that have a high rating for gameplay, not just to look at. A full fledged example would be Shurima. @Demption i ****in love your map i swear, but myself and a few others have expressed to each other that while it may look absolutely top notch its gameplay isnt up to the same standard. Props to @Xandrith for a truthful rating on it but its hard to drop a 7-8 on a map like that when i really do want it to see more eyes, so i just don't rate it at all. Id be much more likely to with two rating categories. @SecretSchnitzel is also a very fair reviewer. He gave High Citadel a 6 of 10 and thats what it really deserved with the framerate issues it initially had. If this idea does take to others then i think it would be great if the forgehub community discussed making a common standard to help base reviews from. Something that could be initially posted on the front page as a loose guideline to help people give fair and accurate ratings for both aesthetics and gameplay on their own. Im not sure if this would be hard to implement because of current ratings but id assume it would be best to give the current maps their current rating for both categories. -XGOD @A 3 Legged Goat @a Chunk @Doju @ForgeHub @iParanormal @MartianMallCop @oVR @Sikamikanico @theSpinCycle @WARHOLIC
Why not add another ranking that's based on gameplay, 1-10 for gameplay and 1-10 for Aesthetics, that way people can look for a map that looks good AND plays good too
Or we could just do away with the rating system entirely. It's inherently flawed in that it's weighted and based on the opinions of the active user base - most of whom don't have the time to play every map that gets posted, let alone write a review on them. I certainly don't, which is why I've only reviewed remakes. And to be frank, I wouldn't trust a gameplay review from the majority of the site because very few people are able to separate their experiences and opinions from the way the map actually plays. Furthermore, half of you have some stupid beef with the other half; it feels like people review forgers more than they review maps. Given that it's a hassle to play on maps to begin with, a gameplay review after what would likely be a few games would amount to nothing.
A rating system is just a waste of time to most people until we can download maps from the website instantly like we used to. There was discussion at one point to reward people for writing good reviews, but I don't think any thing arose from that.
It depends on the reward. If the reviews with the most likes only earned "4chub cred", nobody is going to take it any more seriously. I'm sure i'd see niggas hustling for dat free one-month code though.
Everyone also has their own scale. A 6 to @SecretSchnitzel might be a 7 to me and a 2 to @aPK, and vice versa. A remake that isn't scaled 1:1 is automatically 2 points off to me for example. If the rating is to be improved, the first thing I want to see is a standardized scale.
Being able to rate engages the community, whether good or bad. I love this idea and I too look for respectable forgers opinions. The author has been able to comment back to the reviewer and try to get a point across, but we do all have that chance of a map being poorly reviewed for odd reasons, but it gets the community talking. I don't review a lot of maps, but when I do, I try to drive the point home. I have had plenty of feedback received and given about maps and I love that. Ultimately it is up to the user on whether they change it or not, but it is such a nice system to get feedback from and I think adding that second category in some fashion would only increase feedback, which as one of many forgers I can say would very much like that.
Everyone has their own thought on what makes a good map, but that only makes adding this option that much better. Sure you can judge the look and feel by just jumping around solo, but not fully. I think implementing a gameplay review would also engage a few more people to actually review maps. It's no different than a website trying to show off a product with customer reviews. It's all going to come down to an opinion, even a great map like lockout is disliked by some, but it's all part of why we do what we do (at least a large portion of forgers), in my opinion.
My ratings are the following, with few exceptions: 2: Unplayable. Broken geometry or fundamentally game breaking issues. 6: playable. Can be enjoyable, but has issues that need addressing. 8: Solid map. Good enough quality for Matchmaking consideration. >8 Memorable. A notch above the competition. A map I would enjoy playing regularly. I try to avoid rating maps that I think deserve my lowest rating though, as I feel that breeds negativity. One issue I've had lately with the voting system is the metric **** ton of 10s people are handing out to their friends and what not. It distorts the entire rating system.
The difference between a Forge review and a customer review on something like Amazon is that the Forge community is small and people have feelings. You can't hurt Apple if you say their iPhone is ****, but Timmy's probably going to cry in a corner if you say his map sucks. Unless Timmy knows you're out to get him and he'll just ignore what you have to say. If more categories are going to be added, it has to go beyond two: Performance - how the map runs. -25% weighting Aesthetics and Creativity - how unique and visually appealing the map is -25% weighting Forgework - the physical construction of the map -25% weighting Balance - the fairness of the spawns, weapons, objectives, sightlines, etc. -25% weighting Gameplay - how fun the map is to the reviewer - not weighted This way a map can receive an objective 0-100 score without the reviewer needing to play on it, because most of the time they aren't going to give it a fair shake. It's almost impossible for gameplay to be reviewed objectively, therefore I don't think gameplay should ever have a weighting attached to it. For example, I think The Pit is trash and would give that map a 0 in the gameplay department if somebody were to make an original like it. Obviously there are people who would disagree and put it right on the opposite end of the scale. If anything, a gameplay rating would encourage me to give out more zeroes.
I like mine because I feel it eliminates a lot of the subjectivity from the evaluation, and carries far less negativity.
When I look for a map for my customs nights I do go look at the reviews of course, it's easy to just weed through the 5 stars without helpful descriptions (which are said that they will be deleted). I will give maps low rating, but explain exactly why too. For example, the pod racing map that just came out in the last few weeks, I gave it a 4 originally. The pods were clunkier than need be despite the glitches with the system. Some pods did not even fit through areas, etc. I gave a fairly detailed review on what was going on, the author took note of it and fixed a lot of things and tweaked it very well, expanding his creativity. I was so happy to retry that map and give it the rating I did in my second review. He made a new kind of game, had a cool Star Wars theme, had additional playability and was able to have that map featured in a few different channels. Is it because of me? No, but I'd like to think my negative review fueled the author to rethink his design, then he used his own creativity to land a feature.
Good for contests or official reviews, but too subjective in nature for the general population. I'd fall under the same issues as our current 1 to 10.
This is what i'm trying to get across. The rating system naturally skews towards good maps. I gave a map a two and then I felt like a douchebag afterwards, so I moved my rating to the comments to give the author a chance to update the map. But what if he doesn't want to? What gives me the right to go in there and **** on a map he's probably making for fun? Last week I realized that I was building my maps for matchmaking and not for what I enjoy playing - which are 2v2 customs. So I scrapped all of them and am now focusing on what I want to play. Now I couldn't care less what ratings they were given so long as I enjoyed them, and that makes me not want to post them.
I guess I know I can give a bad review without destroying someone, but that is just me, lol! I am in full support of having these additionals you showed here. As forge is much different than it once was, the evolution should change on both ends. When judging those categories, a user could give each section a 1-10 rating with a result ending in an average. It is still simple enough. However, maybe in the unweighted gameplay aspect, have a question for the reviewer asking "Have you played on this map? If yes, please describe how you felt the gameplay flowed." --- Double Post Merged, Feb 12, 2016 --- Why not have it where the author has the option to disable reviews for such maps? Anyone can still give feedback in the discussion without a review, allowing those fun maps to be out there... For fun.
I recognise that review, and I have no idea why he left it there. I mean, I appreciate the sentiment, but it honestly held no worth to me whatsoever. I've posted maps with a view for actual honest and constructive feedback. No offense to the guy who dropped that review, but I know the map looks nice. It's the gameplay inherent to the design that I'm interested in.
Once the file sharing improves, I imagine feedback will pick up naturally because maps will be that much more accessible. People running regular game nights can quickly grab maps to play while the lobbies are full without having to wait or download them beforehand. It could also encourage Forge streaming.
I've felt this way about the review system ever since I came back to the site. It's fun too see stars and stuff next to your map, but, like you've all been discussing, you really have to take those ratings with a grain of salt since anyone can click the 5 star and say it's good. To be honest, I loved the forum style posting that used to go on with the H3 and Reach maps. I felt like I received a lot more written feedback and you could tell the effort and heart someone put into the map by the presentation of their post. To each their own I guess. Can't wait for dat file share system doe