When people submit maps, the last thing they want is a comment that says 'Crap Map!', or indeed 'good map!', as that doesn't help them improve at all. Although, I must say I'd prefer the latter to the former. In this tutorial I'm going to attempt to explain how to write a good review, showing both good and bad examples (that I've wrote).
The first step in writing a review is describing what it is and it's topic. For example, if you were to review the map 'DotA', it would be appropriate to write with the sense that the reader knows nothing about the map, however highly unlikely that is. This means that you'll have to write a bit about who the map creator is -- although, if you're reviewing the map on the hive you can skip that -- and what the map is. For example:
Quote:
|
'Defense of the Ancients (DotA) is the product of a map maker that goes by the name of 'IceFrog'. In the map your aim is to destroy the other team's 'main building' (I.E The Tree of Life/The Frozen Throne) and defeat the other team of heroes in the process.
|
The hard part of writing this is when you are reviewing maps with a storyline. For example, the Warcraft 3 Campaign. It would be improper to reveal the details of the invasion by the Burning Legion, and also improper to say that no twists happen at all. A good trick is to reveal the first chapter or so, and then mention that the game contains several twists and turns. A good and bad example follow:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BAD
The game Warcraft III, by Blizzard, has a very shocking storyline. Halfway through the game the burning legion invades and pushes humanity to the brink of extinction, and Arthas turns evil.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GOOD
The game Warcraft III, by Blizzard Entertainment, is one of my personal favorites. The campaign, one of the many 'playing modes' within the game, is very entertaining. You begin the game as the Warchief 'Thrall' and lead your Orcish tribe to supposed freedom; however all is not as it seems, and there are several extremely shocking twists and turns that follow later.
|
Although, you have to bear in mind that your opening is summarizing the game, so you should keep things short and snappy in order to move onto your ideas; the review.
You then have two options, you can either continue to write about the Author and mention why he made the map, although this step applies mainly to films and literature. Or you can move on and comment on how the Author 'pulled off his map'. For example, using DotA again, you can do it like this:
Quote:
Icefrog focused -- as do many other AoS's do -- more on the units and left the terrain extremely bland and, in some senses, highly lacking. However, the heroes colorful and imaginative abilities, somewhat, make up for this.
The items within the map are different to others in the sense that you can't just buy them; this prevents heroes from becoming unbalanced during the early stages of the game and allows for different hero 'focusing'. This means that players playing styles can be different, and not remain 'static' -- as most maps are -- in the sense that you can either be Strength, Agility or Intelligence.
|
Whilst you don't necessarily need to like the 'work' you're reviewing, you need to remember that criticism is more than complaint. Map makers have a limit of 3-4MB, just like Book Authors have limited pages and Artists have limited exhibit space, and everybody is constrained by finite time and the lack of resources (I.E Green Aliens with Laser guns for eyeballs, bet you won't find a model like that!). An easier way to explain this part would be to use a quote from my, now ex, English Teacher.
Quote:
|
Before you ask that a Historian takes an extra task, you might have to think about what portions you could easily eliminate to make room. Before you complain that the Historian focuses more on a certain group of people, you have to ask if the other group left the records the Historian would need to write about them. When you write, imagine that you're giving advice to the Historian about how to create a work similar to the one you're reviewing. What constructive lessons can you provide?
|
The important thing to remember is that a map is a tool with a specific function. To evaluate the tool, you must first understand the function. And having done that, you must explain it to your reader, answering the question, what is this map good for? Along the way, you will find yourself ripping the map apart to see how it works, imagining how it could have been created differently, seeing it from the author's point of view, and, perhaps, comparing it to other works. And that is critical reading.
Of course you have to state the parts that don't work, but you don't have to be a complete jerkoff about it. Just keep things formal and speak with the intent of weighing up both the good and bad sides of things.
In closing, a review should consist of an opening in which you introduce the map, a middle in which you state good and bad points, and a ending in which you state how you think the Creator did overall. The key points to remember are to be concise, to evaluate alternate explanations (I.E look at things from the other side, an example being DotA lovers and haters) and don't try to appease everyone. Sure enough you can be the friendliest person in the world, but it's not going to help the map creator. Sometimes you have to tell him that parts he's done just doesn't work.
I hope that with this you will be able to criticize maps better than just saying 'yeah that was good 5/5' or 'nah, that really sucked. 1/5'.
Below is a review of DotA, mainly because I've used that as a running example throughout.
Quote:
'Defense of the Ancients (DotA) is the product of a map maker that goes by the name of 'IceFrog'. In the map your aim is to destroy the other team's 'main building' (I.E The Tree of Life/The Frozen Throne) and defeat the other team of heroes in the process.
The map contains heavily customized heroes, units and items, yet falls tremendously short when it comes to terrain.
As does the balance. It's no secret that the Hero balance is about as good as a foot and a worm having a fight; you all know who's going to win. On top of that, many people choose to play the 'all pick' game mode and take the most unbalanced hero that they can find.
Which takes me onto my next point swiftly. The community within DotA is not friendly. The majority of players are young and spend their time playing the map as apposed to having any social life whatsoever. The other portion are elitist and play private leagues. The usual rule they have is if you fall under 'X' points, you're not allowed to play anymore. However, I should really keep things focused on the map itself because for all intent and purpose the DotA fanboys aren't part of the overall design.
The 'strong' items are interesting in the sense that you never really buy any, moreso you buy parts of them. This design allows for heroes to remain fairly balanced at the beginning of the game and lets individual players change their gaming style massively; you aren't just focused on being 'Strength, Agility and Intelligence'.
Whilst I'm talking about the heroes, I feel obliged to mention the abilities; woah. The skills that you learn with the heroes are heavily customized and are all fairly colorful and imaginative. No one hero shares the same abilities as others, and no one hero is, primarily, unbalanced. Most of that happens during the end game when the ultimates come into play and are mixed with the Staff of Godlike imbaness.
To tie things up; dota is a good map. Although it's nowhere near as good as people make it out to be. The combination of items and abilities are somewhat overpowered, but one could say that with every map these days. And lets be honest, if the map wasn't fairly good then how on earth could it gain a place in several E-Sport leagues?
|
The above review was rather rushed, I'll admit. I'll tidy it up if anyone has any major beef with it, though. Just before I finish the guide, I should leave you
this link. That leads to a man known as Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw. His reviews are the perfect example of how to do it, and I recommend future-reviewers (yeah, thats you) to watch some of his stuff.
Linear Mode
