- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,684
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
BAD said:
GOOD said:
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:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
