We aren't criticizing art,
stop bringing up art. Art is subjective from head to bottom, it's based on emotions and not rules.
The subject itself was about me not following the rules, so I brought this subject about the rules.
The rule I was talking about was the one you mentioned, you added your cons to justify it and most of the other criteria, I simply find those cons harsh by themselves following your logic of scale of 50/100 for map standards.
For example, the criteria you judged Ungoliath's terrain felt more like nitpicking, since you deducted 6 points solely for a minor thing on the house and the creature's texture, (I'm no longer going to bring up your 50/100 logic here, I'm speaking through the normal criteria of this criteria being a 20 score.)
Sure, I'd accept these criteria taking 1 or 2 points since they're insignificant details, not 6, that's basically 33% of the score on terrain solely for that, you see how unfair it is?
Same goes for the criteria on Camera & Technical Competence, none of the points you made seemed strong enough to deduct 5 points over. When you brought over the main character passing through the crabs part, you have to also take in mind the author's intent, the character is presumed to be not bound to time and space, therefore when you think about it, he could be unable to interact wtih his surroundings as we saw throughout the cinematic, he goes through alot of flashbacks and abstract scenery but we never truly see him interacting with something physically, other than them seeing him. The crab scene makes me think that he's simply not there in time, thus he just passes through them.
Of course, that is just a theory based on what I understood from the scenes, go ahead and call it "Subjective", judging by you, everything that is analyzed through someone's interpretation is subjective and is not bound to any objective rule, even though I presented all of these facts about the story to justify my conclussion.
---
I'm mostly using Ungoliath's cinematic as example since his is the one with the least amount of errors to criticize him over, from both our points of view, I could point out that Yaser's review was also harsh for deducting 17 points out of 20 on camera competence for all his mistakes.
Sure it was very flawed, but there were things he did right too and should have taken merit for it, like scene acquisition, some points you made were also already made in Audio & Visuals, so you were basically deducting points on both for the same thing.
He doesn't deserve a 3/20 by no means, and there's no logical reasoning you can come up to convince me otherwise, because your criteria is arbitrary and it follows no rules, you simply deduct points based on what you "feel" rather than taking an objective stand point of how many points would it be fair to deduct someone for.
And like both him and Chaosy mentioned, their terrain job was probably their strongest field, maybe not the best, but your scoring clearly didn't appreciate that either. Also, your conclusions (Last sentences in each criteria) don't really project what your analysis described, for example, you described Chaosy's terrain as average, but nicely done, you pointed out some competence errors like mixing unnatural fogs and the weird result of mixing wc3 models with custom HD ones, then at the end you say "In all the terrain is well made, suits the theme and compliments entire work. Lighting and fog usually was well used, especially in the ending scenes. I believe the terrain part required most of the work." and then slap in a 11/20, how is that compensating what you just said earlier? That's competely contradictory, if you're going to make a praising conclusion, at least make one that makes sense compared to its body, and not just say something nice because you don't want to hurt the author's feelings.
And lastly, a point I made at the begining that was never addressed was the unfairness of deducting points for using non-custom lore and voice clips, you are aware that voice acting was not mandatory, therefore, not using it shouldn't compromise someone's score, and of course, if they use voice clips from warcraft 3, we can't criticize the voice acting either since it's not theirs, so what we essentially do is skip that criteria altogether, why? Because it's common sense, but what you did was deduct points for it, under what grounds? Chaosy even messaged us asking if his story would lose points for using them, and both you, Warseeker and me said he wouldn't.
You said that, based on your criteria, "Anything custom is highly appreciated", but that wouldn't be consistent, I would personally hate a cinematic that mixes wc3 lines with custom ones because of the quality difference between them, you either stick to one or the other, hence why I didn't see it necessary for him to do custom voice acting on a piece that already uses wc3 lines, I deducted points on his dialogue criteria instead, because he didn't try to reduce the amount of lines that weren't necessary for the plot, but the voice acting doesn't deserve to lose points over.[/quote][/quote]
I would appreciate more facts and less common sense.
Common sense is based around facts from our everyday life, things we take for granted because they've been tiringly proven over and over throughout history, hence the definition of "Common" sense, unless you were a sheltered child with autism, you should have common sense.