How much should file size affect ratings?

[StoPCampinGn00b]

In a world now that most people who download maps can download with ease in seconds to a couple of minutes, a question rises. During the early and mid Hive days, some users and moderators had file size on their rating scale.

I noticed that most don't use file size on their rating scale, virtual or on paper, but I do know that some still use it. Some use it as a fraction, as quality/file size.

Say a user has a 12mb single player map with imported music taking the bulk of the space. Do you,
a) Tell them to take it out to decrease file size
b) Recommend for them to take it out to decrease file size, but it's okay/"meh" to leave it
c) Don't mention it (or if you do mention the music and the file size, there is no recommendation for them to take it out)

There's no wrong answer. Please explain so we can get some friendly discussion going!

 

[Deleted member 238589]

I'm always trying to avoid stuff that take a lot of space, unless I really need them. But it's really up to the map maker to decide what to do. We can advise such thing, to avoid piling up unnecessary stuff, but it shouldn't really affect things like rating. It's their map, after all. And, when it comes to the single-player, a few extra MB won't hurt us.

 

[Shadow Fury]

It all depends on whether the filesize is worth the map or not. If the 12 MB is just too boring to play but has a lot of cool music and imported resources, my final rating will slump for sure. However, in case the map is worthy enough, I'll just go for the option "c)".

 

[Deleted member 238589]

It all depends on whether the filesize is worth the map or not.

What "worth" is something that only can be judged by the map creator. If you find the game uninteresting, your critique should be focused on the game-play issues. We cannot really go that far into people's "creative freedom", by telling them what to remove and what not (mostly when it comes to aesthetics). That how I see it.

 

[Shadow Fury]

We're not talking now about what critique shall be given but certainly I'd give some constructive criticism on gameplay if it's uninteresting. That's not the aim of this discussion though.

 

[Deleted member 238589]

But what we're talking about is still a part of the critique. You have the rest in my previous post...

 

[Shadow Fury]

One should pay greater attention to the gameplay rather than focusing more on the aesthetics. A map with an entertaining gameplay but no imported resources will always outweight one with boring gameplay but plenty of wonderful imported resources.

 

[Deleted member 238589]

Yes, "he" should, and not we, who review that material, because, as I said:

What "worth" is something that only can be judged by the map creator

 

[Daffa]

Well, as long as it justifies, then it's fine from my end. But if it's like let's see.... 1289 MB of music and imports with crappy gameplay and randomness in usage of imports? Hell I will make a 0/5 for sure.

My opinion is, if the resources used improves the gameplay experience, which justifies it's usage, I won't mind it at all, and even can earn them more points than usual.
BUT
If they're spammed randomly without justification, let's say.... It'll add more issues of the map to the list.

Filesize should also be considered for multiplayer map, as bypassing 8 MB makes it unplayable in Battle Net. I'm aware we have 8 MB Limit Remover, but if memory serves, it doesn't fit in battle net and it requires both host and client to have them.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

What I think is, if a multiplayer map someone rates a multiplayer map three stars weighing 7MB and says would deserve four stars if it was 3MB (The size being the only factor of the changed rating), I think that's unfair. A map's value before being downloaded shouldn't be its file size. Moreover, maps weighing more (in reasonable terms) don't have much of an effect to downloads. One could argue that a lower file size would make it easier for editing the map, but that still doesn't convince me that the file size should be lower to earn a better rating if it's under 8mb as a multiplayer map.

My point is, larger file sizes shouldn't bother most people anymore and that the factor should be of lesser importance in most maps.

I pick C.

@Daffa
We don't exactly need it to justify though. A bad map is a bad map. A bad map with high file size is just another bad map. A good map is a good map. A good map is a good map with high file size (but acceptable) shouldn't be an issue.

Of course, if there are spammed imported resources everywhere that would be a bad map, but it's not because the filesize you have a problem with it, it's the imported resources you have a problem with.

@SF

One should pay greater attention to the gameplay rather than focusing more on the aesthetics. A map with an entertaining gameplay but no imported resources will always outweight one with boring gameplay but plenty of wonderful imported resources.

Well, boring is a very subjective term. The other things you say are fair, but in my opinion sometimes I enjoy maps that put more emphasis on imported resources rather than the raw gameplay. Speaking for most maps though, I agree with you.