*Leaps in through the closed window*
More input from moi.
When I first came to OFPEC, way back in the days of the original concept5.com site, and it was Karls Mission Depot that was running things on a seperate site, it was a different world indeed.
Once we took on Karls work, and intergrated it, and I became a Mission bod, I tried to set down quite firm standards on how you should review a mission.
Here's what I used to do when I was reviewing:
Start off by checking briefings, images used, readmes, addons, etcetc, and noting all these, for points of clarity, detail and so on.
Once I got into the mission I used to have a £5 dictaphone sitting on the table beside me, and I'd dictate into it, points as I came across them, such as how the start was, the scripting, any intros, etcetc.
This meant I didn't have to keep alt-tabbing to write in Notepad or something.
When it came to playing the , I'd play it the way the author designed it. Following the obvious choices, and sticking to the 'rules'.
Once I'd completed the Mission, I'd then write up the review, taking in all the points I'd noted.
I'd then try to break the Mission.
By that, I'd try to skip around markers, waypoints, and screw the Mission around to see if I could beat it.
Classic example I remember, was the highly ove - Mission by Devilchaser, where you had to kill three super warriors. Right at the start, I ran them all over in a UAZ.
That's breaking the Mission.
I'd then re-write the review, taking into note these points as well, to give a balanced review.
I'd then phaff around a bit and see what fun and replayability the mission had.
To review one mission properly, could take anything up to and over thirty minutes to and hour, easy.
It's also about being harsh and being nasty. I've had missions I've scored zero, I've had missions I've sent back to the author with screaming abuse as a letter, because he'd put a cutscene in, which during the playing of, your character would be shot by AI soldiers still moving around!!! That reeks of not trying to beta test.
The scoring goes as Macguba said, from the titivation of a briefing affecting it very slightly, and the scripting being rubbish, having it flung back in your face.
Now if I were to explain all these in the readme file it would seriously impact on the experience I am trying to create for the player - but clearly if the mission is to get a balanced review the reviewer should be made aware of these features.
Any good reviewer will notice these without being told. If they don't, it raises the question of their reviewing ability. Put them in, but give the mission a catchphrase with something like: "With added Reality!" which will get people looking out for it.
I also noticed the bitching here, I don't have time to read it all, I'm a busy soldier, but guys, keep it clean, keep it happy, keep it sweet, and if that fails, go round his house and smash his head in.
Reviewing should be in depth, but people don't always put the time in, people don't always put the effort in, scores can be hideously off the mark, but at the end of the day, it's a personal opinion (Which should be a neutral opinion!) designed to make finding a mission for you to play, just a bit easier. Use the score as a bookmark to find the mission, then read the review and then look at the addons required.
That's how I find a mission I want to play.
Topic: How far do mission reviewers go? (Read 4101 times)