Don't you love us?

[FATAL]

It's our tenth proper issue, and I think it's about to hold a poll on whether you like reading our reviews or not. Please answer honestly. You can also specify here on what you overall like and what you don't. Happy voting.

[rustyslacker]

I really like the reviews, but sometimes it seems the standards are set a bit high. Also, maybe you should get all the reviewers to use the same numbering system, becuase some of your team members put number scores for each aspect of the map and some don't. I prefer the numbered ratings.

Otherwise, keep up the good work!

[FATAL]

Thanks for the comments.

While we won't lower our standards, as we believe that it's better to rate wads too low than too high, and practically never give scores around 9, because, as we've said before, wads are very rarely so good. Also the overall thought of 6 beign a bad score (like in many "official" sites, gamespot for example), we consider a wad getting 6 to be rather good. Everyone should remember that 5 IS AN AVERAGE SCORE: It is by no means a bad score. scores below 4 start to be a bit bad, and usually wads getting a score under 3 are highly not recommended.

About scoring different aspects of the wad. I think I could start using it in the future; thanks for the heads up. However, I can't do anything to make other reviewers to use it as well. They may, or may not use it.

[JohnSix]

I think the ratings seem pretty fair. After you play a couple of 3's and 8's the rest seem to fit.

Thanks again, and keep 'em coming.

[Nuxius]

While we won't lower our standards, as we believe that it's better to rate wads too low than too high, and practically never give scores around 9, because, as we've said before, wads are very rarely so good. Also the overall thought of 6 beign a bad score (like in many "official" sites, gamespot for example), we consider a wad getting 6 to be rather good. Everyone should remember that 5 IS AN AVERAGE SCORE: It is by no means a bad score. scores below 4 start to be a bit bad, and usually wads getting a score under 3 are highly not recommended.

The irony in that statement is halarious. It also goes to show why the 1-10 (or 1-100) rating system is a failure. Even between reviewers/sites, people don't have a grasp on how it works.

Gamespot even tried to make it easy to understand, by writing words underneath each score (6=fair, for example (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/crystalquest/review.html?sid=6143959)) but as Fatal just proved (by his incorrect assumption of Gamespot's review system) it doesn't work.

Problem is, our brains are "hotwired" to view anything below a 7 (or 70) as failing, because that's the way it worked while we were in school. No real amount of "reteaching" is going to make us view it any different.

That's why I don't like the system, and never will.

By the same token, I don't like the straight 1,2,3,4,5 system either, because it's too simple and vague.

I personally believe that the system that uses halves in between numbers (IE 3 1/2) is the best. Your choices would be 1/2, 1, 1 1/2, etc., all the way up to 5. This gives you 10 different values, just like the 1 to 10 system, but since the numbers are different, it forces you to view it differently, and realize that a 3 is average.

So yeah. :p

[g6672D]

What'd be cool is rating each different "subsystem" of a PWAD with a separate number. 1-10 for gameplay, stability, design, difficulty, etc. Then an overall rating.

I wonder which meanie voted "They suck!"... :(

[Nuxius]

I wonder which meanie voted "They suck!"... :(

I guess Scuba Steve. :p

[JohnSix]

What'd be cool is rating each different "subsystem" of a PWAD with a separate number. 1-10 for gameplay, stability, design, difficulty, etc. Then an overall rating.

I agree with this .. like Steve88 has done in issue 9 and its been done before ... these really give the best impression of what I'm gonna get.

Although I think that would be much harder with multi level wads.

[rustyslacker]

Yes, it would be harder, but maybe the wad could be broken up into sections and each one given different numerical ratings for each area, then an overall score for the whole wad?

[FATAL]

Yes, it would be harder, but maybe the wad could be broken up into sections and each one given different numerical ratings for each area, then an overall score for the whole wad?
I've been doing that except for the numerical rating part, so I can easily start using the new scoring method you suggested without changing my overall style a bit.

[rustyslacker]

Cool.

Character Limit

[Doom-Dork]

I bet it was the reviewers that voted "Yeah, they rock!" *laff*

[Danimetal]

At least not me.

[FATAL]

I bet it was the reviewers that voted "Yeah, they rock!" *laff*
What on EARTH gave you that idea? *what*

Nah, I voted just so that I don't have to click "show results" every time I come here.

[rustyslacker]

But you still voted, "Yeah, they rock!" huh? :)

[Danimetal]

Honestly, I don´t remember what I voted but I think they´re good. Shame they´re not hugely popular ;).

[rustyslacker]

Is there an echo in here?

[g6672D]

omg! teh intrnt lag! :D I love the ineptness of Counter-Strike talk.

Your reviews are good. As stated, they need a bit of tweaking. But that's not too much of an issue.

[FATAL]

Luckily I have supreme moderator powers to keep danimetal in palace.

Edit: Thanks. I love luxury.

[AlysiumX]

Alright, we know were are at least good so far by 10 votes *spin*