I didn’t know you could see who rated what, thanks.
According to the editor’s rating policy, even a 3 would be an under-rating since it concerns “A map without any particularly outstanding or memorable features, often fairly plain in looks and with somewhat sloppy construction. Sometimes there is an additional marker in the description that modifies the rating in a positive or negative way, like “OK” (C+) and “Barely average” (C-). Not that recommended.”
This definition is far from being applicable to this map, whether one enjoys playing it or not.
“According to the editor’s rating policy, even a 3 would be an under-rating”
Yeah, I’d probably give this a 4 (I’ll have to play it again before rating), but people don’t always follow the editorial guidelines. I’ve seen a few high-quality maps get hit with 3s, so I assume some people use a 3 rating to make punitive subjective judgments.
Any rating system is subjective folks, if there is voting is because there is no other way to know if is a good map or not. If it were so, level design would not be some kind of art and creation but an academic test which a right answer.
There is nothing wrong in a person getting upset with a map and giving a low score, or giving 5’s to everything. Statistically the sum of all ways of subjective scores lead to the Central Limit Theorem. Dumb votes does no harm to the system and the system does not rely on the voters following any editorial guideline.
But it is wrong is to misunderstand a mean/average as a %% of achievement or to quantify how close or how far is something from being perfect.
The main purpose of this kind of systems is to highligt the good ones among all the others, and it works fine when there is a large number of people. In my case I rely as much on the averages as on the quantity and quality of the comments, so I do not cast oficial votes (I’m a guest) but I like to comment on the maps i selected to play, ignoring the others. I think it is a more personal and valuable gift to the map creator.
In this case, this map is a B. or a 4/5. Not because any editor’s guideline, but because it is my way.
Solid map. Love the curved ceilings. The build seems well tailored for VIS times. L-Shaped entrances to new rooms and such.
Did get a bit lost in a couple sections but soon enough found my way. Some more arrows or perhaps monsters to help direct the player but overall, still solid. 5/5
I personally hate water levels, i. e. I don’t like swimming and emerging to the surface (over and over again), but this level is a work of art.
Everything is already written above my comment - solid level with great (though somewhat maze-like) design, good enemy placement, etc. The only thing that was unbalanced for me was armour, I think there’s too much yellow armour in this level, but then again, maybe I played too well (I tend to save armour and load every time I lose a lot of it).
The only thing that REALLY bothers me, is: where are the hidden DOORS (plural!) that were promised to be open after you shoot all the stained glass windows???!!! I ran across the entire level, couldn’t find squad! Such things (when I cannot find a super secret, and I know it’s there) get me really frustrated.
True oldschool level.
Good illustration that level can be interesting without high detail, color lighting and special textures.
This level gave me emotions, which I have from Quake in 1996.