How to rate classic-looking maps today?

Just came into this problem.

Today’s modern mapping standards I think went into a change where most people is looking for detailed maps, with excelent lights placement, maybe new textures, etc…

After playing one of those maps, I downloaded one from 1997 or something. In comparison with the modern map, the classic one looks empty, lack of building detail and features, quite predictable and maybe too simple.

So, how can one rate such classic maps? Let say, I give a uberdetailed, great replayability and modern map 5 stars, then, how can a classic map have that same 5 stars rate if most of the features from the modern map are lacking?

Basically what I’m saying is that 5 stars are rather dumb way to rate something from different years and different standards.
The point here is that we are comparing a 2013 map with a 1997 map, which is pointless.

Lets say that John creates a map today that looks like a classic map.
Now Sam creates another map that looks like a 2014 modern map.

If we have to rate both maps, John’s maps will get a 3, maybe a 4, while Sam’s map will get a 4 or 5.

This leads me to think that maps with the “classic” tag should be rated in comparison with ID’s original standards rather than today’s standards.
And for this to happen, I think that there should be a place in the Help section in the webpage that specifies what maps should we use to compare classic usermade maps, so everyone can know what a classic map should look like, what level of detail, monster placement, lights, and such.
Lets say, something similar to the “wizard”, “castle”, “base”,… themes, but for rating the maps.

All of this may sound a bit obvious or even stupid, but it is not. Lets say we find a classic looking map made in 2013. Someone could give that map 5 stars. But now, the next person to see the map doesn’t know if that map is a 5-star map in comparison with today’s standards or in comparison with 199x standards. So you may be expecting something with good amount of detail and then you can find playing a map that looks quite empty and lacking of detail, which you are not wanting to play anyway.

Actually, that happened to me: I dloaded a map with the tag “classic” and a good rating. I was expecting a map that really looks like a ID-made map, but instead I got a quite modern, full of detail map. Yes, it had a feeling of classic map, but not a classic map at all. At least ID software would never do a map with such amount of detail.

So that’s basically the problem: all maps with “classic” tag should be rated in comparison with original ID maps.

That’s all. Thanks in advance.

Hi Yamato

I think you’re making some good points about taking release date into consideration when judging maps. I agree with you that a 1997 release cannot be held to the same standards as a 2014 release.

However, I believe the following needs to be born in mind:

  1. The editor’s rating take factors like release date into account – at least ideally. User ratings, however, are much more subjective, and while some people might rate using similar criteria as the more “objective” editor’s rating, many users probably simply rate in accordance with how much they enjoyed a given map. Plus, the editor’s ratings are ultimately to some extent subjective too.

  2. The “classic” tag is not a reliable measure of, well, anything. Do a quick search for “classic” (today, 26 January 2014) and you’ll find maps from 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013. The problem is that people clearly do not mean one thing when tagging a release “classic”; for many people it obviously simply means something like “really good”, and not “ID-like” (as you suggest).

(Personally I think evaluative tags like “classic”, “pointless” or “stupid” are not really useful.)

So my advice would be not to attach any significance to the “classic” tag, take all ratings with a pinch of salt, and rate as you would anyway.

[quote=Icantthinkofanickname]Hi Yamato

I think you’re making some good points about taking release date into consideration when judging maps. I agree with you that a 1997 release cannot be held to the same standards as a 2014 release.

However, I believe the following needs to be born in mind:

  1. The editor’s rating take factors like release date into account – at least ideally. User ratings, however, are much more subjective, and while some people might rate using similar criteria as the more “objective” editor’s rating, many users probably simply rate in accordance with how much they enjoyed a given map. Plus, the editor’s ratings are ultimately to some extent subjective too.

  2. The “classic” tag is not a reliable measure of, well, anything. Do a quick search for “classic” (today, 26 January 2014) and you’ll find maps from 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013. The problem is that people clearly do not mean one thing when tagging a release “classic”; for many people it obviously simply means something like “really good”, and not “ID-like” (as you suggest).

(Personally I think evaluative tags like “classic”, “pointless” or “stupid” are not really useful.)

So my advice would be not to attach any significance to the “classic” tag, take all ratings with a pinch of salt, and rate as you would anyway.[/quote]

Well, actually something tagged as “classic” makes me think that such object looks like a previous old version of such object, so a classic-looking Quake map should look and feel like the old original Quake maps.
Otherwise, how could you search for maps like those without any specific tag?

QTWiD came up as term recently (I blame negke), Quake The Way id Did as a nod to the Doom community’s http://dtwid.herokuapp.com/

https://www.quaddicted.com/reviews/?filtered=qtwid :smiley:

Keep in mind that tags are fairly silly at the moment, anyone can add them, there is no benefit/weighting of adding the same tags again, there is no filtering or control.

***** >= id quality
If a map matches the quality of the original maps both in design and gameplay, I’d give it 5, also when it’s left behind a bit but has original ideas

[quote=jackieben]***** >= id quality
If a map matches the quality of the original maps both in design and gameplay, I’d give it 5, also when it’s left behind a bit but has original ideas[/quote]

The problem with using “id quality” as a yardstick is:

(a) “id quality” is a nebulous concept. The original quake maps were not all of the same quality; far from it. But even if we take it to mean “the best of the original maps” (whatever that may denote), there is still the issue that:

(a) the better custom maps very quickly started to surpass the best of the original maps in terms of quality, and for the past few years even “average” new releases tend to be in a completely diferent league from the original maps. If a map released now were merely as good as even the best of the original maps, I doubt it would merit an “excellent” rating (or a 5).

They’re a little silly, but also very useful in aiding searches, and the democratic system of adding tags is on balance a good thing, I think (or at least it seems to be working well). There are more tags than there arguably would be if only you and negke added them, and for the most part I think people are going about it sensibly: the really useful, meaningful tags far outnumber the silly ones.

Would it not be possible to fine-tune the system, though, by adding some “filtering and control”? Is it possible for you and negke to remove tags, or if not, would it be possible to add that feature? If so, one or both of you could periodically review the tags (the latest additions, for instance) and remove the most egregiously inappropriate ones. I’m sure users would also call your attention to problematic tags in the comments (as has in fact happened in the past), which would make it even more low-maintenance…

By the way, jackieben, I like your profile picture. Is it from somewhere, or is it your own creation?

[quote=Spirit]QTWiD came up as term recently (I blame negke), Quake The Way id Did as a nod to the Doom community’s http://dtwid.herokuapp.com/

https://www.quaddicted.com/reviews/?filtered=qtwid :smiley:

Keep in mind that tags are fairly silly at the moment, anyone can add them, there is no benefit/weighting of adding the same tags again, there is no filtering or control.[/quote]

I find tags very useful. They allow users to perform fine searches. And allow users to define what a map looks and feels like for them.

How about if you implement a way for users to delete and/or modify already existing tags?

[quote=Icantthinkofanickname][quote=jackieben]***** >= id quality
If a map matches the quality of the original maps both in design and gameplay, I’d give it 5, also when it’s left behind a bit but has original ideas[/quote]

The problem with using “id quality” as a yardstick is:

(a) “id quality” is a nebulous concept. The original quake maps were not all of the same quality; far from it. But even if we take it to mean “the best of the original maps” (whatever that may denote), there is still the issue that:

(a) the better custom maps very quickly started to surpass the best of the original maps in terms of quality, and for the past few years even “average” new releases tend to be in a completely diferent league from the original maps. If a map released now were merely as good as even the best of the original maps, I doubt it would merit an “excellent” rating (or a 5).[/quote]

But I find here a problem: what do you mean with “this map has a similar quality than ID Original map”.

Do you mean “this map has a construction quality that would satisfy the ID original maps”

OR

do you mean “this map looks and plays similar to those from ID originals”?

I’m of course talking about the second answer.
Because a total conversion can satisfy all ID standards in terms of building quality but it plays and looks far different than those ID original maps.

Yamato, the post you quoted above was in response to jackieben, who was talking about “id quality”. Whether jackieben meant it to refer just to construction quality or to gameplay style as well, you’d have to ask jackieben. My response stands either way – I’m not that interested in these finer intricacies and just wanted to make the point that “id quality” is (a) nebulous and (b) not a relevant measure of excellence, especially these days. Feel free to disagree, of course.

If you’re interested in maps that are “id-like” (the second option you mention above), then I think Spirit’s suggestion above of using the qtwid-tag makes sense (note, however, that this is also a vague concept and not everyone will agree on whether a particular map is “id-like”). Hope you find what you’re looking for.

[quote=Yamato]
How about if you implement a way for users to delete and/or modify already existing tags?[/quote]

Surely that would make things a lot worse: it would be like allowing users to modify the editor’s rating and description, which could result in chaos and/or ugliness. If ratings are to be filtered/pruned/modified, it should be done by the administrator and/or moderator.

We (I) can’t really represent a map’s quality which is relative anyway with a scale of 5(or x), I meant that if a map is as enjoyable as a better id one then it’s worth a full score for me, but I’m not really sure now
The review, comments and picture means a lot more

Idea: What about a system with only 2 voting options (+ and -), and the 5 start scale is calculated from the ratio of the votes, like on steam workshop? http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=220115320&searchtext=

Icantthinkofanickname - It’s Klaymen from The Neverhood, a game from the youth of mine http://youtu.be/AN1-Y1wJzbM
experiemental point&click adventure kinda thingie
I’ve only added the chars using a font

Where’s your bunney from?

jackieben, while I agree that a 1 to 5 rating system can never reflect with perfect accuracy how we feel about certain maps, I would hate to see it changed to a binary like/dislike system, as that would be far less precise. My response to a given map tends to entail a lot more than simply liking or disliking, and I want to be able to reflect that in the ratings I give (imperfect as they may be) and see the same in others’ ratings. Likewise I want to be able to rate some maps higher than others and see how other users rate them too.

If anything, I would prefer a wider range of options (note that reviewers like Underworldfan, Tronyn and [Kona] use a far broader scale), but I can understand the appeal of the simplicity of Quaddicted’s rating system. It is probably a fair compromise between simplicity and versatility.

I do agree with you, though, that comments and reviews say more than ratings can, and that is why I like the comment system here. I like being able to read others’ comments in addition to seeing their ratings, and being able to contribute to the discussion with my own comments.

Ultimately I do not think it is such a big problem if we do not necessarily apply the same criteria or are even uncertain about our own criteria. I get the impression that whatever your personal set of criteria might entail, both you and Yamato (and many other users here) give considered ratings and leave meaningful comments. We might not always agree, but that is part of the appeal – to be able to exchange views and gain new perspectives on the maps we play.


Thanks for the link – that looks great. I love claymation/stop motion and experimental games.

My profile picture is the children’s book character Miffy (or Nijntje).

Lengthy are the messages of yours 0.0

New useless idea which never gonna get implemented:
Users can vote for a carefully selected set of tags one each map’s page, like “fun, hard, scary, innovative, experimental, monotonous, id-style, detailed …”
and the tags which people voted for will be displayed on the map-page, with the number of the votes:

mappy_map.bsp
id-style(165478), long(1338), void(1337), vertical(69), hard(68), balanced(1) …

Editor tags are highlighted, tags not voted for are omitted

I know, sorry. :-/ To paraphrase (presumably) Pascal (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/), I did not have the time to write something shorter.

One thing came up to me reading the toppic .
I sureley agree with the ambigue feeling of the rating scale compared to Id and the new style maps.

Why not open a toppic with the same rating scale for the original Quake maps.
In that way at least the problem of comparisment is overthrown.

Not all Id maps are as good as they are presented, although most of them have my admire after all the years.
Still I have the feeling the first three entrences are excellent, while the last on the right feel like swept together.