Zanstuff

[Catastrophe]

No, you should set deadlines and assign wads for people; look at the review system for R667 no one uses that except for the guy who made it. People are generally too shy.

[Iced]

Yeah, I agree with having a head administrator collect a bunch of wads, and either pool them publicly so anyone can do a review of whatever they want, or assign them to different people. Then the most objective and on-point review is chosen for each wad, and displayed.

[Hypnotoad]

The problem is: which wads? In the old skulltag forums you had a releases subforum which explicitly gave permission for skullstuff to review it, whereas there is no such forum on zandronum, and it is often unclear if a project is finally finished and ready for reviewing or not.

[Ænima]

... So ask the author?

[Hypnotoad]

I think instead maybe have the authors ask us, perhaps have a thread where authors link to their project and ask for it to be reviewed.

[Marcaek]

fyi the gamers.org archive has a skulltag folder ftp://archives.gamers.org/pub/idgames/d ... /skulltag/

I wonder why nobody submits stuff to the archive anymore?

[infurnus]

fyi the gamers.org archive has a skulltag folder ftp://archives.gamers.org/pub/idgames/d ... /skulltag/

I wonder why nobody submits stuff to the archive anymore?

Probably because that's the deathmatch folder, and DM is no longer the most popular game mode. Also, Skulltag's last release was back in 2010.
It probably doesn't help that Skulltag is now known as Zandronum.

I noticed that newer releases are put into the ports folder, with the "Advanced engine needed" or "tested with" lines listing Skulltag/Zandronum:
ftp://archives.gamers.org/pub/idgames/l ... om2/Ports/

[Marcaek]

I guess what I meant was I don't see why people don't submit things to the archive at all anymore.

Also ungayst is a skulltag gamemode map, 8bitctf is ctf, and there are modifiers in there like harvester, so it appears to be a general skulltag folder really.

[Catastrophe]

I think instead maybe have the authors ask us, perhaps have a thread where authors link to their project and ask for it to be reviewed.

No one is gonna do that.

[Iced]

No one is gonna do that.

Why not? All these releases in the "Releases" forum are by kids who want people to play their wad, and they think it's great. Whether or not it is, they really think it is, so they'd believe a review would only give them good publicity and a larger playerbase. Either that or the submissions are by sane people who actually do produce a good wad, and in that case, a review would be a great way for them to understand what they need to improve upon in order to make better maps.

The "administrator" of these reviews needs to get across that no matter who you are, having your wad reviewed is a GOOD thing, and the reviews can't just break down into shit-talking and bashing the wad. If users see that, that they can actually benefit from it, then it should go well.

[Hammerfest-]

It'd be cool to have some objectively-minded folk aboard such a team.

Objectivity is impossible, as even the act of witnessing something creates subjectivity.

I don't agree with objectivity being impossible. Although objectivity is almost impossible it doesn't necessarily merit itself as completely impossible, as there are people who can actually work objectively without succumbing to subjective thoughts and opinions. I think the better choice of wording here would be 'level-minded' people in this case, as to prevent any bashing of .wads we should have people who will criticize harshly while not necessarily saying 'This .wad sucks, the creator should burn in hell' or something unexpectedly negative like that.

No, you should set deadlines and assign wads for people; look at the review system for R667 no one uses that except for the guy who made it. People are generally too shy.

I agree with this system, however it is too early to have people getting assignments since this is gonna need some time to grow (if it happens.) Generally, people are gonna have to start submitting what they can by picking out a .wad of their choice and presenting it to Hypno who I assume is going to have a splendid time reading all of these applications.

Once the people are picked and the doors are temporarily closed, then there should be some assigned .wads. However, I would like to add that any assigned reviews are at least to some degree of objectivity. Just like reviews that are given the aim to demean a .wad, it's author, etc. there are people who will get a .wad and ride on it like no tomorrow, leading people to believe that said .wad is good when in actuality it isn't. Of course, this is a general statement.

I think instead maybe have the authors ask us, perhaps have a thread where authors link to their project and ask for it to be reviewed.

At this point, authors should come to the ZanStuff Staff. They should take the risk of getting their .wads reviewed while giving those who plan on joining the ZanStuff Staff an opportunity to show what they have. What happens between the members and the staff in general, as well as what credibility they establish based on reviews, will determine the direction of this.

I think instead maybe have the authors ask us, perhaps have a thread where authors link to their project and ask for it to be reviewed.

No one is gonna do that.

I somewhat agree with this. Authors aren't going to be assed to post their .wad on a thread where they're gonna get reviewed. However, as I said previously, authors should take the risk and see what they can get out from reviews, whether it be improvements or fixes. Generally, reviews should be pointing out the good and the bad, and again, to establish the credibility of the staff that reviews these .wads, they're gonna need to have a good level of objectivity while playing it.

This is just gonna start, I'd say take it slow for now. Get reviews and see what you can get from the people interested. Once everything is set up then open up another thread (public/staff only, your choice) to see what other opinions you can scrounge up.

[Catastrophe]

No one is gonna do that.

Why not? All these releases in the "Releases" forum are by kids who want people to play their wad, and they think it's great. Whether or not it is, they really think it is, so they'd believe a review would only give them good publicity and a larger playerbase. Either that or the submissions are by sane people who actually do produce a good wad, and in that case, a review would be a great way for them to understand what they need to improve upon in order to make better maps.

The "administrator" of these reviews needs to get across that no matter who you are, having your wad reviewed is a GOOD thing, and the reviews can't just break down into shit-talking and bashing the wad. If users see that, that they can actually benefit from it, then it should go well.

Lol, we'll see

[mifu]

Howbout this:
Anyone can write a review, but only those who prove that they can write quality unbiased reviews get the "trusted reviewer" title. That way, someone who writes "BRUTAL DOOM IS BEST WAD EVER, 10/10, PLAY IT NOW JEJEJEJE" won't actually be considered part of the official review staff.

I'm down with this. Hypnotoad picks up a batch of wads, people PM him with their reviews, he reviews the reviews, and after the reviews of the reviews from the reviewers are done, he says who gets to review.

I like this but how about if an reviewer wants to review a wad thats not on the picked wads list, a reviewer should be able to review the wad and submit it anyways as an extra review to include. (Or allow reviewers to submit wads that should be reviewed, provided they obtain permission etc if permission to review the wad is needed)

Also Sign me up, I'll review some stuff.

[Torr Samaho]

The problem is: which wads? In the old skulltag forums you had a releases subforum which explicitly gave permission for skullstuff to review it, whereas there is no such forum on zandronum, and it is often unclear if a project is finally finished and ready for reviewing or not.

Why do you need permission to review a published wad? Or do you just want to avoid reviewing versions that are not finished yet?

[Hypnotoad]

The problem is: which wads? In the old skulltag forums you had a releases subforum which explicitly gave permission for skullstuff to review it, whereas there is no such forum on zandronum, and it is often unclear if a project is finally finished and ready for reviewing or not.

Why do you need permission to review a published wad? Or do you just want to avoid reviewing versions that are not finished yet?

Mainly the latter, I do remember drama in the past with skullstuff reviews getting complaints from authors because their project wasn't truly finished or that it was still in beta, even though this may have not been made clear initially.

[mr fiat]

The problem is: which wads? In the old skulltag forums you had a releases subforum which explicitly gave permission for skullstuff to review it, whereas there is no such forum on zandronum, and it is often unclear if a project is finally finished and ready for reviewing or not.

Why do you need permission to review a published wad? Or do you just want to avoid reviewing versions that are not finished yet?

Mainly the latter, I do remember drama in the past with skullstuff reviews getting complaints from authors because their project wasn't truly finished or that it was still in beta, even though this may have not been made clear initially.

dont we have these prefixes in place? like [REL] [BETA] [ALPHA] imo those could be used to indicate something is finished/officialy released or not.

[Yellowtail]

That might be the case, but there are many threads that don't even use a prefix tag.

[Medicris]

Then make it mandatory.

[Catastrophe]

Orrrrr.... The reviewer can mention that it's still WIP

[Ænima]

Orrrrr.... The reviewer can mention that it's still WIP

Actually, this is probably the best solution.

Then the wad can even be re-reviewed after a major update.