I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate mail for this, but I don't care it needs to be said. I've noticed recently after playing through some levels, that people here are just too friendly. I'm not saying that we should go around hate bashing every map that isn't perfect, but criticism is a GOOD thing. It's what helps us as mappers become better, it teaches us what we've done wrong and allows us to correct those mistakes in the future. Just because it's someones first map doesn't mean we need to judge them any differently than we would judge someone who's released 100 maps. When I post a map, I don't want people to just tell me HEY IT'S GREAT KEEP GOING! and maybe mention a no draw or two I missed, I want REAL feed back, tell me that my first puzzle is shit, and would work better this way or that, tell me that way of making something just looks horrid, tell me that my texture choices could use work, tell me what I can DO to make it better, give me something to think about when I'm mapping in the future. Don't rate me higher than I deserve to make me feel better, give me a 2, make me work harder so that next time, I can get that 3 or 4, or one day, maybe even EARN a 5. It's not that I don't like some praise, don't forget to include things that you LIKED about maps too, but it's not a joy town hug fest here, we're a mapping group out to help each other make the best maps we can, and we won't get anywhere without a little criticism.

sicklebrick, I hate to use you as an example, I really do, but you happen to be a perfect example of all this.

Gubble
This is one of sicklebrick's maps, which has of current been given a 5/5, which I can only assume has been done to make him feel good(again REALLY sorry, but this is gonna sound like a hate rant on you, it's not, I swear, nothing personal) when the map deserves nothing more than a 3, BY definition of the forums (Good, but needs work) which PERFECTLY describes this map, there was a list as big as my as my arm of things that needed a lot of work in there, and no one on his thread have told him about them, there are a few mentions of this or that, but nothing really substantial.

In conclusion, I think people need to really rethink their rating and comment process on new maps, really look at them when you're playing, think about them when you're done and tell them what you REALLY think, not what you think they wanna hear. Sorry for ranting, but I felt like this all really needed to be said.

&

I'm really new to this community, but I don't think you have any place judging the way people rate, or the level of excitement shown for people that are trying new things, even if the execution is pretty bad.
Also, you're forgetting a big aspect here; there are a certain portion of members that are not mappers. They come here to just play cool Portal mods, and they get to rate too. So what you may percieve as a huge technical fault, they overlook because they don't care, they're playing a fun map that they think deserves a 5/5!
And to your point; criticism about decorative things like texture choices, and the visual art portion in general is very subjective... this is something that map designers have to come to their own. When you're thinking about detailing your map, the most important thing is believability. Your object placement and brush work needs to make complete sense within the scene you are trying to portray, even if it is a somewhat abstract scene. You have to pull on real life experience (how stuff normally looks) and creativity (how it looks in your head) to properly execute a detailed design.
Hopefully you're starting to understand why most people don't even try starting to explain this portion now... and maybe I gave you a thing or two to "keep in mind" when detailing your next level.
The only person that can truly tell you how shitty your level looks is yourself.

I agree with Jexim, there SHOULD be more criticism about levels, there are maps with bad lighting, misaligned textures, tile walls which aren't scrambled (just one texture for wall) and told them like "omg this is so awesome 5/5!", but in reality its total shithouse. Saying what you think nicely about level and what should be fixed is ALOT better instead of making author feeling nice with a lie. But of course some people thinks they are good...

Edit:> Kaleido wrote:

Also, you're forgetting a big aspect here; there are a certain portion of members that are not mappers. They come here to just play cool Portal mods, and they get to rate too. So what you may percieve as a huge technical fault, they overlook because they don't care, they're playing a fun map that they think deserves a 5/5!

You have forgotten the art of level design.

Might as well give my 2 cents in this thread...

Jexim wrote:
Decent map, kept me thinking for quite a while. The use of the world portal was nice, and was an interesting surprise when I pressed the button. Lots of emancipation grills, which is always fun when working a cube around, I liked it. The flicker effect on the lights was a nice touch too. The windows are a neat look.

Things that need work:
-Emancipation Grills (Much to thick, and taller ones you seem to have skinned the inside top of the lower ones rather than the outside bottom of the upper ones... just kinda looks funky)
-Emancipation Grill Emitters (They have an animation for on and off, makes it look real sharp when you use them with that kind of puzzle)
-X/Check Sign above the world portal (the X and Check Decals stick out from the frame, leave a blank behind them, using a prop_indicator_panel is an easier way of making one of these that has the x and check built in and use a simple "Check" "Uncheck" style of settings)
-Indicator Lights (You need to work on your method of lining them up, there are some youtube tutorials that can help and with a little practice it gets easy, the only advice I can give you is to look at their initial size and spacing and maintain that)
-The light in the room at the back (It's like 3 feet out from the wall, lol)
-The World Portal (The lighting on either side of it is different, causing that distinct line of shading when the world portal is active, kills the illusion for me, forcing me to realize it's there)
-The laser grids (Never used these, so I'm not sure on this one, but the second set looked like it was off center from the emitter)

Asthetic Choices:
These are really just more my oppinion, nothing really BAD about them, but I as a player was not thrilled.
-The lights (Weird choice for an area like this imo, but you kept them going through out so it wasn't that bad, just kinda weirded me out at first)
-The Emancipation Grill between puzzles (Seems weird to do it that way, most levels just put one inside the exit door from the first puzzle, again, not wrong, just felt weird.)

So in Conclusion, I'm giving you a 3/5, good puzzles, fun to play, but it does need quite a bit of work, keep at it and I'll be looking forward to your next level!

BTW, I'm using you as an example for a rant I'm making in the help and discussion, sorry in advance, and hope you don't mind too much.

Don't mind at all matey. But I don't need to do anything. It's free ass content, done in my own time to a level high enough to enjoy the puzzle without wasting countless hours lining up tiny dots and such. IMO I'd prefer a good puzzle over professional design any day. Take 12 Angry Tests for example, it looks pretty fantastic... but the solution to every puzzle is linear, immediately obvious and the the entire thing can be completed in about 10 minutes without breaking so much as a mental sweat.
Often I find having too much in the way of decoration does little more than make the entire map more exploitable, e.g. with LOS issues, diverting faith plates, etc.
Likewise your mybetamap for example is completely spoon fed to the user, with numbered sections trivialising the whole process. And start elevators? Why bother, we all know what happens.. they go up while you wait, and have to run up the stairs.

Honestly, I see little point in repeating the same process over and over for tiny levels that amount to nothing more than a bunch of sequential mildly logical puzzles

About the criticism: I think you're right, for those of us who are looking to improve, it is vital. But I think there's a lot of people that don't see the possible improvements.

About the rating: I think people rate on different things. Someone might rate that they had 5/5 amount of fun. And someone might rate that the puzzle is really clever and deserves 5/5. And someone takes into account the ascetics, atmosphere, pacing, originality, fun, whatever, and rates it 4/5.

sicklebrick wrote:
But I don't need to do anything. It's free ass content, done in my own time to a level high enough to enjoy the puzzle without wasting countless hours lining up tiny dots and such.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. If you don't want to improve that's fine. But if you do, there you have some good feedback.

sicklebrick wrote:
IMO I'd prefer a good puzzle over professional design any day.

But I guess you would prefer BOTH. A good puzzle and professional design.

yes; a lot of maps have a 5/5 rating while they don't actually deserve it. The only way to do something about this is just to vote like you think you should.

For Double Gubble I also voted 3/5 because of reasons mentioned in that thread.

Let's be honest; my own map, Lp's Flingtro is not worth a 5/5 why not? It's a small map, it works and it has proper lighting and elevators. So basically it has the basics. So that'd be good. It isn't broken so it's a 3.5/5 Some people might enjoy it more then others so I think most votes should be 3/5 or 4/5 but after 9 votes it's still 5/5.

[SP] Heavens Gate:
Haven't played it yet. So no ratings about that yet.

Replay:
Was obviously broken for a lot of people at the start, but not for me. Looks were fine, puzzles were ok and some glados lines. I'd go for 3.5/5 again. Not for the 5/5 it has.

Gel Bridge:
That isn't even a test. 1/5 why was this even uploaded.

one2one + scaling.
Fun a hydra map I guess; it has a 2/5 rating after 7 votes but I wonder if there are really 7 hydra users on these forums that thought "cute, you tried to map" after seeing this map. I think most of these votes are by people who wish they had a hydra but couldn't play this map because they didn't have it.

Gubble
I really enjoyed this map, the worldportals were very nice here. Because this map got me thinking I gave it a 4/5. Possibly a 3/5 would;ve been better with the same arguments as you gave.

Islands
Nice concept. execution could use improvements With a bit more texture variation, better lights and the visibility isn't always good. I gave it a 4/5; but probably 3/5 is more appropriate; there are really things that can be fixed.

Lp's Lazr0s
It's hard to objectively look at your own maps but well, good lighting, aligned texture (though they could've used a bit more variation ) with a decent puzzle in it. 4/5 or 5/5 depending on how much you liked it.

Getting over obstacles
Very impressive first map but with a bit better lighting and a bit more attention to detail I think a 4/5 would be appropriate.

Project Upgrade - Wait for update
2/5 is too much for this. 1/5 Why did you even upload this would've been better.

ML's Jailbreak Labyrinth
Nice map; though there are a few things that can be improved. I voted a 5/5 because I just liked the exploration part a bit but it would be nice if there is something done with the suggestions people gave.

Seems familiar:
Fun, not broken, good looking but a bit too easy and too short to be a 5/5: 4/5

So yea, I could continue for a while. So yea; a lot of maps are rated too high. At the other hand we should be happy with every map that comes out. As sicklebrick said: It's free ass content, done in our own time. So burning people down all the way just because you didn't like their puzzle isn't the way to go. But rating like you feel is totally something we all should do.

lpfreaky90 wrote:
yes; a lot of maps have a 5/5 rating while they don't actually deserve it.

Even if a lot of people don't think the rating through, we must also remember that some of those maps maybe do "deserve" that 5/5, other people might have enjoyed it more than you did.

lpfreaky90 wrote:
burning people down all the way just because you didn't like their puzzle isn't the way to go.

I think many people could use a lesson on how to give good feedback.

CaretCaret wrote:
About the criticism: I think you're right, for those of us who are looking to improve, it is vital. But I think there's a lot of people that don't see the possible improvements.

This is absolutely true. MOST people who are active on the forums are mappers; people who know how to make a map and do this often. Those people are very familiar with hammer and see every error they have fixed in their own level. But for example lighting can make a HUGE difference. If you just use the instance lights it's an instant win.

CaretCaret wrote:
About the rating: I think people rate on different things. Someone might rate that they had 5/5 amount of fun. And someone might rate that the puzzle is really clever and deserves 5/5. And someone takes into account the ascetics, atmosphere, pacing, originality, fun, whatever, and rates it 4/5.

Absolutely true. But there are examples of short, rather straight forward maps with lots of things that can be improved and still have a 5/5 .

CaretCaret wrote:
sicklebrick wrote:

But I don't need to do anything. It's free ass content, done in my own time to a level high enough to enjoy the puzzle without wasting countless hours lining up tiny dots and such.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. If you don't want to improve that's fine. But if you do, there you have some good feedback.

Agreed, after working on a lot mod work and keeping maps from releasing I've improved my skills a lot. The two earliest maps I had "finished" have been completely redone since because the textures were misalgined; there were a couple clipping issues; lighting could improve and a lot other small issues. This cost me a lot of time but the maps are really good looking AND interesting puzzles now. If he mod is out I would be very happy to get feedback on the puzzles and the details in the map sicklebrick; I think that you can do both without much of a problem! It just takes a lot of time to make a really good map!

CaretCaret wrote:
sicklebrick wrote:

IMO I'd prefer a good puzzle over professional design any day.

But I guess you would prefer BOTH. A good puzzle and professional design.

In this thread:

in my opinion its the rating system that could use an update.
like caretcaret said people vote on different things. so why not splitting it up in different categories?

marKiu wrote:
in my opinion its the rating system that could use an update.
like caretcaret said people vote on different things. so why not splitting it up in different categories?

Because there are only a couple of people who vote: for example: 12 angry tests has over 10.000 downloads and only 102 votes. That's about 1 vote for every 100 downloads; will not-spotlighted this value is often even lower. If the system is made any more complex even less people will vote -> less votes -> less reliable score.

Agreed with OP, it can be difficult to criticize a map that has flaws but clearly got a lot of work put in. If I make a critical comment I often just make clear that i do appreciate one's hard work but the flaws keep it from reaching its full potential.

It feels like shit to put a lot of time in a map and receive negative/mixed feedback. I've put over 70 hours in my first released WIP map (+ like 100 on unreleased previous crap) which ended up being mediocre at best because the puzzle is kind of boring. But it was definitely a good learning experience to be able to make higher quality maps later. Without mistakes being pointed out I don't think anybody can make great maps.

In my opinion, the more criticism the better. i dont want to be told jow great i am, i want to be given useful advice. And yes, good aesthetics is not 100%necessary, but it makes a map far better. I love playing a map where you can see the mappers spentthe time and effort needed to make somehjng truly fantastic. And yes, the rating system is unreliable. we know. gt over it.

As mentioned above this is the problem with a completely arbitrary and subjective rating system. People are rating on different criteria.

The only solution is to establish a set of (even very basic) criteria.

On other sites you might be able to hover over (or perhaps there is a key) the different ratings and it will give you a short description.

Just as a very rough idea:

1/5: Does not meet expectations. Map is not functional or contains obvious gross flaws.
2/5: Below expectations. Map is of poor quality and contains many flaws.
3/5: Meets expectations. Map is of good quality but may contain a few flaws.
4/5: Above expectations. Map is of very good quality and there are no gross flaws.
5/5: Exceeded expectations. Map is of professional quality and could be sold as part of a DLC.

Ideally the descriptions of the criteria should be more detailed and Portal 2 specific, but you get the idea.

Tremer wrote:
As mentioned above this is the problem with a completely arbitrary and subjective rating system. People are rating on different criteria.

The only solution is to establish a set of (even very basic) criteria.

On other sites you might be able to hover over (or perhaps there is a key) the different ratings and it will give you a short description.

Just as a very rough idea:

1/5: Does not meet expectations. Map is not functional or contains obvious gross flaws.
2/5: Below expectations. Map is of poor quality and contains many flaws.
3/5: Meets expectations. Map is of good quality but may contain a few flaws.
4/5: Above expectations. Map is of very good quality and there are no gross flaws.
5/5: Exceeded expectations. Map is of professional quality and could be sold as part of a DLC.

Ideally the descriptions of the criteria should be more detailed and Portal 2 specific, but you get the idea.

that would definitely make a good system.

Jexim wrote:
Hey, give me bad criticisms!

That's what iWork925 is for.

Spam Nugget wrote:
In my opinion, the more criticism the better. i dont want to be told jow great i am, i want to be given useful advice. And yes, good aesthetics is not 100%necessary, but it makes a map far better. I love playing a map where you can see the mappers spentthe time and effort needed to make somehjng truly fantastic. And yes, the rating system is unreliable. we know. gt over it.

To some extent I agree with you here...

Once every hundred maps or so, there comes one which provides a decent challenge and manages to look fantastic at the same time. It's like finding a really hot girl who's actually fun to spend an extended amount of time with.

But put simply, maps have the rating they do because people voted that way. If you disagree, then you can:
A- Vote otherwise
B- Suck it up, get on with things, and accept that people like different aspects of the map.
C- Make something better, such that the ones you disagree with seem worse by comparison.

If you can get your head around the idea of momentum transfer through arbitary holes in walls, it's not such a stretch to think that you might be able to accept that some people are in it for the puzzle, some like a fun map, and some just like the "portal experience" regardless of difficulty level.

I.e. LPFreaky thinks my map Gubble deserves a 3/5 - 4/5 for the reasons he's mentioned.
I think LPFreakys's Flingtro probably deserves a 3/5 for being about 2 minutes long, immediately obvious and having a sticky button that leaves the door open - regardless of the great attention to detail and custom textures.

Clearly we have different expectations for a map and should just get the hell on with it. Why?
Well, both got a 5/5 rating. Some people enjoyed one, some enjoyed the other .. some maybe enjoyed both.

The only thing I don't like about criticism is being told I have to or need to do certain things. I have to brush my teeth, defacate, and eat on a daily basis. I don't have to upload random subjective improvements to maps just 'cause some people might appreciate it. Likewise some people might appreciate it if I gently cupped their balls and sang them a sweet sweet lullabye. I can chose not to.

That said, feedback is a healthy thing. Whether it be a critcism, praise on a specific aspect of a map, a bug report, an idea, an alternate solution etc. For example, with my map Double Gubble, it's clear some people like messing with strange techniques, some hate it, and some can't wrap their head around it. It's clear though, that it's probably not worth repeating. I realise also that the core puzzle in the map is a little easy now, and people dislike being disorientated just for the sake of it. Lesson learned, time to move on.

Complaining that people dont like the same shit as you is like going apeshit 'cause your favourite Pop Idol contestant didn't get through, even though you'd stake your life on them being the best in the bunch.
Getting on with things and accepting different tastes is a life lesson and not something specific to maps in a little game about making holes in surfaces; state your opinion, move on, enjoy the good ones.

Spam Nugget wrote:
In my opinion, the more criticism the better. i dont want to be told jow great i am, i want to be given useful advice. And yes, good aesthetics is not 100%necessary, but it makes a map far better. I love playing a map where you can see the mappers spentthe time and effort needed to make somehjng truly fantastic. And yes, the rating system is unreliable. we know. gt over it.

Indeed; feedback is the key to improve your mapping skills. It learned me to work on a grid; align textures add proper lighting, add frames to my glass just to name a few things I would probably be still screwing up.

Tremer wrote:
Just as a very rough idea:

1/5: Does not meet expectations. Map is not functional or contains obvious gross flaws.
2/5: Below expectations. Map is of poor quality and contains many flaws.
3/5: Meets expectations. Map is of good quality but may contain a few flaws.
4/5: Above expectations. Map is of very good quality and there are no gross flaws.
5/5: Exceeded expectations. Map is of professional quality and could be sold as part of a DLC.

This is very close to how I vote. 4/5 is a bug free map for me. 5/5 is a bug free map that just has a bit more: it looks good and it's fun to do. But that's just my $0,02

sicklebrick wrote:
I.e. LPFreaky thinks my map Gubble deserves a 3/5 - 4/5 for the reasons he's mentioned.
I think LPFreakys's Flingtro probably deserves a 3/5 for being about 2 minutes long, immediately obvious and having a sticky button that leaves the door open - regardless of the great attention to detail and custom textures.

See, that's a proper reason why you think my map deserves a 3/5. Why not post it directly into the thread about the map? If this thread hadn't been here I'd never know

This is the eternal fight: visuals vs. puzzleing. Portal is a puzzle game, so in MY humble opinion, mapping for this game, should ALWAYS envolve puzzles... good puzzles. And then, right after you know you've figured out creative solution puzzles or imaginative ways for using the puzzle elements this game contains, only then, you should care about the visuals. For me, it doesn't make any sense to "have a wonderful walk along really good-looking Portal2 chambers so easy that your brain was taking a nap while you crossed the whole thing to the exit door..."

I love a Portal map with good visuals, attention to detail, correct mapping (aligned textures, no overlapping of brushes,...) etc. BUT this IS a puzzle game, ok? We should never forget it! So, criticism is always good and it should be used everytime anyone thinks it should be used on his opinion. The key is here: everyone has, and has the right to have, his own opinion and criteria. Some will judge puzzle-wise, some will judge whatever other thing, as for instance, the visuals or upon the number of bugs encountered... But no one can control what exactly is someone liking after rating a map with 5/5... That's personal. I've even given 5/5 sometimes only because of the map's mood: awesome lighting, music, details... an atmosphere so well conceived and arranged.

So:

Tremer wrote:
1/5: Does not meet expectations. Map is not functional or contains obvious gross flaws.
2/5: Below expectations. Map is of poor quality and contains many flaws.
3/5: Meets expectations. Map is of good quality but may contain a few flaws.
4/5: Above expectations. Map is of very good quality and there are no gross flaws.
5/5: Exceeded expectations. Map is of professional quality and could be sold as part of a DLC.

Well, it doesn't make any difference for me. If the system should be focusing in each one's expectations, that would be so subjective: would only rate how a preconfigured idea of one map matches to the personal final feeling about the map... this is what we actually have, right?

About significant flaws... well, that would be good if ALL the people in this forum would have enough attention capability and experience to detect that, right? Not all of us has the same playing skills, mapping skills, or good personality filters to noticed this, right?

IMHO, maybe different categories, as mentioned above, would be good. At least 3 of them:

1. Puzzles: this should always be rated separately, as this is in essence a puzzle game. PLEASE! not only related to difficulty, but also to the "aha" moments, creativeness and usage of the puzzle elements, new elements, etc.
2. Functionability: does the map work properly? are there bugs that break the map somehow? only related to the functionality of the I/O system.
3. Visuals: not only bugs envolving aligning of textures, overlapping materials or brushes, missing lighting sources, flickering reflexes on water surface, etc, etc. but also regarding attention to detail and decoration of the chambers, design, distribution of the elements, etc.

This is what I think about the current rating system.

EDIT: I seriously miss xDiesp's comments and ratings on the maps... Ey Jexim, if you want to hear/read more critical comments, just check out xdiesp's posts, he's hard.

lpfreaky90 wrote:
See, that's a proper reason why you think my map deserves a 3/5. Why not post it directly into the thread about the map? If this thread hadn't been here I'd never know

I only mentioned it in passing to make my point. Generally I only bother if I'd give the map a 4 or 5 or there was something exceptionally wrong with it.