Reviewing System
The level rating system used here at the Command Chamber is based on four
scores. The first three scores directly correspond to the three main sections
of our reviews: level design, dynamics, and experience. The design category
sums up the visuals of the level, mainly architecture and texturing. The
dynamics encompass the action of the level -- enemy placement, item placement,
and other enhancements that bring life to the level. The experience score
relates to the atmosphere and overall gaming experience of the level. The final score
is independent of the first three, and provides a single number with which
the reviewer can sum up the level as a whole. For more specific information,
see the category descriptions below.
Design / Visuals
The design score sums up the overall physical design and appearance of the level.
That may sound simple, however it covers a variety of topics. First and
foremost, the general layout and arrangement is considered. Along with
the arrangement are a number of other important topics, such as the detail
work, realism, and creativity. Detail might include certain non-essential
"eye candy" elements that might enhance the overall look and feel of the
level, such as steel support beams in mines, marble pillars in cities,
and so on. The more creative and refreshing a level is, the greater the
playing experience will be. However, scores concerning level design would
not be complete without the complement of architecture: texturing. Texturing
can make or break a level, even if it has good architecture. There are
many factors to consider when evaluating the texturing of a level, such
as stitching, selection and variety. If a level is haphazardly textured,
it is obvious to anyone because the textures simply do not line up correctly.
While being more of a technical problem then the next two areas, poor
attention to stitching and alignment can really destroy a level. Selection
and variety are just as important as stitching. If the level does not look
what it is supposed to be due to poor texture choices, realism will suffer
and it will be just another add-on, not an unforgettable mission experience.
Variety is also essential to the evaluation of texturing. If too few textures
are used, the level could appear to be bland and uninteresting, but if too
many may are used, it could look shoddy and unprofessional. Also considered
are the ways in which the textures are chosen and used to mesh with the
architecture for maximum aesthetics. For example, things like repeating textures
on large surfaces and cut-off texture patterns due to poor placement on the
level's architecture are considered.
Dynamics / Interactivity
The physical placement and choices of enemies are essential to creating
an entertaining level experience. Smugglers and bounty hunters do not
typically associate with Imperials, so we should not see such a "melting
pot" of enemies in a level without a rational explanation. In addition,
the simple placement of enemies can add or take away from a level. If
every enemy is just standing in the middle of a room doing nothing, you
again loose realism and the player's attention. Enemies could be active
with such duties as guarding doors, monitoring computer panels, and so
on. Also, placing enemies above and below the straight ahead line of sight
can add to the three dimensional feel of a level by forcing the player
to look up or down to fight. The number of enemies is also considered.
An overabundance of enemies makes the player irritated, too few make for
boring gameplay. A delicate balance of foes must be achieved that challenges
the player to continue, but does not drive him or her to quit the mission.
Going hand in hand with enemy placement is item placement. In fact, the
quality of the item placement depends, in part, on enemy placement. For
example, a level may have too many gear pick-ups for its difficulty,
or vice versa. In addition, there are many technical issues to consider
when evaluating the item placement. Obviously floating items are frowned
upon -- they just kill all realism in a level. Also, the logic of item
placement is also considered. Gear is not always lying around on the floor,
so consider such things as shelves and storerooms to give the level a
bit more quality. The use of cogs and new level features, such as 3DOs,
keyframes, enemies, cutscenes, and so on, are evaluated in how they enhance
the overall feel of the level. Opportunities abound to make a level shine
in this area. The whole idea of enhancements are to bring the level to
life and keep the player's attention, bringing them into the level's world.
The goal of every level author should be to bring the level alive, rather than
having the player simply walk around inside a static, dead environment.
Playing Experience / Atmosphere
The atmosphere is generally harder to quantify than, say, architecture
or item placement, though it's obvious to reviewers and players alike
when a level's atmosphere is done well. The object is to make the level
really feel like what the author is trying to create, rather than
just being another add-on. Some of the most important areas here include
the sure of lighting and sound. A level could have the best architecture
ever, but if the lighting is plain and no atmospheric sounds are used,
it will be unable to draw the player in. Good use of atmospheric techniques
will enable a level author to set the mood and overall feel for the level.
Gameplay issues are also considered in the experience score. Technical
problems with a level, such as crashes, steps that are too large to walk
up without jumping, and other flaws that affect the smooth flow of the
level are considered. Repetitive gameplay, such as having to perform certain
tasks time after time, can be detracting and frustrating for the player
too. Even simple things like doors that open too slowly or shut too fast
to get through can hurt the playing experience if they interrupt the fun
of playing the level. In a nutshell this score attempts to quantify how the
level feels and plays.
Scoring Considerations
In addition to the three main scoring categories, the overall score is
the final summation of the quality of the level. This number is independent
of the design, dynamics, and experience scores and provides the reviewer
the opportunity to place the level into an appropriate score range when
considering the entire level as a whole. The score ranges are listed below.
Before you start comparing the numerical scores of levels as if they are
totally accurate, just take a moment to consider how much a single number
can actually tell you about a level. In reality, it's not all that much.
Here at the Command Chamber, we have several different reviewers who each
look for certain (different!) things in a level. Additionally, the levels
reviewed here span a time ranging from very recent to over four years old!
Standards and expectations change over time, so older levels might not
fare as well score-wise in the present as they did several years ago.
The personal tastes of the reviewers combined with the time factor make
comparing scores between levels inconsistant. Now, that's not to say that
the scores are worthless. In fact, for the most part they do provide a
good general indicator of a level's quality. But a general indicator is
all they provide. If you really want to see the merits and drawbacks of
a level, read the review! If the score was the only important thing to
look at, we would give each level a number and move on. However, we spend
a great deal of time writing a full-length review for a reason -- an in-depth
analysis of the level by a person is considerably more useful than a single
number. Reading the review and seeing how the reviewer perceives and describes
the level is the best way to measure the quality of a level.
And remember, don't get hung up on numerical comparisons between levels!
Saying one level is better than another simply because it received a higher
score is not necessarily true. The scores should be used to indicate how
close a level came to being perfect in the reviewer's mind at the time
of the review and not necessarily a direct comparison to any other level.
Now that you are educated about just what the score can tell you, the
ranges are described (roughly) as follows:
91-100:
Instant Classic. Something that rises above most other levels.
81-90:
Great. Exhibits professional quality with few flaws.
71-80:
Good. With a little more development, this could be something great.
61-70:
Pretty Good. Lacking a little, but not so bad that it ruins the fun.
51-60:
Average. Not so good and not so bad.
41-50:
Fair. Several bad points that diminish enjoyment exist.
31-40:
Poor. Needed more work.
21-30:
Bad. More attention and effort required.
11-20:
Awful. Obvious and major lack of effort.
0-10:
Terrible. Completely defficient in all respects.