Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
I was thinking this morning that before the Foundry goes live(which is still a ways off admittedly), the community should try to come up with a fairly generic list of standards that we can all(or most of us) agree to use in reviewing and rating missions. The purpose of this thread is to suggest any "standards" you can think of and explain what you mean. Here are 3 that I have come up with:

1) Quality = basically this means how well the mission is made. Did the author fill in all the text boxes or leave some of it blank? Did he create waypoints to objectives or just leave you to have to wander around the map looking(without some kind of storyline explanation)?

It should be noted, however, that bugs in the game itself do not reflect upon the mission creator. NPCs shooting through walls and BOs not following like their supposed to isnt the author's fault, its Cryptic's.

2) "Star Trek feel" = essentially, does the mission "feel" like a Star Trek story? Does the mission contradict established principals in the shows without some sort of explanation? Is it slapstick comedy or a fairly serious story(some comedy is fine) like the episodes of ST? Do the characters use "real life" language that was never spoken in the shows or even reference non-ST topics?

3) Story = Separate from whether or not it "feels" like ST, does the story itself actually make sense? Is it extremely shallow(go here and kill this) or is it deep and elaborate?

Those are jut some suggestions that I thought of. What are yous?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
12-06-2010, 11:13 AM
I think reviews should start and stop with whether they work on a technical level (gameplay, grammar, etc.) I might be alone but even TOS writers took risks on #2 & #3 in your list.

Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhQA-06kSLU

This makes David Lynch look conventional.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
12-06-2010, 01:05 PM
Basic functionality, writing, originality, and most of all how fun it was.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
12-06-2010, 01:50 PM
Those sound like a good start to me, though we probably don't want to codify things too much, lest we start stifling creativity because people are afraid of breaking the "rules" that get them good ratings.

Also, #2 could potentially be considered ambiguous, as I'm sure everyone here can think of at least one episode from some show that didn't feel like a Trek story at all. :p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
12-06-2010, 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
I think reviews should start and stop with whether they work on a technical level (gameplay, grammar, etc.) I might be alone but even TOS writers took risks on #2 & #3 in your list.

Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhQA-06kSLU

This makes David Lynch look conventional.
Perhaps I should have said "rating" rather than "review". From what we've been told, the "review" is simply to make sure it works and doesnt contain inappropriate content. However, the RATING is based on our personal enjoyment of the mission. Regarding your example, if it was in the shows, then whether we like it or not it *is* Star Trek. So theres no way any of the ST shows can be "un-trek".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
12-06-2010, 03:08 PM
Edit:
Totally hit reply on the wrong thread open!
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 AM.