DWBS

Sounds like that job would require more time than updating doomworld

ling you crackhead its on the right not the left.

er, this might be the right pass this time, that below one was me not the infamous anonymous user -mantra

|

Oh, wow.. This may be quite a bit of work.. The way I see it, it's quite a bit of fun! I would be glad to take on something like this! I have lots of time to do it! DOOM is my hobby! Well, one of them, actually. :D

Anyway, I'd be glad to offer something more than Heretic MIDIs and MP3s to the community which has treated me so well. As I said, I could make a great time commitment to doing it. I can take screenshots, write the necessary reviews.. I know quite a bit of HTML.. And I would be absolutely happy doing the job! I have great writing skills, too. I know all my punctuation, spelling, et cetera.. I think I'm your guy!

Of course, the final decision is yours, and if you choose someone else, I won't mind. I'm a good sport. It's up to you! :)

Around the world, around the world.

I hope you realize that by taking that kind of job you'd be giving up the last remnants of any sort of life you ever thought you could possibly have had. Also, wave farewell to sleep, dude.

Doing something like that would also be a ton of work... why not get Covaro to do it? :D

Umm, it doesn't seem to me that it would be that hard. I mean, there's only a handful of new WADs on CDROM / elsewhere each week, and I wouldn't want a huge in-depth review, just sort of "this one is 2 levels for doom 2, the first is cool, the second is prtty blah, this wad is for doom 1, it sucks" etc.

Nahhh.. Since lots of the new levels are just single maps, it wouldn't be that hard. I wouldn't mind taking on the larger ones, either.

But there's also other stuff like graphic WADs, and Rick Clark's tutorials, and new versions of ports, and stuff like that. That wouldn't need to be reviewed, would it? It's just WADs, right? Either way, I'm up to the job, and don't worry, I've got the time and the motivation. :-b

heh...i dont use that little /newstuff bar on the **RIGHT** (ahem, not left as I clearly wrote...er, typed)

Ah, but don't forget that the good majority of stuff that gets uploaded to /newstuff isn't exactly what you'd call "quality material". Imagine having to sift through all the crap, especially on a busy week.

By the way, now that someone mentioned it, there doesn't seem to be as much stuff uploaded now as there was in the past. A godsend, for sure. (It used to be a nightmare sifting through it all.) I tend to download directly from the author's web page and don't visit Walnut Creek very often. But you're right about good ol' Rick, his stuff is always something to keep an eye out for. He's always for quality over quantity... though he seems to do the latter, too. :)

I actually hope you get the job, Andrew, because frankly I think you're more than qualified. And besides, you've written enough between these comment thingies and the forums to fill up books, so I'm sure you must enjoy writing stuff. ;)

You're right. All the stuff that appears in /newstuff isn't "Quality" material. But what is? How often do we see great quality? It could be just one level, but still worth a mention. It would a great way for aspiring souls to get their work seen. And it may even be motive for sub-standard level makers to increase their quality! We might see other people motivated in making levels!

If you want, I won't sift through the sand. I'll review everything, and the lower-quality levels, I would give shorter mentions.. That would probably be the best way. But I shouldn't get ahead of myself.. It's all up to Linguica as to whether or not he wants me to be involved in such a thing.. :-b

Some other points.. Yes, I do enjoy writing very much. I've actually thought how fun it would be to be a newspaper editor! No, I wouldn't lose too much sleep. I have more than enough free time on my hands. What does it take to download a level, play it through? See what it's like, take a couple screenshots.. I could handle it..

Would I just make a few comments like "This one sucks, this one rocks, this one so-so, this one good..."?? I don't think so. Well, it depends what Linguica has in mind. I could do that, or I could write a three or four line description for each WAD, or I could make a couple paragraphs for each WAD. Or like I said, I could vary it according to quality. Any way you like it, I could do it.

Like I said, I shouldn't get ahead of myself. It's all up to Linguica. It's his site. I think I've said that enough times. I don't need to say it again. Let me reiterate that I love this community, and would give my all if the job were mine. This community have given me so much, I'd love to give something back! Okay, I'm done. ;)

...I get called WaveLength, and often review every shooter I play(although they are never read), and would enjoy playing through and reviewing each WAD over to the right WEEKLY. Email me at wavecorp@hotmail.com

AndrewB's got my vote. :)

(1) don't insult ling, mantra (2) I vote that we give this job to Katarhyne (3) Skulltag rocks (4) lick an imp and see the gratification you get

Yah, ok, I'm Charger from "Order of the Stray Cats". I could easily do that, since I'm always looking there for new levels to spawn my hatred upon anyway.

Vote for AndrewB!

I think that the idea of wad reviews on doomworld is a very good idea but, doom underground already reviews doom(2) levels, even though it has not been updated in more than a year.

This sounds interesting but quite time consuming to do it every week. I wouldn't mind doing it once a month or something like that, or fill in for the other guy when he's too busy or something. Let me know what you decide to do.

But I think that perhaps making sure that the reviewer isn't a DOOM level designer would be a good idea. I know that because I've designed levels, sometimes it detracts from the experience because I notice little things wrong with the level that I would otherwise have ignored. Get your regular John Doe to do the reviewing, and you'll probably get reviews that are better suited to the average person who will see a level and think, "cool, I'll download this."

I'll cast my vote for Andrew.

Let AndrewB do it! He is so active in the DOOM community and I am certain that he knows what a good level is. There are so many levels that you download, start and after two or three rooms quit, because you see at first sight that they are crap. It would be really helpful if someone would tell you before that the level is not worth the download time. Nobody would be interested in a in-dept analysis of these shit levels, just "I played it for 2 minutes, it's stupid".

Andrew seems to really be up to it, plus, any others can sign up as surrogate commentators in case he is too busy for some reason.

That reminds me ling, I remember asking you if I could resurrect the newstuff chronicles... heh

that edit an account thingy is so bug ridden and picky.

1. He seems to really, really, really want to do this. 2. He'd probably do a better job than necessary. 3. He's Canadian :). What more could you ask for.

This is a brilliant idea. I love playing wads frequently, but prefer going on advice of others, as there are so many crap wads out there, and the existing review sites are too sparse in their reviewing to be of any use.

Some other things that would make me happy: if, after you reviewed plenty of wads, you keep a tally or a top 10 of which you rate the highest, or have a clear rating. Also, if you are really drowning in spare time, you could simultanously work your way back from the date you started as time permits, I'm sure I missed a lot of great wads recently.

Also I hope you don't just comment on gameplay, but also mention architecture/atmosphere/lighting, whereever it is significantly better or worse than average. Mentioning of style of play ("slow/scripted" vs "constant carnage") would be cool too.

--Aardappel

screw these guys i want the job, i write reviews on my site so that's experience. i've worked at doomhq, and work at pcoldies.net so i am experienced in updating using script. so c'mon

Hey, thanks for the comments guys!! What's that, like 7 votes? I never expected that much support! Thanks again!! :D

Just some more thoughts.. Since there often is 8 to 12 new WADs each week, probably a two or three-line description of each WAD would be the best way. A paragraph or two would probably be excessively using space. Of course, I know a good level when I see it. I once made a comment on the MODs and WADs section about a 4-level WAD, marc1.wad. I never said it was going to be good!! Sure, it was rather low-quality! Just to clear that up.. ;)

Yes, all WADs would be judged fairly according to quality. I would describe what it's like, and provide other quick details such as author name, # of levels, ports required, if there's new music, sounds, graphics, demos, etc.. Yes, again, I DO know a good level. But if there was like a three-room, 1-level WAD with default textures, and 20 cyberdemons, I wouldn't say "This level just sucks, period.", I would say "Yes, it's your classic three-room, cyberdemon filled gem, that looks like it came straight from the dusty hard drives of 1994." ... I would then proceed to say that it's probably not worth the download.

As for rating the WAD in a 0 to 10 scale.. Ummm.. I'd rather not. Well in my opinion, it would be best to let others judge for themselves from the description rather than give them some number to chew on. You would probably need the ratings of a few people to make it truly accurate. It's just my idea that a rating system probably wouldn't be such a good idea. It's up to the webmaster, though. I can make any adjustment necessary. :-b

Yes, all WADs would be judged fairly according to quality. I would describe what it's like, and provide other quick details such as author name, # of levels, ports required, if there's new music, sounds, graphics, demos, etc.. Yes, again, I DO know a good level. But if there was like a three-room, 1-level WAD with default textures, and 20 cyberdemons, I wouldn't say "This level just sucks, period.", I would say "Yes, it's your classic three-room, cyberdemon filled gem, that looks like it came straight from the dusty hard drives of 1994." ... I would then proceed to say that it's probably not worth the download.

Umm, if I saw that I would say it sucks. You'd need to learn to be critical when it was required.

Be critical? Sure, I can do that! You're the boss! Would you want me to bring out the gool ol' sieve and drain away the low-quality levels? See, I'm not too sure exactly what you've got in mind in terms of doing reviews, but I'm highly flexible. Maybe something like just review the top 5 or so each week? Just tossing around ideas..

Or, if I did come across that kind of extrememly low-quality level, maybe I don't have to ignore it. Want me to say "Basically just one level, three rooms, and a whole lotta Cyberdemons. I can't imagine why anyone would to play this kind of level, let alone make it, but it's here in case you're into these kinds of levels." Or, if you want, I could as far as to say "Another failed attempt at a DOOM level. Three rooms, a bunch of Cyberdemons, pretty much just junk. Better luck next time!" ... If I were to choose, I would probably pick the former. I usually don't get very nasty in my reviews. But whatever you've got in mind, I could do it. :-b