Chart grading standards:
11 - Flawless chart. Floors me nonstop beginning to end. Unlikely to ever be found.
10 - Exceptional chart. Displays technical excellence along with engaging, interesting and creative patterns throughout.
9 - Excellent chart. Displays strong technical expertise with a few nitpicks. Patterning is entertaining, but may have brief periods with room for improvement.
8 - Great chart.
7 - Good chart. Technical aspects are generally good with a few noticeable flaws. Patterning is generally entertaining, but may lack creativity or interest at times.
6 - Above average chart.
5 - Average chart. Technical aspects may have some noticeable flaws. Patterning remains fun enough to be worth playing, but may be overly predictable and have significant room for improvement.
4 - Below average chart.
3 - Poor chart. Technical aspects may have some significant flaws. Patterning is bland throughout, or actively un-fun in parts, to a degree that would discourage you from playing the chart.
2 - Bad chart.
1 - Awful chart. Technical aspects may have severe flaws. A chart that is not fun from beginning to end; an incoherent, rambling mess.
0 - Severe technical errors that make a chart unplayable.
Presentation: 2 / 5 is average. Extras and attention to detail move that up. For example, a 5 / 5 file might contain a full set of single and double charts, good art, a lyrics file and a CD title. A 0 / 5 file breaks several rules regarding minimum presentation standards.
Tilt: At my whim. Most files get 2 / 3 unless I really decide I want to tilt a file. Mostly, I use this to single out music I hate
Most files will score between a 15 and 18 overall; a really good file will crack 20.
======================
DDR B3
======================
A Lifeless Ordinary:
22 / 30Heavy: 9 / 11
* I'd back off the long step-jump patterns.
* For the most part, I liked the sixteenths, although I'd like to see a little more movement.
* Rather than trying to match the note timing to the slowing drums, change the BPM, since that's what's happening in the song.
* In general, I found this chart very fun.
Standard: 7 / 11
* A five, with crossovers and sixteenths like this? Not a chance, even at this speed.
* The opening rhythms are a bit dull. It picks up when the sixteenths show up, but that gets difficult quickly for a Standard. And that hits the difficult line to straddle for a song of this speed.
* I think it does a good job of straddling that line, but it's got enough parts to push it to a 6 for sure.
* Still not too bad for a Standard.
Presentation: 3 / 5
* Good graphics
* Good cut
* Three charts
* Short sample
* CD title
* I had to verify this was a pun and not a typo.
Tilt: 3 / 3
I liked the whole package pretty well, and it's not too bad of a song.
----------------------
Loca:
19 / 30Challenge: 8 / 11
* I like the crossover freezes early.
* I would advise against having that blue note in measure 34; it's either a full spin or a melt and I wouldn't recommend either. The same pattern comes back in measure 43.
* There's a few places in the song where the player has to guess which way to take a 2-8 jump, and the wrong way is unpleasant; see measure 47.
* Measure 50 crosses over but never un-crosses, leaving the user in an awkward situation for the upcoming sixteenths.
* I found the first half very fun, but the flaws started to mount towards the end.
Heavy: 7 / 11
* Measures 33 and 34 are exactly duplicated across difficulties, and so is the end.
* For the parts that are different, I have about the same assessment as the challenge, as it plays very similar. But re-using patterns wholesale is just lazy.
Presentation: 2 / 5
* Good graphics
* "Bonus" art, ugh
* Good cut
* Three (?) real charts, and a bunch of auto-gens for random gametypes why?
* Sample ends randomly
Tilt: 2 / 3
I don't feel like putting much effort into tilt, so 2 is the default unless I say otherwise.
----------------------
Maybe:
22 / 30Heavy: 9 / 11
* I think you could have just started at measure 9 just fine.
* I also would have loved to see a gallop to the vocals in measure 28.
* I like this chart a lot though. I really like the use of short crossover bursts rather than the long death runs and jumpy sections typical of hardcore songs. I'm glad you dodged the trend with a breezy,
fun 8...
* But you labeled it a 9.
Standard: 6 / 11
* The flow on the opening is lacking somewhat. It's like you want the Standard player to play like a faster-footed beginner.
* During the slowdown, trying to simplify the rhtyhms by playing 8th notes that aren't there (when the 16ths are) doesn't fit.
* After the slowdown come some 8th note crossovers. Simple or not, that's hard for Standard. And then come the step-jumps, which are not only hard for Standard, but out of proportion with the rest of the
chart, as if to force a rating of 7 when a 6 is really deserved.
* I thought measures 57-73 were pretty strong, although I'd like to see a bit more turning in a few places.
* But the very end had a few more crossovers and another step-jump, as I already complained about.
Presentation: 4 / 5
* Good graphics
* Good cut
* Four charts
* Sample could be crisper
* CD title
* Challenge is named "Copied from"
Tilt: 3 / 3
I like this song for hardcore, even before this competition. I think it works well.
----------------------
Sheep Grasslands:
16 / 30Heavy: 7 / 11
* The patterns are generally fun, but they're definitely a bit repetitive. It might be a good idea to pick a song with a bit more meat next time.
* There's a few parts that could use more flow, or are at least really obscure extended crossovers that will end up double-stepped in practice.
* Fadeout ending is weak. Give it a real cut, or at least fade out more strongly and don't step through it.
Standard: 4 / 11
* Remember what I said about repetitive? Now *this* is repetitive. Doing the same thing over and over again is not the right way to make something easier. The rhythms are fine, but the patterns are the same
thing over and over again, or they're awkward. I don't see a player learning good technique from this chart.
Presentation: 3 / 5
* Basic graphics
* Good cut
* Four charts
* Eternal, rambling sample
* Huge title
Tilt: 2 / 3
I don't feel like putting much effort into tilt, so 2 is the default unless I say otherwise.
Other thoughts:
* Jumpin' jack flash with the gas gas gas!
----------------------
Starstrukk:
20 / 30Heavy: 7 / 11
* I think the best part is the crossovers at the end. Besides that, I found the patterns pretty plain. Passable, but plain.
Standard: 7 / 11
* I like the 824 826 freezes at the end.
* Again, the rest of the patterning is fine but plain.
Presentation: 4 / 5
* OK graphics
* Good cut
* Four charts
* Good sample
Tilt: 2 / 3
I don't feel like putting much effort into tilt, so 2 is the default unless I say otherwise.
----------------------
Watashi wa Watashi no Michi wo Iku:
18 / 30Heavy: 6 / 11
* I think you should ease up on the sixteenths - not so much the quantity as the patterning. Not all runs are created equal. 482682 requires multiple swings of the foot fully across the pad; it'd be nicer at
this speed to stick with moving one foot to adjacent pads, like the 82462 pattern a two measures earlier.
* The long random jump section seems just that... random. The rhythms are fine, but the jumps just move about completely randomly, or repeat for no particular reason. I'd like to see some coherence to it.
* That end seems to repeat the exact same patterns forever.
* Ultimately, I find the patterning to be bland. Not awful, but it doesn't stand out to me.
Standard: 7 / 11
* I liked the simplified runs a lot better than the heavy for some reason. Generally, they had good movement and flow.
* Although at the end they devolved into walking back and forth in a few places.
Presentation: 4 / 5
* OK graphics
* Good cut
* Four charts
* Good sample
* CD title
* Could have included Japanese title
Tilt: 1 / 3
* This song makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit, so here's where I exact revenge.