Bracket 1 - Discussion

alphabet55 · by **alphabet55** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:26 pm

Wellian wrote:Most of all, I feel my file is doing its job quite nicely.

OMG VODKA????!!!LL!L!?!?!?!

I know you made that file just to get us all drunk so we would argue. You can't hide it anymore!

Lisek · by **Lisek** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:41 pm

k, just finished reviewing all of files. If anyone is interested click here.

Titiln · by **Titiln** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:55 pm

5/5 incredibly useful would read again

Xythar · by **Xythar** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:50 pm

Titiln wrote:5/5 incredibly useful would read again

4/10 overly short and catchphrase heavy; please try harder next time

Wellian · by **Wellian** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:32 am

Xythar wrote:
Titiln wrote:5/5 incredibly useful would read again

4/10 overly short and catchphrase heavy; please try harder next time

8/10 revived entertaining time-wasting concept; may not please all forum admins though

Titiln · by **Titiln** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:52 am

Wellian wrote:
Xythar wrote:
Titiln wrote:5/5 incredibly useful would read again

4/10 overly short and catchphrase heavy; please try harder next time

8/10 revived entertaining time-wasting concept; may not please all forum admins though

2/10 oh god not this shit again

alphabet55 · by **alphabet55** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:09 am

(Sorry to break the chain...)

Ok, here's the deal: Every review I read, the first thing I think is... are they really that bad?

I mean, it seems like 75% of the entries are getting less than 6 points. Sure, a few are breaking away from the group, but these few seem to be different for every reviewer.

Oh well, I hope/am thankful that my entry does/is doing well (whether or not it's already out, you'll never know).

Lisek · by **Lisek** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:22 am

alphabet55 wrote:(Sorry to break the chain...)

Ok, here's the deal: Every review I read, the first thing I think is... are they really that bad?

I mean, it seems like 75% of the entries are getting less than 6 points. Sure, a few are breaking away from the group, but these few seem to be different for every reviewer.

Oh well, I hope/am thankful that my entry does/is doing well (whether or not it's already out, you'll never know).

1~2 - very bad file, dunno why it is here.
3~5 - bad file, but fixed can be really better.
6~8 - good file, normal quality file.
9 - very good file, high-quality or even top 5 file.
10 - SUPER!, the file which probably will win.

That is just imho. So in other words - 6 is not that bad. It is just normal file, which is playable, but is pretty plain. And most of files get those low notes because of presentation (which is 4 points for double charts, extras and graphichs). This is BEST-mix, files should be polished as much as possible.

Wellian · by **Wellian** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:05 am

Titiln wrote:2/10 oh god not this shit again

Isn't that what everyone said when they saw I was doing The Last Rhumba for CM4?

I have to say I largely agree with Lisek. However, the structure he proposes doesn't accommodate the gimmick chart, as it (understandably) assumes that every file is attempting to be a straightforward wow.

I remember while judging the Best Simfiler competition that I stated by agreeing to enter, the authors were expected to produce exceptional quality files. Lilina was somewhat harsher than me, but we both came down very hard on non-excellent files, because the bar was set high and some files didn't come close to clearing that bar. The same is true to a large extent here, because the entry list was filtered to those with some form of a track record. It obviously hasn't prevented the competition being free of some shockingly bad entries so far, but they are far less than you would expect for a simfile competition.

My opinion of the bracket so far, to be honest, is that there are a solid group of competent yet underwhelming files, and very little that has made me stand up and take notice. A 6 for the bulk of the files on a normal basis would still be very harsh, but this isn't a normal basis. I wouldn't go as far as saying that Pack 1 is substandard, as that would be unfair, but very few of the files are clearing the bar at the height I personally set it at.

sanchny · by **sanchny** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:42 am

Lisek wrote:And most of files get those low notes because of presentation (which is 4 points for double charts, extras and graphichs).

ARGH NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOO

will-i-am wrote:NOTE TO ALL REVIEWERS:

PRESENTATION IS NOT BASED ONLY ON GRAPHICS AND EXTRAS!!!

Did you reviewers even bother to read the judging scale??? When judging presentation, you must remember that it's based on the file as a whole. You can't just say, "ZOMG AMAZIN' STEPCHARTZZZ! 6/6" and then write, "The graphics were terrible 0/4". In the judging rules, BLueSS specifically stated that when judging a file, there are 2 examples that pretty much sum up how to judge a simfile's presentation:

BLueSS wrote:To Illustrate the point:
Ex 1: A well-polished simfile by someone with experience gets a full score because it's on-sync, has excellent graphics, superb steps, and is a great song for DDR. It does not have any extras aside from a cd-title.

Ex 2: A simfile by another artist who isn't good at graphics deserves a full score because the animated graphics make up for the okay regular ones, as well an an additional chart or doubles, or something else.

Presentation doesn't mean extras, which is exactly why this year it's called "PRESENTATION". It's not fair if a simfile has amazing steps but is deducted points just because he/she can't make amazing graphics. Also to note, if a file has decent steps and the extras make up for them, they file should get full presentation points, which I don't see as being the problem since everyone is taking the presentation area of judging as graphics/extras.

The new judging system was made for a very important reason: TO MAKE JUDGING A MORE FAIR AND FRIENDLY PROCESS. Let's try to keep it that way.

BLueSS wrote:
will-i-am wrote:PRESENTATION IS NOT BASED ONLY ON GRAPHICS AND EXTRAS!!!

Truth is spoken.

alphabet55 · by **alphabet55** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:46 pm

Thank you, sanchny, for posting that again. I agree. When I first read the rules for presentation points, my thought were, "Wow, will anyone not get full points for presentation?"

TakeWalker · by **TakeWalker** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:56 pm

Lisek wrote:1~2 - very bad file, dunno why it is here.
3~5 - bad file, but fixed can be really better.
6~8 - good file, normal quality file.
9 - very good file, high-quality or even top 5 file.
10 - SUPER!, the file which probably will win.

Agreed on this. I usually keep files that I rate 8 or up, and sometimes 7s if the chart is fun but the presentation wasn't great. I'm really hoping to get to these files this weekend.

BLueSS · by **BLueSS** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:05 pm

alphabet55 wrote:"Wow, will anyone not get full points for presentation?"

Yes, because people are lazy, or ran out of time, or didn't care.

In theory, everyone should have.

will-i-am · by **will-i-am** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:36 pm

Lisek wrote:And most of files get those low notes because of presentation (which is 4 points for double charts, extras and graphichs).

Agh, people still don't really get the issue on "Presentation". Presentation is NOT dependent on ANY of the extras, graphics, or double charts. The point with presentation is to prevent the simfiles that get rated low just because the artist has bad graphic making skills. SO, the simfile can make up for these lost points by having extras (including charts).

To make it easier on yourselves, think of "Presentation" as not only one area of judgement, but two areas of judgement combined. Graphics are worth 3 points (4 points if amazing) and extras are worth 3 points (4 points if amazing) too (including charts), however there are only 4 points possible for presentation. That leaves 2 points of error that can be easily made up. Now, the reason why I said each sub-area could have a possible 3 points or even 4 points is because if the graphics, steps, and bassically the overall file is good (meaning great overall presentation of the file), then the file deserves full points, because if the file has no extras, the file's presentation points shouldn't be deducted if it has crazy beyond belief graphics. However, if the graphics are sub-par, but all the extras make up for it (also, once again meaning overall presentation of the file is good) then that file also deserves full points. BTW, don't think of this grading system, meaning the 3 and 4 point grading system that I used, as the only possible system you can use for presentation. 2 and 3, 2 and 4, only 3, etc. are also acceptable as long as there is not too much dependance on either the graphics, extras, or steps. All in all, it is not that hard, or at least shouldn't be, to get full credit in presentation points.

I hope this further helps all the confusion that's still going on.

alphabet55 · by **alphabet55** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:58 am

I just thought of something. Instead of just having 'presentation' be one score, why don't we split it into 'graphics' and 'extras', which are each, let's say, worth 3 points each. Then, after each area has been rated, the judge will combine the two scores. If they equal more than 4, then they'll be chopped down to 4. If they equal less than 4, then you don't do anything to the score.

That seems like it might be a little easier for the judges to understand?