---

Review Requests

If you would like to request a review for your file, simply list the file name below and the Thread Reviewers here will take a look at it. However, please be patient as a skilled review can take some time to write. You can request reviews for your own file or of another download you think should receive more attention or because you believe the file is rated unfairly or is even over-rated.

Join as a Thread Reviewer

You need just four approved reviews to become a Thread Reviewer. Please post your request in this thread or send a mail to Mashek@heavengames.com, naming your last review. You do not have to review regularly, but keep in mind that if you have not posted or updated a review within three months you will be put on inactive. To become active again, simply find your name below and post a review. If your name is not listed inactive anymore, your last review will have dated before 01/01/09 (DD/MM/YY) and you may re-enter the thread after one posted review only.

Keep in mind that if you do intend to become a Thread Reviewer your review should not only endorse to help the author of the file but the downloader too. As such, a certain degree of detail is expected.

---

Thread Reviewers
(In order of no. of posted reviews – [ * ] = Official Reviewer)
144 Possidon: Single Player, Multiplayer, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS, AI-Files
84 Lord Basse*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS
75 Mashek*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
46 Popeychops*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, AI-Files
25 Julius999*: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios
15 Dtrungle: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Utilities
10 Leif Ericson: Single Player, RMS, AI-Files
10 Fanica: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities
09 Stroke: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities
08 joshua4missions: Single Player, Mod Packs

Current inactive Thread Reviewers
(In order of time of inactivity)
05 Jecon: Single Player, Utilities
72 Sword_of_Storm (Jatayu)*: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS, AI-Files
27 Cilibinarii: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Utilities
23 FuzzyFurry25: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities
16 Guthan: Single Player, Multiplayer, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS
08 hailstorm65: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities

~ Hall of Fame ~

231 Tanneur99
96 Lord_Fadawah
92 BrandNewCar
61 clayperboy
54 rwilde
31 Stephen Richards*
30 zyxomma100
25 Magnum Zero
24 RF_Gandalf

---

Review List
The list below consists of a number of requests and/or downloads recently rated by thread reviewers. Requests are marked R and updates U. Thread Reviewers are free to review whichever file they want, but should be aware that the designers at the top of each list are waiting the longest for a review. Files that have received a review in the time of request in this thread (whether by a thread reviewer or not) will be removed from the list unless a second opinion is requested.

AI Files: None

Utilities:
Bodies Stay (No Rotting), by Possidon; Reviewer: Stroke 4.0
Hero Expansion, by Possidon; Reviewer: Stroke 4.0
Buildings over of Trees Template, by Possidon; Reviewer, Fanica 2.5

Mod Packs:
R New North European Wall, by Possidon; No Reviewer
Aztec Shrines, by dementor561; Reviewer: Possidon 3.5, Stroke 3.5
Mountain Giant, by Courtjester1; Reviewer: Joshua4missions 4.5, Fanica 5.0, Possidon 5.0
Aztec Stable, by Mahazona; Reviewer: Stroke 3.0

Cinematic Scenarios:
Isolation Years, by Thunder77; Reviewer: Lord Basse 4.0
Norse on Yucatan, by Pietja; Reviewer: Lord Basse 3.4
Bitter Cold, by newIdea; Reviewer: Popeychops 5.0, Lord Basse 4.8
The Spirit of Alessia, by Sebastien; Reviewers: Mashek 4.8, Lord Basse 4.0

Single Player:
R Chrombasia - The Two Relics, by aMa; Reviewer: Mashek
R The Defence of Pavia, by Vizorslash; No Reviewer
R Fall of the Empire, by Ulysses_LW; No Reviewer
R Jengar's Quest, by Jecon; Reviewer: Mashek
R Compilation of Single Player Games, by jburnell; No Reviewer
R A Mans Home is His Castle, by joshua4missions; Reviewer: Jecon
R Darkness Upon Bree, by Possidon; No Reviewer
R The King of Madisgrad, by S_Bishop; No Reviewer
Seige of Nantu Castle, by joshua4missions; Reviewer: Popeychops 3.6, Dtrungle 3.8
Rebellion, by MrtnXII; Reviewer: Stroke 2.2
THE CONQUEROR, by jmsam; Reviewer: Stroke 1.2, Fanica 1.2
Mongol Invasion, by Fanica: Reviewer: Popeychops 3.8, Dtrungle 3.2, Possidon 3.8
Twists and Turns 1-The beginner's Campaign, by Stroke; Reviewer: Dtrungle 1.8
Hill Fort, by vonstranglej; Reviewer: Possidon 2.0, joshua4missions 2.4
The Bounty Hunter, by Julius999; Reviewer: Fanica 4.6, Possidon 5.0, Popeychops 4.0, Lord Basse 4.0, Dtrungle 5.0
Gwyndlegard, by Lord Basse; Reviewer: Julius999 4.6, Popeychops 4.8

Random Maps:
Sahara, by Possidon; Reviewer: Leif Ericson 3.0
Japan, by dementor561; Reviewer: Possidon 1.7

Multiplayer:
R World Map_Kings and Empires v 0.1, by Highlander_FFS; No Reviewer
R xTreMe BlooD, by LC_HaVoC; No Reviewer
R BattleFest!, by AdoptableMaple; No Reviewer
R PTO Gold Maze, by JuBuOrangie; No Reviewer
R Compilation of Multiplayer Games, by jburnell; No Reviewer
R Persia - Non Random Map, by Lakayaa; No Reviewer
R UDP - Deathly Cliffs - V3.2, by Heroes; No Reviewer
R Battleships, by TheReal_Hunter; No Reviewer
R The Seas of Egressa RP, by Guthan; No Reviewer


Recorded Games: None

---

Please read the Review Guidelines
Without trying to enforce the Review Guidelines as something as law, they are still a very important part of the review system here at Age of Kings Heaven, and are used to create consistency between reviewers at the Blacksmith in order to establish fairness and equality for reviews. With the Review Guidelines’ recent update all reviewers need to take into account the new addition of rules when reviewing. However, Angel SpineMan’s primary objective for reviewing in the old guidelines still applies today:

"This article will provide a description of how to write quality reviews for Age of Kings Heaven that are scored consistently between reviewers and are helpful to both the file's creator as well as the potential downloader."

In some cases, a small percentage of reviewers tend to review files according to their own rules, leading to inconsistency between reviews at the Blacksmith, which is neither helpful nor fair to no one. To have reviews at the Blacksmith that are fair and helpful, reviewers have to follow some rules to score consistently.

If you have any questions about reviewing, please do not hesitate to post in this thread!

---

Single Player Campaigns and Scenarios

There are many invaluable lessons to learn when becoming a good reviewer, and a few other things besides that will result in a good and fair review. Some things are self-evident when reviewing a file; in general, do not review game styles you do not enjoy and review files according to the date of its release. There are many files back in 2000-2002 that received a score of a high 4, which would not fit the standards of today. You have to take into account the standards of the day, and rate accordingly. In addition, if the scenario is designed for original Age of Kings, review it playing AoK.

Below you will find a general breakdown of each category from a review for your convenience.

PLAYABILITY is about the fun you had while playing a scenario, and here you need to mention what affected your enjoyment in a positive and/or negative way. BALANCE is about how easy or difficult a scenario was for you. You should mention which difficulty you played on when reviewing, although this is not mandatory. A good approach to reviewing a file would be to start with moderate and later change to standard, to see if the scenario was too easy or too hard or well balanced overall – before ending off with hard difficulty. However, as not all files are difficulty-level-dynamic, this needs to be taken into account as well. In general, remember that you are rating the file according to your own skill level and not that of others. CREATIVITY covers every aspect of a scenario and does not need anything new to achieve a high score. MAP DESIGN scores compared to a random map which rates 2.0. Anything worse or better than a random map may be rated up or down accordingly. Some tips for rating this category is that you rate what you see during game play, which means no Marco and Polo. The map size and how much of the map was used should not affect the rating. STORY/INSTRUCTIONS is a little more interesting than some. Probably the most common detail reviewers tend to overlook is that this category covers two aspects of any scenario, story and instructions. Not just one or the other. If the file is lacking in one then you can make note of that in the review and mark down accordingly! However, this does not pertain to multiplayer scenarios, where a story is not mandatory. In general, the presence of a functional story (while not necessary being a good story) with instructions should be midpoint, a 3. From there you should be able to give an accurate overall rating for this category.

Scenarios without Fighting
An exception to the balance category is when the author of a particular file did not intend any fighting, or very little of, to feature in the scenario. From the review guidelines:

“One important note about scoring the balance category for scenarios is that where no fighting takes place, such as some puzzle scenarios and some RPG style scenarios, is that just because the player cannot die in such scenarios, that doesn't mean the scenario isn't balanced. Difficulty can also be present via puzzles or other devices, and the balance of these should be taken into account.”

Rating Cut-scene Style Scenarios
Cut-scenes rate like any other scenario, the only difference is that most cut-scenes do not allow any interaction for the player, requiring only that the player sits down and watch as the story unfolds. Cut-scenes are a mixed bag of lollies; some designers appreciate them, others however do not. The purpose of a cut-scene is to tell a story, to continue or conclude a project, like in Ulio with the old man in the forest and the two travellers. In the general sense of the word Playability, we rate the fun we had while watching the cut-scene and how playable it is.

The very definition of Playability denotes many errors, some already obvious. In Tanneur99’s words, “playability is a bastard word”. It does not exist in the English language and separating the word into ‘play’ and ‘ability’ gives an incorrect meaning for the category. ‘Ability to play’ would be listed under balance, the ability of a player to play a certain difficulty level of a file. It is a common error to believe that cut-scenes are unplayable. Gordon Farrell wrote that you play a cut-scene in the same sense as you play a CD on your CD player. If the CD has scratches and/or is dirty it is less playable to unplayable. A cut-scene is less playable to unplayable when we encounter bugs and/or lag. In closing, rate the fun you had watching the cut-scene and deduct for bugs and lag.

For rating Balance in cut-scenes, the review guideline gives us this description:

“For scenarios with no interactivity, such as cutscenes, this category should be used to examine the flow and technical merits of the cutscene: did it run smoothly? Was everything technically put together well?”

This means that reviewers can now rate down in this category for all those dodgy timing sequences, overlapping music, and anything else that would not necessarily affect one’s enjoyment but the technical aspect of a cut-scene. This also gives balance in cinematic scenarios more depth and meaning, and contributes more to the overall rating of a review than previously attained. Every technical aspect is to be taken into account, and what happens on screen should generally correspond smoothly with dialogue and the overall transition of the story. Generally speaking, the less the cinematic leaves up to the viewer’s imagination, the higher the quality of the presentation. In saying all that, a cinematic should never feel rushed or sluggish, but proceed from scene to scene as the atmosphere and story suggests.

Demos, Teasers, Unfinished Scenarios
Unfinished files, demos and teasers are common at the Blacksmith and make up a great percentage of submissions. Many designers, like writers, look for feedback on their work: to help get past a certain point in their project where they might be hindered from progressing, or to catch up on any bugs that might be bothering the author from earlier in the file. Some authors return to the file and provide the Blacksmith with a complete update of the file as a result of the feedback.

When reviewing unfinished files, it’s important not to discriminate because it is an incomplete work. There’s no reason to knock down points just because somebody put ‘Demo’ or ‘Teaser’ in the title to get some feedback to know what he/she could improve on in an update. Rate a demo as if it is a finished product. This will achieve the best possible feedback for the author of an unfinished file.

Multiplayer
The Official Review Guidelines is the directive for rating single player scenarios and multiplayer scenarios, with an exception to Balance only. When judging BALANCE in multiplayer scenarios, you rate nothing else but the starting positions of each player, which should be equal for all to achieve the highest rating. For more on this please read post 264 of the previous thread.

Random Map Script

AI-Files
The first question to ask when rating an AI-File is what is the AI intended to do and how well does it perform in that specific area? There are AI-Files developed for many intents and purposes: for scenario design, training, specific maps (e.g. Arabia), death match, tournament, defensive/ aggressive files, water maps or land maps only, etc.

If the AI-file is developed for Age of Kings test it playing Age of Kings only. Rating an AI according to your own experience might be biased unless the AI cheats. Cheating AI-files, as forbidden for tournaments, are meant to play against human players. A good way to test a non cheating AI is against the standard AI. If its performance compares to the standard one, it is average and the minimum rating should be a 3. In general, rate the AI-file according to its time. Many AI-files were developed to beat another specific one. It would be unfair to knock off points of an AI developed in 2000 because it loses against a recent one.

Modification Pack Script
A Modification Pack Script (MPS) is mainly an item for the player, which has a limited use for designers; the content will not always suit a designer’s endeavours in scenario design and is very limited to its audience. Keep this in mind when you rate mod pack scripts for USEFULNESS/NOVELTY and QUALITY/INSTRUCTIONS. The main categories are USEFULNESS and QUALITY for the overall rating of a MPS. Use NOVELTY and INSTRUCTIONS to correct the category rating. Still, for a perfect rating the MPS has to excel in all four categories.

Recorded Games
The value of a recorded game is highly subjective depending mainly on the purpose for which the submitter uploaded it. A recorded game must have a specific and defined purpose so the viewer can gain knowledge and/or entertainment value from the game. The submitter must specify exactly what to look for, what the point of the upload is.

It is up to the reviewer to check if there was any purpose and how well the recorded game met the intended goals. If it is supposed to be an example of a rushing tactic but no attacks happen until 30 minutes into the game, it is a bad example of the tactic. The rating is not about how well everybody played, if the teams were equally strong, you can mention that but it should not affect the rating.

The questions to answer: What is the purpose of the record? How well does the game show the intended goals? Is it entertaining and/or can the viewer gain knowledge from it?

Utilities
There is no official guideline for reviewing utilities, but for some ideas you can go here. A utility is a tool for the designer and has hardly any use for the player; keep this in mind when you rate utilities for USEFULNESS/NOVELTY and QUALITY/INSTRUCTIONS. Often you cannot rate the novelty factor because the file is another eye candy map of Lord of the Rings, a Volcano, Waterfall, Trigger Guide, Tutorial or collection of battle sounds. In other words, nothing new. Originally the fifth category was Creativity but this is too close to Novelty, better to have the two rated together if possible. When you feel Novelty does not apply, you can replace it with Creativity. The four categories are of equal importance for the overall rating of a utility.

---

File Updates and Obsolete Reviews
Please edit your review after a file update. A designer can ask for the removal of all reviews after an update if he feels that they do not represent the actual version of his submission. Reviews that address issues that are fixed, altered, ameliorated do not serve the visitors of our site. A review has to be a valuable tool for the designer and the downloader.

File Updates - Reviews to Edit
(In order of date of the update)
None

---

Review Thread History
Luke Gevaerts started the Review Request Thread 03/30/2002. Tanneur took over 11/30/2002 until 7/11/2009. I (Mashek) have since taken over and updated the thread as best I can to feature more relevant information according to today’s guidelines.

[This message has been edited by Mashek (edited 07-15-2010 @ 09:01 PM).]