---

---

Here you may request a review for your file or for another's, whether it be because you would like a second opinion or because you believe a certain file is rated unfairly or is even over-rated. To do so simply leave a comment and the Thread Reviewers here will take a look at it. Please be patient as a skilled review can take some time to write.

BECOMING A THREAD REVIEWER

If you would like to help out with the community and become a Thread Reviewer, you need just four approved reviews. Please post your request in this thread or send a mail to possidon@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 you may re-enter the thread after one posted review only.

---

ACTIVE THREAD REVIEWERS
(In order of number of reviews)
* = Official Reviewer
202 Possidon*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Showcase Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, Recorded Games, RMS, AI-Files
124 Lord Basse*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Showcase Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS
94 Mashek*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Showcase Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
82 Sword_of_Storm (Jatayu)*: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS, AI-Files
76 Panel*: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Showcase Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
56 Popeychops*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS, AI-Files
32 dragonslayermcmx*: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Showcase Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
31 HockeySam18*: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS
18 Dead_End: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Showcase Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
11 Reganknight: Single Player, Showcase Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
8 tgspy: Single Player, Showcase Scenarios, Utilities
7 Shyam prasad: Mod Packs

CURRENT INACTIVE THREAD REVIEWERS
(In order of time of inactivity)
30 Julius999*: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios
20 Matt LiVecchi/Mr. Wednesday: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities
21 Mayank Sharma*: Single Player, Multiplayer, Mod Packs, Utilities
13 Khan Ivayl: Single Player, Mod Packs
29 Sarn: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities, Random Maps
35 alekshs: Single Player, Multiplayer, Cinematic Scenarios, Showcase Scenarios, Mod Packs, Utilities, Recorded Games, RMS, AI-Files
9 RladalFatih: Single Player, Non-Playable Scenarios
11 Leif Ericson: Single Player, RMS, AI-Files
25 Dtrungle*: Single Player, Cinematic Scenarios, Utilities
09 joshua4missions: Single Player, Mod Packs
08 hailstorm65: Single Player, Mod Packs, Utilities
16 Guthan: Single Player, Multiplayer, Mod Packs, Utilities, RMS

OFFICIAL REVIEWERS

Mashek
Lord Basse
Popeychops
Julius999
Jatayu (aka Sword_of_Storm)
Possidon
Dtrungle
Stephen Richards
Panel
HockeySam18
Mayank Sharma

HALL OF FAME

231 Tanneur99
95 Lord_Fadawah
92 BrandNewCar*
61 clayperboy
54 rwilde
31 Stephen Richards*
30 zyxomma100
27 Cilibinarii
25 Magnum Zero
24 RF_Gandalf*
23 FuzzyFurry25
10 Fanica
05 Jecon

---

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:
R Possidon AI, by Possidon; No reviewer

Utilities:
R Notepad++ AI Editor, by beladar; No Reviewer

Mod Packs:
R Realism Mod v1.12 - 250 pop limit, unit/tech edits, by Keisari Tapsa; No Reviewer
R Fortified Building Set, by Shyam prasad; No reviewer
R Norman Keep, by Possidon; Reviewer: Shyam prasad 4.8
R Hun/Bulgar/Magyar/Cuman Archer, by Khan Ivayl; Reviewer: Shyam prasad 4.8
R Bell Tower, by Shyam prasad; No reveiwer
R Hunnish Statue Repaired, by Shyam prasad; No reviewer
Skeleton Warrior, by invasordepastos1; Reviewer: Possidon 4.3

Cinematic Scenarios:

Showcase Scenarios:
R MrMustache's "River Crossing", by MrMustache; No reveiwer
R MrMustache's "Winter in Ollis", by MrMustache; No reviewer

Single Player:
R Brotherhood of War (updated 1.3 version), by kahn1969; No reviewer
R King Alexander II, by Bedo Salama; No reviewer
R Cortez Campaign, by SandowIsGod; No reviewer
R Glen Cairn Beta Map (Age of Chivalry), by Sir Robert Bruce; No reviewer
R The Escape of Hernán Cortés, by Al_Kharn the Great; No reviewer
R Haiku of the Ronin Redux, by Al_Kharn the Great; No reviewer
R Of Cows & Kings, by Al_Kharn the Great; No reviewer
R All Road Lead to Home, by MrMew; No reviewer
R Reign of Wolves (Revisited), by Khan Ivayl; No reviewer
The Magyar Conquest, by Al_Kharn the Great; Reviewer: HockeySam18 4.6
The Fall of the Ikko Ikki, by Al_Kharn the Great; Reviewer: HockeySam18 4.4
The Way of the Buddah, by Al_Kharn the Great; Reviewer: HockeySam18 4.6
Macbeth, by dave_earl; Reviewer: Mashek 5.

Random Maps:

Multiplayer:
R Compilation of two player Games, by jburnell; No Reviewer
R Persia - Non Random Map, by Lakayaa; No Reviewer
R UDP Prison Break, by Alevo; No Reviewer
R World Map, by Leontios; No Reviewer
R Huns Tournament, by Leontios; No Reviewer
R Ardar Diplomacy, by croatianboss; No reviewer
R The Lord of the Rings, by croatianboss; No reviewer
R Sea Blood, by Zetnus; No reviewer
Mare Nostrum, by Lord Basse; Reviewer: HockeySam18 4.8 Possidon 5.0

Recorded Games:

---

FILE UPDATES AND OBSELETE REVIEWS
Please edit your review after an 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 or ameliorated do not serve the visitors of our site. A review has to be a valuable tool for the designer and the downloader.

RECENT UPDATES/ REVIEWS TO EDIT
(In order of date of the update)

---

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 anyone. 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, reviewers will need to take into account that not all files are difficulty-level-dynamic. 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. Remember that a file 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, whereby a story is not mandatory. In general, the presence of a functional story (while not necessarily 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.

Non-Playable Scenarios
For files such as those where playability is void and map design is the only feature of the file (e.g. entries to the Totally-Terrain Contest), the category should therefore be used to take a look at the technical and creative qualities of the map design, while referring to how that design pushes the boundaries of realism in an AOK environment. One particular thing to note here is that just because the file is all about pretty map design, that doesn’t mean it cannot feature any creative features that might breathe life into the design, such as towns brought to life by wandering villagers, people going about their everyday lives, and other unique devices besides. Basically, anything that goes into making the map more alive and as such realistic should be taken into consideration. As the file will likely feature little anything else other than map design, a single overall rating between 1 and 5 will be fine.

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.

For files such as the Pretty Town Contest entries whereby there is a great degree of walking and nothing else much, reviewers should therefore take into account the author’s intention. If it was intended that you walk around and gaze at the beauty and wonder of a landscape, then you need to rate on that 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, the previous Blacksmith administrator and owner of this thread, “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 cut-scenes, this category should be used to examine the flow and technical merits of the cut-scene: 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 them. 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.

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 more 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.

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 was 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.

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?

---

Review Thread History
Luke Gevaerts started the Review Request Thread 03/30/2002. Tanneur took over 11/30/2002 until 7/11/2009. Mashek then hosted the thread until 05/19/2012, when it was taken over by Panel until about 01/10/14. After Panel step down as staff, it was left alone for about 6 months without being updated until I myself took it into my own hands to regularly update and host the thread.

[This message has been edited by HockeySam18 (edited 08-03-2015 @ 03:12 PM).]