Hello there. I created this little guide/article as a way to explain my personal reviewing process in more detail, as well as a general introduction into the art of reviews with the hopes of helping people out there get a little more immersed in the process of playing and writing commentary. Reviewing stuff has always been something I enjoy in almost any shape and form. I find reviews to be incredible helpful when looking for content to consume/play, plus, it helps build that hype up that gets your gears going into doing something. So, let's start first with how I review my stuff.

Whenever I play something, like anyone else out there, I hope, above all else, that it is fun and enjoyable. I want to experience something that gets my brain going and my adrenaline all high. I tend to balance my reviewing standards a little on the low end, meaning tha while I prefer obvious high quality maps, I also tend to have fun with lower, less optimized campaigns. This is something that I think it is important to understand. Not everything has to be a 5 out of 5 to be fun, and being lower than that doesn't automatically mean that it sucks. There's always something unique and different in every campaign, and you can find plenty of variation across the thousands of maps that exist.

When I review something, I usually follow a simple criteria that helps me organize my thoughts and properly rank levels. It is not restrictive, and it varies depending on my general likings and preferences. I don't use this criteria like a math formula, rather, like a set of personal guidelines that I base my comments on.

Reviews, by sheer nature, are subject to the personal preferences and bias of the reviewer/user. This is something that's essential to understand, both as the writer and as the reader. While some people like using methodical and mathemathical criteria to properly rank or categorize the things they review, it is a fact that we can't be 100% objective about any piece of media that we review, and I think that is better that way.

Subjectivity creates a sense of variation and diversity among reviews. It is an important way to weight out different opinions and properly asses the essentials of any work you look at. L4D campaigns are no strangers to subjectivity; no reviewer or player thinks the same, and while some might hate something, others might love it. The reason why is it important to understand this can be understood from two points of view: from the point of a player, if you don't like what you are playing, you must be assertive and sincere in the reasons as to why you don't like, or even why you like it. One of the biggest mistakes you can do as a reviewer is telling someone that their work is ♥♥♥♥, simply because you don't personally find it to be part of your preferences.

For example, I personally dislike gas can events, but I know that some players, especially those that have the luxury of playing with friends, find them to be an enjoyable and very fun challenge that has plenty of opportunities from crazy things to happen. I make it very clear every time I review a map with a gas can event the reasons why I don't like it. That doesn't mean it is by nature, crap. Same can be applied with almost anything that has a characteristic distinction out there. If you don't like puzzles, to put an scenerio, why play a puzzle-focused map and then review it on the thread like: "ThIs Is sTuPid mY bOts cAn't fIniSh tHe PuZzles, tHis iS nOt PoRtAl." You knew that you were downloading a puzzle map, and you knew you don't like puzzle maps, so why bother?

All things are subject to our personal taste, but we must understand that our personal taste isn't equal to perfection. Our egos are not good ways to base rankings on.

The second point of view comes from the creator. It is quite the challenge to overcome harsh and destructive comments and reviewis, but a content creator must be capable of challenging the ideas of ego-stroking bastards and understand when a review has merit, and when has not. Of course, going about talk-trashing is also not a good way to respond to ♥♥♥♥♥♥ reviews. It is best to just ignore comments like "This is ♥♥♥♥ u suck" and go on with better comments that at least try to explain why you suck, if you do suck.

While it is true that everything is subject to our own bias, there are things that are factually objective to look at and properly review. Visuals tend to be one of the first things we notice and criticize. Take for example: between two maps that try to create a hospital: One has a variety of interconnected corridors that make a logical sense, while also using realistic textures with signs, color coding for rooms, directories, etc, and also making use of proper ambience, settings, details and small props, like medical tools. The other map has a single level building with a single maze-like floor that has horizontal corridors that seem to stretch forever without any interconnections. There's random empty rooms, no signs, no props, and all the rooms use the same texture. There's a dirty concrete texture in the floor, and has random equipment lying in the middle of corridors with no sense.

There. That's an example. It's hard to properly illustrate it without ♥♥♥♥ blasting a map using screenshots, but you get the idea. Objectivity usually comes in the form of comparisons. I think a good starting point is to usue the standard campaings. No Mercy is a good visual point for city and hospital themed maps. While a map doesn't have to be ''better'' than No Mercy, perse, it does help when it manages to at least follow the same basic principles in design.

Want another example? Well, imagine a single map where the exit room is connected by a single tight corridor, and there's a tank right in front of the door, and the guantlet crescendo event spawn right in the middle of the exit room, and you can't ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ switch the guantlet off. That there is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ example of bad gameplay design. I'm pretty sure that mappers that make this lack a grasp of how to properly balance difficulty without turning it into sluggish nightmares that are wrongly balanced.

IN CONCLUSION: Be true to yourself and the creator when you don't like a map. Do you think is bad just because is not part of your personal preference, or is it bad because it objectively does something that's so obviously ♥♥♥♥♥♥ and boring, is hard to ignore?

Whenever I play something, like anyone else out there, I hope, above all else, that it is fun and enjoyable. I want to experience something that gets my brain going and my adrenaline all high. I tend to balance my reviewing standards a little on the low end, meaning tha while I prefer obvious high quality maps, I also tend to have fun with lower, less optimized campaigns. This is something that I think it is important to understand. Not everything has to be a 5 out of 5 to be fun, and being lower than that doesn't automatically mean that it sucks. There's always something unique and different in every campaign, and you can find plenty of variation across the thousands of maps that exist.

When I review something, I usually follow a simple criteria that helps me organize my thoughts and properly rank levels. It is not restrictive, and it varies depending on my general likings and preferences. I don't use this criteria like a math formula, rather, like a set of personal guidelines that I base my comments on.

Visuals:
The most obvious way to rank a map is usually how it looks. It is pretty self-explanatory. Maps that use squares structures with 3 single monotonous textures that aren't even properly aligned, usually look pretty damn bad to pretty much the eyes of anyone. When I think about visuals, there are many factors that I try to take into account to get a feel of how great a map looks. I look for the level of detailing, the general design, the geometry, the logic behind it, the texturing, the color work, and artistic touches.

I like maps that make visual sense. A wooden door with a wood texture, and not a random rock texture. A car with a proper set of geometry and detailing according to the situation (like blood splats or damage), a school with logical sense and realistic architecture, and so on. The thing that the mappers is trying to do should, to a degree, make sense in the real workd. L4D is a game set in our world and ir our timeline, and while I'm not saying that all maps should replicate our world exactly, they should at least try to follow a physical and logical sense. Of course, this doesn't apply to maps that are quirky, like surf maps. But I usually stay far from those.

I also really enjoy maps that use custom textures and props, or other similar things. Maps that use photorealistic textures are my favorites, a good example of this one is Yama, one of my favorite maps of all time, which makes considerable use of photorealistic textures, possible taken by the author himself. Photorealistic textures can be seen as out of place if you don't properly align the textures according to the geometry that you are using, but when done right, they create a fantastical sense of belonging that is enhanced by the uncanny nature of the Source engine. I love stuff like that.

Gameplay:
A map might look meeh in the visuals factor, and I will still forgive it, but if it plays like ♥♥♥♥, then that is it for me. Gameplay is, in my opinion, the most important factor of them all. You can have the greatest visuals of all time, but if your map is boring, overly long, imbalanced, unfair or messy, than I will not enjoy it gravely. Gameplay is a very important criteria to almost anyone. There's tons of public servers (modded to hell) that use whimsical, ugly-looking maps, but that are usually purposely designed to have interesting gameplay. A lot of people don't even care about visuals at all and just want to have fun.

Good gameplay for me must strike a balance between challenge and fairness. Novice map creators struggle a lot balancing difficulty due to a lack of understanding of what makes L4D difficult in the first place. Usually, the first option is to just crank the spawn to the limit and drown the playes in numbers. Sure, this can be found... if you are given the proper tools as a player, that is. A hundred zombies right at the exit of starting room, when you only have a pistol to defend yourself, well, that is not really that fun to me.

A good challenge comes in the form of giving the right ammount of weapons and items to the players, while also taking into account the hordes of infected, and how they move across the map. Spawn points should be diverse, creative, and positioned away from the point of view of the players, while also close enough that zombies don't have to trek across half the map to reach you. Same goes for the special infected.

And please, stop spawning 3 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ tanks at the same time in a single 2 meter wide corridor. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

Creativity:
I like campaigns that make use of clever design, doesn't mean that it should be "bizarre" or downright weird, but rather, mappers that know how to properly create stuff that, even if looks normal, is actually pretty well done. I think the best design is the one that you don't really even notice. Maps that feels natural and organic, with a sense of realistic creativity. A variation in style and purpose. A campaign that starts in a forest, has you going through an underground bunker, and ends in a desolate town, that is good createvity. It breaks repetition by giving you simple but effective new maps that feels distinctive.

Progression:
I was arguing whetever to include progression as part of the visuals or gameplay, but I consider it such an important factor that I think it deserves its mention. By progression, I'm talking about how well a map navigates, flows, and follows its own narrative without being a confusing mess. Progression is what brings everything together. It is the proper life of the campaign itself. Here I take into account how long each map is, how well paced they are, the kind of events (like crescends of helicopter rescues) it uses, how well connected the maps are, and of course, the design and dimensions of the level. A map can look good and have fantastic combat, but if it is messy, without proper marks and doesn't tell the player where to go, it can get boring fast. L4D is a fast-paced game. It is not a survival, Stalker-like experience. It is meant to flow with speed and intensity. A map can have its quiet moments of silence, sure, but it should, above all else, be a seamless experience.

Rating systems are usually used for the purpose of comparison and/or rankings. There are plenty of systems out there, from very simple ones that use numbers, to more complex ones that use custom rankings. I personally use the simple 1-5 star system, but do note that a rating isn't 100% obligatory, and most of the times it might be better to not use a system at all, as it helps in both transparency and proper judgment; rather than just watching the numbers, people will analyze your commentary with a more thorough look instead of simply glancing at the final rating.

However, I like ranking stuff and organizing it according to my own bias. My 1-5 star system is pretty simple and can be summed up like this:

5 stars means a near perfect experience, a masterpiece of a campaign that I consider to be a must for fans of L4D.

4 stars means a fantastically fun and great experience, a really solid campaign that while not at the first place, still gets a respectable position.

3 stars means a fun and enjoyable experience, but one that still needs polish and lacks anything that could make it stand out.

2 stars means a generally crappy experience, this is the kind of maps that are avoidable, and you aren't missing anything by ignoring them, but still, even if you did play them, at least they are playable.

1 star means that you should avoid this campaign like the plague. These campaigns are utterly bad and not even properly finished, with tons of bugs or downright impossible to finish. Usually very rarely do I give 1 star ratings; ♥♥♥♥♥♥ maps can be spotted from miles away. The only exceptions being when a user uploads a map without screenshots and I get tricked by the poster or the title, and even then, doing that is already a red flag when uploading to workshop.

Ratings usually work best when you have a method to it. I prefer to avoid doing math formulas, but if that's what you dig, then there's nothing that can stop you from using it. Use what fits your style and preferences best.

Of course, there's no law that forces you to review ♥♥♥♥, so just do it if you enjoy it, but taking into account that once you start reviewing something, you have a sort of responsability that you must properly carry when you do it. You must ask yourself, above all else, what is the purpose of your review?

Are you informing? Are you warning? Are you recommending? Are you nitpicking? Are you criticising? Are you praising?

The best one is probably a combination of all the above points. When you review, you should take into account that your review is going to be read by two persons: A player, and the creator. I personally target the player when reviewing something. I tend to leave feedback in bits of pieces here and there that can be read by both the consumer and the producer. What I liked, what I didn't, and any other notes here and there.

The structure of your review should be concise and easy to follow, which is why I tend to prefer small to medium sized reviews (something along the lines of 300 to 600 words). Of course, there is a market for very long reviews with in-depth look, but you must ask yourself if a piece of work deserves a full essay, or just a few comments. You shouldn't waste your or the reader's time. It works the best to go the point and tell the pros and the cons.

As for writing, well, that's more personal and I can't really tell you how to write. Part of the beauty should be the uniqueness of it. You shouldn't try to copy the way other people write or speak, and just use your own voice and thoughts, with the proper manner of course, to express what you want to say. Be a dry and straight to the point style, or a humoristic prose, use what you feels works the best for you.

Oh and don't use ChatGPT of course, that's poor.

If you've gotten curious about reviewing, but feel a tad shy or just like your words are not worth it, try to think about the reasons behind reviewing. For me, it can be three main reasons:

1. You get more immersed in the game. This has been something that has positively affected the way I play custom content in games. It has become a more enjoyable and personal experience that communicates a great form of passion through words and sharing. When I review something, I feel like I'm a part of something that's similar to a community. It lets me re organize my thoughts and reflect on what I like or dislike about something, and enhances the experience for me. This, of course, can also get the contrary effect and make a snob, but try not to think about reviews as a process of hunting. You are not hunting for some sort of mythical beast, you are, more or less, documenting life in the form of maps. Each one has its own unique identity and what might not look like much to you, might be great to others.

2. You are a lighthouse for players. You guide them through the seas of L4D and help them navigate good waters, rather than drown in the endless ♥♥♥♥ of endless tank spam. This is pretty much the essential basic form of reviewing: to tell the consumer whatever or not this piece of media is worth it. A particularly useful way of providing both entertaiment and guidance. There's tons of maps out there, but not all of them are worth your time, some might, some might not, and some might be some of the best L4D fun you can have. You, as a reviewer, act like a guide across these worlds.

3. You are the main feedback of mappers. Usually, the very first comment a mapper will get tends to be a bug report, but rarely do you actually see someone take the effort and time to tell a mapper what is good and what is bad in a map. This is a great quality that helps a lot of mappers level up from novice to masters of Hammer Editor. It is a great way to properly tell someone the good and bad of the work they do, and this is why it is also important to be fair and just with how you review your stuff. Don't sugar coat it, but also try not to be an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. A random mapper will surely remember your effort.

In conclusion: Reviewing is a gateway into a greater world that allows you both express your own words about something, while also helping others. It is an enjoyable experience that I have found to be quite good at enhancing my entertaiment when playing maps. It has made me conscious about what I play, while also making me respect the effort that goes into mapping more and more. It as wonderful thing to do that helps a lot in the community, and if have ever wondered about doing it, well, now it is the best time to start.

If you are curious, you can check my own reviews here:

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2769307412

And here are the reviews of other awesome players out there for you to check out:

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2264239411

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2933783869

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2856375914

https://onemanleft4dead.blogspot.com/