Quote:
Originally posted by Zolrieg
I couldn't decide where to place this thread, but I'm going to go ahead and post it here. I got the general ideal from a couple of gaming mags. anyways, maybe the PlayerWorld Reviewers should review playerworlds by judging different criterias? this way the server owners and administrators could easily see were they went wrong... (man, I want a PlayerWorld Reviewer job soo bad, my tummy hurts! ^_~)
Gameplay (0.5-5.0): was the server fun to play, did it offer fun and still consist of proffessionality? would the player be interested and find replay after they've completed the initial quests?
Concept (0.5-5.0): did the server contain new ideals and features that were new to Graal or did it have vast arrays of over-used NPCs and remakes of old ideals?
Innovation (0.5-5.0): was the server innovative and did it captivate you? would the server draw players together or just consist of multiple one-player quests? I'm not talk about events either, people. ^_^
Design (0.5-5.0): how well was the server structured together or did it just seem rushed and unorganized? where the levels creative, did they go that extra mile to impress the player?
Visualization (0.5-5.0): were the graphics, ganis, and other visuals interesting and appealing to you, or did you find stolen graphics, etc.
Overall (0.5-5.0): the server's overall grading according to you, based on the other factors.
|
Hmm sounds good.. but why not base it like a school test?
Like each area can get a grade of 0-100, 100 being perfect, 90 being like a b, etc.
That way, you can tally the 5-6 different areas using an average, like:
Gameplay: 75
Concept: 80
Innovation: 63
Design: 78
Visualization: 90
Overall would be the average of those, and if you know basic mathematics, to get the average, you add the 5 numbers together, and divide by 5 (5 being the number of areas)
So all of those added together would be 386, divide that by 5, you get 77, so they would get a D meaning they failed. Or something of that nature.