The WAD Reviews

For those who are interested, in this document I will explain what goes into the reviews, and explain how the ratings work.

Again, in case anyone is unclear, these reviews are for single play only. I will occasionally comment on multiplayer, but never in detail. For deathmatch reviews, look elsewhere.

The Information

For each WAD I give a list of information that you may find useful. These include:

Title
The given title for the WAD
Filename
The name of the file on the FTP site, and the files it contains (excluding any minor .TXT files, or .LMPs mentioned later)
Size
The size of the file on the FTP site, not the size once it has been decompressed
Author
The name given by the author
Email Address
The e-mail address given by the author. I haven't checked that any of these are up to date - if authors want their details updated, they can e-mail me.
Game
DOOM I or Doom ][. If I tried to convert it to Doom ][ and had problems, or if there is a reason why a complete conversion is not possible, then I will mention this here.
Episode and Level
All the levels it replaces
Modes
Single if single play is supported. Co-op if cooperative play is supported. Deathmatch if deathmatch play is supported. Unless otherwise specified, this applies to all levels.
Difficulty Settings
Yes if the different skills give different items or monsters. Not Implemented if all skill levels are the same. No Monsters if there are (go on have a guess :-) ) no monsters.
New resources
New Sounds if the level contains any new sounds. New Graphics if the level replaces any graphics or textures. New Music if any music is replaced. New Sprites if the WAD includes new sprites, and New Flats if the WAD contains new flats; remember that you may need to merge these with the supplied sprites/flats in Doom to play the level.
Demos Provided
The number of any demo replaced (1 for 1st auto running demo, 2 for 2nd, etc). Also any .LMP file demos provided.
Base
New level from scratch means the author started a new level. Modified ExMx means the author used ExMx as a basis. xxx.WAD means the author used or modified xxx.WAD to make the level.
Editor(s) used
Any editors the author mentions using.
Bugs Found
This is all the bugs I found when checking or playing the level. Also any bugs the author mentions about the level. And if the level was slow to play because of its size/complexity, I will mention it here.
Copyright/Permissions
This may be quoted from the TXT file with the WAD, or may be my version of it (if the author was very verbose :-).
Where to get this WAD
Anywhere the author says you can get it from, plus where I got it from.

The Review

Here I'll give my thoughts and views on the WAD.

Firstly, I will have played the WAD. I may not have played all the levels (I generally don't bother going back to find the secret levels in episodes, for example), but for single level WADs I will have played all the way through if I can. I always start playing at UV, but sometimes I step down to Hurt Me Plenty if a level is really gruelling or slow.

Secondly, I will examine the level with various utilities. I use WinTEX to check the REJECT and overall content of the WAD. I then use WinDEU to run its very thorough checks on the level.

I may attempt to convert the WAD to Doom ][. This is partly to save my going insane hearing the music from E1M1 over and over again, and partly because I am always short of hard drive space (yes, even Doom just has to go sometimes, though never Doom and Doom ][ of course). Even if I don't, I usually look to see if it would be possible.

The Ratings

Before I started I put a lot of thought into the ratings. I had seen the other reviews on ftp.cdrom.com, and there seemed to be no established standard. I think I have come up with a good system in the end.

Difficulty

It would be pointless to establish this scale in absolute terms, since hard for one person could be easy for another. Here is how the ratings relate to how I found the levels:

  1. Exit is immediately accessible at the start, or only a few opposition separate you from it.
  2. Fair way to the exit, but the opposition on the way are easily picked off.
  3. Reasonable opposition, but never in enough strength to cause trouble.
  4. Fair opposition, but any experienced player can cruise through.
  5. The occasional nasty moment, but experienced players should get past those, and cruise through the rest.
  6. Some nasty tricks and traps, but experienced players should be able to pass those with a few tries.
  7. A gruelling challenge, with lots of difficult fights and nasty traps. Save regularly, and expect to have to try some fights several times.
  8. I failed to complete on UV. If skill levels are implemented, Hurt Me Plenty would get a rating of 4-6.
  9. I failed to complete on UV. If skill levels are implemented, Hurt Me Plenty would get a rating of 7+.
  10. Theoretically impossible. Either no exit, or missing keycards, or other vital things missing.

The higher levels may not be as hard as they sound - I had limited time to test the levels after all. If the levels start getting much harder, I may extend this scale upward.

Size

This is for 2 reasons. One, so people thinking about levels that might be good for deathmatch can get a feel for how big they are. Two, so people like me with slower computers can avoid the really big ones.

The rating itself is out of 10. Comparing with the originals, E3M1 would be size 3, E2M7 would be a 7, others suitably in between.

If there are multiple levels, then the rating is shown as ax(b-c), where a is the number of levels, b is the smallest, and c the largest.

Architecture

This is very much a subjective rating, based on how I thought the level looked. Perhaps it is easiest to list the things I look for in deciding the rating:

Pros:

Cons:

Note that the size of the level doesn't affect this rating - if it did there would be little point in having both. This means good, small levels will get the good architecture ratings they deserve, so people looking for good deathmatch levels can look for good architecture ratings.

Mainly to clarify this in my own mind, here are what particular ratings mean and some example WADs I use for comparison.

  1. WADs that will load, but either crash Doom consistently during play (except savegame crashes - see below), or have massive bugs, like HOM literally everywhere, or unplayable due to structure faults. None of these so far.
  2. WADs that don't crash Doom, but are so tacky and careless they might as well! This rating mainly for levels with serious graphic corruption, or beginner DEU levels. E.g. BAKAROO1.WAD, 9-LEVELS.WAD.
  3. This rating for WADs without major problems, but with lots of flaws like minor HOM, unpegged doortracks, tutti fruiti, and misaligned, mismatched or poorly chosen textures, with no areas interesting or impressive enough to redeem it. Also for beginner WADs, where there is no style or atmosphere or realism or interesting structures whatsoever (e.g. BIOTECH.WAD).
  4. This rating for 2 sorts of WADs. First, those with lots of flaws as in (3), but with some stylish areas that make up for this somewhat (e.g. ABYSS.WAD). Second, those WADs with just misaligned textures but look dull, or lack decoration, or have too many clashing styles. Also, for levels somewhere in between (e.g. BASE2.WAD).
  5. This rating for 2 sorts of WADs. First, those with few problems as in (3), perhaps just some very minor misaligned textures; but these are dull, with some areas very repetetive and lacking in decoration (e.g. BITEDUST.WAD). Alternatively, levels with really good stylish features and a strong theme or great atmosphere, but with more flaws as in (3) (e.g. 21RATMAZ.WAD). Also, levels in between these 2 types, (e.g. 11SPACE.WAD).
  6. WAD with great style or atmosphere, with minor flaws (e.g. 666.WAD).
  7. WAD with great style or atmosphere (e.g. 1KILLXTR.WAD), or both with some minor flaws.
  8. WAD with great style and atmosphere, and stunning rooms, perhaps minor flaws but few given the size of level (e.g. ARACHNA.WAD).
  9. Flawless WAD with lots of style, atmoshphere, and attention to detail. Stunning rooms, and great ideas (e.g. DARKEN.ZIP).
  10. Brilliant, flawless WADs, with excellent new graphics imported creating a wonderful new playing environment. I just invented this to describe BASILICA.WAD.

By beginner DEU levels, I mean levels like my own first level, where the author seems unable to draw a square room, or make a consistently thick door, or indeed to anything more complicated than chain vertices together into a series of random polygonal rooms. Don't take offense if your level gets this rating - my WADs were like this once too!

Levels with the samegame bug (trying to save causes Doom to crash) get a couple of points knocked off their rating. Too many good levels have this problem, and I don't want to completely alienate WAD authors. But I do hate this bug.

Interest

This rating includes everything not yet taken into account. Basically, it is a measure of how interesting single play is. This includes:

Notice that this rating does not include the size or difficulty of the level, unless they are so small or easy there is nothing interesting at all. So E3M1 is small, but with traps, secrets, and variety it would count as interesting.

Overall

This is basically how good the level is at single play. It is roughly an average of Architecture and Interest, sometimes modified if I felt these ratings didn't tell the full story.

Notice that again it doesn't take into account the size or difficulty. If you want a good, short level, you can look for levels with small Size and high Overall ratings. Beginners can find levels with low Difficulty and high Overall.

Most importantly, if you want a really good challenging level, look for levels with high Overall and high Difficulty, otherwise you'll find yourself playing a nice but easy level. I could have built difficulty into the overall rating, but then beginners would have had no easy way to find good levels at their level of play.