Second review?

General project talk
Post Reply
User avatar
worsas
Project Administrator
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:23 am

Second review?

Post by worsas » Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Scamp wrote:Not an oversight really, P:C's review system has always been different from the ShotN one. Any interior needs to be reviewed once, and then finalized by either SamirA or me (similar to the TR reviewing process). Should've had its name changed to "FINALIZING" though, yes.

Do you guys want to get rid of this policy?
Tes96 wrote: Well it takes twice as long to review. On the other hand a final reviewer can find things missed by the other reviewer. But I'm sure a 3rd and 4th reviewer could do the same. I don't really think it's necessary. It's certainly helpful, yes, but not necessary to thoroughly review an interior. Even if an interior does make it to the final stage and there are some mistakes, chances are the player will never notice them, and even if they do, they can always be fixed in updates by reporting errors on the bethsoft forum. (Example: SHotN Karthwasten house #03 interior not matching exterior. Most players won't pay attention to the shape of the exterior and thus not notice that the interior for karthwasten #03 clearly doesn't match its exterior).
We should maybe discuss this in a dedicated thread.

In my opinion, there is not much to be gained by a second review. While a first review is likely to unveil and fix relevant and blatant errors, the second review seems like an installment focused on the extinguishing of mostly inviso-style errors the likes of which you get listed a lot in each review. But this is probably a judgement coming from my biased view on the TR-style way of reviewing interior work. But I know that other people hold a certain regard for this kind of working. So, please, let your opinion be known.

User avatar
TerrifyingDaedricFoe
PT Modder
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: Second review?

Post by TerrifyingDaedricFoe » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:18 pm

I think most interiors probably don't require a second review. All the important technical errors should be caught by the modder and the reviewer. What the second review could be is an optional process the first reviewer requests so they can get a second opinion on certain stylistic aspects they're unsure about. This could be anything from concerns about over-generous loot, items that might be inappropriate in certain locations or weird and wacky makeshifting. In most cases the interior would pass straight from first review to finished but the first reviewer can request a second review and give specific details about what they want the second reviewer to look at. The second reviewer can also look at technical details (item rotation etc.), but only if they feel like it.

User avatar
Scamp
P:C Council Member
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 2:51 pm
Location: Kilkreath Mountains
Contact:

Re: Second review?

Post by Scamp » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:35 pm

What TDF says sounds good to me.

User avatar
Tes96
PT Modder
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:13 pm
Location: Isle of Artaeum, Summerset archipelago

Re: Second review?

Post by Tes96 » Sat May 09, 2015 6:47 pm

Well, that is a good idea, but take a look at this review I did at Tamriel Rebuilt. While my review was good enough for the content that was provided, Seneca37 had a second opinion on the overall vision of this interior. Gnomey said it looked great but that the smithy was a little superfluous in this town of Dondril. The only interior for Project Tamriel that has had to be redone was/is Interior #3 for SHotN, which still needs to be changed.

I personally think SHotN and P:C have great direction and vision; we just move at a much slower pace. And I don't think we encounter issues like that one above at TR very often.
TDF's suggestion is pretty clear cut. Let's stick with that. Having to wait on two reviews for every interior will slow down these projects even more.
"If one is to understand the arcane arts, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic narrow view of the Mages Guild."

User avatar
worsas
Project Administrator
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Second review?

Post by worsas » Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:53 pm

I've had a quick idea of how we could go about some reviewing processes in future without having to look for a different person with the ability and willingness to search and fix the usual hard-to-find errors.

Now the idea is very simple: If there is nobody else around who is willing to do the classical review, any long-standing member who is otherwise not a reviewer, is allowed to make a generalized (but still as thorough as possible) review of the work, which involves viewing the claim ingame and looking at a number of general things, such as passability, loot, discrepancy between claim description and claim content, lighting, if everything makes sense, etc. mainly to offer a second perspective on the work.

When such a review has taken place the creator who is otherwise not allowed to review his own work, is allowed to perform an additional technical review of his own work in whose course he will also deal with anything pointed out in the generalized review of the other member. This would count like a review done by a different reviewer then.

I also propose as an additional requirement for interiors to pass review, is that they are freed from all unwanted dependencies and that no placeholder objects remain in place, such as the dunmer mummies in the Colovian Barrow dungeons. A reviewed file should be ready for npcing and optimally not require later changes.

What do you others think on that? Obviously this arrangement would be made, so Leon can review his own interiors.

User avatar
Scamp
P:C Council Member
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 2:51 pm
Location: Kilkreath Mountains
Contact:

Re: Second review?

Post by Scamp » Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:01 pm

Finding two active modders willing to do the reviews these days will be hard enough, two reviewers - almost impossible. I like it! About the "no placeholder objects", that could prove to be quite a hassle if regions haven't been fully fleshed out in terms of models. I agree, however, that it would make things a lot less complicated later on with all interiors being ready for merging straight away.

User avatar
Leon
P:C Council Member
Posts: 602
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:25 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Second review?

Post by Leon » Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:25 am

worsas wrote:I've had a quick idea of how we could go about some reviewing processes in future without having to look for a different person with the ability and willingness to search and fix the usual hard-to-find errors.

Now the idea is very simple: If there is nobody else around who is willing to do the classical review, any long-standing member who is otherwise not a reviewer, is allowed to make a generalized (but still as thorough as possible) review of the work, which involves viewing the claim ingame and looking at a number of general things, such as passability, loot, discrepancy between claim description and claim content, lighting, if everything makes sense, etc. mainly to offer a second perspective on the work.

When such a review has taken place the creator who is otherwise not allowed to review his own work, is allowed to perform an additional technical review of his own work in whose course he will also deal with anything pointed out in the generalized review of the other member. This would count like a review done by a different reviewer then.

I also propose as an additional requirement for interiors to pass review, is that they are freed from all unwanted dependencies and that no placeholder objects remain in place, such as the dunmer mummies in the Colovian Barrow dungeons. A reviewed file should be ready for npcing and optimally not require later changes.

What do you others think on that? Obviously this arrangement would be made, so Leon can review his own interiors.
Agreed.
Wait what?! Do we get new mummy models instead?
Lead Interior Designer & Quality Assurance at Province: Cyrodiil

sasquatch
PT Modder
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:54 am

Re: Second review?

Post by sasquatch » Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:01 am

Glad to see you've decided on the most sane approach to reviewing. Maybe loosening rotation requirements could also be considered?

User avatar
Saint_Jiub
P:C Council Member
Posts: 445
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:44 pm

Re: Second review?

Post by Saint_Jiub » Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:46 pm

EDIT: Nevermind, I was fooled by the thread necromancy.

User avatar
Luxray
Cat Herder
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:11 pm
Location: South-West England

Re: Second review?

Post by Luxray » Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:32 pm

sasquatch wrote: Maybe loosening rotation requirements could also be considered?
No, either it fits, or it doesn't fit. There is no inbetween. Basic model rotation is not a hard skill, and where it doesn't fit, a reviewer should pick it up.
<roerich> woah it's hot in here
<Lord Berandas> it must be Summer.
<Infragris> #hell is meant as a spam and off topic channel. Doing a great job already

User avatar
Leon
P:C Council Member
Posts: 602
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:25 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Second review?

Post by Leon » Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:58 am

sasquatch wrote:Maybe loosening rotation requirements could also be considered?
Image Also, nice to hear from you sasquatch, it's been a while.
Lead Interior Designer & Quality Assurance at Province: Cyrodiil

Post Reply

Return to “P:C General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest