[Abyzz]

Have you ever stopped to wonder why any first-kill movie is automatically granted 5 stars on quality and editing? Or how the average Joe receive almost as good a score as the semi-professional who has dedicated months on a project? Rating has become a phenomenon of cyber-social status rather than an actual evaluation of the work at hand, and the pace at which stars are awarded seems to match the financial hyperinflation in Zimbabwe.

Some of you could not care less about these imbalances, some deny their existence, and again others are oblivious to fact that there is actually a point to the rating. Hopefully there are also some of you who want to be able to show your appreciation for a good piece of work, and actually rate a movie based on the given perimeters. Regardless, I have devised a little walkthrough on what I think are crucial factors in rating movies, which in terms should be a hint at how to make them.

Why bother? Well, your effort will help make WCM a better place, which - seeing that you spend time on it - should be in your interest, and as a movie maker it will help you understand what to aim for and how to aim for it, which ultimately makes you better at what you do, but also increases the chance that others will like it. Surely a win/win then? Read on to find out. But before you do though, it needs to be said that you should not see this as a final product, but a work in progress, that – with your help – will develop over time to provide the best, most up to date information. Much of the following is inevitably affected by my personal opinions (that’s the whole concept of rating) but I hope you can make some use of it.


Content

Probably the most important aspect of a movie (and at the same time the most difficult one to generalize on) is its content. Various elements depending on genre and theme will be of importance here, but a few should be universal; namely the ones that makes you laugh and the ones that makes you excited.

The fun-factor. Never underestimate the value of a good laugh. Most of us watch movies for the sheer pleasure of it, others do it to learn and improve, but no matter what the setting is, a movie always gets better when it's actually fun to watch - and being fun, ladies and gentlemen, often involves humour. When rating a movie's content then, simply keep in mind to what extent it is presented in a way that makes you laugh, smile and cheer.

Example: Lagspike Production's "Thrall’s Crib": The fun-factor is used as the bearing element throughout the movie, and has a profound impact on how we – so far – have received it. Few would find their time spent watching it wasted, even though the setting is actually quite boring. See the movie.
Example: Champu's "Dorkette 3 - Smite Still Sucks": The fun-factor here is used to legitimate the lack of performance figures (see excitement-factor) by giving a sort of laid-back approach to the whole PvP concept, and thereby excuse the shenanigans that would else have been downrated. See the movie.

The excitement-factor. Based on your personal preferences, this is what gets the viewer excited and what keeps him/her spellbound. Examples could be high damage output/crits, fights that are won by a small margin, content/encounters explored for the first time, or following a character’s journey in becoming a man/hero/whatever. This factor is mostly dictated by the setting of the movie (whether it’s arena, raiding etc.), but can also be enforced by the choice of focus. Perhaps with the exception of world first kills, this factor should never be the key focus of a movie, but merely a contributing factor towards improving the content. It's definitely worth bearing in mind when making a movie. Another key excitement factor is of course the audio, but we'll get to that later.

Example: Awake's "World First: Nihilum Vs. Illidan Stormrage": The number four highest rated and most downloaded movie on WCM. Admittedly some effort was done towards making this a quality movie, but I still reckon the major contributing factor is that of excitement about the achievement. See the movie.

Creativity

As this name says, this is about to what extend a movie brings something refreshing to the community, be it on an editing level, music-wise or in the content. Not in the sense that it hasn’t been seen before (the first Twin movies wasn’t exactly creative, was it), but in using any of the above aspect in a new manner that breaks with tradition or opens up for possibilities the viewer had not thought of.

Originality. I like to think that everyone watching a movie do so because he/she hopes to see something new, from a new perspective or from another angle, so obviously originality has to be important – for the ones making the movies as well as those rating them. Achieving this can be done in many ways, even within relatively static settings (say level 70 arena’s): one could add off-topic clips in between the fights, show fights in a stylish way without UI displayed, or try to come up with a story of why this character seeks to eradicate others – your imagination sets the limits. When I rate movies on creativity this is an absolutely crucial element. It doesn’t have to be as groundbreaking as the below examples to be original, but you get the idea.

Example: Buffalo’s "15 Warriors III Beginning": Simply because this is concept is never seen before, the trailer has almost made platinum – despite the fact that content-wise it shows absolutely nothing but a screenshot of 15 players. See the movie.
Example: Biber’s "Emo Army Multiboxing PvP 2 Teaser": Same story, this trailer has made 60k downloads and 4.65 rating solely for its unorthodox approach to gaming. See the movie.

Recycling. Only few movies are truly original (per definition), but even so movie makers can still differentiate themselves from the throng and when they do, it is most often by recycling existing ideas in a different manner. The setting may still be an arena, but by spicing it with clips showed in a new way the viewer’s interest is maintained. Ways in which to recycle can differ from content to editing, but I like to think that it is creativity that inspired the use of it. This also means that editing can’t be about how original the effects used are, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

Example: Deep’s "Deep 6": What’s shown in the movie has been shown countless times already, and even by some of the world’s best players (Sonny, Beasteh etc.), but by drawing lines from previous Blizzard productions we are entertained in a new manner. Not that the concept of clips is new, but done in this new manner it contributed to the 125k downloads and 4.79 rating. See the movie.

Editing

This is typically where it gets hairy, and where it is difficult for me not to bloat about my own preferences. Generally speaking there has to be a balance between editing and content so that the content is never subdued or distorted by the means to present it. Editing is a supplement to what’s going on, a way to make what you see more edible and to guide the viewer through the content for either demonstrational or entertaining reasons – it should never be the driving force.

Consistency. More often than not I see movie makers failing on their editing because they’re either too eager to demonstrate what they’ve learned, or because they somehow got the insanely stupid idea, that the more, the merrier. As a consequence, poorly edited movies often display a large array of different editing tools with little or no connection, which gives the viewer that very un-theme’ish feel. If you have a fetish for turning the image red upon critting your opponents, then I guess that’s alright, but by God I shall haunt your nightmares if you then show half the crits in blue. If zooming in on your character every time he/she makes a killing blow is your thing, then stick to that concept. Why is this important, you may ask? Because every time you introduce a new form of editing the viewer is forced to focus on that, rather than what’s actually going on, which is mostly a bad thing - unless of course you find the zooming effect to be more important than the boss encounter.

Example: Olibith’s "I’m only sleeping": All transitions come from a circle zooming out from the center of the screen. By using the same transitions every time we quickly relax, and can focus fully on the content. See the movie.

Effects/Textures. This is an aspect of editing that is often misused. I'm not the one to say that the effect of purple items and big swords have undone people's common sense, but sometimes it feels as if that is exactly what has happened. NO, 'big boom' distortion effects will not be entertaining when used every 10 seconds for 12 minutes, and going for some odd texture that makes everything unreadable is not the path to glory and fame either. In fact, there are very few cases where this actually couldn’t work better with another form of editing, so unless you feel bold and want to aggravate our senses you best leave it.

Example: BaronSoosdon’s "The Device Has Been Modified": The picture distortions used at e.g. 0:44 and 0:56 work because they supplement the content (trying to establish contact), but they aren’t – and never should be – used frequently. This movie is also a very good example of how well amplifying and zooming effects can be used to create a sense of atmosphere and intensity. See the movie.

A/V Quality

This aspect is commonly overlooked, which is awkward seeing that it is the easiest one to determine, and the one where you get to be somewhat objective and therefore most fair. For obvious reasons it is divided into two.

Audio quality. Genre and feel: Contrary to what seems to be the general consensus, rating the sound (usually music) should be based on whether or not it follows the content in a plausible way, and not the number of times it has been used elsewhere. If the song matches the content it does its job well, okay? Okay. The story-line movies that depict the development of a set of characters usually call for the subtle and dramatical music genre which is often found in the Hollywood soundtrack section. Similarly, a fast paced, combat-heavy movie will often call for more fast-paced and loud music. Rhythm: The second aspect of audio rating is to what extent the rhythm and feel dictates the content, for example the timing of shifting camera angles, or the timing of various editing tools. Use of it should be employed carefully, but when done correctly it adds intensity to the movie and anticipation for what’s to come. A very useful tool in keeping the viewer interested, and thereby something that should inspire to a better rating.

Example (genre and feel): Martin Falch's "Tales of the Past III": the sound effects supports the content, and the music is subdued to keep the story in focus, but is also altered to emphasize certain moments; after Blazer kills a companion the music increase in volume, as the song talks about his state of mind. The genre changes depending on the content - large scale combat uses dramatical full orchestra scores, while other parts use more subtle music. See the movie.
Example (rhythm): Yume's "Arithmomania": Camera transitions based on rhythm are used frequently throughout the movie, but a prime example can be found between 1:43 and 1:54. See the movie.

Video quality. While probably the easiest on to rate, this is also the one that least people rate accurately on. I guess they just don’t have a clear reference to relate to, so let us straighten that out right away. Stars should be awarded based on the best quality you have ever seen in a submitted movie. Usually that means one encoded in H.264, or if you want an actual reference, go and watch Arithmomania Super HQ or The Device Has Been Modified x264. If you are reading this and you are about to make a movie, be sure to visit Yume's excellent guide on how to encode with H.264. For those of you that do not have the hardware to support full-size frapsing, I am inclined to say “tough luck”. If the image quality is poor the movie will receive poor A/V rating, and that has nothing to do with how good the movie is. Live with it, or provide a better quality. Now you know how to, let that be the end of the discussion. As for those rating the movies, if you only watch the stream or a medium/low quality release you have nothing to say about image quality. If you must rate, then please do it based on the audio aspects alone.

On a side note, different people have different connections as well as different opinions to how much image quality matters. I am one of those who believe that a message poorly presented is only half a message, but to oblige to those who do not think that way it never hurts to publish both a low and a high quality release. I have even seen one bloke publish with different aspect ratios, and found that a nifty detail - especially if you are sitting behind a widescreen monitor. All these things contribute to a better rating, and compared to the work put into the actual movie this should really be standard procedure for every movie maker.


In closing...

I have probably forgotten a bunch of things, and there is a good chance I have also been rambling on about some aspect that are not quite so important, so if you made it this far I would like to give you my compliments. I do not claim to have any unique knowledge on the topic, nor do I work in the field, so if I have missed something or gotten something wrong, make sure you are the first to tell me! Other than that I hope you now have a better picture about how to rate movies, and that you learned a few things that will help should you ever want to make one.

Best regards
Abyzz