Nice idea!

In the future I'll start hosting contests and accepting requests for specific reviews, but I figured I'd pick random tests to start.

That is a great idea :)
if you like you can play one of my tests: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197990256012/myworkshopfiles/
all working properly.

I like that idea a lot. And I've also been needing trailers for my levels to make them more professional. Can you do this with some of my maps? http://steamcommunity.com/id/cadenpetersen/myworkshopfiles/

Trailers? How do you mean?

he just means a walk-trough video I think ;)

Could you try this one, somebody doesn't seem to be able to solve it. I want to know if it happens for more than one guy. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=89750482

That's a good review. All puzzle makers should watch it to get an idea about the mistakes beginner puzzle makers make.

@Donderbus:

I loaded entrapment with the intention of reviewing, but I had no idea what to do first. I saw on comments for it that it is beatable, so ultimately I decided not to air the episode. In cases like this, I don't know whether the designer made things too hard or I am just not good enough to understand what's been done.

The fairest way I can assess is by saying that sort of test with lots going on doesn't appeal to me personally. Obviously others enjoyed and beat it, but it is either beyond my ability or my patience (particularly in a 15 minute netcast where I hope to do 3-5 puzzles).

I might try another one and see how it goes.

@cark.kenner

Thanks, that's exactly what I'm going for. Regular episodes to follow!

If my review is generally favorable, I'd like to inform the builder the review is up. But I'm wondering how to approach less favorable reviews; they might value the feedback, but I don't want to just troll them. "Hey, I criticized your test in a public video. Congrats!" Still wondering how to thread that needle.

@Lemonader

I will have a look; I'm thinking I'll dedicate one episode a week to requests on a specific day. Your request is exactly the right kind; you've gotten some feedback but you're curious to see how it plays out.

I'm not looking for people who just want praise (I'm likely to disappoint them because I'm hypercritical); those who are sincerely curious will benefit.

In the future, I will also host contests of various types.

I'm sad to hear that. Well entrapment may have to many steps. Tower is a lot easier but has a lot of steps as well. Red Sea is a test that can be solved pretty fast. Hope you will give that one a try and that it will be more fun for you.

Well, I guess I have two things to say.
First:

Първоначално публикувано от Imaginator:

If my review is generally favorable, I'd like to inform the builder the review is up. But I'm wondering how to approach less favorable reviews; they might value the feedback, but I don't want to just troll them. "Hey, I criticized your test in a public video. Congrats!" Still wondering how to thread that needle.

What I have seen done for most of the time, is for the reviewer to first ask the author if they want to have it reviewed. Obvoiusly, if you are doing quickplay that's not possible. However, I think if you said something along the lines of, "Hey, I did a video review to your map. Would you like to see it?" Then you would probably get a yes 90% of the time. (Quick note: when you are doing quickplay, lookout for concept maps. As in mapmaking tools, and the like.)

Second:

Първоначално публикувано от Imaginator:

I'm thinking I'll dedicate one episode a week to requests on a specific day. Your request is exactly the right kind; you've gotten some feedback but you're curious to see how it plays out.

I HATE advertising my maps. The only time I feel comfortable doing it is when the author specificly asks for a type of map that I make (or when I ask someone I just helped solved a problem). So, why don't you tell us what type of maps you're looking for.

@Donder: I'll try red sea. As I firm up my outline for the regular cast/show/channel, I've decided what my ultimate "great test" is: The harder a test is or the fewer elements it has, the better it is. Difficulty alone isn't good, and sparsity alone isn't good, but an effective combination of the two is great.

That ideal is informed by Valve's original tests and puzzles by designers like Mevious.

I would give your test high marks for presentation -- at least the entry room is clean and pretty -- medium marks for layout, it's a bit convoluted, and low marks for transparency.

How I would define transparency is, "Does the player know where to START?" I had no idea. The rest of the test might be great, but if I can't figure out what the first step -- not just how to do it, but where it is -- the rest is lost on me. I want to be staring the answer in the face but not quite making the intuitive leap, not running between elements trying to figure out what I've missed about each that might make it the correct "first step."

@stevenmiller:

I can tell from this thread there are people who would love to see videos of their tests; while I appreciate your conservative approach not wanting to advertise, others aren't as shy. It's not that I want to review requests, it's actually that I think I'll get requests no matter what, so I might as well devote one day/week to granting one. There are three already on this thread I haven't aired!

As for "what kind of maps I'm looking for", that was partially answered above, but in addition, one show/week will also be dedicated to asking for tests of a certain flavor. Like one week, your test has to use two light bridges, or only be a 9x9 cube, or only contain 4 puzzle elements, or involve at least 3 flings, and I'll feature submissions from the challenge.

So in that sense, what I'm "looking for" will change from week to week and try to inspire builders to create tests of a different nature than they otherwise might.

I believe that limitations force creativity; that's the idea here. If you're a slave to buttons in most of your tests, can you design a fun, interesting test that doesn't have any? etc.

Yeah I get what you mean... with that test it's more like thinking backwards: You start in the room with the exit, you see that you need the square cube to get there, to get the square cube in that room you need the sphere to disable the static field etc.
But thanks for trying it out :)

Now with its own official channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/portal2cast?feature=mhee

Today's episode is currently processing.

I will probably do requests on Friday.

Great idea! I've watched the two episodes you've already done, and I cringed through all the puzzles. All the same elements in puzzles I tend to skip over when they appear. Looking forward to more!