But it bugs me when I feel like I cannot satisfy the conditions to get a 5 star review, when I could address every single complaint the reviewer has and they still won't go higher than a 4. Because nothing can be perfect. Because nothing can live up to the standards they set. If your rating scale is made up entirely of different shades of downvote, I just don't feel that's fair. There has to be at least that faint glimmer of hope. The one quest that they'd call close enough to perfect, that I could hope to compete with. Unfortunately, criticism itself can prevent me from receiving further criticism. And that's not what I want, I want my work to be picked apart so I can improve.
The problem with this train of logic is that not all problems that a user have are even problems in the first place. You can have a game that is entire flawless (impossible, but this is in theory), and it would still be flawed for people who simply don't have the same tastes as presented in the work. You can't patch away taste differences, that's not how it works, at least not for any sensical developer who cares about their own vision. One can play an RPG and be left unhappy with it because it wasn't a shoot em up, but that does not mean it's a reasonable claim to bring up, nor one that the author should reasonable address. But that does not change the fact that the player was not satisfied with what they played. This is an extreme example, and you could make the argument that the player went in with unrealistic expectations in it. But in a real given example it's a lot more muddy.
While it's been stated in this thread that the rules should take the focus, but it's hard to discuss something without examples, especially when they are relevant.
And it's not like others are too subtle in regards to what they talk about.I played hookshot 2 because I had seen Moosh's other works and it was one of the highest rated quests in the database. I'll admit, maybe that made me have very lofty expectations going in, (I honestly don't remember anymore). It was a fairly decent quest for the most part, but the few dips in quality kinda made me less happy about the overall experience. Since I was at the end of the day not happy I gave it a (2)(bad(?)) instead of a (3)(good), and that's something I stand by today. I was not expecting Moosh to try and go in with the aim to address all my concerns, that's kind of an absurd thing and generally don't happen.
Due to the reasoning behind my update, I decided that it's only fair that I give it a spin again. (I also did this in regards to The Flow of Time, which also got an update in response to my critique. In fact, it's getting yet another update which I aim to play/stream when it comes out). I played the quest, and I for the most part like it. And while I'm well aware that some of the things were patched yet again after that playthrough, I don't think reviewers are obligated to change their ratings because of it. Indeed, that's not happening anywhere else on Pure. Anyway, while I liked the quest for the most part I did still have problems that I found to be a hindrance when I played it. One major thing annoyance was the overlay that blocked line of sight, the other was that I found a lot of the older dungeon designs to be rather middling.
While in my first playthrough of the quest I found those to be the best part of it (or maybe that was the writing), but they were so in contrast to the other things. I still did notice and appreciate some of the subtle (and not so subtle, *cough*level 8*cough*) changes that were made that made these dungeons better. In fact, I still stand by that Level 8 in hookshot 2 is one of the best ZC dungeons I have played, what with the new changes.
Even though the rest is amazing does that mean that my thoughts on level 1 through 7 (and the mirror shield place), shouldn't also be accounted for when I make my judgement? Because a lot of those dungeons were kind of forgettable, and I have played through them twice. Does that make them bad and mean that you should throw them for my sake? No, that's stupid, I was actually fairly surprised that a bunch of dungeons were thrown out seemingly only because I happened to not like them. After all, there are people that DO like them, quite a fair bit actually if the reception for the quest is to be looked at. And given that's impossible to please everyone....
The main thing seems to be that my standards are unreasonable because I don't hand out 5s. But in the same sense, it's apparently not unreasonable that there are people who only hand out 5s? But I get it, trying to please someone who seem impossible and never hands out 5s, except for when I did, is pretty high on the problematics counter. Though I guess it's fine to disregard my review I left of The Hero's Memory back in the day because it's old. I'll admit, I'd probably change my rating if I replayed it today..., but I'm also not. And it was also brought up earlier in the thread that people have different opinions in the past, because there was less things to compare too.
But the idea that I don't give out 5s simply because I have never done so is also an assumption. It's an assumption that aims to paint me in the light of an unreasonable individual that can never be pleased. And that's fine on a personal level, I can't really say I care if people believe that of me. But it becomes something else when I'm made increase all my ratings simply because I'm somehow incapable of using the system properly. Although, by that account I can also never hand out a "0" anymore by design. My belief is that I hand out 5s to games that have flaws which do not impact my experience much at all, (because a flawless game is a pipedream), while it on the same time appeals to my tastes. (A flawless fighting game, for example, would be rather irrelevant to put in front of me). I of course have more specific preferences in regards to my tastes, and I could sit here all day if I were to list them all (but I don't think that'd beneficial to anyone). Another quest that got really close to getting a 5/5 from me was the recent Randomizer Returns. Funny thing there is that it's the type of thing I have been wanting for a long time. But it had some things I didn't like which made me not give it a 5, and I brought those up in my review. But those complaints weren't even things I even considered would be problems before I sat down to play this product.
People rate things differently, everyone has their own scale. Is it very hard to get a 5 from me? Absolutely, I have what many would consider absurd standards when it comes to fan games. But I do
have a scale, and it is one all things I play gets put on. Just because someone decides that they want to try and please me does not mean that they are entitled to getting the highest mark. And if I may, I'd even go as far as to suggest that I put more thought into my review scale and most people on this site, I even go into my list of reviews whenever I write a review and place them exactly where I believe they fall on aggregated quality in contrast to everything else I have reviewed. The list reads from quest I consider the best to quest that I consider the worst.
*sigh*, this got a bit long winded. I didn't mean to jump on you Moosh, or anything. (I don't really feel I should need to say this, but people have their concerns). I just think of statements more as a platform for discussion.
Pointing out negatives is very fair, most people do that. I encourage to do that. But being negative overall is a different thing. All people have their favorites and proper tastes, that's expected. Also, I can understand being negative about quests that you don't like (I did that sometimes). The thing is, a member gives the impression to people that he(sic) hates practically the entire database (almost). And that's a bigger deal, because the member is consistently harsh. Obviously the staff noticed this.
I understand what Moosh said... It was hilarious when he overhauled LQFTH2, dedicated a lot of new content with a ton of heart to a certain member... and the member still thinks that 5/5 was too much xd It feels like trolling
If you have a problem with me you can at least take the decency to address me by name, rather than using implications that you're speaking more broadly than you are.