18 replies to this topic

[Nathaniel]

It has been months since I last rated a quest, but when I do, I try my best not to rate a quest until I have finished it from beginning to end. Unfortunately, there are times that I struggle to complete a quest, more so because I can't figure out what to do next than because the battles are too difficult. In such cases, I only rate the quest if I can go through what seems like the vast majority of it. Playing just the first few bits of a quest is often not an accurate determination of the quest as a whole, unless the quest is very buggy to begin with; mainly bugs that average or better quest makers can easily take care of on their own. Luckily that doesn't happen that often, though. The later half of a quest can say a lot about the quest as a whole, and probably about as much as the first half. I occasionally set my eyes on a quest where the later parts of it has screens of generally less detail than earlier parts. That tells me that whoever made the quest was getting sick of making it and was just going through the motions trying to finish it up, filling up whatever overworld screens are remaining (if you design one screen at a time rather than base it off of the big picture), for example.

But when I rate a quest, I look at everything together. How good is the design detail? Are the graphics used consistent with each other? How does the big picture compare to the bits and pieces? Was each screen designed around a larger picture, or do they look like most of them were built only one screen at a time? (most likely there was less planning if the latter seems much more true than the former) Is there consistency where it is needed? And most imporantly: Did I enjoy playing the quest?

[jerome]

I usually only rate quests that I make it all of the way through with as well. It's not really fair to the quest maker if you rate it without playing a minimum of halfway through (if possible). (Unless of course there's a game stopping issue that the quest maker doesn't plan on fixing. But give them a chance first.)

There's been a couple of exceptions. 1st one I did was so buggy and incomplete that you couldn't make it through the second dungeon. He/She left the quest unpassworded as if saying "you fix it". Somehow, though, my comment was deleted from it. The other quest I just was bored the whole way through. I pulled myself thought 6/9 levels and was forcing myself to get farther thinking it'd get better, it didn't, so I quit it.

For the most part, if I start playing a quest that doesn't suit me at all, then I just won't rate it. If it catches my interest and keeps it, then I will rate it when I get done.

[SofaKing]

I'm getting in late here, but my practice is pretty much identical to that of Jerome. I rate and comment on quests I have completed. I generally know pretty early in a quest whether it holds my interest and whether I want to play it to completion, and once I decide to play a quest, I play it. I've rarely played several levels into a quest before losing interest, although it's happened a few times.

If a quest doesn't hold my interest and I only play a level or less, I don't rate it. Now, as a result, I admittedly usually only give four or five stars. I also agree that people should not rate quests too early, and ratings based solely on screenshots shouldn't even count. My bottom line, more than graphics, screens, etc., is simply whether the quest is fun to play. If it's fun, I'll probably go four. If it's really fun and addictive, five.

[Neppy]

I rate and comment on quests when I either finish them, or after I've gotten far enough to determine that it could use a little more work.