I personally don't like people downvoting critical reviews by default and I think it should be discouraged. Like it or not though, people are naturally going to give more scrutiny to negative reviews than positive ones. I certainly wouldn't consider posting something as dumb as my current QBJ3 review (at least the one there right now, maybe I'll do something more substantial later) if my over-all evaluation, and therefore star rating, were not so positive. Even so, clearly some people didn't appreciate it and mine sits one point below yours at present.
Some of the language in your review can come off as unnecessarily harsh, but I think it is otherwise fine as critique.
People generally won't lose sleep over a free mod if they didn't like playing it. Sure maybe they're annoyed they waste x amount of time downloading it if they got "tricked" by the high rating. Caring about other's opinions about your opinion is a little odd though.
Lazy horde (throwing 50+ mobs in your face all at once) is not design. I will die on that hill. And I can appreciate good mapping 100%. I am not someone who criticizes for the sake of criticism and self-affirmation. More of that worth noting that I didn't name the bad maps — precisely to avoid offending anyone. I only named the maps I liked (by the way, I need to update the review; I've played more, and there are a lot of good maps in pack).
It's quite silly to claim this is what he said, when he mentioned that the issue with those maps is the hordes of enemies which result in unfun gameplay. I'm inclined to agree that this is the case, and it's purely here because of the Swarmers and Kamikazes being a part of the mod, which I explicitly mentioned when I talked about those enemies. They simply do not make an interesting enemy in the Quake engine.
Given what I've learned about how Doom and Quake work, I think John Carmack or whoever programmed most of the behavior for things like monsters and weapons just really liked RNG.
aad44837d5220f44561f434a29cb6b0d.zipinfo:❯ zipinfo ~/Downloads/qbj3_1.1.zip | head -5
Archive: /Users/sviatoslav/Downloads/qbj3_1.1.zip
Zip file size: 2561502447 bytes, number of entries: 1953
drwx--- 6.3 fat 0 bx stor 26-Jan-18 19:26 qbj3/
-rw-a-- 6.3 fat 417453811 bx stor 26-Jan-03 13:08 qbj3/Art Vault.7z
-rw-a-- 6.3 fat 84862 bx d64N 26-Jan-18 17:47 qbj3/csprogs.dat
❯ zipinfo ~/Downloads/qbj3.zip | head -5
Archive: /Users/sviatoslav/Downloads/qbj3.zip
Zip file size: 2667760837 bytes, number of entries: 1885
-rw---- 2.0 fat 155 t- defN 26-Jan-03 11:19 qbj3/.gitignore
-rw-a-- 2.0 fat 417453811 b- defN 26-Jan-03 13:27 qbj3/Art Vault.7z
-rw---- 2.0 fat 784412 t- defN 26-Jan-03 11:19 qbj3/auto.savDepends on the map, but most of them should have skill differences. If you look at the map readmes in the docs folder it might tell you.
it's the same in the first release. see
ls -aln T* track72.ogg -rw-r--r--. 1 1000 1000 13610067 Nov 21 13:10 'Track72(1).ogg'-rw-r--r--. 1 1000 1000 13130253 Dec 29 14:23 track72.ogg-rw-r--r--. 1 1000 1000 15732374 Dec 2 22:30 Track73.ogg-rw-r--r--. 1 1000 1000 2579209 Dec 14 03:21 Track84.ogg
MacOS Archive Utility often trips on bigger archives. The Unarchiver is a free and more robust alternative to use in such cases.
-rw-r--r--. 1 1000 1000 13610067 Nov 21 13:10 'Track72(1).ogg'
I think the biggest issue from what I've been reading is that a lot of people are just really bad at giving critiques. They treat their negatives as absolutes while positives are granted dubious claim, like they're mere coincidences the creator happened to stumble upon. The language chosen is harsh and yet the criticisms are often nebulous and tend to boil down to "the vibes are just, like, off, man." It doesn't help that a huge chunk of the people only got like 30 minutes in before they decided they were done playing it and yet act like they could possibly have meaningful feedback to give, especially when so much of it is aimed at maps and claims that jams need "quality control". Someone railing into two newcomer maps in particular is insane when you consider they're explicitly marked as such, and the fact they try and hide their useless feedback like "it looks ugly, did this mapper even try???" as needed criticism for growth is comical.
