I will reiterate: I want a way to stop idiotic reviews like the one in the OP. Please do not put yourself behind the individual quoted in the OP, as you two are very different. You offer legitimate criticism. He does not.
In any case, I would feel perfectly fine if you were to change your rating to 2-stars. It is deserved, based on the way you responded to/felt during the quest (i.e., some positive, but also a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>-ton of negative). I don't want false 5-star reviews any more than I want false 1-star reviews. I said as much in the closing to my quest.
I appreciate and can respect that for sure. My only parting advice then, and the main focus of both the OP and what we've seen from you so far would to be: learn how to take, handle, and respond to criticism. That is all.
I appreciate and can respect that for sure. My only parting advice then, and the main focus of both the OP and what we've seen from you so far would to be: learn how to take, handle, and respond to criticism. That is all.
Thank you again.
0
gornonthecobMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 421Arc User
One time during a bout of loot drama before we made the switch, my wizard cast "Wall of Steel", and then tipped it over. On top of the party. Can you say "Save or Die?"
The fighter was the only one that survived. Needless to say he was not happy. Too bad for him, I had memorized the spell twice that day.
I don't think that my quest is perfect. However, I do not believe that the improvements you suggested would make it any better. Rather, I believe that my own level of skill (i.e., lack thereof) prevents me from improving my quest further in many ways that I would like to. For example, I lack the artistry to create well-designed maps, which is why my environments look like <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>. The point is that I do greatly appreciate your help (as I've already indicated by my multiple "thank you for the review" messages) in that you reviewed me and spent tons of time writing helpful criticism (unlike the individual quoted in the OP), but I do not find it useful.
What prevents your quest from being better is not your personal artistry, but rather your personal ability. The advice you were given is sound, and would make your quest better by almost every metric one could possibly use to define better. This is a clear demonstration of overestimating your level of skill, and failing to recognize it.
"He only profits from praise who values criticism."
-Heinrich Heine
'All quests need combat' is crud advice. It's a matter of taste.
It may be a matter of taste, but taste is something that can be quantified. Taste is not entirely subjective, as there are components shared between the social collective. An individual's taste is largely structured by socioeconomic and cultural patterns; The Zeitgeist, "the spirit of the age".
If you tailor your work to fit the spirit of the age as opposed to your own personal tastes then objectively your work will be better. That is to say, your work will be better to more people. If you are using some other metric for better then 'is liked by more people', I am afraid my advice is meaningless.
There is no such thing as "objectively" better. It's all a matter of taste.
As you say, "liked by more people" is only one way (and a pretty poor one, at that) of defining 'better'. The only "metric" I care about in this context is "liked by me." That doesn't mean reasoned feedback is irrelevant. Often feedback will allow me to rework an element in a way that hadn't occurred to me such that I do like the reworked element more than before. I could not have done that without that feedback.
But the key point there is that -I- liked the reworked element more the new way than the old way. If that were not the case I would not have made the change. If others also like it more the new way, 'tis a happy convergence of artistic preferences, nothing more.
And.. Personal taste can be quantified? You can put number on it? Seriously?
I'm sorry, but what? I shouldn't feel wrongly accused when someone says "stop smoking weed"?
I will reiterate: I want a way to stop idiotic reviews like the one in the OP. Please do not put yourself behind the individual quoted in the OP, as you two are very different. You offer legitimate criticism. He does not.
In any case, I would feel perfectly fine if you were to change your rating to 2-stars. It is deserved, based on the way you responded to/felt during the quest (i.e., some positive, but also a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>-ton of negative). I don't want false 5-star reviews any more than I want false 1-star reviews. I said as much in the closing to my quest.
It's sort of up to you what you're offended by.
If you walk up to Michael Jordan and say, boy you are a terrible basketball player, do you think he would be offended? Probably not, given his accomplishments and self-confidence.
Similarly, do you smoke weed? If not, I wouldn't stress too much over it. Have confidence in yourself. You can't please everyone.
'All quests need combat' is crud advice. It's a matter of taste.
Considering that the entire progression of the game depends upon a mixture of XP, currency, and items, then yes all Foundry quests should include combat. Do you see any featured Foundry quest without combat? Of course not.
That said, not all quests need a lot of combat. But without combat you're relying upon the one crappy item in the chest at the end. Of course we build Foundry quests for enjoyment, not just progression, but striking the right balance is key to having a successful and popular Foundry quest.
Maybe you could make a quick exit door for 'non-readers'...
'Follow the bright sparkles for Epic Loots'
'Open the door'
*non-reader falls into the darkness and is never seen again* <This for the people who do read in quests.
I SECOND THIS. As a reader, I'd looove to get credit for being one. LOL
0
orodalfMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited July 2013
rollingonit: You cannot post characters with accents or carats or umlauts or whatever on them.
junglegirl: Lol, it's entirely possible to do that. Just kinda mean.
0
saerraelMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I SECOND THIS. As a reader, I'd looove to get credit for being one. LOL
As a reader, shouldn't your reward be the story you read? I have an OOC thread in my Q2 dialogues for those who can not be bothered to read. Non-readers will get what they want; a quick adventure without any depth. Readers will get all of the information I put in, and special effects in one dialogue. All the immersion through text is put in there for those wanting it, while non readers can still opt out of it. Which (hopefully) will give each their own.
As a reader, shouldn't your reward be the story you read? I have an OOC thread in my Q2 dialogues for those who can not be bothered to read. Non-readers will get what they want; a quick adventure without any depth. Readers will get all of the information I put in, and special effects in one dialogue. All the immersion through text is put in there for those wanting it, while non readers can still opt out of it. Which (hopefully) will give each their own.
QFT.
I also reward the readers of my quest with something that makes it worth their time: the story itself, the characters, etc. The same quest is also fun for those who just skip through dialog. In fact I let them press 1 for everything to skip all dialog (and note this in the quest description). They'll miss the story and be forced to figure out things on their own, but hopefully they'll still have a fun time just by following the quest tracker. I try to please both. The downside is that I won't be wowing either group. No super complex dialog progression, just a simple story with characters that develop.
'Taste is popularity' is one of the most commonly derided statements.
If it was true, popularity would dictate it isn't true!
More seriously, dude, what?? McDonald's is 'objectively better' than French cuisine, Twilight is objectively better than Casablanca...
People like different things. There are different audiences to pursue.
Success is "The gaining of fame or prosperity".
Better is "Greater in excellence or higher in quality".
Thus, by the very definitions of the words, more popular things are indeed better at success.
Quests are at its most basic level a means of transmitting ideas, and as we all know "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture" is referred to as a meme. It is a concept borrowed from genetics. In genetics a successful organism is one that reproduces the most. Likewise, successful memes are ones that reproduce the most.
Thus successful quests are ones that get played the most, replicating themselves across the collective consciousness
The more successful a quest is, the better it is.
--
TLDR: If OP followed the advice he was given his quest would be better.
Better is "Greater in excellence or higher in quality".
Thus, by the very definitions of the words, more popular things are indeed better at success.
Quests are at its most basic level a means of transmitting ideas, and as we all know "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture" is referred to as a meme. It is a concept borrowed from genetics. In genetics a successful organism is one that reproduces the most. Likewise, successful memes are ones that reproduce the most.
Thus successful quests are ones that get played the most, replicating themselves across the collective consciousness
The more successful a quest is, the better it is.
--
TLDR: If OP followed the advice he was given his quest would be better.
Your opinion, learn the difference. Quoting great people doesn't make you any less wrong. - I don't understand how you cannot simply understand. It's just silly. You are silly. And now i'm off.
TLDR: If OP followed the advice he was given his quest would be better.
For whom?
"Better" is terms of a created object has more than one function.
An object that is closer to the creator's ideal for that object is subjectively better than one further away.
So while Orodalf may make his quest "better" for you by following that advice he may actually make it worse for himself.
As the creator of the object in question Orodalf is the ONLY person who can determine that, because only he knows his intentions and aspirations when he created it.
"Better" is terms of a created object has more than one function.
An object that is closer to the creator's ideal for that object is subjectively better than one further away.
So while Orodalf may make his quest "better" for you by following that advice he may actually make it worse for himself.
As the creator of the object in question Orodalf is the ONLY person who can determine that, because only he knows his intentions and aspirations when he created it.
All The Best
Shakespeare is often quoted as being the height of literature, but Shakespeare is a perfect example of creative works altered counter to the author's wishes for mass market appeal. Despite his reputation for being profoundly intellectual, in almost every one of his later stories there is a predominate character who is a bawdy drunkard, as well as a prodigious amount of slapstick violence. These characters and scenes were specifically added to give the 'ignorant common folk' content they can relate to, often at the instruction of the theater's producer. More then once the theater he worked for almost fired him for not wanting to rewrite his plays to appeal to the crowds better, yet if he had not changed them, they would not have been as successful. They would have not been as popular, not made as much money, not been played as much, not been as good, and we might not know about them today.
The thing about Shakespeare, aside from the phenomenal writing, is the diversity of content. From the most highly educated aristocrat to the most lowly illiterate pauper, there was a character or scene that everyone could relate to. No matter who you were, and no matter what you liked, you could find it in his plays. Action, intrigue, romance, tragedy, comedy. His works were very well rounded.
People often joke foundry authors are writing dialog for mmos, not Shakespeare. The thing they do not understand is that Shakespeare was an author of the popular consumer entertainment of his day. If alive today there is a good chance he would be writing mass market media; novels, movies, sitcoms, even quests in video games.
To paraphrase what Warren Spector said to me in a conversation last week on facebook about this exact same subject of artistic integrity v.s. mass market appeal : "You make some great points... it was Shakespeare's presentation of his material - not the material itself - that was sufficient to secure him a place in the highest ranks of culture creators almost 400 years after his death."
As it stands right now, OP's quest is no Shakespeare. It is just not on that level of entertainment. But it could be, if only he takes the producer's advice and adds a bunch of violence to appease the ignorant drunkards who will be playing it.
Well now, a bit of pretentious name-dropping still doesn't disguise the fact that you don't seem to understand that all "critique" is wholly subjective.
The idea that putting something in to the public domain for feedback makes that feedback objective is, frankly, laughable.
And subjectively your opinion of Orodalf's work is no more valid than his own; in fact as only he knows how that work would look if executed to perfection his subjective appraisal of it is significantly more valid than yours.
...you don't seem to understand that all "critique" is wholly subjective. And subjectively your opinion of Orodalf's work is no more valid than his own; in fact as only he knows how that work would look if executed to perfection his subjective appraisal of it is significantly more valid than yours.
I fully understand critique is subjective. Critique is based on taste, and everyone's tastes are different. What you are failing to understand is that when you measure everyone's tastes as a whole and come up with a baseline, you can then use the advanced scientific field of Quantitative Research to in fact objectively measure the value of a product, not to an individual, but to culture itself. Within the whole there are certain tastes that are shared by a statistical majority.
If the only thing that matters is how much you yourself like your quest, then you 'prolly would not be mad about what other people think about it in the first place.
And if you are mad that someone else gave you a bad rating, then why don't you do more to ensure that other people give you good ratings?
Would that not be a more prudent thing to do, rather then trying to lobby for a way to remove the negative reviews left by people who don't like your quest?
orodalfMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited July 2013
Would that not be a more prudent thing to do, rather then trying to lobby for a way to remove the negative reviews left by people who don't like your quest?
You're missing the point. Again.
I will reiterate. Again.
I will reiterate: I want a way to stop idiotic reviews like the one in the OP. Please do not put yourself behind the individual quoted in the OP, as you two are very different. You offer legitimate criticism. He does not.
In any case, I would feel perfectly fine if you were to change your rating to 2-stars. It is deserved, based on the way you responded to/felt during the quest (i.e., some positive, but also a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>-ton of negative). I don't want false 5-star reviews any more than I want false 1-star reviews. I said as much in the closing to my quest.
0
sphecidaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 95
edited July 2013
I think there's a huge difference between a deserved one-star rating for a poorly-made quest and a one-star rating that was dealt out by a person who didn't even read the quest description, nor any of the dialogues.
I keep wondering where all this condemnation of Orodalf is coming from. His ire is not simply petulance by a lazy author, but justified outrage at the power a simpleton wields over quest ratings.
Orodalf, one rule that's worked well for me on the internet is that if you have explained something three times to no avail, time to abandon the argument and move on.
Those who can understand, do.
Campaign: The Fenwick Cycle NWS-DKR9GB7KH
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
0
xhritMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I will reiterate: I want a way to stop idiotic reviews like the one in the OP. Please do not put yourself behind the individual quoted in the OP, as you two are very different. You offer legitimate criticism. He does not.
In any case, I would feel perfectly fine if you were to change your rating to 2-stars. It is deserved, based on the way you responded to/felt during the quest (i.e., some positive, but also a <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>-ton of negative). I don't want false 5-star reviews any more than I want false 1-star reviews. I said as much in the closing to my quest.
So this person's opinion is not valid, for the sole reason that you think it is idiotic? His criticism is somehow illegitimate because you don't agree with it? That is not how it works. You deserved that 1 star as much as you deserved any 5 star. The rating a player gives a quest is their individual opinion and every individual is entitled to their opinion.
If you are going to start arguing that some people's opinion is worth more then others, then you should realize some people's opinions are worth far more then yours, for reasons I have already mentioned.
I think there's a huge difference between a deserved one-star rating for a poorly-made quest and a one-star rating that was dealt out by a person who didn't even read the quest description, nor any of the dialogues.
I keep wondering where all this condemnation of Orodalf is coming from. His ire is not simply petulance by a lazy author, but justified outrage at the power a simpleton wields over quest ratings.
If OP's outrage is justified or not is a matter of opinion. There is a reason that all the official quests in the game can be finished without reading any dialog, and instead pressing 1, and that reason is because a non-zero portion of the mmo playerbase does not even bother read the quest description, let alone the quest text. For example, the 5 to 10% of the population with dyslexia, the most commonly occurring learning disability.
There is a difference simpleton and disabled.
Unless you are actually arguing that disabled people do not deserve to have an opinion...
Okay, I mostly agree with you, but you are insinuating that dyslexics can't read. I have several disabilities, including dyslexia, and I find that offensive. Talk about people who won't read, that's fine, but please don't insinuate that dyslexics can't read or refuse to read.
Breaching the Swarm NW-DUXUHQWNP
Pick your side, take a stand, save--or kill--your former allies.
Comments
I appreciate and can respect that for sure.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Will you get off this? It was an expression. A <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> one.
Quest ID: NW-DPCZNUVQ7
I don't agree with your point. There are plenty of <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> expressions that people should take offense to.
Thank you again.
This is one of the best D&D stories I've heard.
Locksheon Gaming
Follow me on Twitch - Youtube - Facebook!
What prevents your quest from being better is not your personal artistry, but rather your personal ability. The advice you were given is sound, and would make your quest better by almost every metric one could possibly use to define better. This is a clear demonstration of overestimating your level of skill, and failing to recognize it.
"He only profits from praise who values criticism."
-Heinrich Heine
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
It may be a matter of taste, but taste is something that can be quantified. Taste is not entirely subjective, as there are components shared between the social collective. An individual's taste is largely structured by socioeconomic and cultural patterns; The Zeitgeist, "the spirit of the age".
If you tailor your work to fit the spirit of the age as opposed to your own personal tastes then objectively your work will be better. That is to say, your work will be better to more people. If you are using some other metric for better then 'is liked by more people', I am afraid my advice is meaningless.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
As you say, "liked by more people" is only one way (and a pretty poor one, at that) of defining 'better'. The only "metric" I care about in this context is "liked by me." That doesn't mean reasoned feedback is irrelevant. Often feedback will allow me to rework an element in a way that hadn't occurred to me such that I do like the reworked element more than before. I could not have done that without that feedback.
But the key point there is that -I- liked the reworked element more the new way than the old way. If that were not the case I would not have made the change. If others also like it more the new way, 'tis a happy convergence of artistic preferences, nothing more.
And.. Personal taste can be quantified? You can put number on it? Seriously?
It's sort of up to you what you're offended by.
If you walk up to Michael Jordan and say, boy you are a terrible basketball player, do you think he would be offended? Probably not, given his accomplishments and self-confidence.
Similarly, do you smoke weed? If not, I wouldn't stress too much over it. Have confidence in yourself. You can't please everyone.
Bill's Tavern | The 27th Level | Secret Agent 34
If it was true, popularity would dictate it isn't true!
More seriously, dude, what?? McDonald's is 'objectively better' than French cuisine, Twilight is objectively better than Casablanca...
People like different things. There are different audiences to pursue.
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
Considering that the entire progression of the game depends upon a mixture of XP, currency, and items, then yes all Foundry quests should include combat. Do you see any featured Foundry quest without combat? Of course not.
That said, not all quests need a lot of combat. But without combat you're relying upon the one crappy item in the chest at the end. Of course we build Foundry quests for enjoyment, not just progression, but striking the right balance is key to having a successful and popular Foundry quest.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Fox Stevenson - Sandblast
Oh Wonder - Without You
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- Dylan Thomas
Fox Stevenson - Sandblast
Oh Wonder - Without You
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- Dylan Thomas
Fox Stevenson - Sandblast
Oh Wonder - Without You
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
- Dylan Thomas
I SECOND THIS. As a reader, I'd looove to get credit for being one. LOL
junglegirl: Lol, it's entirely possible to do that. Just kinda mean.
As a reader, shouldn't your reward be the story you read? I have an OOC thread in my Q2 dialogues for those who can not be bothered to read. Non-readers will get what they want; a quick adventure without any depth. Readers will get all of the information I put in, and special effects in one dialogue. All the immersion through text is put in there for those wanting it, while non readers can still opt out of it. Which (hopefully) will give each their own.
[SIGPIC]http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=98570189&dateline=1372572330[/SIGPIC]
NW-DCJV53UTU
[Open for play, link to spotlight thread]
This lets people adjust the mission a bit to their tastes (at the moment, overall), and also improves replayability.
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
QFT.
I also reward the readers of my quest with something that makes it worth their time: the story itself, the characters, etc. The same quest is also fun for those who just skip through dialog. In fact I let them press 1 for everything to skip all dialog (and note this in the quest description). They'll miss the story and be forced to figure out things on their own, but hopefully they'll still have a fun time just by following the quest tracker. I try to please both. The downside is that I won't be wowing either group. No super complex dialog progression, just a simple story with characters that develop.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Success is "The gaining of fame or prosperity".
Better is "Greater in excellence or higher in quality".
Thus, by the very definitions of the words, more popular things are indeed better at success.
Quests are at its most basic level a means of transmitting ideas, and as we all know "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture" is referred to as a meme. It is a concept borrowed from genetics. In genetics a successful organism is one that reproduces the most. Likewise, successful memes are ones that reproduce the most.
Thus successful quests are ones that get played the most, replicating themselves across the collective consciousness
The more successful a quest is, the better it is.
--
TLDR: If OP followed the advice he was given his quest would be better.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
Your opinion, learn the difference. Quoting great people doesn't make you any less wrong. - I don't understand how you cannot simply understand. It's just silly. You are silly. And now i'm off.
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
For whom?
"Better" is terms of a created object has more than one function.
An object that is closer to the creator's ideal for that object is subjectively better than one further away.
So while Orodalf may make his quest "better" for you by following that advice he may actually make it worse for himself.
As the creator of the object in question Orodalf is the ONLY person who can determine that, because only he knows his intentions and aspirations when he created it.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
Shakespeare is often quoted as being the height of literature, but Shakespeare is a perfect example of creative works altered counter to the author's wishes for mass market appeal. Despite his reputation for being profoundly intellectual, in almost every one of his later stories there is a predominate character who is a bawdy drunkard, as well as a prodigious amount of slapstick violence. These characters and scenes were specifically added to give the 'ignorant common folk' content they can relate to, often at the instruction of the theater's producer. More then once the theater he worked for almost fired him for not wanting to rewrite his plays to appeal to the crowds better, yet if he had not changed them, they would not have been as successful. They would have not been as popular, not made as much money, not been played as much, not been as good, and we might not know about them today.
The thing about Shakespeare, aside from the phenomenal writing, is the diversity of content. From the most highly educated aristocrat to the most lowly illiterate pauper, there was a character or scene that everyone could relate to. No matter who you were, and no matter what you liked, you could find it in his plays. Action, intrigue, romance, tragedy, comedy. His works were very well rounded.
People often joke foundry authors are writing dialog for mmos, not Shakespeare. The thing they do not understand is that Shakespeare was an author of the popular consumer entertainment of his day. If alive today there is a good chance he would be writing mass market media; novels, movies, sitcoms, even quests in video games.
To paraphrase what Warren Spector said to me in a conversation last week on facebook about this exact same subject of artistic integrity v.s. mass market appeal : "You make some great points... it was Shakespeare's presentation of his material - not the material itself - that was sufficient to secure him a place in the highest ranks of culture creators almost 400 years after his death."
As it stands right now, OP's quest is no Shakespeare. It is just not on that level of entertainment. But it could be, if only he takes the producer's advice and adds a bunch of violence to appease the ignorant drunkards who will be playing it.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
The idea that putting something in to the public domain for feedback makes that feedback objective is, frankly, laughable.
And subjectively your opinion of Orodalf's work is no more valid than his own; in fact as only he knows how that work would look if executed to perfection his subjective appraisal of it is significantly more valid than yours.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
I fully understand critique is subjective. Critique is based on taste, and everyone's tastes are different. What you are failing to understand is that when you measure everyone's tastes as a whole and come up with a baseline, you can then use the advanced scientific field of Quantitative Research to in fact objectively measure the value of a product, not to an individual, but to culture itself. Within the whole there are certain tastes that are shared by a statistical majority.
If the only thing that matters is how much you yourself like your quest, then you 'prolly would not be mad about what other people think about it in the first place.
And if you are mad that someone else gave you a bad rating, then why don't you do more to ensure that other people give you good ratings?
Would that not be a more prudent thing to do, rather then trying to lobby for a way to remove the negative reviews left by people who don't like your quest?
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
You're missing the point. Again.
I will reiterate. Again.
I keep wondering where all this condemnation of Orodalf is coming from. His ire is not simply petulance by a lazy author, but justified outrage at the power a simpleton wields over quest ratings.
Those who can understand, do.
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
So this person's opinion is not valid, for the sole reason that you think it is idiotic? His criticism is somehow illegitimate because you don't agree with it? That is not how it works. You deserved that 1 star as much as you deserved any 5 star. The rating a player gives a quest is their individual opinion and every individual is entitled to their opinion.
If you are going to start arguing that some people's opinion is worth more then others, then you should realize some people's opinions are worth far more then yours, for reasons I have already mentioned.
If OP's outrage is justified or not is a matter of opinion. There is a reason that all the official quests in the game can be finished without reading any dialog, and instead pressing 1, and that reason is because a non-zero portion of the mmo playerbase does not even bother read the quest description, let alone the quest text. For example, the 5 to 10% of the population with dyslexia, the most commonly occurring learning disability.
There is a difference simpleton and disabled.
Unless you are actually arguing that disabled people do not deserve to have an opinion...
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
Pick your side, take a stand, save--or kill--your former allies.