raw nebula
My second trial of a work of my critique, 2 pages long detailing the disappointing work of the level named fractured.
Here is the provided link for you to view:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11nWXXJcbh1e1SkdljEvmqGLUVA6zmrj95IzTBO0aUwY/edit?usp=drivesdk
P. S. It is a Google Docs, no fishing link.
lethal sleetBOT
raw nebula
I could have gone own for 3 pages but I digress
raw nebula
I have plans of expanding this critiques in case this entry is denied once more.
twin gulch
Alright so a few things, proper feedback does not include the words and phrases such as “horrid, mediocre, and will most certainly be swept under the rug.” This is just flaming the level and not actually properly criticizing it. That also applies to “Your piece is nothing short but of disappointment, as with such an ambitious goal you have already failed the basics of constructing the very essences of you idea.” Also, you’re supposed to come up with 2 criticisms and solutions, your only criticism was basically “it’s not enough like a city”, except you surrounded that point with so many words just flaming it. Not only that, but your solution was for the person to restart the level entirely, which is not in any way proper feedback. Please come up with another criticism and solution to go along with the one you have, a new solution for the one you currently have, and don’t just flame the creator, as that isn’t proper feedback.
twin gulch
I have plans of expanding this critiques in case this entry is denied once more.
Please don’t do this
Your “criticisms” are just flaming the creator
which isn’t the point of this exercise at all
Point is, keep your criticisms short and respectful, with actual solutions. I don’t want to read a 3 page document when 90% of it just isn’t meaningful whatsoever
raw nebula
Ah, I see thank you for the feedback. I shall make sure I shall avoid the transgression of degenerative critisim. I do aim to pass this activity after all
twin gulch
-ex nw
lethal sleetBOT