How should you review a hard Wad?

[Burgish]

We aren't professional reviewers here.  All reviews are just opinions, and they're all valid, and the're all subjective.
 

If someone thinks it's too hard, and they can get through Plutonia, then I have a better idea of how hard it is and the modder had a better idea of the size of their audience that they are actually building the maps for.

 

But besides that, everyone knows what a slaughtermap is.  If you make it clear in the description, no one is going to dl it if they aren't looking to have their soul crushed by at least one room.  Skill challenge games have difficultly as part of the reward curve, and are more satisfying when they escalate to an apex.  Doesn't mean you can't make a five star map that starts at max and never lets up, but that's part of the design.

Challenge is designed.  If you're reviewing the design, challenge is fair game. Challenge can be done well or poorly, can make or ruin a map, just like anything else.

[SiMpLeToNiUm]

I think it should be abundantly clear through the language of the review that the handicap to your enjoyment was your own personal ability. If you can do that, it makes it less of the fault of the map for being hard (which it has every right to be), and more your responsibility for reviewing something outside of your skill. Not everyone is entitled to beat maps or sets just because they want to, and some wads are hard just for the sake of being hard. It doesn't matter if the mapper limits their audience by creating such experiences; it's their prerogative to do so. There's a million flavors of Doom wad, and if the balls-to-the-wall grindfests aren't your thing, don't seek them out for review.

 

My reasoning:
 

Spoiler

Reviews attempt to speak from a place of authority and interpret the quality of an experience for someone that hasn't yet experienced that thing. It should also be mentioned that you control what you review and why. If you enjoy punishing experiences and are fairly skilled at them, you should seek those out. If you don't and you aren't (and I mean this as non-confrontationally as possible), maybe you should avoid telling other people how good those things are or aren't on that basis. The point is, because of that situation, people that read your reviews don't know which one of those people you are; whether you're skilled at the types of maps you're reviewing or just a casual opinion-haver. Be honest with why you review things is all I'm saying.

 

[VanaheimRanger]

12 hours ago, ChestedArmor said:

That's good for you, but I review maps a little bit longer in the description (usually enough to fill a piece of paper), usually with a fitting 5 star score.

"Why use many word when few word do trick?"

[Deleted Account]

I think its better to beat it before leaving a review, its like asking a guy whos never played doom to review a 2 hour slaughter map, you wanna have a thorough understanding of it before judging ya know.

[BaileyTW]

It's good to remember when you are reviewing something that you're not really giving the "ideal" review. You're giving your review. A summation of a wad filtered through your biases, experience, etc. People expect this for a reviewer they're familiar with cause if someone says something is good it means a lot more if you have an idea what someone would be looking for in the first place in a wad.

 

This is to say that it is fine and good to factor in difficulty into your review of a wad, even heavily. That a wad is too inaccessibly hard to someone of your skill level is important, and it would be good to like specify how good I guess by saying what wads you've completed that you find hard. Other people can see that and think "I should put this off until I'm a bit better" and that's good for not having an aggressively bad time with what could otherwise be a good map set.