agree with below and i believe it's actually very relevant to the level. a lot of the community has boxed into their heads that the "rate standards" are reserved for levels that go above a certain level of polish, which is a pretty harmful way of thinking

levels cute, wish it ended a bit smoother but its a 1 hour speedbuild and he probably ran out of time and its kinda a miracle that the level is as coherent as it is for such tight constraints ok review done EXTREMELY TENUOUSLY RELATED TANGENT TIME

theres this one specific comment "archetype" (for lack of a better word) i see a lot that irks me, really cooks my goose so to speak

i see so many comments, maybe not on this level specifically but on levels like these that get sent or rated (and even a bit on this website not naming names) that go like "good level but not rate worthy" (insert durrs as seen fit)

now not only is there the stupid generalized conservative idea of a concrete set of defined rate standards present, but it really just doesnt make any sense at all even disregarding that. isn't the purpose of the rate system to reward people for making "good" levels? if it's so "GOOD" as you say WHY SHOULDNT IT BE RATED??? is it effort? polish? plenty of extremely low effort, incredibly unpolished levels don't provoke reactions (or even evoke positive reactions) from this same crowd - i think people are just afraid of "raw" individual objects at this point - not to say that polished art/effect levels that stray away from raw objects are valueless, i'm not that big of a snob - just that they've conditioned the main demographic to constantly expect them and put them on pedestals in an ugly way - maybe you could say they've been spoiled. thanks for listening to my TED talk. Tell me what you think in my shoutbox if you haven't died from hyphen poisoning because i am extremely lonely and crave any sort of human interaction