Hi, I'll just use this comment to answer to the edit of your rating.
The first thing I'd like to contextualise is that both the game you compared to WTWBYA and your itch username were kept anonymous. I do not encourage anyone to take any action against you either. I fail to see how this is bullying. Similarly, you are not being silenced: your reviews are still there and nope, although you might feel like it, you are factually not being silenced. If you're allowed to critique games, we are also allowed to critique your reviews.
For the situation I mentioned in the thread, I am sorry, but what you wrote wasn't critique (what you did for Rendez-Doug wasn't either, but it was overall fine with me because you presented it as your opinion, rather than advice on what I should be doing), it was pure and cold slander, completely unaware of what the game is. This game specifically mentions, on its page, that it is one-minute long: what kind of character development do you expect to have in one minute? And how can you expect something similar to When The Wind Blew You Away, which is around 13k words? This kind of feedback is not helping, because you are not giving the dev advice to improve their own approach, you decide to criticise it because it doesn't cater to your tastes. It is okay to have tastes, we all do: but there is a difference between a game doing a poor job and a game just not doing what you enjoy. I'll use your review of Rendez-Doug as an example: you mentioned not enjoying that Sandra was using the expression "cottage core", because it was nothing but a trendy word not fitting the narrative. Well, this game happens nowadays and Sandra, in particular, is a graphic designer, who is well aware of aeshetics of the sort: it completely fits the narrative and is consistent with her character. For example, I'm working right now on a game set in the 19th century, and the protagonist of this game wouldn't use indeed an expression like "cottage core", just like Sandra wouldn't use the word "gibface" to insult someone. You may or may not like the expression "cottage core" to describe things, it is within your own rights: but now, how is this an actual flaw?
And I'm using this example to keep the other game relatively anonymous, because I personally didn't mind that much your review of Rendez-Doug, but this illustrates the main issue of the review you let to the dev: you did not even try to understand their approach. Even worse, by telling them to check actual "good" VNs, you're implying their game is factually bad. You advise them to read, I quote "well-written novels", assuming they don't. You oppose this game to "REAL" poetry. So, you indeed do not explicitly say that "I know better than you what good visual novel writing is", but this is what you're communicating.
You mention being surprised by my reaction because my games indeed do not condone "bullying", which is true, but my games also carry a lot of other messages. In When The Wind Blew You Away, for example, when Peter finds out that Amanda doesn't love fizzy bears anymore, he isn't mad at her because she doesn't correspond to the Amanda he used to know and appreciate. No, instead, he asks her what she likes, wanting to discover and appreciate the 17-yo girl Amanda has become for who she is, rather than for who she was, and ends up falling in love with her again.
But let's suppose it stopped there: you played a game, failed to judge it in a relevant manner and gave it a poor rating, well, I wouldn't have minded. We get one-star ratings all the time, and we do have our fair share of questionable feedback. However, I had two major problems with your critique of this game, because it didn't stop there. First of all, well, I really didn't appreciate the fact you used my game to tell another dev theirs is bad. My work encourages kindness and empathy, even when giving feedback. For example, you thought it was sad that Doug because he couldn't tell Sandra she sings bad (which Sandra already knows): Doug is just not rude enough to kill Sandra's enjoyment by leaving unrequired feedback, since Sandra isn't training, but just having fun. Admittedly, rating a game is different because we are exposed and indeed seeking feedback. But having a careful and respectul approach, when you critique something, is always a good thing. I'll use one of my own games as an example: here, you can find feedback a person gave me about the way I handled volume in one of my games, and I'll let you read the discussion. Do I sound angry because L. dared to criticise something about my work? No, not at all, because he considered me enough to phrase it politely, and to still look fairly at the overall experience. It's not about being hypocritical or sugarcoating things. I genuinely hate it when people use "honesty" as an excuse to be rude, "blunt" even to use a word you chose to use to qualify your review of the game in question after the dev had blocked you. Deciding to leave feedback without thinking of basic courtesy isn't honesty, it's just disrespecting the person you're giving feedback to. I do give feedback, and I am honest when I give it: however, one constant thing is that I CARE about the person I am reviewing and therefore explain my ideas, justify them and always leave room for contradiction. "Walking on egg shells" is just a sign of respect to the content you consumed.
The other thing that really bugged me off is you deciding that this user wasn't open to critique and wasn't worth supporting because they blocked you. It is also a major theme of one of my games: everyone is allowed to send their own boundaries. For example, and I won't be too lengthy about it because you didn't like it, but in High School Lolita, Chloé starts healing after she starts setting boundaries and leaving the influence of her groomer. In When The Wind Blew You Away, when Peter explains not being ready to talk about the abuse he endured, trying to force him actually lowers his affection for you in terms of stats. Another game of mine, My Eternal Night with a Star, is about a woman not feeling ready to have her first sexual intercourse with her boyfriend, and such boyfriend proving his love by letting her set her boundaries and encouraging her in doing so. Another example? In He tasted like poison, an actual NSFW game I wrote, the main character is in emotional turmoil because he doesn't manage to set boundaries with the man he loves. This is a constant.
And in your case, this user was completely allowed to block you, and you deciding your feedback was so valuable them not considering it only means they don't want to improve displays indeed entitlement. If anything, this is narcissistic behaviour. And I'm happy for you that you enjoyed Rendez-Doug, but my point has never been about it anyway. I do think your review of Rendez-Doug isn't very relevant (Adriel as a gossiping antagonist for Sandra's route, for example, is a HORRIBLE narrative-design idea: how are players supposed to root for him in his route if he's meant to be such a mean-spirited character?). It was about you completely ignoring what the game you rated tried to do and using my game as a comparison. Which is quite contradictory on your part: for some reason, I would think highly enough of my work to refuse criticism of it, and yet, my point is that I don't think highly enough of my work to be used the way you did. Because I would never use my work that way, because I respect others and I fight for others to get respected. Maybe I'm overreacting, feel free to call me hysterical even, that my reaction is April Fools-worthy: this is pure indignation, I am indeed angry and saddened by the fact another developer, especially a developer who relesed their FIRST visual novel, got criticised so harshly and that my work was the blade of your "verbal guillotine".
I wanted to answer to this, and you're free to answer to, but I don't really see how we could pursue this discussion, as I don't see how you could change your ways, so it is highly probable that I won't answer after this. I wish you a nice day/evening.