God damn seeing people that know absolutely fuck all about translation talking about what constitutes a good or bad one, or really what trade-offs a translator does when doing his works makes my blood boil.
Take it from an someone who actually studied and did translation kids: there is no literal vs. natural dichotomy.
The minimum baseline standard of a translations is:
1. Faithfull to the content, style, genre and register of the original.
2. Natural sounding in the target language.
Different translators have difficulty with these two points in different ways. Inexperienced/fan translations usually struggle with the second. while professionals that get high on their farts struggle with the first.
I will tell you this as well though, translation is a lot more science than art. Just like science, you have to have a proper factual knowledge base to start from so your science/translating can be accurate, and also know when is the time to spread your artistic wings, and to what extent. Those times are usually when dealing with specific culutural items, and even then translation theory has already done a pretty good job of establishing best practices when dealing with situations like that or other difficult tasks.
What I mean to say is, well trained and experienced translators tend to not produce too different of works, as there are indeed better and worse approaches, which they should know already from said training and experience, and follow them.
Translation, at least good translation, is NOT a Wild West anything goes localization effort.