raocow's talkhaus

Pyro wrote: ↑7 years ago OK THIS LEVEL NEEDS EXPLAINING

FIRST OF ALL THAT BUG IS HORRIBLE AND IM SO SAD NOW

Basically Grand Chemo 666 is like the one big injoke in this game. Back in the original dev of Hypnosis the original some conversation in skypehaus got brought up about 'the worst level ever' with tons of cgfx, endless explosions music (super overused in smbx community), and 21 sections and stars. I decided to actually make it for some ungodly reason (but got bored after like 4 sections) and enjl offered it to put it in the postgame.

Come hypnosis REDO and I tried to go for the original intent again and STILL got bored lol. So the level is basically just a giant mess of ideas. The freezing gimmick is taken from an absolutely garbage level from another 2k16 episode 'VVinter Redemption' (bad game please don't play it). And I think most people remember what the flashing water is a reference to :s.

You need a surge soup for that one star btw. It's the only way to get it. (it lets you run over lava). And the LORE is dumb and a reference to CC12 and also proof that i can't write anything serious to save my life without it sounding edgy.

But yeah this level is basically a remake of a purposefully awful level so that's why it's so bad lol. I apologize you had to go through it.

Spinda wrote: haha boy this game sure is bad and definitely really sucks am i cool yet

(that said grand chemo sure is something)

Ryrir wrote: what i've learned today: it's perfectly fine to make a terrible level as long as you do it ironically

got it

Spinda wrote: ↑7 years ago haha boy this game sure is bad and definitely really sucks am i cool yet

(that said grand chemo sure is something)

Ryrir wrote: ↑7 years ago what i've learned today: it's perfectly fine to make a terrible level as long as you do it ironically

got it

Leet wrote: ↑7 years ago oh boy it's the talkhaus time when people talk about whether it's "okay" to make something or not

SAJewers wrote: ↑7 years ago you have to know the rules before you break the rules. If you want to make something that makes fun of terrible level design, you should know why it's terrible. you want this, not this.

raocow wrote: ↑7 years ago mdpz made it WAY MORE CLEAR that you aren't supposed to actually play it though
(thank you asmbxt hub team!)

BobisOnlyBob wrote: ↑7 years ago both of these examples are hilarious though, in totally different ways. today's level... wasn't that. It wasn't funny, it wasn't goofy, it was just hard and bad. Like... I'm not saying people shouldn't make bad levels, but if you're gonna deliberately try and make "a bad level" and not signpost it with farce or whatever, then I'm gonna get annoyed when it proceeds to occupy my favourite LPer's episode time and make him genuinely frustrated with how unfun it is. Compare the hysterical laughter constantly throughout "a bad level" and its crazy bus music, with... anything in today's episode. Today's only ended in laughter because of how hysterically and unintentionally broken it ended up being.

Blue wrote: ↑7 years ago The problem is that the level doesn't play like it's ironically bad, it plays like it really wanted to be good but didn't quite make it. There's a ton of good ideas in there that could all make for fun levels or fun segments in some kind of mega-level, but they're implemented in a way that makes them frustrating. It's the worst kind of bad because it's a single draft away from being good and also hard enough to make you deal with it for a long time and force you to take it seriously. a bad level wasn't hard, which made it easy to laugh at. The infrequent checkpointing certainly doesn't help, because you have to replay the bad over and over again, taking it seriously until you get good at it, and the easiest way to kill a joke is to repeat it a million times by making you replay it a bunch.

raocow wrote: ↑7 years ago well this is funny

video 3 of this series was just tagged as non-add friendly.

Like I don't really care, I'm just curious about what google's robots saw or heard.

Leet wrote: ↑7 years ago oh boy it's the talkhaus time when people talk about whether it's "okay" to make something or not

Blue wrote:

BobisOnlyBob wrote: ↑7 years ago both of these examples are hilarious though, in totally different ways. today's level... wasn't that. It wasn't funny, it wasn't goofy, it was just hard and bad. Like... I'm not saying people shouldn't make bad levels, but if you're gonna deliberately try and make "a bad level" and not signpost it with farce or whatever, then I'm gonna get annoyed when it proceeds to occupy my favourite LPer's episode time and make him genuinely frustrated with how unfun it is. Compare the hysterical laughter constantly throughout "a bad level" and its crazy bus music, with... anything in today's episode. Today's only ended in laughter because of how hysterically and unintentionally broken it ended up being.

The problem is that the level doesn't play like it's ironically bad, it plays like it really wanted to be good but didn't quite make it. There's a ton of good ideas in there that could all make for fun levels or fun segments in some kind of mega-level, but they're implemented in a way that makes them frustrating. It's the worst kind of bad because it's a single draft away from being good and also hard enough to make you deal with it for a long time and force you to take it seriously. a bad level wasn't hard, which made it easy to laugh at. The infrequent checkpointing certainly doesn't help, because you have to replay the bad over and over again, taking it seriously until you get good at it, and the easiest way to kill a joke is to repeat it a million times by making you replay it a bunch.