ASMBXT Discussion Thread

[swirlybomb]

I'm not understanding what the difference is between 'overworld' and 'hub world'? I haven't watched either STTB series yet, so maybe it'd be explained in there, but I'd still appreciate it if someone could give me the gist of it (for curiosity's sake, at the very least).

I'm definitely interested in this project, but I think I'll wait a bit and see how it goes before joining.

[Kashkabald]

Overworld: Think SMW map.

Hub world: Think a level that contains warps to other levels. That's basically it.

[cheez8]

Personally, I think I'd prefer STTB2's system, mostly because I'm biased towards the idea of an overworld because I think it would be cool to have one for some reason. Though depending on how much the difficulty distribution and level themes fail to be consistent with each other, it might be a lot easier to have a STTB style hub world where there aren't really environments around levels.

Or we could just not care about that and make an overworld with completely ridiculous patchwork environments suited to those of the levels nearby, no matter what they are, and organize levels solely by difficulty. I kinda like that idea, but the novelty of it probably wouldn't last too long.

Also I know we could decide themes for worlds first and make people adjust the difficulty of their levels according to the environment they choose but I really don't like that idea at all and I hope we're not going with that. It kind of totally breaks the spirit of "do whatever you want" that's in this project.

[O'Largill]

oh hey guis can i play make a level game too
I'm leaning more towards an overworld, rather than a hubworld. I just feel like there's more room for creativity there. Like the post above this one said, the overworld could be neat and patchwork-y, so as to not place any restrictions on level designers whatsoever. There could be levels with just regular exits, or levels that use power stars as secret exits, or levels that throw in ten power stars in odd places, just as collectibles. There shouldn't really be a standard there, I think - the reason why this project is going to be fun is that it's basically, "Do what you want." It should be mismatched, that what will make it interesting!

[Zaidyer]

(is there a limit to how many stars the game will register?)

(I kind of like the idea of star hyperinfaltion, it makes me chuckle)

Each level segment can only remember one star. Any more than that will make it think you got all of them after you touch the first one.

Also, be very careful about the "anything goes" approach! That's how Super RMN Bros did it. As a result, difficulty was everywhere and players would never be sure what each gimmick meant to each level designer. I suggest if you go that route, playtest each other's levels with a critical eye and be ready to make compromises and changes if everyone thinks you did something wrong. (RMN didn't do this.)

[Kashkabald]

Yeah, I think after we've finally done making our levels, we should just review each other's levels for a while. We should also make our levels with a clear goal in mind: my three ideas for levels right now are a beginning/mid-game level, an endgame level, and a post-game level (oh boy, I'm gonna have fun with this one)

[Doctor Shemp]

(is there a limit to how many stars the game will register?)

(I kind of like the idea of star hyperinfaltion, it makes me chuckle)

Each level segment can only remember one star. Any more than that will make it think you got all of them after you touch the first one.

Also, be very careful about the "anything goes" approach! That's how Super RMN Bros did it. As a result, difficulty was everywhere and players would never be sure what each gimmick meant to each level designer. I suggest if you go that route, playtest each other's levels with a critical eye and be ready to make compromises and changes if everyone thinks you did something wrong. (RMN didn't do this.)

That's useful information about the star. We should probably have some kind of obvious post up on common mistakes that will break SMBX, like having more than 1 star per segment or having more than 1 midpoint in a level, so that no-one tries them.

Also I'd share in the restraint too. Anything goes is really really fun up until the point where it isn't any fun at all. For example, having Zimbabwean star inflation sounds fun. But if only a few people do it and not all and we have some things getting unlocked based on stars then the stars in all the other levels become unimportant unless you're going for 100% because you could just grab all the stars in the Zimbabwe levels.

Basically I'd recommend having a few basic guidelines for level design and have anything goes within it. I guess that's really "a lot of things go" actually. Because, at the end of the day, I think that although having fun making a game is definitely important it shouldn't be as important as having fun playing it.

[Holy]

I'm very interested in this idea, in anything goes, and I'd love to help. I agree too that some guidelines kinda have to be set though just to keep it hip.

[Willhart]

I'd like to start making some levels for this.

[lukaramu]

Basically I'd recommend having a few basic guidelines for level design and have anything goes within it. I guess that's really "a lot of things go" actually. Because, at the end of the day, I think that although having fun making a game is definitely important it shouldn't be as important as having fun playing it.

I think you hit the nail on its head with that! A few basic guidelines would be nice. And it seems like this sort-of "Who wants to be the leader of this think" is getting forgotten. We really need someone to at least keep track of progress to have an oversight!

edit: I think if nobody disagrees, I'll make a level reservation thread (and maintain it) to

• Maintain oversight
• Balance difficulty (obviously, we can't have 80% endgame levels), while that would be decided by general consent
• Prevent that somebodys level that was very time consuming not to be in the game

[Ditocoaf]

One thing that I think would be cool is to do something about the whole Lives issue.
In STTB, nothing actually happens when you run out of lives, it's the exact same as if you'd just died normally. I actually think that's a good thing -- Gave Over is kind of a pointless mechanic anyway.
But could we do something else with lives? Use them as currency? "Spend 10 lives to to unlock this path" would be interesting. You'd still lose one when you die, but it'd be cool to give the player a reason to want them. Make it so that having ninety lives is somehow better than having two.

[docopoper]

How does everybody feel about hammer suits? They did tend to break quite a few levels in STTB1.
You could create a way to force the player to give it up, but I'm fairly sure that that's bad practice in terms of game design.

Also - while I do like the idea of loads of stars per level, wouldn't that just unnaturally drag out the game by making the player do the same level over and over?

We have to make sure not to tread on the well known pitfalls of game design with our anything goes approach.

[lukaramu]

Also - while I do like the idea of loads of stars per level, wouldn't that just unnaturally drag out the game by making the player do the same level over and over?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we do an overworld, the star just mustn't be defined as an exit, but it will still count, but I don't know how it works with a hub level.

[raocow]

I just want to say this right now after reading a few posts:

Let's try not to extend too much what we can do. The thing like, say, using lives as gateways and whatnot - this is the way I see it. If you can somehow work this on your level, and then other levels can benefit from it, awesome. However, let's not hinge the game on something that is theoretical. This kind of happened with a2mt and.. well, it's not finished. asmbxt is meant to be a 'simple, without pretention' project, after all!

Personally, I like the idea of a hub for one reason and one reason only:

I really, really want to keep a 'laissez faire' attitude to the project as much as possible. And I kind of want to 'accept' every level we have. BUT, with a hub, this means we can easily hide the more junky AND the more unreasonable levels in the environment, and so make them not really count as 'the main game'.

I honestly think that if receive several 'junk' levels, for lack of a better word, we just put them all in a secret world that is very explicitely mentionned as such. ... though perhaps in a more polite way. Highly unreasonable levels could be hidden within the hub, with perhaps hints in later parts of the hub in how to access them, and whatnot.

I guess the reason why i'm a LITTLE hesitant about this, however, is that it implies that someone will have to take the time to design and make this ...

[Doctor Shemp]

Also - while I do like the idea of loads of stars per level, wouldn't that just unnaturally drag out the game by making the player do the same level over and over?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we do an overworld, the star just mustn't be defined as an exit, but it will still count, but I don't know how it works with a hub level.

Only SMB3 Power Stars end the level when you collect them. SMW Power Stars keep the level running. Both count towards your star count regardless of what level they're in.

As for hub design or overworld design, why not just wait until we get some levels in? Then we'd start to get a rough idea of what kind of design we need to do.

[lukaramu]

BUT, with a hub, this means we can easily hide the more junky AND the more unreasonable levels in the environment, and so make them not really count as 'the main game'.

I honestly think that if receive several 'junk' levels, for lack of a better word, we just put them all in a secret world that is very explicitely mentionned as such. ... though perhaps in a more polite way. Highly unreasonable levels could be hidden within the hub, with perhaps hints in later parts of the hub in how to access them, and whatnot.

Like STTBs "'Not worth its own world'-world"?

And with the 'junk' levels itself, I think that its obvious that there should be feedback, while the suggested improvements shouldn't be obligatory, so everything is in the hand of the level designer. Was this meant with the 'anything goes' all along? This solution would work with this policy in mind.

And if the levels don't fit to the difficulty of the surrounding levels, we still could mark those as challenge for really good and experienced players, so that those levels are obligatory and only necessary to unlock a super hard bonus world.

As for hub design or overworld design, why not just wait until we get some levels in? Then we'd start to get a rough idea of what kind of design we need to do.

Yeah, than we will see how things balance out.

[docopoper]

So, do we start making levels then? Or are we supposed to wait for some kind of guidelines / submissions topic?

[limepie20]

So, do we start making levels then? Or are we supposed to wait for some kind of guidelines / submissions topic?

I don't think you guys should start making levels before you get organized with important threads like you said. Before that, you need someone to organize the threads (the leader I've been talking about).

[XutaWoo]

I don't have the power to manage this whole thing, nor do I realize I really have done much of anything for the Talkhaus (my only posts so far have been in this topic, sheesh!), but here's my idea on how to handle these things:

• Deliberately crappy levels probably shouldn't be in, unless it's something that looks deliberately crappy but actually plays well. As much as having a superbig collab sounds fun, we probably also shouldn't add too many; maybe two at most, one early one and another one later, perhaps containing a brick joke amongst the two? Of course, if everyone tries to make decent/quality levels that look decent/quality, then this doesn't really need any concern.
• That said, levels shouldn't really be denied unless they're actually bad or broken. Cut-off? Well, don't be unaware of it, but we're not Super Mario Central. Boring aesthetics? Well, not everyone has an eye for that stuff. 50 stars? ...honestly, I'm in disagreement with that, but if you can make it work well then sure why not.
• Levels are contained in a hub world, but perhaps something more interesting than just PIPES, y'know? I've said this before, but I think the Sonic Generations level blocks would be interesting; they're basically mini-stages without any (lethal) obstacles that are somewhat easy to traverse, kinda like the sky world from STTB except even more complex. Each world is based off of difficulty, perhaps, since with this method you could easily add traits of the level nearby it and create a conflagration of various themes. It'd certainly look neat, either way, and one could hide some really difficult levels behind some difficult platforming.
• Level end stars as exits, but perhaps the look of the ending doesn't matter. After all, while the SMB3 end is pretty classy, it doesn't really work well with all levels.
• Gimmick stages are fine and dandy in normal worlds, but the really weird stuff should really stick to the post-game. Or at least, the stuff that has twenty lakitus raining down Hammer Bros and Tanuki Suits should probably stick with the post-game. :V

I'm sure some of this is disagreeable, infact I know all of it is, but hey, if it really is an anything-goes collab then we don't need to be too formal. I'm especially adamant about the hub world; not only would it allow the player to skip levels they don't like, but the way I suggest it could really help with the anything-goes approach since it'd end up with patchwork worlds without need for a lot of spiriting for the overworld.

[kil3]

I haven't read every reply but to respond to what raocow said about a hubworld or overworld, I think it should be a hubworld and also that everything in this project should focus mainly on individual's levels with little to no overarching direction, bureaucracy, or meddling in stuff. This is obviously in response to the handling of ASMT/2/SMWCP/2, most of which's delays and other problems were/are being caused by bureaucracy and trying to create "coherent storylines", "matching themes" and other stuff people cared moderately to not at all about. IMO at the end, some people can just figure out how to mash of all the levels together, preferably haphazardly.

I didn't watch most of the STTB LP but from what I saw all the levels were just raocow entering random pipes or doors from a hubworld with a few other things here and there. Totally random and made no sense and the levels didn't match at all and it worked great.

[cheez8]

About the hub world idea... I have to say, I didn't start out liking it that much, but the idea of hiding levels is something I really like. And it's certainly not a bad idea. It would be nice if we could have something more interesting than pipes in a row though - I'm reminded somewhat of the hub worlds in Kirby: Nightmare in Dreamland and Return to Dreamland as ones that would be a lot more interesting, even if there's nothing outstanding about them.

As for people not wanting to be the leader.... I dunno, I really want to help with this but I'm probably severely under-qualified to guide this project all by myself, what with my scatterbrained-ness and lack of familiarity with the engine. I'd love to help lead this, but I wouldn't be able to do it on my own.

[docopoper]

[*]Levels are contained in a hub world, but perhaps something more interesting than just PIPES, y'know? I've said this before, but I think the Sonic Generations level blocks would be interesting; they're basically mini-stages without any (lethal) obstacles that are somewhat easy to traverse, kinda like the sky world from STTB except even more complex. Each world is based off of difficulty, perhaps, since with this method you could easily add traits of the level nearby it and create a conflagration of various themes. It'd certainly look neat, either way, and one could hide some really difficult levels behind some difficult platforming.

I like that idea. I haven't played Sonic Generations - but I assume what you're talking about is like Banjo-Kazooie's hub world. I think that's a good idea, it should be implemented at the end. We definitely shouldn't make it take too long to navigate though, considering we are making a collectathon game.

[McClain]

Based on some SMBX games I've seen/played, don't if you go with a hub world, just please don't make it a chore to traverse. Make it fast to get to different areas and keep the level entrances close together. This isn't Castlvania/Metroid.

I also HIGHLY recommend you set up a peer review system. Make sure every level gets tested for bugs and playability, and don't be afraid to be critical. Feelings will get hurt, but if everyone is mature about it you will end up with a better game. Don't just accept every level because you want a big game.

[XutaWoo]

Just for reference, I quickly tossed together a mock-up of what I'd imagine a hub world to be like.

man do i hate working with smb3 grass tiles

Basically, it isn't some big exploration thing but the general theme of the levels smooshed together into one large level select per world. It's kind like Banjo-Kazooie, but at the same time it's pretty different.

It'd certainly be less boring that STTB's, at any rate.

[Frozelar]

I do like that example thing XutaWoo made a lot. Although, to me it seems a bit cluttered. But other than that it seems about perfect.

Also I might be interested in being a leader as long as I'm not like, the only one... maybe like a co-leader or something. Although then again, I'm pretty ungood at leading stuff, so maybe not....

EDIT: Yeah nevermind about the whole leader thing. Just... just nevermind, heh