the talkhaus doesn't like the SMBX community's design?

[Darkonius64]

So i was reading the comments in raocow's LP of Apocalypse of Foroze and i noticed that many peiple didn't like thw level design or the smbx community.
I think that watching a playthrough of only ONE smbx community episode doesn't mean you know the design of the community, and playng tower of bias makes this way of thinking even worse, for example judge the community's design from Super Mario Star Expedition, another brilliant smbx episode(even though people call them hacks for some reason)
and just to clarify, i'm talking ONLY about the talkhaus members, not raocow, at the end of AoF Playthough, raocow gave a pretty good and legit mini-review of thr episode.

so what do you think?



EDIT: this is NOT a flamewar excuse, it's an opinion excange

[InsaneIntentions1]

Because everyone on talkhaus obviously has the same opinion

[Septentrion Pleiades]

So i was reading the comments in raocow's LP of Apocalypse of Foroze and i noticed that many peiple didn't like thw level design or the smbx community.
I think that watching a playthrough of only ONE smbx community episode doesn't mean you know the design of the community, and playng tower of bias makes this way of thinking even worse, for example judge the community's design from Super Mario Star Expedition, another brilliant smbx episode(even though people call them hacks for some reason)
and just to clarify, i'm talking ONLY about the talkhaus members, not raocow, at the end of AoF Playthough, raocow gave a pretty good and legit mini-review of thr episode.

so what do you think?

I have watched many playthroughs of many episodes, and found most of them focus to much on lengthening levels and avoiding clash. I've even tried LPing AoF but found it didn't really have enough content to keep it interesting throughout. Most of us have experience outside of watching raocow playing game.

[Darkonius64]

I have watched many playthroughs of many episodes, and found most of them focus to much on lengthening levels and avoiding clash. I've even tried LPing AoF but found it didn't really have enough content to keep it interesting throughout. Most of us have experience outside of watching raocow playing game.

having long levels is not necessarly a bad thing, a lomg level is good if the gameplay.is not repetitive but enjoyable, i think i'm repeating myself by sayng that Mario Classic and Super Mario Star Expedition are two.of.the best episodes regarding.quality and level design, yet there are.more emerging projects, like.AoF2 or the New Great Castle Adventure.

[Bwarch]

having long levels is not necessarly a bad thing, a lomg level is good if the gameplay.is not repetitive but enjoyable, i think i'm repeating myself by sayng that Mario Classic and Super Mario Star Expedition are two.of.the best episodes regarding.quality and level design, yet there are.more emerging projects, like.AoF2 or the New Great Castle Adventure.

Having a wee bit of a problem there mate?

[Darkonius64]

having long levels is not necessarly a bad thing, a lomg level is good if the gameplay.is not repetitive but enjoyable, i think i'm repeating myself by sayng that Mario Classic and Super Mario Star Expedition are two.of.the best episodes regarding.quality and level design, yet there are.more emerging projects, like.AoF2 or the New Great Castle Adventure.

Having a wee bit of a problem there mate?

if you're talking about my grammar it's because i'm bad at typing with my mobile, if you're talking about my reply then i don't get it since i didn't say anything bad...

[S.N.N.]

Level design is so subjective that opinions are going to vary wildly (especially between communities). While members of the Talkhaus may not like SMBX's style of making overly long/tedious levels, members of the SMBX community may not like the Talkhaus's style of filling their levels with gimmicks and in-jokes. That being said, if one community enjoys making levels a certain way, who cares what the other one thinks?

I genuinely hope more people realize that there's no golden rule for level design, and no style is "correct". If that were the case, these mods/hacks would be substantially less interesting to watch and play.

[Bwarch]

if you're talking about my grammar it's because i'm bad at typing with my mobile, if you're talking about my reply then i don't get it since i didn't say anything bad...

Pretty impressive mangling, even for mobile.

Anyway, carry on.

But yes, the main problem with most peeps seems to be that they don't like how long the levels can tend to be with SMBX. This is a conversation that is had every now and then and I think at the end of it it's usually decided that between communities there's different expectations so far as level length goes.

I say this only as a spectator as I've barely played any SMBX myself, only seen others opinions.

Edit: S.N.N. sums it up quite nicely, really.

[Darkonius64]

Level design is so subjective that opinions are going to vary wildly (especially between communities). While members of the Talkhaus may not like SMBX's style of making overly long/tedious levels, members of the SMBX community may not like the Talkhaus's style of filling their levels with gimmicks and in-jokes. That being said, if one community enjoys making levels a certain way, who cares what the other one thinks?

I genuinely hope more people realize that there's no golden rule for level design, and no style is "correct". If that were the case, these mods/hacks would be substantially less interesting to watch and play.

you got a pretty solid point, but usually overly long and tedius levels occour in contests in order to imprss judges, but i totally agree with you, also Bwarch i'm also italian so it's also kinda hard to speak abother language D:

[Doctor Shemp]

but usually overly long and tedius levels occour in contests in order to imprss judges

I think the issue people take with the SMBX community is that if "long and tedious" levels are what people think impress judges then the judges must have given the impression that they like long and tedious levels. And since judges are in theory meant to be reflective of the opinions of the community in general, the impression it gives to outsiders is that the whole community likes long and tedious levels.

And S.N.N. I'll think you'll find that there is a golden rule for level design and it's my opinion on what's good.

[cheez8]

As the author of that marathon switch palace level from back in asmbxt, I can say pretty safely that even though opinions on "proper" level length differ, there's nobody who thinks that a level of absolutely any length is fine. There is a definite limit of how much progress a player is willing to accept as being lost because of a single death, whether that limit is one minute's worth, two minutes' worth, or even more. It varies from person to person, and also by where in the game a level is. When there is a very real possibility of losing four or five minutes of progress because of a single death, though, it seems most people would rather have something shorter between checkpoints. Otherwise, that's just more and more ground the player has to retread and at some point it will begin to feel like a waste of time.

Personally, I have no idea what "the smbx community's design" even is- I'm just speaking from feedback on my own too-long level. Levels certainly can be too long though, especially since level designers who have tested their levels and know all their tricks tend to spend less time being uncertain about what to do, and the level will feel shorter to them than it will to others.

I do think that the thing where levels in contests are usually overly long is not restricted to SMBX, though. I seem to remember several levels in some of the past SMW level contests taking well over ten minutes to complete, and not all of them even made use of more than one midpoint.

...
Wow, I sure can ramble.

[Diggertron]

Remember that one SMW contest years ago that had like, a 200 screen entry?

Yeah that happened.

In my opinion, long levels themselves aren't the problem, the problem is how you make it. There's a difference between slogging through 15 of a single level and crying in fustration as a goomba jumps out of the sky at you, and playing a level where the enjoyment is a buffet with a chef dedicated to you, to the point where going through the level again is almost a treat in of itself. I guess an example of the latter would be the very last star in Super Mario Galaxy 2, it's long, it's hard hurr hurr and if you take a single point of damage it's back to the start. But somehow it's still fun to go through again and again.

Disclaimer: I never beat it.

[swirlybomb]

I guess an example of the latter would be the very last star in Super Mario Galaxy 2, it's long, it's hard hurr hurr and if you take a single point of damage it's back to the start. But somehow it's still fun to go through again and again.

i basically hated it and everything in the world by the time i was done with that one :x


MEANWHILE I'm part of the Talkhaus and have a tendency to make levels generally more on the long-ish side because I kinda just keep going until I'm out of ideas? Perhaps I'm just a wild card.

[Leet]

i tend to make short levels that seem long when im making them and seem short a while after the fact

[Willhart]

I like playing with the custom graphics. The less the result looks like a mario game the better.

[sedron]

I'm gonna rant here for a bit, so please bear with me.

Back when I finished my old SMBX episode, I went and posted it on Knux's Forum (just to have somewhere to put it,) and I looked around at how others generally judged episodes/levels. If I had to take a few key design objectives from that community, they'd probably be the following:

1. No "clash." That's basically the golden rule.

2. Offer lots of options/paths. I saw a lot of levels and episodes get bashed for being "linear."

3. Make the levels long. Short levels were also bashed fairly frequently.

4. Use custom graphics/music. Levels made with the default graphics weren't treated too well.

Personally, I don't particularly agree with all of these points nor do I feel that they should be emphasized so much.

"Clash," is something that should be avoided in really any game/media unless it's specifically supposed to be there. You can actually notice it in some big games if you look hard enough. The first thing I think of is the enemy design in Kirby Return to Dreamland. Some of the new enemies just look so out-of-place (especially this thing...) Clash can hurt a level from an aesthetic viewpoint, but I think SMBX communities treat it too harshly.

I have a hard time thinking a level or game is poor for being "linear." I saw that word tossed around on Knux's Forums a lot. It's not hard at all to think of good games and levels that are linear (don't have multiple paths/endings, etc.) I think more problems arise when a level does not give you multiple options in dealing with (most,) of the obstacles therein. It's more important to give the player lots of ways to approach an issue rather than multiple possible issues to deal with.

Level length is too subjective, so I won't really get into that. I can also understand the custom graphics thing to a degree (it gets tiring seeing the same SMB3 tilesets,) but again, communities are way too harsh about it.

Keep in mind this is all opinion based on my (limited,) experiences with the SMBX community, so yeah.

[Willhart]

Long levels and only one midpoint dont mix too well. Both communities seem to do this though. My first levels were super grainy and all over the place but they were still accepted and I put a lot of efort to them.

[Mata Hari]

I never beat it.

Mods?

[Jesuiscontent]

"I'm mad and your opinion is wrong"
-ITT

Or we can all just be civil fucking adults and stop bitching about people arguing

???