| Posts by MrDeePay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Sargebut, but but but but...
Because you have to wait for Magikoopa to randomly warp to where he needs to be to try to attack Mario. Much of the time he'll be in the upper right corner doing nothing, and when he is in position, you have to time your jumps right with the Bowser fireballs that are constantly being fired your way AND have to constantly avoid the Dry Bones that will always reassemble itself. These things can (and will) easily throw off the timing necessary to make a big enough gap in the Turn Block wall to pass through because of the constant movement required.
What you have completely and utterly failed to do was compensate for a player going through this level blindly. You have things hazard blatantly behind view, hazards that attack Mario mid-jump, annoying waiting games, and idiotic precision jumping. Just because you can beat your own level without tool assistance does not prove anything substantial in the long run. Just because you can do it with a keyboard does not prove anything substantial in the long run. (Most people play SMW hacks with only a keyboard.)
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by SargeThat's not the point I'm trying to make, as some of the critic I've received (bits and pieces) go in one ear and out the other. The magikoopa segments are hard, and I actually expected people to not like that section as it actually involved waiting.
Things like that can hurt the pacing of your level.
QuoteIt was in the original game, but in a more tame sense.
You weren't always attacked constantly when SMW did it as well. Hell, it was also possible for you to outright skip those sections altogether if you had a cape (which you don't provide until AFTER that spot).
QuoteNext off, the whole lack of compensation for blind players may be true to an extent. How am I suppose to compensate for an enemy barely obscured?
Make him easier to spot for the player.
QuoteNine times out of ten there is some form of visual hint (such as curtains being cut out to show a thwomp is behind them, or a football being kicked to make the player quickly locate the source).
Obviously you didn't do a good enough job.
QuoteWhen you refer to hazards that attack mario midjump, I can only think of one feasible instance, which is usually avoided unless the situation is done in a very uncommon way.
Explain to me how a blind player is suppose to make it past the Thwomp trio at the beginning of the level that borders on Big Mario Discrimination, then. Or the one at the end without landing on the spike in an attempt at faking the Thwomp out.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by SargeThe third thwomp becomes visible while you're doing whatever to get past the first thwomp. Enough time is given for whatever method you are doing. If you're ballsy and run and jump under them, you should have no problem continuing your sprint for another few blocks. If you're being patient and spin jumping on each of them, you will have time to think of how to get through. The more ballsy you are, the quicker you have to and can react.
You say nothing about the second one, which is the one that gets Mario the most.
QuoteThe whole reason I actually didn't use bright colors was because I didn't want to give the player a seizure (Examples of such can be found in my first attempt, which is level 105 in the rom.)
Then you should not have went through making the level the way you did.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I had something, but it got lost in the mix since I was (and still am) busy judging entries for the VLDC.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by SargeThen that's user error. Not much is going on, you have time to observe what is ahead, and you can actually plan around it.
That is not an excuse. The way you have the spot set up requires more work to get past than necessary and is also a blatant, BLATANT case of Big Mario Discrimination.
QuoteWell maybe I wanted to make it that way? If there was a problem with every idea, we would be nowhere in life.
That's why you try to minimize the issues as much as you can. You just did not do a good enough job at it. To be honest, the more I play through this level, the more I just want to give the thing a lower score.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by SargeYep. Totally not the creator's fault that they decided to not pay more attention. In fact, everyone who has designed a level in video game history has designed absolute crap because they assumed that players would try and avoid obstacles hiding in plain sight.
Holy hell, this is hopeless. You seem to have this jaded take on difficulty that is blinding you to what is right there to your face. The amount of precision necessary to make it past that setup at the start, especially as Big Mario without taking any damage, is just stupid.
QuoteAlso, the method you may be taking is probably enforcing big mario discrimination. It's like a less obvious case of this:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/Tutankoopa/screenie.png
....
That is an alternate path that only Small Mario can take that dumps him off at the start of the next room. Big Mario can continue through the first room (hell, Small Mario can as well if he's feeling risky) and he'll be placed in the middle of the next room. Like Teyla said, that is a terrible example and there is a difference between Small Mario having another way through a level and making it difficult for Big Mario through the main path.
QuoteI thought I already admitted that I didn't do a good enough job as I thought I did. That's just restating the obvious.
It's nice to beat things into skulls once in a while.
QuoteAlso at this point in time, I don't give two actual craps about points. Give me a low enough score to get last place if you freaking want to. Level design is not an absolute science as it relies on the opinions of others, not facts.
Contrary to what some people would like to believe, quality is more objective than people say it is. You made numerous bad decisions that lead to a level that is of ridiculous difficulty and quality. (Cool or Cruel would be an example of a ridiculous difficulty hack that remains to be Kaizo, albeit by Kaizo standards.) You just have a personal (very) high tolerance to difficulty (higher than mine, at least), nothing more.
Your level is full of bad decisions and the fact that you're defending most of them to the death despite how glaringly obvious they are to the player shows strong devotion.
How about I attract Axem to your posts and let him weigh in on the matter (though I already know what he gave your level). I'm sure he can explain to you what's wrong with your level than I can. I seriously hope you're just Trolling.
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-08 08:47:15 PM by MrDeePay. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://bin.smwcentral.net/u/1365/B.Brush%2B3.ips
Give this a whirl. Decorations aren't finished and I haven't started on fixing the tree stump cutoff yet (that's last), but here's the full level. I also alterted some things in the first section of the main level for slowdown and difficulty reasons (no Bullet Bill shooters, made the SMWCoin just a little harder to get, etc.), but that's about it.
EDIT: Corrected Link
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-09 02:32:14 PM by MrDeePay. |
|
|
|
|
....Make the level safe? What?
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by SargeWell that still gives no one an excuse to claim that the second thwomp is invisible. I'm arguing with this because you are claiming that obstacles in plain sight, such as the second thwomp, are invisible and unfair. I'd be less defensive if it was something say, the third or fourth thwomp, but nope. You chose the second which is hiding behind a see-through fence.
I'll need to double check to make sure I never said the second Thwomp was invisible, but rather that it blatantly discriminates against Big Mario. But at the end of the day, the level is still bad and you should really consider the audiences you're targeting.
|
|
|
|
Hey, remember when I said I gave three levels so far 0/20 for Level Design? Yeah, well... make that seven.
You people need to stop throwing shit together in Lunar Magic and calling it a day.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by ZMannAt this point, I'll just go ahead and say it:
Why so serious, MrDeePay?
Unless the levels you're talking about really are completely terrible, maybe you should ease up a little. To me, you've been seeming overly harsh and critical of half the levels that were brought up in this thread, and such negativity has been really bothering me for the past few days.
I am not going to sugarcoat my words just to make someone happy, "respect" me or "like" me. I prefer to be straight to the point when I try to make one.
Originally posted by GeminiRageNot trying to derail this thread or anything, but I'm actually curious as to where you found these results for 2011's WLC? I don't recall ever seeing them posted on this forum.
http://www.smwcentral.net/?p=viewthread&t=43901
Originally posted by Forty2Unless MrDeePay explicitly points out how absolutely everything in the level is completely and utterly horrible to the point of unplayability, the only thing I can see coming from a zero score is a massive backlash, not only from the contestants that receive them,
Which I doubt anyone will throw anything out I haven't seen before. And if an entrant gets riled up at a level of theirs getting a 0/20 in level design, then they should consider making levels that are in the scope of this contest or levels that aren't irredeemably trash next time. I recall one person from a previous contest saying they misinterpreted the rules of it after getting a low ranking for their entrant and said they'd do better next time. .....Only for them to make an atrocious level.
Quotebut also others that find such a score unjust.
Which is not of my concern, though I'd chalk it up to just having higher standards than most people here. (Major reason why I'd rarely consider being a hack mod to begin with.)
Though to their credit, I tend to dislike giving numerical scores to anything largely due to discrepancy reasons.
Originally posted by Forty2Surely, if a level actually is possible to complete and has some substance to it, it deserves at least some kind of score.
Says who?
Originally posted by Forty2I'm all for being blunt, but giving out zeros to things (some) people (probably) put (some) effort into just seems hateful. (That is, unless they are legitimately joke/unplayable entries.) But eh, my word probably isn't worth anything to anyone.
Or the designer just needs to up their standards. You can put effort into something and it still be ass or fail to fit the context of a particular contest. You want flawed efforts? Go look at ASMT, Production, or even some of the VIPs if you wanna go that far.
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-10 02:29:08 PM by MrDeePay. |
|
|
|
Originally posted by leodElitistic judges are the worst judges for something that you do as a hobby, they just kind of take away all the fun.
Fun is subjective. When entering a contest, entrants should expect that their levels will be judged based on its overall quality while remaining to stay in the confines of the contest itself.
QuoteAnd this year we seem to have a little too many of those judges (if I'm not mistaken with who is judging).
No need to beat around the bush.
Originally posted by TRSI sure hope you mean aren't. 
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Originally posted by TRSAnd most your posts in this thread, at least to me, seem to radiate a lot of hate. Not towards the levels, but towards the levels' makers. I agree with most of the criticisms you've stated, but damn those are harsh putdowns for something we do for fun.
See: Teyla
Some authors are just overly defensive to when they make a level that isn't as good as they think it is. Quality is more objective than one may believe.
|
|
|
|
|
It is possible for something to have some good traits but is overwhelmed by bad to the point that it doesn't matter. Same goes the other way.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by MaxodeXYou completely misunderstood me. I agree that when you have one good thing and the rest is bad, they're going to point out the bad ones. But what I'm saying here is that they don't tell you how you can improve, and that's what feedback is about. You're not sure what you should fix, so the flaws will be there still.
Name me all of the previous LDC results where the judge provided "actual" C+C. They tended to give you a general statements, if anything. Either way, big whoop. I am not here to kiss your boo boos better if you like that if I don't say anything positive or negative about a level. Calling one out on faults is easier than singing their praises.
|
|
|
|
6B would work, but I feel that it should be used in the level from start to finish and the outdoor portions have a completely different tone. Said tone would be that the time of day is that the day is gone, but night isn't quite here.
A more common term for that would be twilight.
|
|
|
|
|
Because everyone has different thresholds to difficulty and those with lower just love throwing the word "Kaizo" around when something that isn't actually Kaizo-levels of hard is outside of their comfort zone. I know Axem disqualified some entries for "twisting SMW too far into something it's not" (long before he said so in the topic), but the ones he did I tried to judge anyway... and ended up getting zeroes anyway. I don't know about FirePhoenix, though I suppose he's more generous than both of us.
|
|
|
|
....
That's exactly what he's talking about.
|
|
|
|
QuoteAnd a miscellaneous question: I've been following this project pretty faithfully, but are the OW paths in the base ROM representative of how the levels will actually be laid out in the final release? Or is it just a placeholder?
They're just a placeholder and some levels will be swapped around.
|
|
|
|
|
That hack used a sprite that comes with OW Sprite Tool that allows the player to walk faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
