 |
|
 |
|
| Posts by AxemJinx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps now's a good time to show these two songs? :p
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v2DdJtFmzwA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v2DdJtFmzwA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Fickle Frost Fun
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NU2jzoOWf7s&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NU2jzoOWf7s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Cold Crevasse
|
|
|
|
Like a sudden wall of bullet bills, like a sudden fit of cutoffness and eye-searing palettes...
...
...ok, enough of that. RttC is released! ...almost. It still has to survive moderation.
I'd like to ask everyone to wait until it gets approved, for a simple reason: if there are any remaining major glitches, I don't want anyone to have to restart after going through half the game.
Of course, if you can't wait, then by all means go ahead and download it. It's not like I can stop you :p
Feel free to post anything you like in the thread (related to the hack *shakes fist*)!
If I think of anything else, I'll post it here. In the meantime...
Be patient and/or enjoy!
|
|
|
|
an00bis, Qhj: Yes, I'd be happy to see videos ^^. Just be aware that, should the hack be rejected for any reason, there might be minor changes to some of the levels. Then again, those changes would probably hardly be noticeable in videos, so go ahead! Seeing other people play the hack is the best indicator of difficulty (for me, anyway).
Foursword: What, really? XD That means a lot to me. I hope you enjoy it, then.
Geno_4_Ever: That's a good point, I'll probably do that when I upload the custom music I made for the game.
Mother 3- Snowman: And so it begins :p
Actually, thanks a lot for reminding me about halfway points and layer 2 sprites- I had completely forgotten about that situation. As for the conveyor end tiles, I'm pretty sure that if you make them tile 130 (cement block), then you can't walk onto the end tiles from the conveyors, which would be a pain gameplay-wise. So, I'll probably keep that as-is. I don't mind players using that to their advantage, as it doesn't seem like it would completely break the level in any case.
Hmm, it looks like I'll have to be a little more patient. If you've tried it already, then thanks, and I hope you're enjoying it ^^. Otherwise, hopefully it's almost done going through the process.
|
|
|
|
Well, that's a relief: RttC has been accepted. Thanks for all the support and feedback so far, everyone ^^
So, in case you haven't already, try it out and let me know what you think.
|
|
|
|
ixfd64: There are none.
Sara: Levels with secret exits have a "!" in the level name.
|
|
|
|
Okay, a small update:
I'm submitting a new patch (Version 1.01) to fix the issues that have come up since release:
-Cold Cloud Climb's midway point
-Layer 2 Sprite for Teal Tide Trek's midway point
-A couple of playability tweaks in Hoarfrost Hike and Rising Tide Ride
-Also, the title screen star denoting 100% completion should now appear
It should be up reasonably soon. I'm especially sorry about Cold Cloud Climb; the midway point was working fine up until release, which is strange.
Also, is there any interest in the hack's music? I'm considering uploading them here and/or making mp3s out of them if people are interested.
*Checks comments* Oh, maybe there is XD. Even so, if you'd like to see the songs uploaded in some way or form, let me know.
|
|
|
|
To me, the FG looks a little plain in comparison to the BG. Maybe the FG could use a little more texture/decoration? Also, I hate implementing the floating skulls because they take up so much sprite space...keep in mind you can separate the skulls and have the player ride on 1 or 2 of them instead of four. That gives you more sprite room, at the expense of making the section a little harder. Then again, I always thought skull rides were kinda easy and boring.
Finally, you could try giving some of the sprites more muted colors to fit the underground motif, as long as doing so doesn't mess up the colors for anything else.
The switch block setups look good, like in SS 5-6: backtracking becomes harder thanks to larger gaps in the platforms. Design looks good, though I can't divine much from these SS. The skull ride should provide variety so long as it isn't slow and tedious.
Hmm, I always write a lot when I analyze levels >_<
Well, I hope this helps you.
|
|
|
|
I almost forgot to ask about this:
Bowser's Starship leads to one of two endings based on whether you have completed Thirdspace. Does this mean that Bowser's Starship has two exits?
I was very methodical in getting all the secret exits in the latest version of TSRPR, so I can think of no other reason for missing a single exit. Is it possible that visiting Thirdspace before beating the game for the first time makes it impossible to get all the exits, because the incomplete ending is now gone? Or am I really missing something else?
|
|
|
|
As weird as it sounds, this glitch only seems to activate on File 1 for me (or possibly the first file I save on, since I always pick File 1 first). Here's what I do, using ZSNES 1.51:
Load The Essence Star
Clear save data
Start new game on File 1
Arrive at the island
Complete the chateau level, save your progress once finished
Go to Frankly's
And I'll stop there so I don't spoil anything. I don't think this has anything to do with the order in which you do things, or with collectibles, because this glitch doesn't require you to do anything besides go to the chateau.
Is there any reason only File 1 (or possibly the first save data) would be affected by this?
|
|
|
|
Strange...even after deleting my .srm file, even after extracting the .ips from the .zip file a second time to do another patch, I still get the "event" as soon as I save data to Slot 1. It doesn't matter what else I do- if I save anywhere, it happens. It's like this "flag" is already set when I load the ROM, and gets written to sram once I save the game...not that I know anything about this, mind you :p
Edit: I don't even have to visit the chateau. Saving even before that triggers it, too. I'm stumped *scratches head thoughtfully*...
Are we sure this problem is in the hack itself? Could it be external somehow?
Edit 2: It gets weirder. I tried saving at the same exact spot in ZSNES 1.36, and there were no problems. Then, I loaded the same save file using ZSNES 1.51, and I got the "event". I immediately quit the emulator without saving and loaded the file a second time using ZSNES 1.36. This time I only got the last "part" of the "event". I'm not sure why these specific things would happen, but just based on this, I'd be willing to bet there are some compatibility issues with different emulator versions.
|
| Last edited on 2009-06-27 11:37:43 PM by AxemJinx. |
|
|
|
Phew, took a while to find this thread again.
It took me long enough, but I'm releasing the soundtrack for Rise to the Challenge. I'm no expert at file conversion, but I'm pretty sure I did everything right. I uploaded the .zip file here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=95O1B4P8
I hope there are no issues, and that you enjoy it!
On a side note, I'm also uploading another replacement patch so that the star on the title screen showing 100% completion says 53 like it's supposed to. Hopefully that will be up soon (version 1.2, I think).
|
|
|
|
I think Game Design: Theory & Practice does a pretty good job of explaining the components of a good level without restricting the creator's ability to make something unique. It tries to focus on concepts without forming strict rules about them. For example:
On a macro scale, how often should you alternate between levels requiring different play styles (e.g. action-, exploration-, puzzle-oriented) or having different environments (grassy, watery, mountain, etc)? If you mix them in the same ratio or alternate in the same way every time, the level order becomes a predictable sine wave. If you group levels by similar traits too much, the player might feel like the game completely changes only to become repetitive and overwrought again. These results aren't necessarily so, or necessarily bad, but understanding how the level organization can affect the overall experience is important. In RttC, putting a lot of water-based levels in one world was very unpopular, because of both the slow pacing and the difficulty.
What kind of actions can the player take within a level? Jumping, sliding, carrying, swimming, bouncing, springing, riding, shooting (fireballs), flying, spinjumping, spinning (w/ cape), reading (message boxes, NPCs)...understanding all of these actions and how they are represented in the game will make you better equipped to design a level. Just like the amount of variety in level style/environment is important on a macro level, the way you organize basic actions within a single level will have a huge impact on the overall experience for that level. Furthermore, the very platforms, objects, sprites, etc. that you use have to support these basic actions and make the architecture dynamic. How many levels in Bowser's Return only involved jumping from one flat platform to the next, over and over again, with only a few basic enemies? Are those levels using a good balance of possible game actions?
Also, think about classic platformers like Yohis's Island or Crash Bandicoot 3. How did these games combine basic actions with platforms/sprites/environments in different ways to keep the experience fresh? Having objects and sprites with different movement patterns, attack patterns, physical properties (sticky? slippery? prevents/calls for a game action?), etc. can help a great deal. Yoshi's Island in particular always had some new idea: Chain chomps attacking from above and below, Yoshi vehicles, watermelons, donut lifts, tap-taps, ground-poundable floors, fake flowers, a dozen different shy guy types, marching mildes, amazee dayzees that blow bubbles, smiling cacti...think about how all of these elements act both by themselves and in combination.
On the topic of nonlinearity, choice does not necessarily mean making branching paths in every level. More immediate choices involving how to get past a particular section, obstacle, etc. are just as effective, if not more so, because they engage players to come up with solutions themselves, on the spot. Think about the first section of the level "Canopy Clash" from RttC. Sure, it is immensely difficult because there is so much going on at once, but the player has a lot of immediate high/low, stop/go, fast/slow decisions to make throughout that section; the player has to constantly reevaluate his/her strategy, making that part very dynamic and action-packed. Of course, the dynamism doesn't have to be rooted in adrenaline-fueled levels. The second half of TSRPR's Koopa Lake #1 is a good example of short-range choices with slow pacing; so are scrolling levels, and others, when used properly.
Of course there's a lot more, but hopefully I've made a decent case here. Breaking game design down into components doesn't have to come at the expense of creativity.
|
| Last edited on 2009-10-02 12:28:01 AM by AxemJinx. |
|
|
|
Do you mean the predecessor to "N+", the ninja-ish platformer released on XBLA, DS, etc? Or is this a different "N"? In any case, I'd like to read that manifesto of yours :p
I like your points about journeying. In levels like Cold Cloud Climb and Sunken Ship Saga, I tried to create a sense of adventure and exploration by changing the environment to reflect progress, direction, etc. Cold Cloud Climb became icy, then reverted back to normal on the clouds. Sunken Ship had areas within the ship, above the deck, in the surrounding waters, and in a small cave. You could say this is another compositional issue, except in terms of location.
Your engagement points seem to agree with my "immediate/short term nonlinearity" ones, and I like your position on the consequences of failure. It's especially important when introducing new blocks or enemies, for example, to communicate how they work without punishing the player for ignorance. You can see this philosophy dating back all the way to the original Prince of Persia, in which the first fake floors did NOT crumble into spike pits, but onto lower footing.
|
|
|
|
Categorizing nonlinearity is a pretty tough goal, but I'll try to build on the O.P.'s efforts.
First off, the meaning of nonlinearity within the level changes depending on the nature of the level as a whole. For this post, I'll try to divide level styles based on what kind of critical path they have.
The critical path is the most obvious, basic, reliable, understandable way to get from point A (start) to point B (goal). It's what the player understands is necessary in order to progress through the stage. If I'm in the forest on the way home to my secluded cottage, and I understand that the dirt path I'm standing on will get me there, then the dirt path is the critical path to my house. However, in level design, the critical path does not have to be an actual "path." It can be a goal of any kind, tangible or intangible. So, let's try to categorize levels:
Directional: This is the type of critical path I was just talking about, in which the player understands that he/she has to go in a certain overall direction to reach the goal. This can be left->right, right->left, down->up, etc., and making use of several types from one level/section to the next will probably give your levels a more varied feel.
Tangible Goal: In order to progress in this type of level, the player has to interact with some tangible object/sprite within the level. This can mean picking up a special object/quest item, talking to/finding an NPC character, defeating all of the enemies in an area, finding a key/p-switch, or something else. While the abundance of hacks using p-switch/shell/portable springboard puzzles has aggravated some, I don't feel there is anything inherently wrong with this approach.
Explorative: Explorative levels have intangible goals; rather than attach progress to some discernible direction or thing, they encourage the player to learn the level on their own through excursion and observation. Players usually reach this understanding when the level appears labyrinthine or allows him/her to travel in more than one general direction from the start point.
Keep in mind that these are not sharp divisions; many levels combine the above three styles. RttC's Bemusement Bay starts with exploration but ends with a linear path; Creepy Cove actually has two intertwining critical paths (day and night), which are both directional. Also, keep in mind how interrelated these three styles are in moment-to-moment gameplay. For example: "In order to reach that next platform, I have to jump to the right (directional) and avoid that Banzai Bill (Tangible). Then I should find out if anything's down there (Explorative) before I get on that line-guided platform (Tangible/Directional)..." Understanding the frequent shifts between these three is important.
For this post, I'll focus on purely directional levels, both because I feel they are the easiest to explain in terms of nonlinearity, and because, as I said before, the meaning of nonlinearity changes a little across level types.
Within directional levels, there are two major divisions (I'm kind of making this up as I go along, so bear with me :p):
Structural: Structural nonlinearity involves going into another area that is not part of the critical path, and then returning to the critical path. When I say "another area," I mean using some object (door, pipe, warp-block, etc.) that has an exit attached to it. If said object leads to the next section of the main path, it has nothing to do with structural nonlinearity. The exit in question must lead to a separate, non-critical area.
Situational: Situational nonlinearity is the immediate, moment-to-moment fluctuation in direction, goal, composition, architecture, etc. within the surrounding area (from the perspective of the player, who only sees one particular screen at a time). This is the bread-and-butter of level design, where you decide exactly where to put objects and sprites, what direction or goal to provide, and so on. It is one of the most important aspects of level design, and one could write quite a lot about it. It's one of the areas in which level designers have the most freedom, but it's also one of the most common areas in which hacks fail, because there is little direction for level designers to follow.
I think it's possible to talk about situational nonlinearity without hindering level designers' creativity. However, such discussion involves a whole bunch of other related topics, so I think I'll skirt around this topic for now. Also, this post is getting pretty long already, so to narrow the focus, I'll just look at the structural side of things for now.
...Actually, I'll post this for now, then continue writing.
|
|
|
|
I'm just gonna finish up what I started in my last post for now, but those are all great points about difficulty, and at some point I too will have to respond in detail to some of the ideas here. Also, I'll be sure to find that manifesto and read it.
First, the definitions from my last post that we'll need:
Directional: The player understands that he/she has to go in a certain overall direction to reach the goal. This can be left->right, right->left, down->up, etc., and making use of several types from one level/section to the next will probably give your levels a more varied feel.
Structural: Structural nonlinearity involves going into another area that is not part of the critical path, and then returning to the critical path. When I say "another area," I mean using some object (door, pipe, warp-block, etc.) that has an exit attached to it. If said object leads to the next section of the main path, it has nothing to do with structural nonlinearity. The exit in question must lead to a separate, non-critical area.
There are plenty of ways you can look at structural nonlinearity within a directional level. My approach is to look at the connections between the separate area and the critical path. Are the entrances and exits the same, or at different locations? How far apart are they?
Tangent: A path whose entrance and exit (E&E for this post) are the same object, or within the same screen (from the player's point of view), on both ends.
Loop: E&E are more than a screen away on the area side, but the same on the critical side.
Junction: E&E are the same on the area side, but more than a screen away on the critical side.
Oxbow: Distance between E&E is more on area side than on critical side.
Branch: Distance between E&E is roughly even on both sides.
Shortcut: Distance between E&E is more on critical side than on area side.
*Dead End: Like a tangent, except without an exit back to the critical path. Obviously an exception to the definition of structural nonlinearity I gave above, so it's starred.
*Warp Pipes, Scrolling Pipes, Reset Pipes: It's difficult to say whether these are structural or situational. You go into an entrance, and immediately come out of an exit on the critical path.
This might seem like a pointless string of definitions, but it actually helps us understand concepts of reward & punishment, as well as replayability. I'll have to take a detour first, though.
Think about the lives/continue system of Super Mario World. Today, would you consider it fair? Personally, I find it unnecessary, especially if the hack you're making is supposed to be challenging. Imagine this scenario: You've just finished 4 of the 5 levels in World 6, and you're down to your last life. You unceremoniously jump into a thrown hammer, and...you have to start from the first level of that world. Why should you have to replay levels that you've already completed? Is that a proper punishment for making a single situational mistake in a level?
Sure, thanks to emulators, we can use savestates to bypass this problem. But, would we really need savestates so much if we weren't forced to arbitrarily replay sections of the game that we've already seen? Here comes my first ideal:
Ideal #1- Nonrepeating Units: Once you define a unit of gameplay, never subsequently force the player to repeat that unit of gameplay as punishment in order to progress.
To me, this is one of the most fundamental rules of game design. If you watch AVGN videos, or if you've played plenty of 8-bit titles, then you know how many games have broken this rule and have suffered as a result. Even more recent titles like New Super Mario Bros. break this rule, and it aggravates me to no end.
Anyway, let me slow down and elaborate on this definition a bit. A unit of gameplay is simply a mark or symbol of progress, an official sign from the designers that the player has overcome some obstacle or has finished a certain section. It can be the checkpoint text in Halo, a midway bar in SMW, or a save point in an RPG. It could take any form. It doesn't have to be a fixed distance, and it can be as long as it takes for the player to reach the game over screen. But as soon as you define it, as soon as you acknowledge the player's progress, you cannot force the player to repeat it. So, if I reach a midway bar in SMW, I should never be forced to replay the first half of the level. If I reach a checkpoint in an Halo, I should never be forced to revert to a previous checkpoint. If I defeat a boss in an RPG, I should never be forced to repeat that boss.
Of course, this represents an ideal, not a law. Sometimes it's unclear whether a unit is really being defined, and it's not always possible to make these accommodations without changing the nature of some reward, or of the game itself. Still, this is an important rule to follow, whenever possible.
This rule might seem counter-intuitive to a lot of us because we're so used to games that don't follow this ideal as closely as they should. Think about the following changes and how they make the game in question better:
-In SMW (platformers), once you reach a midway bar, that's your new starting point, even if you turn off the game. You can also choose, from the OW, whether to start from the beginning or midpoint of a level.
-In Touhou (shooters), once you reach the next level, you can always start from that level and immediately continue to the end of the game.
-In Fire Emblem, if a character dies, allow the player to backtrack at least several turns instead of restarting the entire stage. After all, you probably did a lot of things right in that chapter, so why should you have to repeat those parts?
You might say that such changes remove the challenge from a game, and that's a bad thing. My response? Well, let's take the examples I just mentioned:
-In the SMW example, you can still opt to start from the beginning of the stage.
-In the Touhou example, you can still choose to start from the first stage.
-In Fire Emblem, you can still opt to reset the game if a character dies.
You might not make those choices because they are no longer necessary to progress in the game. But if you won't voluntarily take on that challenge, then do you really want it?
You might say that players will always choose the easiest way out when they have control over difficulty. Well, what about the difficulty select screen? Do people always pick Easy? The reality is, sometimes we want to challenge ourselves, and sometimes we don't. If we won't voluntarily take on a challenge that is no longer necessary, perhaps that challenge wasn't right for us in the first place.
Well, that's enough ranting for now. I'll get back on track next time. Let me know what you think :p
|
| Last edited on 2009-10-03 08:09:11 PM by AxemJinx. |
|
|
|
Thanks very much for your response, Sendy. As soon as I wrote that first ideal, I knew almost right away that I wouldn't truly be satisfied with it. At the same time, I thought somebody might counter it with a different perspective, which would allow me to think it over some more and refine my thoughts. After taking your comments into consideration, I think I'm ready to rewrite my stance on difficulty.
The rationale behind that first ideal was the theory of extremes with regard to extra lives- that is, highly skilled players have no need for lives, and highly unskilled players never have enough lives. However, just as Sendy said, unskilled players improve and skilled players still appreciate 'situational nonlinearity', i.e. good level design. Also, these extremes are just that: extremes. I think most people fall comfortably in between the two. So, with that in mind, I'm rewriting my first ideal, now calling it a rule:
Rule #1- Difficulty: In order to attract the widest range of skill levels, there must exist an inverse relationship between situational difficulty and structural difficulty; the more you have of one, the less you must have of the other. Specifically, the beginning of the game must have a high ratio of structural to situational difficulty, whereas the end of the game must have a high ratio of situational to structural difficulty.
Structural difficulty arises from overall game design and macro-level concerns. It can include such things as starting number of lives, distance between & nature of save points, how much gameplay the player must repeat after dying/failing, inventory (how many of each item can I carry? How many items total? etc.), and much more. I also include player skill in this category because the skills a player develops within a game tend to apply throughout the entire game. Jumping in platformers is a good example; jump precision will help the player in just about every level.
Situational difficulty arises mostly from moment-to-moment level design and micro-level factors; basically, how hard is the game right now, as the player is going through it? How hard is it to apply game skills (jumping, bouncing, swimming, etc.) to the current situation? How tough are the individual obstacles and challenges?
Another way to think of the two is like this: structural difficulty is how prepared the player is to progress, while situational difficulty is how tough the implementation is. Structural is the studying you do for tests; situational is the difficulty of the actual test questions. Structural is the rehearsal of the speech; situational is the difficulty of standing up in front of others and keeping a cool head.
The importance of this inverse relationship between structural and situational difficulty involves the concept of building skills and affirming our learning of these skills through their proper implementation. Doing well on a test often means you have developed good studying strategies; delivering a stellar group presentation often reflects the efforts you have put into communicating with other team members, doing rehearsals, performing research, etc. By the same reasoning, completing a level or other 'gameplay unit,' especially toward the end of the game, affirms the skills the player has developed and also acknowledges the player's ability to successfully implement said skills in increasingly difficult scenarios. It may seem strange that video games should appeal to such a basic human desire- recognition for learning and implementation- but this is one of my most passionate beliefs about video games. They teach us simple but pertinent high-level things like how to build skills, how to learn, how to think.
There are probably exceptions, but most all popular games follow this natural progression from structural to situational. Super Mario Bros. 3, for example, starts you off with a handful of lives and no items; game over means continuing from the start of the world; your familiarity with the game's momentum physics might not be fully developed, even if you have played similar platformers. However, early levels are comparably easy and slow-paced, with friendly time limits; items and secrets are somewhat easy to find and are in greater abundance (there are two whistles in World 1); the number of levels is small compared to other worlds. Contrast this with the end of the game. Now you have a plethora of items and lives to help you through the toughest bits; your skills have likely improved much over the course of the game; (correct me if I'm wrong, I have the all-stars version) you can keep your item stash if you get game over. However, the levels themselves are decidedly more complex and difficult (more sprites, more moving/scrolling elements, more labyrinthine levels, more tricky jumps, etc), and there are more of them. Take any popular game, and try to think how it follows this pattern (or not, if you feel this argument is mistaken).
If your game follows this pattern, does that automatically grant it success and a big target audience? Of course not. Your overall difficulty curve, for example, could be shifted toward one of the extremes in terms of difficulty. This isn't bad- the game still affirms the learning of skills by following the pattern- but it would probably have a smaller audience. Rise to the Challenge *might* be a good example of this possibility, because it starts off at a very high difficulty level.
Also, too many changes in structural difficulty could alter the basic mechanics of the game so much that they alienate the skills the player has learned. Imagine nearing the halfway point in Final Fantasy VII when all of a sudden, you're given Knights of the Round, 99 Megaelixirs, and a Gold Chocobo for free. Would the rest of the game really be any fun? RPGs often derive their fun (in part) from a sense of gradual growth throughout the game. I think the changes I just mentioned would completely kill that sense of growth. Of course, going through all the tedium involved in getting a Gold Chocobo and being rewarded with Knights of the Round is a different story.
...Ok, I guess that's enough for now. There's probably more I can say about difficulty on a micro level, so maybe I'll continue with that next time. I think this post is a step up from my last attempt, so tell me your thoughts, anyone :p
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by The Smoke Monster"In order to attract the widest range of skill levels, there must exist an inverse relationship between situational difficulty and structural difficulty; the more you have of one, the less you must have of the other."
I disagree with that; I believe that there is a strong correlation and relationship, but it is not inverse entirely. Well, that is to say, I think in practice you should go for inverse, but varying- sometimes in large amounts, depending on the situation- is fine. Clever idea though.
"Specifically, the beginning of the game must have a high ratio of structural to situational difficulty, whereas the end of the game must have a high ratio of situational to structural difficulty."
I liked this, though. I agree.
I'm confused. If you agree with the two ratios, and that there is a strong correlation between structural and situational, then the only kind of relationship that can exist between the two is an inverse one, no?
Oh, I think I understand. You mean that in some games, the two ratios can be achieved without the two kinds of difficulties moving in different directions. I guess that's a good point; the ratios are really the important thing. How about another modification, then?
Rule #1- Difficulty: In order to attract the widest range of skill levels, the beginning of the game must have a high ratio of structural to situational difficulty, whereas the end of the game must have a high ratio of situational to structural difficulty.
As you said, inverse is a good idea, but not necessarily the best or most realistic (from the developer's point of view) approach for every game.
Originally posted by The Smoke Monster
"Situational difficulty arises mostly from moment-to-moment level design and micro-level factors; basically, how hard is the game right now, as the player is going through it? How hard is it to apply game skills (jumping, bouncing, swimming, etc.) to the current situation? How tough are the individual obstacles and challenges?"
You include enemies in this section as well, then.
I think the distinction between the two is one is how you have to adapt to the basic systems of the game while the other is how the game challenges you, not rather in the moment. But it's a fine representation and your thesis anyway, so go for it.
I don't think our definitions are all that different. The challenges you mention are either short-term or long-term, and if they're long-term I would put them into structural difficulty, as part of the basic game systems. Obviously there isn't a clear-cut way to distinguish between short- and long-term; a case-by-case approach is likely best here. Still, long-term challenges decrease over the course of the game because they are ever-present and the player gets used to them. So, maybe describing situational as moment-to-moment is a little too focused, but I think only the short-term challenges the game creates belong in situational.
Originally posted by NightmareProductions and Doomiok
I'm convinced that my opinion is 100% true, so I'm going to proudly shout it out without paying attention to the conversation.
When you barge in with a short, non sequitur opinion that does not address any part of the discussion taking place, and neglect to read points relevant to your argument, you are not contributing to the conversation. You are selfishly trying to generalize your beliefs so that they apply to everyone.
Originally posted by LevelDesign.html
One thing that many people focus on is making a level playable. However, they always forget one thing. That is to make it pull you in again. In TSRPR, I never wanted to play a level again. Why? Because, in the end, it was challenge and not fun. The challenge was a nice change of pace, but if I finished it, it would rust away, like all of the other hacks I completed. However, in Metroid Prime 2, no matter how frustrating the area I'm at might be, (low% is why it's tough and not it simply being the game) I'm going to want to do the hard mode version. And in the end, that's because there's actual fun and not simply challenge for the sake of challenge.
Keep in mind, however, that your perceptions of any particular game's "fun" and "challenge" is based on your own prior experience, skill level, and expectations for the game, among other things. You can expect these factors to vary widely across players, resulting in an equally vast spectrum of personal views on the "fun" and "challenge" of a game. For example, wouldn't TSRPR pull in players with a high skill level, and perhaps expectations different from yours? I myself have very fond memories of the game, and would be willing to play through the whole thing again; technically, I've already played it twice, because I played TSRP1. For me, the game is both fun and challenging, the same description you seem to give Metroid Prime 2. Yes, keeping a game both "challenging" and "fun" as well as giving the game longevity is very important. Still, you can't generalize your personal experiences to this kind of discussion. That's like saying a Fire Emblem character is bad because you personally got unlucky level-ups.
Originally posted by LevelDesign.html
First of all, graphics don't matter much. They can change the feel of the game but I would have been quite happy with Metroid Prime/Metroid Prime 2, even without the different environments. (Of course, that's presuming it doesn't look out of place. A fish floating in a technological center, as would a gigantic robot in fertile plains.
How do you define graphics? It sounds like you're limiting this paragraph to environmental changes; I think 'graphics' encompasses a lot more, like character design, animation, and style. Since 'graphics' implies such a wide array of things, it's too vague a concept to be used here. Also, you're resorting again to personal experience on only a single game/series. The fact that you personally would have enjoyed Metroid Prime without environmental changes is not generalizable. Consider what Super Mario World would be like if every level used the grassland graphics set, with no changes in palette, and only used sprites that 'make sense' with a grassland environment (i.e. no water, castle, forest, or cave-type enemies). Wouldn't this make Super Mario World monotonous for at least some people? Being happy with a game despite the absence of a factor does not imply the factor is impertinent, but only that the game in question did a good job on other factors.
@'LevelDesign.html':
#1: You say that the current design should tell the player what will happen next, but also that unexpected things should remain unexpected. Don't these two statements conflict for the developer? Furthermore, you say that Metroid Prime's rooms always make the player expect something different, but also that loading rooms are equally interspersed and have a back-and-forth relation. How can the player expect something different each time, despite being aware of a pattern in the room types? You need to be more specific here; how exactly should expectations differ from room to room?
#2: You explain how the environment suits the newly-placed enemies, but not why the enemies don't fit the environment. Yes, perhaps they were inserted to make subsequent treks feel different and more challenging, but why doesn't it make sense for those enemies to expand into other areas (especially after you raid one of their bases)?
#3: First off, this "endless feeling" is pretty vague, and you don't seem to define it. What is it? It seems like you're saying TSRPR didn't have enough exploration while Metroid Prime had too much. But then, does everybody want the same amount of exploration? This is turning into my response to your "pulling in the player" paragraph.
#4: Didn't you say you've played a lot of Metroid Prime? Isn't your memory of the game affected by how many times you've played it, as well as how much you like the game? Also, isn't the environmental design much more complex in Metroid Prime than in TSRPR? Yet, you seem to imply that simple level designs are more memorable. Finally, is it absolutely important to remember everything about a game? You might say that such remembrance lowers the longevity in some cases.
#5: I think I agree with this one. Repetitively placing a lot of minor variations next to each other in the same area is poor pacing, something I learned from experience with creating my earliest levels. It's not bad to have a lot of minor variations, but they should be spread out more evenly throughout the game. I guess composition and pacing is indeed very important in game design.
|
|
|
|
Due to an unexpected request, I've compiled all of the message box text in RttC into a MSWord document. For anyone who's interested, the upload link is:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=D3ABI06V
I'm surprised I left so many typos in there; I should update the patch to v1.3 at some point. In the meantime, does anybody have suggestions for 'informational' message boxes that would make any given level easier?
|
|
|
|
Betatesting TSRPR for FPI was one of the most fun SMW-related things I've ever done. I saw an opportunity not to play the game earlier than the official release, but to offer sincere comments and advice on every aspect of the game in order to make it as clean and prepped for launch as possible. Naturally, this meant I had to write a lot about things that I consider annoyingly difficult to describe, like why parts of a certain palette felt strange, why I thought the architecture and design of a level were pleasing or engaging, or even why a particular jump bothered me. So, at first it was a daunting task; I was afraid I wouldn't really do a good job, especially since it would be my first beta test. However, the more I worked at it, the more I realized it wasn't much different than, say, writing an essay for a literature class. I played each level more than once and took note of specific things whenever I paused the game to help organize my thoughts, and before I knew it I was writing extremely long messages to FPI detailing exactly what I thought of each level.
At one point I became worried I was saying too much, as FPI told me Lunar Magic was deleting his levels over the smaller changes I was suggesting and that I didn't have to make the evaluations so in-depth. Still, I couldn't help myself; I had become so passionate about the process that I hardly made any changes, if at all, to my methods, even if FPI wouldn't change anything. I thought he should know everything regardless of whether he would use the information. I don't think he minded, either, since he always sent back messages commenting on the comments I originally made. So we had a continuous back-and-forth as I beta-tested, and in the end, the experience was as rewarding as creating Rise to the Challenge.
If you select me as a beta tester, I will give this project the same dedication and passion I gave TSRPR. I will tell you everything that comes to mind in as organized a fashion as I am able. Also, thanks to my compulsion to see SMW projects through to the end once begun, you can and should expect me to betatest and communicate with unyielding regularity so that the project can conclude in a timely manner.
I also think it prudent to mention that I have no involvement with this hack whatsoever, and that all I've seen of it is the trailer posted on SMWCentral's main page. In fact, I haven't been active on this site for a while now, but my gratitude for what the site gave me has only grown. Before SMWCentral and Lunar Magic, the only outlet I had for level design was making content for Lode Runner and Jetpack long after people lost interest and the popular level-sharing sites became something more akin to well-preserved but nonetheless abandoned tombs. Here, I feel there is a real sense of interaction and a wealth of resources, not to mention a thriving and enduring community. An SMWCentral Production represents that community, that opportunity for me to express my ideas through level design, and so I have to admit that it would also be somewhat symbolic for me to betatest it in that I'm giving back to a place that has already provided so much for me.
Sorry for the long-winded application- this definitely is NOT "a few sentences or something"- but I really would be honored to betatest this. Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
|
I hope you don't mind, but you'll be seeing a lot of "little" posts from me as I make speedruns for my Youtube channel...
First off, although it's really nice that you went to the trouble of designing Mario's house, Peach's castle, and a town area, it seems that there isn't much to do there at the beginning. I don't see how you can call it "Toad Town," for example, when there's not a single Toad to be found; the place is desolate. Maybe there's a story-based reason for it, but the introductory cutscenes don't give you reason to suspect anything. Besides, you can see the authors' avatars in the bar and grill, so it's not like the town has been ransacked or anything. While we're on that subject, did all of them have to be dumped into the beginning of the game, never to be seen again? I've only played world 1 so far, so maybe the levels serve some purpose later on, but...it doesn't give me a good first impression, because I start the game going through a bunch of seemingly pointless areas. It would have been nice to see the authors' avatars in hidden areas with witty dialogue, or trapped in random places and returning to the town when rescued.
I also don't see the point of an item shop, considering people have to walk back there to use it. I know the pipes will probably make this faster, and maybe it will alleviate the difficulty for some, but I'm generally of the opinion that powerups should be provided in levels, not sold (an RPG this is not).
To me, it's a little weird to have a pipe in between the town and castle...I normally expect pipes to be off to the side. I'm not sure it's immediately obvious that you can go to the castle, though of course people will try and succeed.
It's also a bit strange that the sewer level leads nowhere. It's as if you should ignore everything for the time being and come back later. To me, it felt as if I had wasted 10 minutes doing nothing in particular- and this is at the beginning of the game, mind you.
And So it Begins: This level also did not give me a very good impression, because it represents entrenched design. How many times in this community have we seen introductory grassland stages replete with cheery music and small bonus areas? I'm sure you could do a great introductory stage in any environment (this one is still very good), and while this choice reminds me of other Mario games, that's not necessarily a good thing, because it screams "hackneyed" to me.
Having said that, the terrain layout is excellently varied, and though no particularly special sprites are used, the setups are different enough in each section that, on the whole, the level doesn't feel redundant at all. Quite the opposite, actually. It's also thoroughly decorated, and not just with bushes- even putting things like donut bridges and cement blocks (in moderation :p) can act both functionally and aesthetically, and I'm glad to see that mindset employed here.
I agree with Mineyl (and anyone else who posted to the same effect) about the Banzai Bill graphics, more because now the hitbox is very deceptive. Of course every regular here knows the hitbox of a Banzai Bill, but...this is even worse than the goombas in Luigi's Adventure.
Tangentially, I like the arrangements of SMW music, but in this case the repeated high-pitched variations get a little grating, almost saccharine, after a while. Maybe that's just because I repeated the stage so much for a speedrun, though.
Deep Dark Drains: Hey, a level that goes downward and has castle sprites! I like seeing something more like this in the beginning, personally. There are coin guides to prevent blind deaths, and the branching paths clearly feel different to me. I don't like the time limit much, since I wanted to explore the whole level in one go, but maybe that's just me. The graphics are fitting, and there's quite a bit going on here, what with mushrooms, plants, pipes, and various stonework. It's easy to forget that the background is actually from the original game. That the level manages to feel somewhat "introductory" even while using thwomps and thwimps is a very good thing, I think.
On a side note, there are plenty of issues with Treacherous Tower that have pretty much nothing to do with difficulty per se...but I'll write about that in the next post. This one's already long :p
I hope I'm not sounding overly whiny or critical, by the way. I'm actually enjoying this game very much- otherwise I wouldn't speedrun each stage!- but I do think a lot of things could be improved and/or given more consideration- so far, anyway.
Edit: About the whole overworld/levels thing: I wasn't involved with this project, so I'm going to make bad assumptions here, but...I don't think you should start 100% with either one. Every member should agree on a general idea of both, and then ideally, they should be worked on in parallel, with a lot of communication between the two tasks. I'm not accusing anyone of contributing their part and then disappearing (I have no idea how this was coordinated), but I think members should be active even when they're not making whatever it is they're making for the hack.
Also, I'm sorry that my comments about Toad Town are redundant >_< I haven't been very active here, so I don't know what plans you had for those stages. Still, I think people should be prepared for the possibility that their work will be left on the cutting-room floor...Saving something from destruction just because someone put effort into making it seems silly given limited space, and also given the fact that this represents smwcentral :p I guess that's just how I feel though- sorry if I'm overreacting about this. I mean, it's also the first attempt at organizing such a thing anyway, so I probably shouldn't worry much about that ^_^;
|
| Last edited on 2011-01-13 02:53:38 PM by AxemJinx. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
The purpose of this site is not to distribute copyrighted material, but to honor one of our favourite games.
Copyright © 2005 - 2013 - SMW Central
Legal Information - Link To UsTotal queries: 27
|
|
|
|
