 |
|
 |
|
| Posts by AxemJinx |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by matheleteOh, YOUR article. I thought SNN was talking about XKeeper's article, which I could not find.
Nono, I have no idea who wrote the article, but he was the one who linked it.
Also, cpubasic13, I appreciate that you're providing actual feedback, and I look forward to hearing more from you.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by AxemJinxI can't take this kind of pressure
I must confess one more contest hack
Would be just a hack too long
Originally posted by SMWCentralWorthless...
Originally posted by FirephoenixI just can't, I just can't
I just can't seem to get started!
Don't have the heart to give all this feedback
All that has passed and gone
Originally posted by SMWCentralWorthless!
Originally posted by S.N.N.And there ain't nothing you can do about it
Originally posted by SMWCentralWorthless!
Originally posted by AxemJinxPardon me while I panic!
Originally posted by SMWCentralWorthless! Worthless! Worthless!
Originally posted by BMF54123I once made some popular levels
I must confess I'm impressed how I did
And I wonder how close that I came
Now I get a sinking sensation
I was the top of the line, out of sight out of mind
So much for fortune and fame
Originally posted by MrDeePayI took a hack to a graveyard
I beg your pardon, it's quite hard enough
Just living with the stuff I have learned
Originally posted by SMWCentralWorthless...
Originally posted by S.N.N.Once in a collaboration
I put the hacks in a pack with a hope
They were happy until I heard them say
Originally posted by SMWCentral"They're worthless"
(Just some lighthearted self-deprecating humor :b)
Oh, and thanks for the feedback, guys. I kind of have a non-disclosure agreement here, so it's good to see some back-and-forth happening nonetheless.
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-06 03:33:26 PM by AxemJinx. |
|
|
|
I've been noticing a lot of discussion about Kaleidoscope Castle, and I have a few things to say.
Originally posted by SargeI'm still up for knowing what was actually bad in my level (Kaleidoscope Castle). The people I've had actually test it were too nice to spit any criticism.
Judging from this comment, one would think you're convinced there are flaws in your level, but no one is being courageous enough to break the news to you. Contrast this with the tone of your more recent posts, in which you seem to be defending your level to the death. Which is it, exactly? Then I look back to this post:
Originally posted by Sargethe only responses I've really gotten were from friends who probably didn't feel like arguing
Then, do you want feedback so you can improve your level, or so you can argue?
Moving on:
Originally posted by Sargeall the drapes with spikes behind them had holes
How exactly are players supposed to pick up on such a subtle nuance while at the same time grappling with the high difficulty?
Originally posted by SargeThe yoshi coin beneath the turn blocks isn't a problem because you can effectively SEE turn blocks beneath it. Logic should say "Oh, I can spin jump through turn blocks, but there is lava beneath another set of turn blocks".
The entire turn block formation is obfuscated by a fence, and there are three grinders buzzing around as well. Again, how are players supposed to identify the danger while at the same time focusing on the grinder brigade (and the magikoopa, if it's still active)?
Originally posted by SargeAnd the thwomps hiding behind scenery shouldn't be that much of a problem, as they are still VISIBLE, such as the fourth screenshot. It's not as if they are completely obscured.
Their visibility doesn't tell the whole story. That setup in particular comes right after a harrowing sequence of precision jumps, and players are led into a false sense of security that nearly guarantees they get hit at that precise spot. Why do you think the point has come up so many times? The level conditions players to fail. It's not like the concept of hidden thwomps is properly introduced, either- there's only one other before this setup, and that one is quickly forgotten amid all the other demanding setups the level throws at players.
Originally posted by SargeAlso, what's with everyone getting upset at the sections which require you to wait for a magikoopa? It's not like you're standing still or something
A cyclical action is little better than waiting, as it quickly devolves into repetition.
Originally posted by SargeALSO Also, I don't see a problem with a little challenge, as long as there isn't an ultra-specific way you have to do it.
While I agree there is more than one way to pass some of the obstacles in the level, pretty much all of these ways require a very high level of precision, so in actuality, all you've managed to do is provide multiple ultra-specific ways to do things, which again, isn't much better.
Originally posted by SargeTHANK YOU! Those levels are fun to me.
If you like making these kinds of levels, that's fine- make them to your heart's content. The issue with which posters in this thread are concerned, however, is whether the level is a good fit for the contest- don't forget that.
Originally posted by SargeThe magikoopa segments are hard, and I actually expected people to not like that section as it actually involved waiting.
Then, are you trying to do well in this contest, or advertise your level design style? Surely someone interested in winning would take care to craft obstacles that people do enjoy...?
Originally posted by SargeNine 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).
Again, how are players supposed to pick up on these hints when they also have to deal with everything else going on in the level? When you yourself test it, there's no way around the fact that you already know their locations, obscured or not. New players don't have that luxury, and have to take in everything at once. Something to keep in mind.
Originally posted by SargeEverything else should be noticeable and able to be handled by any player, unless they have some problem seeing, or they're too worried about everything else going on.
And this here is the crux of the matter. Wouldn't you agree that being worried about everything else is going to be an overwhelmingly common phenomenon among new players, because as I've said, they have to take in everything at once? Moreover, doesn't that imply that "everything else" is actually NOT feasible?
There's another factor you're not considering: framerate. Did you not notice how the framerate varies in your level depending on the sprite density? How are players supposed to make precise maneuvers when the very speed at which the game runs is not fixed? Are deaths due to this variance really "user error," or are they simply unfair deaths?
Originally posted by SargeWell maybe I wanted to make it that way?
Again, are you trying to do well in this contest, or advertise your level design style? You do realize the feedback you're getting is targeting the former...?
Originally posted by SargeLevel design is not an absolute science as it relies on the opinions of others, not facts.
Originally posted by SargeUser error is an excuse, otherwise we will reach this point:
Are you aware of the term "false dichotomy?"
You appear quite enamored with this idea of "user error," which seems to boil down to "players just aren't paying attention." However, as I've pointed out several times already, the level demands that players' attention be in too many places at the same time. Do you really think new players aren't paying attention in your stage? I mean, there's an awful lot to pay attention to! And that's exactly the problem- the level exploits this to overwhelm, trick, and punish players repeatedly. When first-time skiers are unwittingly cajoled into attempting a black diamond trail, can their repeated blunders really be blamed on "not paying enough attention?"
Originally posted by SargeAlso, in my honest opinion, if a judge's judgement is affected by emotions to the point where he or she has to bash areas where they are clearly at fault, then that doesn't make a good judge.
So now you're stooping so low as to question our competence? Let me tell you something: perfect objectivity is a childish pursuit. The very reason we have multiple judges is to account for multiple viewpoints and interest curves. If your level comes under fire despite all that, then I think it's more likely that the designer is at fault. This contest doesn't reward levels that target niche audiences. Of course, that brings us back to the same question: are you here to do well in the contest, or to hawk your level design style? Frankly, if it's not the former, I think you're completely wasting your time, not to mention missing the point. Contests are avenues for growth- take a step back and think long and hard about that.
Apologies for the long post.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by SargeI prefer difficult levels, but not unfair
But see, here's the thing: "difficult but not unfair" differs from person to person.
You might not know, but I myself was actually the very first person to submit a level to this contest series, way back in 2008. I submitted this stage. While it scored relatively well overall, it was penalized for having very high difficulty. Did I let that get to me? Not at all. The level fit my personal definition of "difficult but fair" at the time, so I made others like it and eventually ended up releasing RttC (mind you, I've since stated many times that I want to go back and improve on my design, as I've learned much since then). However, the feedback I got did teach me that if I wanted my levels to appeal to a wider audience and so have a better shot of winning contests, I would have to cut down on the difficulty somewhat.
I think Kaleidoscope Castle is in a similar situation. If it's the kind of level you like making, then knock yourself out making as many as you want. However, keep in mind that for a level to do well in this contest, it has to (among other things) appeal to a reasonably wide audience, and not just fit your own personal definition of good design.
Another thing you have to realize is that if players aren't going through the stage the way you expect them to, it's quite possible your design is not guiding them in the right direction. At least in this contest, a good level should accommodate multiple playstyles. In many of your comments, you're making assumptions about how people go through the level that, based on many of the replies in this thread, are simply incorrect. For example, in one comment you're imagining that players stop to "assess the situation," but did people in this thread really do such a thing? If not, shouldn't your level be designed in such a way that they do stop to assess the situation? If players aren't acting the way you want them to, it's not necessarily that they've failed to pay attention; it's also quite possible that the level design fails to influence players' behavior properly.
Originally posted by SargeI said this because I feel as if a judge who implies their judgement is swayed by frustration (as the target did, or so it feels as if to me) that doesn't make a good judge.
Frustration is a sign that the level doesn't accommodate the player's interest curve, and should definitely be taken into consideration. If we didn't consider frustration, there would be no ceiling on difficulty, which is counter-intuitive because, beyond a certain point, increasing the difficulty will make the level less fun for a disproportionately greater number of people. Looking at things from another angle, if boredom wasn't considered, there would be no floor on lack of content, and holding a one-screen plays-by-itself-in-one-second level to some arbitrary standard of perfect objectivity sounds just as counter-intuitive to me. I'll say it again: all else equal, this contest favors balanced, holistic levels that appeal to a reasonably large audience and accommodate multiple playstyles. Judges that rank the entries with such a holistic viewpoint (as the judges for this contest are in fact doing) are doing their jobs properly.
Also, I wouldn't work with the other judges in this contest if I didn't think they'd do good work, so if you question their competence you question mine as well. Think about that.
Anyway, in the spirit of xlk's post, why don't we move on to other levels? I'm curious to hear people's opinions on Awesome Vanilla (SilverSwallow) and Shrums (TRS), since they stay very close to the style of the original game. I'm also curious to hear how Weird Wreckage (Lunatic Wolf), Beach Cavern (MarioFan22), and Let's a Go! (Lui37) compare with one another, since all three take players into an island cavern of some sort. Those are only suggestions, of course- I'm just a little tired of seeing us getting stuck on one level at a time because the feedback/back-and-forth becomes so drawn-out.
|
|
|
|
Ah, sorry about that. Actually, apart from deliberating with the other judges later on, I'm pretty much done with what needs doing at the moment, so I should be able to continue work on this very soon, if not immediately.
I've been thinking about how I want the second section to play out, since it needs to introduce fairly a couple of new enemies while at the same time perhaps increasing the difficulty a notch. What I'll probably do is start off with sparabuzzies amid piles of gems, introduce the slithering fire snake in a relatively safe situation, and then start combining the enemies in more complex scenarios. A mixture of narrow tunnels and open rooms will likely be appropriate- I don't want the level to feel constantly cramped. I am a bit worried about how much time it will take to actually build and flesh out the architecture, since this might be the most involved section, but I'll start with the contours so I can focus on functionality first.
|
|
|
|
Usually, hearing "grassland theme" doesn't give me the most novel mental image, but I like how your take on it gives feelings of anticipation and even tension instead of the "generic" happy-go-lucky motif we tend to see in Mario games. The rhythm of those strings in the background gives me that "bravely march forward" sort of feel, if that makes any sense at all. I like that drawn-out note about halfway in, but I kind of expected it to signify a change in the song- for instance, introducing a higher-pitched instrument like a flute to add an extra layer of flavor. Overall, it reminds me of the Mulan field themes from Kingdom Hearts II, in a way.
The watery overworld theme is probably my favorite of the batch- I think it just nails the atmosphere with a subdued, flow-y feel, and I like how the main instrument rests for a bit before coming in again toward the end of the song. It almost reminds me of the Aquaria soundtrack, but a little quieter (which is fine).
I like Upflowing Ascent, but once the second section starts, it feels like there's not quite enough going on for a few measures, and I get the same feeling at the harp (?) solo, too. That might just be me, though.
That sky theme is really nice, too- the opening is strong and definitely sets the mood, for me. I kind of feel the rest of the song is slightly more subdued in comparison (which isn't necessarily bad), but the instrument choices complement each other nicely (I really like that lingering background one) and seem to weave in and out of the main melody, which makes the piece awfully atmospheric, I think- good work on that front.
Hmm, I should really get around to actually finishing all the WIPs I have sitting around >_< Good to see you're still at it, though :b
|
|
|
|
Actually, what I've been doing is listing the score for each category and the total, and then writing almost a page of commentary (probably around 3/4 page on average). It gives me the flexibility to talk about what I think is important without having to fit everything into categories. Besides, a score by itself isn't really going to help anyone improve...
Also, if memory serves, I've tentatively disqualified around a dozen levels myself for various reasons, though I'm pretty sure around half of those were bad patches or something like that. If the reason was bad or unfitting design, I did write a bit about my reasoning, but I didn't explore every aspect of the level like I did for officially-ranked entries. For a couple of levels where the reasons were more technical, I gave a "pseudoscore" as well as some commentary. Of course, so long as my inbox doesn't become flooded with frivolous questions, I'd be fine with elaborating on some points, since like I said, I doubt I'll do a perfect job explaining everything the first time around.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by TRSBad or unfitting design? I didn't know you could disqualify levels for that. Can you elaborate?
What those entries tend to have in common is (a) unreasonable difficulty and/or (b) gameplay that is too far removed from what SMW was designed to accommodate in the first place. Some of them also fail spectacularly at seeing things from new players' point of view, which only exacerbates my negative impressions.
Keep in mind I don't use in-level savestates. Even if I did, I wouldn't for contest entries, because that would create a double standard, among other things. Having said that, anyone who's seen my Youtube videos knows I have a pretty high tolerance for difficulty. My concern is more with why the level is difficult, a point which I often consider just as important as the actual level of difficulty itself.
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-10 10:53:22 AM by AxemJinx. |
|
|
|
I'll admit I'm taking this contest pretty seriously, but that's only because (a) I want to give consistent, accurate scores and (b) provide helpful feedback. I'm really not understanding the comments about not telling designers how to improve- I mean, my judging document is 90+ pages long (I do use page breaks to make it look cleaner, but it's probably still around 75 pages total at least), and I've already said multiple times that I'm willing to elaborate afterward if I didn't explain things enough the first time around. Also, since when is "elitist" a catch-all phrase for people with higher standards than yourself...? I'm here to help, not to look down on all of you and proclaim your inescapable inferiority (which would be complete and utter garbage). All of you have the potential to improve.
Also, Teyla, rest assured I'm not ignoring your posts- in fact, I agree with most if not all of the comments you've been making about bad level design habits that seem to come up time and again in these contests.
|
|
|
|
What'd be great (if possible) is if we could have level-specific OW sprites/animations located near the level tiles, like DKCR has, to hint at what mechanics the levels will contain. Either way, some ideas I have:
World 1
-Smoke clouds drifting about
-Flowers dancing
-Steam vents
World 2
-Lily Platforms spring up and take you across pools of water
-Blargs/Fish jump out of water
-Mine carts?
-Piranha plant brambles/ mini-piranhas?
World 3
-Taiko drums
-Buddha statue head blocking path after castle?
World 4A
-Beach balls bounce along/across paths
-Crocodiles along water paths
-Stones move apart after castle?
World 4B
-Microgoombas hiding in bricks and such, cross paths?
-Crumbling paths, pits?
-Quicksand levels, like in SMB3 World 8?
World 5
-Use rides as paths (e.g. coaster cart)?
-Thwomps bouncing between elastiblocks across paths?
-Balloons
World 6
-Jetpak flies across submap diagonally from time to time
-Cloud Platforms that go back and forth?
-Bullet bills shooting across paths
World 7
-Fire snakes hop out of lava and arc over paths
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify, the level-specific sprites/animations would mostly only be active on their individual level tiles (if possible?), if we decide to do any of those. I agree that if we had everything going on at the same time, it might be visually overwhelming :b
Originally posted by Giant Shy GuyBetter yet, girders dancing
I approve ^_^
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-12 10:18:12 AM by AxemJinx. |
|
|
|
|
Nobody's asking you to treat the judges as gods- in fact, I encourage designers to read the feedback they receive critically and not just accept it without reservation. On the other hand, it doesn't pay to stubbornly deny the usefulness of said feedback, since it's really meant to point out issues and help designers improve.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by S.N.N.Yeah, I understand, but if people are going to defend their levels to the bitter end - especially when they suck - why would you (generally, not you specifically) even bother wasting your time arguing with them?
I suppose in my case, it's because I refuse to dismiss out of hand such users as helpless cases. It would appear you think otherwise, but I don't feel their willingness to learn and improve is so easy to measure (and round down). Of course, like you said, nobody's forcing designers to make levels in a certain way, but all the same, I'd argue it's important for designers to understand why their levels aren't considered a good fit for the contest overall.
Originally posted by S.N.N.What the judges and other people feedbacking should focus on is those who actually want to learn
I don't disagree, but this is something I can't really do until all the judging is done. I've already said I'm willing to answer follow-up questions when the time comes, but in the meantime, I'm trying not to say too much.
Also, who's pissed, exactly? I was under the impression most of the designers are merely patiently waiting for the results to be posted, and hoping for a bit of feedback on the side in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by GeminiRageIIRC, AxemJinx said he was going to do another playthrough of the levels just to reaffirm his decisions.
I've indeed already done this, so, barring any changes during deliberations, my judging is complete as of a couple of days ago. Mind you, it's not like I've made major sweeping changes since March 1st/2nd.
Also, unless Firephoenix is withholding information from me, there are three judges this year- Firephoenix, MrDeePay, and myself. I doubt there are any others, as that would have precluded my involvement in the first place.
Personally I'm hoping for the results to be in by April 1st, but keep in mind that free time is limited, and writing out feedback takes quite a bit of effort, whether it's in paragraphs or bullet points or something else altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
That review form is no different from the reviews you're trying to discourage- in fact, I'd say it encourages those kinds of reviews, since the format is the same. There shouldn't be categories like that at all to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
Checking in to say I've (finally) continued work on this- I'm around five screens into the second area and plan on building regularly for as long as it takes to finish.
|
|
|
|
|
Now that you mention it, I do have some ideas regarding a secret exit. I think in the interest of seeing how well it actually works in practice, I'll hold off on the details for now, but the level is certainly long enough and full of potential spots to place secret areas that incorporating a second exit should be well within the realm of possibility.
|
|
|
|
There are certainly cases where spinjumping on enemies and cape flight and other things are taken too far with or without a proper introduction, but at the same time, there's nothing inherently wrong with using what the game gives you, even if the original levels didn't use all of it. There's also nothing inherently wrong with limiting your audience to people who have played SMW before- after all, why else would (most) people come here if not to play more SMW levels? If you want to design for a broader audience than that, that's fine, but it can also serve as a limitation if you take it to the extreme. It's like delivering a speech to an audience: if they already know x and y, explicitly explaining x and y will make the speech very boring to them, but for a more general audience, such explanation is probably a good idea.
Mind you, when designers assume you know how Cave Story enemies behave without introducing them, for example, I cry foul. Still, are hacks that target the most broad audience inherently better, all else equal? I don't think so, personally. There's a difference between assuming people know how to do something and explicitly designing something for people that know how to do something. Moreover, if we only did what the original game did, most of the hacks here would be pretty boring. Should we never mix sprite tilesets, for instance, because the original game never did? Should we never find new uses for sprites that the original game used in only one or two levels, simply because the original game only used them in one or two levels? Should we never pursue our own aesthetic styles, just because the original game looked a certain way? There's a lot more gray area here than you might think.
Look at Super Smash Bros. Melee tournaments in comparison. Would you ban L-canceling, wavedashing, crouch-canceling, SHFFLing, double jump cancels, and all of the other techniques that were discovered as the metagame evolved, just because people who don't go to tournaments aren't familiar with such tactics? More extensive use of spinjumping in particular is now part of the SMW metagame, so at this point hacks have to make a decision as to whether or not they should introduce it based on what audience they're targeting. It's not necessarily a matter of making bad assumptions. Would it be safer to introduce everything gradually? Sure. Still, that doesn't mean your audience necessarily wants to be introduced to something they already know.
Essentially, the audience is key here, and there's nothing inherently wrong with designing for a niche audience. As far as this contest is concerned, of course, a certain degree of restraint and moderation is generally smiled upon.
|
|
|
|
With such a varied team of accomplished designers, you had better succeed where others have failed! *shakes fist*
Uh I mean, good luck! :b
Also: IT. COULD. WOOORK!
|
|
|
|
I'm not disagreeing that many levels abuse spinjumping; I'm merely saying it's not inherently wrong to encourage players to use it. I'm not talking about forcing players to use it to bounce across chains of enemies; I'm referring to creating situations where it's perhaps more advantageous to use the shorter but more powerful jump that is explicitly described in the original game's manual. Yes, the manual doesn't say that you can bounce off of certain enemies, but nowadays that's common knowledge in this community (and besides, what ever happened to discovery through experimentation?). In fact, if you spinjump on the rexes in the first level of the game, you bounce higher, whereas you don't bounce at all for other enemies. Do you think that was an accident? If hacks are designed to have appeal outside of this site, then yes, maybe they should find a way of teaching the advantages of spinjumping to players. However, if hacks target this community- and there's nothing inherently wrong with that- such an introduction might not be necessary. What matters is if the concept is new to the intended audience.
The impression I'm getting from you is that all hacks should target the broadest audience possible, and I'm not sure I agree with that.
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-16 03:18:37 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: 28
|
|
|
|
