Language…
6 users online: 1392year, Anas, Firstnamebutt, kirito86, tOaO, Zavok - Guests: 178 - Bots: 316
Users: 64,795 (2,380 active)
Latest user: mathew

2 types of level design

That was an interesting take!!
I do prefer/perform setup design myself, but I recently challenged myself to be more lax while making a level and I'm quite happy with the result of that.
I do think having sense of progression is important regardless of which method you use, though. I don't think landmass-first is always necessarily mindless.
It's easily the best thing I've done
So why the empty numb?
I think the best example of the first option is Sicari Remastered, but that's mainly because it's a lot more visionary and detail-heavy to compliment the design of the levels and bosses (though even stripping away GFX you'll still get some solid levels). It's also very explorative heavy, where you can find hidden 1-ups, moons, and even secret bosses if you look hard enough.

But yeah, the entirety of "mice" is essentially what the second option holds; solid satisfying levels where beating every series of challenge rewards you with feeling good tackling a hard but fair stage (even if some levels in mice were really jank).

It's funny how music can feel the same way; a lot of songs I make follow the design of "build a pattern, fill it with things later". That's probably why a lot of it is bland.
Want progress on 100 Rooms of Enemies: The Nightmare Edition? Go here to see.

(rip my other userbars momentarily)

The video was really interesting. I can definitely recognise those two tipes of level design in my creations. I think I use more the first type, but I tend to mix them in my levels, putting some landmass design between two setups. A full type 2-design level feels disjointed to me, just a collection of "setups" put together, but one cannot ignore the gameplay value that a well-designed group of setups has. Also, it's a lot more easy to adjust the difficulty of a setup-like level.