Let's talk about sceneries in levels. You have those background objects that you can choose in order to place them inside your levels. This basically makes your level more lifely instead of being empty but what will happen if you make very less to no sceneries in your levels and still it looks good?
What I mean by that exactly is if you look at the previous Mario games like any regular Super Mario Brothers games (SMB to SMW including SMB - The Lost Levels) they basically have less sceneries and also on other levels no sceneries as you can see inside the underground levels for the most and even castle levels. Of couse there are some sceneries on specific ones but even in SMW they have very low amount of background objects to look at during gameplay and still the overall game by itself is good. Of course having low amount of background objects relative to sceneries will look kind of bland especially that SMBX can work with custom graphics and such but even then you could make some levels that have a rare or no amount of background objects inside a cave enviorement for example and still it has a pretty good output depends of the executation.
Usage of background objects can be very nice at times but overuse them especially if they have a stronger output like foreground type background objects or mask type background objects (background objects that has a mask aswell), on a weaker operational computer (basically PC that aren't used for games to begin with and such) it affects the gameplay since it will lag more while playing SMBX. If you count me in by having a weak PC... no, it's not the case. I'm not affected by the lag. I'm just saying that if your game can't handle that one single level just for overusage of objects then it's a bad way to go but that's another story.
So, overall, do you like using background objects as sceneries in SMBX? I personally like them no matter if there are sceneries or not for a reason.
This topic is something which really bothers me. If I see someone criticise a lack of background objects in a screenshot or level, I tend to point them into the direction of Super Mario World levels, as they also don't have many scenery objects.
I think I can pin down the reasons for this mentality when it comes to scenery though:
• Level Window size. The level window in SMBX is enormous. The game is zoomed out really far compared to classic Mario titles, almost like levels in NSMBU when players are really far apart, I would say. The player can focus on a large area, which makes levels easy to traverse, unless built around the screen size. If only few scenery objects are used, the level looks bland. If a level is built with the screen size of SMW in mind, it's too short and doesn't utilize the full canvas well enough. But people won't complain about a lack of scenery as much. This is, by the way, also the reasoning for level length in SMBX as opposed to other games.
• Modern video games. Nintendo still puts few levels in their Mario platformer titles. But who cares? All inspiration for level scenery and building is taken from differentgameseries, if derived from video games at all. More stuff = more realistic, right? Well...
• Former levels which were considered good. Those were often levels which had pleasing music, a bright and clear graphics style, as well as, you guessed it, a lot of scenery to enhance the atmosphere. Some people went overboard back in the day, but their levels are still in the minds of current designers who want to copy the style, because it, althrough it was flawed, looked kinda nice to them.
Emral wrote:This topic is something which really bothers me. If I see someone criticise a lack of background objects in a screenshot or level, I tend to point them into the direction of Super Mario World levels, as they also don't have many scenery objects.
It's pretty much that people are obssesed nowadays with complaining about bgos. Honestly what bothers me is that smw and so don't use bgo that much especially in cave levels. People liked those games though and as soon you do the same people don't like it.
Imo tho what should matter is the fun playing the level but by knowing this community for years now.. i doubt that changes.
Sinem wrote:Imo tho what should matter is the fun playing the level but by knowing this community for years now.. i doubt that changes.
I think that's the reason my Contest 8 reviews weren't well received. Half the score was decided by the fun I had playing it. But I digress.
Fun should be what matters most in a game. If people get a game for the graphics, rather than the gameplay experience, that's absolute bullshit. Even levels which look stupid or lack scenery can be a lot of fun to play.
To me, it's best to have a fun time playing Levels rather than looking at the graphics or sceneries to entertain. This is why a super giantic NPC like Bowser gets so much Attention rather than a grass Level. This raises my question.
Emral wrote:Fun should be what matters most in a game. If people get a game for the graphics, rather than the gameplay experience, that's absolute bullshit. Even levels which look stupid or lack scenery can be a lot of fun to play.
Oh boy the graphic thing is the biggest problem here in this community. It's mostly: "Yeah this grqphic looks neat blabla." You rally see someone judge it by the fun he had.
bossedit8 wrote:To me, it's best to have a fun time playing Levels rather than looking at the graphics or sceneries to entertain. This is why a super giantic NPC like Bowser gets so much Attention rather than a grass Level. This raises my question.
In case there are too much of these bowser things. Graphics shouldn't decide if it's fun. The gameplay nd fun is what matters.
In case you saw MrDragonboy96 his videos, most of his levels look poor made but people enjoy those bc of the gfx mostly.
Emral wrote:Half the score was decided by the fun I had playing it.
Only half? Dang, no wonder everyone hated your reviews; you put way too much emphasis on the graphics/atmosphere.
bossedit8 wrote:This is why a super giantic NPC like Bowser gets so much Attention rather than a grass Level.
To be fair, most grass levels are very basic and generic, and as a consequence, boring and forgettable. While I'm not saying that the giant NPC is inherently better (it depends on how it's used), you can't really say that Basic Grass Levels don't get enough attention.
Emral wrote:Half the score was decided by the fun I had playing it.
Only half? Dang, no wonder everyone hated your reviews; you put way too much emphasis on the graphics/atmosphere.
I bet the other judges put 20% at max into fun.
Imaynotbehere4long wrote:
bossedit8 wrote:This is why a super giantic NPC like Bowser gets so much Attention rather than a grass Level.
To be fair, most grass levels are very basic and generic, and as a consequence, boring and forgettable. While I'm not saying that the giant NPC is inherently better (it depends on how it's used), you can't really say that Basic Grass Levels don't get enough attention.
Let's blame every video game ever for making the grass land the first world/level.
bossedit8 wrote:This is why a super giantic NPC like Bowser gets so much Attention rather than a grass Level.
To be fair, most grass levels are very basic and generic, and as a consequence, boring and forgettable. While I'm not saying that the giant NPC is inherently better (it depends on how it's used), you can't really say that Basic Grass Levels don't get enough attention.
Let's blame every video game ever for making the grass land the first world/level.
Ohno my project has grass levels. That means my whole project is boring now.
Superiorstar wrote:For example: Imagine making a forest level but you have no tree BGOs, it wouldn't make any sense even if you have the forest background.
Just look out for scenery objects. Maybe count them per level.
Superiorstar wrote:For example: Imagine making a forest level but you have no tree BGOs, it wouldn't make any sense even if you have the forest background.
Isn't that exactly what nintendo did with their cave levels.
