Normal lengthed SMBX Levels

[bossedit8]

Since the original Author from this Topic has been deleted for some reason I am gonna revive this Topic from the dead and gonna discuss about the length of a SMBX Level. Do you find it average for having a long Level like it is over 6 Minutes long or is it better to have it like what the earlier Mario Levels did like 1 to 5 Minutes? To me it does not actually matter if a Level is long or not but if a Level literally takes over 12-13 Minutes long it surely bothers me especially for a SMBX Episode.

So yeah, what is your thought on having a normal, short or long Levels in SMBX especially for an SMBX Episode?

---

Back then where the original Author wasn't deleted:

You know, when you look back to my older Levels, most of them takes like 1 to 5 Minutes to complete because those Levels are more directed to Nintendo but also more directed on my own works of how I make (that is why with the lack of Backgrounds also).

I agree with having a very Long Level Kind of defunctions the length of a regular SMBX Episode.

[Mable]

2-5 minute levels are the perfect time nobody wants to play a 20 minute level again even with a checkpoint. Also it shouldn't use almost all sections for a hub okay but not for a level same with the stars.

[Mable]

Well if you new to smbx you still have to find out all the stuff and if someone who just got into it plays a level with some stuff they take longer then those who already play smbx for like 4 years.

Idc so much about short or long because the thing that matters is the fun in the level and the gameplay not the graphics not the length nothing.

[Chad]

For me personally, I'd say the sort of length commonly seen in SMW. It doesn't take too long to go from the start to the midpoint, it takes roughly the same time to go from the midpoint to the end, and the midpoint isn't so close to either end that the separation is irrelevant.

If I had to guess, I'd say that long levels spawned from the capability of resizing sections limitlessly and levels not having a time limit. This can be fine for standalone levels, but even then there's only so much you can put the player through before they get bored or frustrated. Of course, the threshold for this varies from person to person. I like designing longer levels myself because that way the output feels more worth the effort. Taking 10 minutes to complete one of my own levels really makes me feel like it paid off, as opposed to spending a couple hours on something I could beat in about a minute. I partly do it because I believe it'd be considered lazy if I made a shorter one, though.

There's nothing wrong with having a super-short level, though. If it's by itself, it'll be over too soon, but if it's part of a game (like SMB3 or TGE2), that gives you the option to play 10+ levels in a sitting for an experience that equates to 3 longer levels. Any level length for an episode is fine, as long as the each level does it consistently and the longer ones are still reasonable.

[zlaker]

Quill mentioned though that "you're the master of your own level", meaning other people will take longer to go through it.

That's actually true. The player doesn't know what kind of challenges or obstacles that comes in the level. So it'll take 1-3 more minutes to complete the level for the player if you add the how much time you'll use on playing your own level.

[FanofSMBX]

This is a bit blunt, but I think level designers could use a reminder that they've only got one midpoint. It's not very "rewarding" for me to play a level again if I die five minutes into it and there's no midpoint.

[cramps-man]

If only SMBX didn't have a limit on checkpoints, then longer levels wouldn't feel too long if the player died.

[HeroLinik]

It depends on how long I spend playing it or designing it, and then how bored I get. If I get bored after playing my level or get bored designing it, then that's an indication that the level's too long. But the problem with that is that if I get bored too quickly then I'll make a short level, or if I come back to the level later and extend it it'll end up being too long.

[RudeGuy]

I am sure that the levels seen in the invasion 2 are a normal lengthed level.

[qig]

In my opinion, anywhere between 2-5 minutes is a perfect length for a level. I guess you could go a bit higher than this, but honestly, if your level is 20 minutes long, I'm going to have no desire to play it. (and honestly, your level probably isn't unique enough from a gameplay or mechanical standpoint to justify that sort of length).

I think the problem with shorter length levels is that they often end just as they're getting good, or don't utilize the level's mechanics to the fullest. I would say SMB3 usually avoids those problems.

[Darkonius Mavakar]

well...

it also depends on the level designer.
lemme elaborate that, when i make a level, and after 1 or 2 sections i get bored designing the level, it means (imo) that maybe players will get bored too.

yeah... not a very smart thought...

[Imaynotbehere4long]

If only SMBX didn't have a limit on checkpoints

If only, cramps-man, if only...

Perhaps this will do instead:
http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... 171#p13171

[Thetoxicminecrafter1]

I think that it depends on if the level is interesting enough to keep the player wanting to continue. If its interesting then it could go a little longer, but if its very basic and not interesting or unique it could be kept shorter (like 2 minutes). However even if the level is interesting it shouldn't be extremely long, 5 minutes I think is a good maximum for time of a level that is really interesting and keeps the players amusement. If its really not special and is just a basic level that has no unique attributes it shouldn't be long as it would probably give sort of a feeling as if its going on forever when, but i think it all comes down to if the level is more fun to play or just a level that doesn't have any real uniqueness to it.

[Magician]

This is a bit blunt, but I think level designers could use a reminder that they've only got one midpoint. It's not very "rewarding" for me to play a level again if I die five minutes into it and there's no midpoint.

This is, by far, the biggest usual problem with long levels, but that doesn't mean long levels are inherently bad.
The answer to the question of how long a level should be is how it is designed. It's really something you have to get a feel for and beta test for. You can't really say that all levels should be long, or all levels should be short, or that there is a specific size limit for each level. I WOULD say that the longer a level keeps you in the fray, the more the design should allow for players to contemplate their actions carefully. Dying because you weren't quick enough to react to something at the end of a very long level is, as FanofSMBX said, pretty frustrating.

As everyone knows, however, multiple midpoints can be achieved in a level. The easiest way is to use SMW stars, because their death event triggers permanently after being grabbed once, though they defeat the point that you lose a checkpoint after a game over. There is also the stringing of levels together that other people have done in the past. The former works fine for individual levels because you won't get a game over when playing them in the editor. The latter works for episodes. In my opinion this allows for more variation in how you design a level and can be used to vastly improve certain particularly long levels.

As a semi-side note, one of the hardest levels in Super Mario Galaxy split itself up into parts and you could choose the order in which you did them, and I really liked that. Despite dying a lot, I was able to assess which parts of the level were the most challenging, and I chose to do them first. That way if I died during the hardest parts, it didn't feel as frustrating because I didn't lose as much progress. A similar method could be used for some levels, I think, to break down the monotony of being stuck doing everything in the same order when you lose.

[Emral]

I'M PRETTY SURE I'M SINKING TOO DEEP INTO THOUGHT IN THIS POST

As a semi-side note, one of the hardest levels in Super Mario Galaxy split itself up into parts and you could choose the order in which you did them, and I really liked that. Despite dying a lot, I was able to assess which parts of the level were the most challenging, and I chose to do them first. That way if I died during the hardest parts, it didn't feel as frustrating because I didn't lose as much progress. A similar method could be used for some levels, I think, to break down the monotony of being stuck doing everything in the same order when you lose.

Choosing the path in the bubble challenge really was helpful after I scouted all the areas and examined which one would be the hardest, thus the first one I should beat.

I've seen a few levels made in SMBX aswell, which use this style of design. The problem is, though, that often the designers run out of ideas while designing these three, four, five, six, seven different paths and just re-use them in the second half (or rely on boring, bland, gimmickless gameplay). So I think the choose-the-order tactic would be a legitimate reason to not use the checkpoint NPC at all in that level. Three different challenges are enough to hide hidden areas, dragon coins, powerups etc. and any second half would just stretch the level.
And stretching a level is normally why some of our levels are so long and boring. The designers have a very specific theme in mind and want to do a certain amount of things with it before finishing the level. Sometimes they space them out a bit and use filler-parts to build a bridge between them.

Let's say a designer is making a candy themed level. He wants to use a puzzle involving hot, hurtful chocolate flowing down from time to time, a puzzle inside a milk lake, two switch puzzle routes for some reason and kind of a mixture between all of that. He'd end up making 1 section as an intro to the level, followed by the milk puzzle, then he'd introduce chocolate lava, make the falling chocolate part, then he'd place a checkpoint before advancing to two switch zones followed by a short section which ends the level. There are three things wrong with this level, if it'd exist. One's the half-assed second half. Designer ran out of ideas, mixed the gimmicks (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but he didn't extend them and added new mechanics to keep it interesting for the player), added switch sections to lengthen the level (problem 2) and has 2 "frustration zones". First of those is the falling lava part. Dying there makes the player fall back to the beginning of the level, having to go through the underwater (yay underwater) puzzle again and doing some precision platforming, hoping not to die. Second frustration zone is the outro part. Dying there makes the player fall back to the midpoint and all of you know how fun it is to repeat switch puzzles!

I see levels built like this all the time, that I might even call it the standard for level length around here. 4-6 minutes for each half of the level (roughly, one's normally longer than the other) is what I often see. Let's ignore sections in which you have to wait for minutes though. Like mother brain boss fights or elevators.

Anyways, I think that that's a tad too long. Or too short. Depends on what kind of gamer you are. And certain designers aim for appealing to all the designers. That's done by not making the sections too long, focusing on one gimmick which'll be used in different ways throughout the level and using secret areas for the exploring players to find, which then hide rare powerups or 1-Ups.
Those levels usually take 2-6 minutes per section and I think that that's better. Allowing the player to set the pace on their own while not forcing them into long and tedious "halves" of a level.

[Sluigi123]

How long the level would be on average you say? Well, in my opinion is about 3-5 minutes, when Mario is walking from start to finish, meaning no running (unless there are spots where you need to run in order to progress)! I do that with almost all of my past levels, and once I play on it in a serious manner, it would take me about half the time than usual. If you want go hectic and what not, and make the level longer than average (say 6-8 minutes), I'd suggest to make a sign of some sort to let the player know that it's going to be a long level, like the bigger yellow/red dots in SMW in the world map for example.

[Septentrion Pleiades]

20 minutes in generally considered too long, but double digits should be avioded. A lot of designers think that if something has AMAZING graphics and music, then it can be 16 minutes no problem. I'm pretty sure I've heard 16 minutes as being "a bit long" which is ridiculous. 6-7 minutes is a bit long. 8-9 minutes is very long. Anything 10 minutes or above will typically wear away the player's enjoyment at the hands of a self-congratulatory author.

Level length should be based on what the player is likely to enjoy. If every level is a 12 minute commitment in world 2, they are much less motivated to see what the next level is. With 2-4 minute levels, they will jump in right to the next one.

[Julia Pseudo]

As other folks have said, I'd say that long levels, like over 6-7 minutes in my opinion (and even that is pushing it), should probably be avoided since you only have one midpoint. They can be really cool, but it's incredibly devastating and tedious when you have to play 10 minutes of level all over again. I'd have no problem with it if you could use multiple midpoints though; aside from that issue long levels are really cool.

[MarioDaBest]

a 1 or 2 minute level like super mario bros original

[Kyo]

Levels that take less than a minute are too short in my opinion, and levels that only take up to two minutes are short, but I wouldn't mind. 3-5 minutes is a level with a normal-length for me, while 6-10 minutes are long levels, and levels longer than ten minutes too long.