Super Mario Bros. X Forums

If that's the way you take originality then it's fine to me, but then again, I might not be the only one to have mistaken your reviews then. Glad my input may have helped you, looking forward for some improvements.

Kep wrote:In a lot of KoolKat's and MyNameIsEric52's levels, unofficial and even some official judges were really complaining about shortness and obviously took points off for it since the score was so low.

Wow, it looks like somebody actually realized how my level designing style is
Most of my inspiration for gameplay/design comes from Nintendo levels, and most of my inspiration for aesthetics and gimmicks comes from SMBX projects like SMSE and LFFTMK. Also, I see levels have points taken off for being linear. I will tell you that

THIS:


is an example of a linear level with no custom graphics. It got a 5/10 from an official level judge. The review was literally less than 4 lines long. And they didnt mention any major complaints. At all. Here's what they mentioned (Sorry Maruiki, I think you were tired when you wrote this review, I paraphrased it):

good level

I can agree with that, I put 3 hours of work into this. For a 100% vanilla linear level, that's alot.

one of your first

Actually, no. It's one of the ones I made around my level design high points. Castlewars (the only judge on NSMBX who ever reviewed my levels) gave most of the levels I made around this time period anywhere from a 6.5 to an 8.12.

NPC placement was pretty nice. Not the best, but it was good.

Considering this was the second-to-last normal level in the first world, I would hope it's not that difficult.

The block placement is pretty good. It looks like your regular level 1-1 or something similar. Pretty awesome!

Well, it's actually 1-7....

The music is the old Mario music! What more can I say?! It's awesome!

That's the second time you've used the word "awesome," and yet you gave this a score of 5/10, or average.

Next up, the item placement. I'd say it's just right.

I worked on placing items in just the right places so that there's one on each of the hard parts. It should be just right

That's a wrap for this review. It was a rather short level, and I don't really have anything else to say.

So... now for the analysis:

Points given for NPC placement: 2
Points given for block placement 2
Points given for music: 3
Points given for item placement: 2.5
Points taken away for length: 4.5

Overall Score: 5/10.

I agree with the points made, but the score did not match up to the review AT ALL.

The only points that I usually take off for length are for levels that are either way too short (1-4 screens long) or way too long (loses replay value because it's too long).

The most I would take off are 2. EVER.

Well, what can I say about this, I agree that no custom graphics aren't a reason to take points from someone, but the other two points are essential in reviewing and rating a level.

The length of a level has an important impact on how the player perceives the level.
If the level is too short the player may feel like the creator of the level was too lazy to make something longer and didn't even try.
If the level is too long, it may get tiring for the player, and he may just stop playing.

Originally is an equally important part of the level. I'm a level creator myself, I know how hard it is to come up with a good gimmick, it doesn't even have to be something big, it's the little things that make levels interesting. Put little things in like eyecandy, or try combining different tilesets, just anything. As a player I want to feel that the creator put effort and thought into his level and made the level interesting and enjoyable. SMBX has existed for 5 years now, seeing the same generic SMB3 Wood level just doesn't do anymore. If you make a boring level, you can't just expect it to get a 10/10.

Now maybe I'm not the one to tell you what to do, because I'm not the best Level Judge and have made some really stupid mistakes in the past, but this, and also the reviews, are just to help you make better levels.

GLuigiX wrote:If the level is too short the player may feel like the creator of the level was too lazy to make something longer and didn't even try.
If the level is too long, it may get tiring for the player, and he may just stop playing.

I recognize that if the length has a great impact on the player, but the judge should remain indifferent. It may be boring if the level is too long, but if the level is short doesn't mean the creator was lazy to make it longer, he might be thinking of levels with a certain length. Take for example Mario Classic and Super Mario Enigmatic World. Both have levels of somewhat short length, despite that both have awesome levels.

GLuigiX wrote:Originally is an equally important part of the level. I'm a level creator myself, I know how hard it is to come up with a good gimmick, it doesn't even have to be something big, it's the little things that make levels interesting. Put little things in like eyecandy, or try combining different tilesets, just anything. As a player I want to feel that the creator put effort and thought into his level and made the level interesting and enjoyable. SMBX has existed for 5 years now, seeing the same generic SMB3 Wood level just doesn't do anymore. If you make a boring level, you can't just expect it to get a 10/10.

Originality may make the level better, but that doesn't mean that lacking it makes it bad. Also, if you want to review a level you should 100% focus on that level, and not discount points because it's the 645th level with the same environment/GFX choice as the rest. Then again, indifference.

GLuigiX wrote:Now maybe I'm not the one to tell you what to do, because I'm not the best Level Judge and have made some really stupid mistakes in the past, but this, and also the reviews, are just to help you make better levels.

Nobody is perfect, you can't expect anybody to be different, that's why we support each other.

I get the point that generic wood levels aren't original, but unoriginal levels can be good. Especially considering that otherwise, every single level would get a 5/10 or under for not being original. Nintendo has already done almost everything we have in their official SMB games. Just with different graphics and level style.

Natsu wrote:

GLuigiX wrote:Now maybe I'm not the one to tell you what to do, because I'm not the best Level Judge and have made some really stupid mistakes in the past, but this, and also the reviews, are just to help you make better levels.

Nobody is perfect, you can't expect anybody to be different, that's why we support each other.

That's literally what I just said. Personally I think people focus way too much on the scores they get. Reviews are essentially just there to help you improve. Of course noone can always make perfect levels, and if you're not happy with the score you get, just try again, and eventually you'll get to the "Best" section.

Now what I think people also often overlook is the fact that Level Judges are also just human. And Level reviews are essentially just the level judge giving THEIR opinion about their level. If they didn't like a level because of the length, then of course that's gonna reflect in the review. If you don't like the score you get, you can always ask for a re-review by another judge.

But isn't the whole point of a level judge to give 100% unbiased feedback on a level, that will state the facts and count them more than the opinions?

GLuigiX wrote:Now what I think people also often overlook is the fact that Level Judges are also just human. And Level reviews are essentially just the level judge giving THEIR opinion about their level. If they didn't like a level because of the length, then of course that's gonna reflect in the review. If you don't like the score you get, you can always ask for a re-review by another judge.

It's a mere fact that the if the level is way too long it will affect the score, but the problem here is when it isn't as long as the LJ wished for. Shortness != not good.

EDIT:

KoolKat wrote:But isn't the whole point of a level judge to give 100% unbiased feedback on a level, that will state the facts and count them more than the opinions?

Please stop using the word bias/unbiased/biased, it doesn't apply to this case.

Only point in the OP I disagree with is the first one. A short level is either with other short levels or not fleshed out well enough. It's not terribly difficult to keep the level going for more than a minute, and it's definitely not hard to take the building blocks you had, recombobulate them, and put them at the end of your first instance to instill variety. Gimmicks and themes aren't suppose to be fire-and-forget.

Point 2 is made by dorks who are going through the "I'M GETTING BORED OF MARIOS" phase of their life. Honestly, you should not, because it's not like there's rigid rules about originality anyway; it's in the eye of the beholder. What you SHOULD be looking for is if the level engages with you in anyway. If it can do that and come off as "unoriginal" then that's good level design, because it made you think about a level using nothing but what you've seen before.

And point 3 is made by bigots who only like a certain art style and not the art itself. The important thing to look for is an art THEME. Fucking can be Picasso and still look interesting. THANKFULLY, UNLESS WE STILL HAVE ASSHOLES WHO THINKS CLASH IS A LEGIT REASON TO PUT DOWN, this doesn't happen. I think there is the occasional "just doesn't get it" asshole who docks points because he's shallow-minded, but that ain't too bad.

Oh and Koolkat? That screenshot you posted? Has a challenge area at the bottom. Not linear. Worthless to go down in, but that's not a straight line. That's a branch. Not linear.

So you're basically saying that old Mario levels made by Nintendo in the NES/GBA/SNES are terrible because you can beat them in exact or even less than a minute correct? I think that's a bit shallow-minded as well, but what do I know about life.

I agree with your other points though.

They're right together with other short levels. It's all based on expectations.

Besides, if you know it's short and people point out it's short, then, what's the problem?

Natsu wrote:Please stop using the word bias/unbiased/biased, it doesn't apply to this case.

Well.......

Merriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:having or showing a bias : having or showing an unfair tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others

Excuse me, but it actually does. Believing that long levels are better than short levels or vice versa, as well as other aspects you mentioned is being biased.

Theoretical Level Judge wrote:I hate short levels, they only start being fun near the end and then it's all over.

Bias much?

Still, "bias" is a blatantly stupid term that shouldn't be used in the community and is irrelevant to this thread.

KoolKat wrote:Wow, it looks like somebody actually realized how my level designing style is

That's what you get from a guy who pays close attention to each users' designing skills.

DarkMatt wrote:Oh and Koolkat? That screenshot you posted? Has a challenge area at the bottom. Not linear. Worthless to go down in, but that's not a straight line. That's a branch. Not linear.

Most certainly agreed. A linear level is a level with almost no slopes and no secrets. And trust me, I've played many levels of KoolKat's. His style of short, non-linear levels is like mine, and I most definitely like that style because it keeps levels fresh while making them not obnoxiously lengthy.

Kep wrote:Still, "bias" is a blatantly stupid term that shouldn't be used in the community and is irrelevant to this thread.

However, the word bias does actually apply to this thread, because some level judges are being biased to longer levels and taking off an unnecessary amount of points if a level is short.

Kep wrote:That's what you get from a guy who pays close attention to each users' designing skills.

Here's the guy who should be a judge in CC9. He'll guess every level's author correctly

Kep wrote:Most certainly agreed. A linear level is a level with almost no slopes and no secrets. And trust me, I've played many levels of KoolKat's. His style of short, non-linear levels is like mine, and I most definitely like that style because it keeps levels fresh while making them not obnoxiously lengthy.

Well, linear can be used in a couple of different ways. My level, for example, was a simple Point A to Point B level with no hidden areas whatsoever. It had slopes and branches, but ultimately was linear. However, either definition is technically correct, and I've been using both to generally describe levels.

KoolKat wrote:However, the word bias does actually apply to this thread, because some level judges are being biased to longer levels and taking off an unnecessary amount of points if a level is short.

Well I don't think it's biased to say "this level was too short" or "this level is unoriginal", but I will admit that it's biased to take points off for it, so you're right in some ways. Still, I don't like the term "biased", even if that's what the community is for the most part.

KoolKat wrote:Here's the guy who should be a judge in CC9. He'll guess every level's author correctly

I would love to be a judge in an official contest, but I know it would never happen. And considering I am very picky, I think a lot of my reviews would be removed anyway and Valtteri would be my replacement.

I could vouch for you being a CC9 judge. Honestly, I see your reviews about like Castlewars's and Quill's reviews. Very similar scoring.

Please guys remain On-Topic.

The word "bias" doesn't apply to this case because there's no evidence of the LJs we're talking about actually not caring about other views.

Much like Koolkat's definition of linearity, the definition of bias is subjective. In this context, preferring longer levels over shorter ones can be called a "preference", irregardless of whether or not they dock points because of it. It can also be bias, but only if there's a clear...well, preference, over the other, or rather, awarding/docking points for a pet peeve as apposed to something about the level itself. I've docked points for levels being too short as well, but only because I believe more could've been easily done with what the level used. If it was designed to be short, then that's how it should be. The thing to keep in mind is that you're suppose to be improving the art, not correcting it.

I would really really like it if "bias" doesn't become like the word "clash", but that's up to you guys.

DarkMatt wrote:Much like Koolkat's definition of linearity, the definition of bias is subjective. In this context, preferring longer levels over shorter ones can be called a "preference", irregardless of whether or not they dock points because of it. It can also be bias, but only if there's a clear...well, preference, over the other, or rather, awarding/docking points for a pet peeve as apposed to something about the level itself. I've docked points for levels being too short as well, but only because I believe more could've been easily done with what the level used. If it was designed to be short, then that's how it should be. The thing to keep in mind is that you're suppose to be improving the art, not correcting it.

I would really really like it if "bias" doesn't become like the word "clash", but that's up to you guys.

Seconded. It seems like words are being thrown around and misused every day in this community

There are no custom graphics.

Why does this need to be a requirement for a good level?