Super Mario Bros. X Forums

HackPlayer7 wrote:

arcade999 wrote: Wait, why is everyone sudddently aigainest me?

That's where you're kinda wrong. This is a topic to post level design tips and help people improve not to influence people over a personal opinion, that's kinda like saying ''Don't make SMB2 levels because they are weird''

This message happened because of something BEFORE it, and it was a level tip.

arcade999 wrote: Wait, why is everyone sudddently aigainest me?
Ok, Ok, I know why, but before everyones assassinate me, let me explain: I mean, episodes like smw, smb3, or other normal mario games (not counting rpg ones or smb2, since birdo is relatively easy, and it wasn't even a mario game to beggin with) in level 1-1 grassland thing doesn't have a boss on them, I means, thoses level are supposed to be EASY and to get GRADUALLY difficults, and just like blind jumps, bosses are too hards for very first levels, except if it's your the main goal of the episodes.

Why are you discouraging people from putting a boss at the end of their "smb3" or "smw" level? Just because those games didn't have bosses at the end of their respective first levels?
This is like, unironically following the back to basics rules. It seems like you're even implying that the first level has to be a grassland.
Also, please don't pull the "everyone wants to assassinate me" card, you said something wrong and you got caught. Now you're just coming up with random excuses for why it's OK for other games to have bosses in the first level. Please move on.

Bosses don't have to be difficult...

arcade999 wrote:and just like blind jumps, bosses are too hards for very first levels,

do you even know what the difference between these 2 things is?

Enjl wrote:Good advice for making boring romps.
Good levels incorporate enemy placement into the level's structure. Levels are a composition, not a heap of independent layers.

PixelPest wrote:I agree with Enjl. All aspects of a level need to interact together to provide the best experience and building them layer by layer does not usually provide it

If you can't change anything you put down then it's not the level that's boring. It's the author who cannot break down his thought process into individual steps. Again, putting an emphasis on making every section of your level work instead of defining the level and tweaking it is going to be a much slower build time that is far more prone to writer's block then doing canvas first, then line work, then colors, for an example.

The point is to take your awful draft and then smack it around into the level you want. Assuming that draft is the way your level has to be and accepting it like you just wrote in permanent ink is, grossly missing the point of building in steps, and is honestly not showing much thought put into how the level feels and plays.

DarkMatt wrote:

Enjl wrote:Good advice for making boring romps.
Good levels incorporate enemy placement into the level's structure. Levels are a composition, not a heap of independent layers.

PixelPest wrote:I agree with Enjl. All aspects of a level need to interact together to provide the best experience and building them layer by layer does not usually provide it

If you can't change anything you put down then it's not the level that's boring. It's the author who cannot break down his thought process into individual steps. Again, putting an emphasis on making every section of your level work instead of defining the level and tweaking it is going to be a much slower build time that is far more prone to writer's block then doing canvas first, then line work, then colors, for an example.

The point is to take your awful draft and then smack it around into the level you want. Assuming that draft is the way your level has to be and accepting it like you just wrote in permanent ink is, grossly missing the point of building in steps, and is honestly not showing much thought put into how the level feels and plays.

If you have ever seen any designer here in this community you would have noticed that this layering process has a tendency to bring people to unintentionally re-use the same structure over and over again and then call a level done once they put down the exit point. There are many people around here who ended up in endless spirals of no improvement as a result of the process you're describing coupled with a general lack of creativity. Trading writer's block for a repetitive romp isn't a tradeoff I'm all that excited about, either.

Benefits to building a level from start to end include being able to quickly test it and not having to redo large portions of the level when geometry ends up feeling off. Designing from start to end may sound like a slower process, but once you actually start caring about your levels it's much less of a hassle.

I personally just design levels making it up as I go along and implementing things how I see fit and following the route I want my player to go through. Usually planning isn't much more than about the concepts I plan to use in a level. Maybe not the best way but it works for me.

Ace wrote:

arcade999 wrote: Wait, why is everyone sudddently aigainest me?
Ok, Ok, I know why, but before everyones assassinate me, let me explain: I mean, episodes like smw, smb3, or other normal mario games (not counting rpg ones or smb2, since birdo is relatively easy, and it wasn't even a mario game to beggin with) in level 1-1 grassland thing doesn't have a boss on them, I means, thoses level are supposed to be EASY and to get GRADUALLY difficults, and just like blind jumps, bosses are too hards for very first levels, except if it's your the main goal of the episodes.

Why are you discouraging people from putting a boss at the end of their "smb3" or "smw" level? Just because those games didn't have bosses at the end of their respective first levels?
This is like, unironically following the back to basics rules. It seems like you're even implying that the first level has to be a grassland.
Also, please don't pull the "everyone wants to assassinate me" card, you said something wrong and you got caught. Now you're just coming up with random excuses for why it's OK for other games to have bosses in the first level. Please move on.

Why are you angry after me for putting something humoristic to my message?

ÉDIT: wait wait, are you saying that you can break totally how mario works?! Cuz with your logic, I can said like
"Oh, but I CAN put an smb3 bowser at the end of a the very first level, cuz see, I don't needs to follow how those real games are working, and I CAN put munchers as coins, coins as lava, lava as peach, peach as yoshi, yoshi as Luigi, luigi as toad, toad by toxic shroom, toxic shroom by ropes, ropes by wart, wart by fire flower, fire flower by smb1 goomba, smb1 goombas by smw platforms, smw platforms by volcano lotus, make blind jumps, a goomba with 100 lives as the final boss and all the levels will contains tons of booms booms, because see, it's not because the real mario games aren't doing this that I cannot!!!" I mean, this is not ONLY mario level rules, they are VERY basics videogames rules; DONT start your game roughly with big monsters and bosses, because your game will be too hard, and won't be well selled! Also I never said that your first level should be a grassland; it was an EXAMPLE, Just don't start with lava and spikes and everything classic from hard last levels, because as I said, no matter what the videogame is (mario, sonic, rayman, goldeneye, angry bird, etc), the game must have a PROGRESSIVE difficulty to be fun to play.

arcade999 wrote:ÉDIT: wait wait, are you saying that you can break totally how mario works?! Cuz with your logic, I can said like
"Oh, but I CAN put an smb3 bowser at the end of a the very first level, cuz see, I don't needs to follow how those real games are working, and I CAN put munchers as coins, coins as lava, lava as peach, peach as yoshi, yoshi as Luigi, luigi as toad, toad by toxic shroom, toxic shroom by ropes, ropes by wart, wart by fire flower, fire flower by smb1 goomba, smb1 goombas by smw platforms, smw platforms by volcano lotus, make blind jumps, a goomba with 100 lives as the final boss and all the levels will contains tons of booms booms, because see, it's not because the real mario games aren't doing this that I cannot!!!" I mean, this is not ONLY mario level rules, they are VERY basics videogames rules; DONT start your game roughly with big monsters and bosses, because your game will be too hard, and won't be well selled! Also I never said that your first level should be a grassland; it was an EXAMPLE, Just don't start with lava and spikes and everything classic from hard last levels, because as I said, no matter what the videogame is (mario, sonic, rayman, goldeneye, angry bird, etc), the game must have a PROGRESSIVE difficulty to be fun to play.

I won't talk about your massive paragraph on sprite replacements that is completely unrelated to the topic you're trying to adress.

Game Design doesn't care whether you are SMB2-styled, SMB3-styled, SMW-styled or rayman. It only cares about what holds the game together. SMB2USA is a great game and it has a boss in every level. Hm. There has to be something wrong here, because you claim the game, as a result, is too hard, and doesn't sell well.
Here's the thing, though. There are reasons for why you would WANT to have a boss in the first stage of your game. The birdo fight is the conclusion to the first level, a test on the player's abilities to jump and pick up/throw objects. It checks if the player has learned the game's mechanics. SMB1, SMB3 and SMW do not rely on picking up & throwing objects, so those skills aren't essential to be taught in the first stage.

Other games sometimes put a later reoccuring boss in the first stage to make the player experience a threat firsthand. Mega Man X comes to mind.
The "don't put lava and spikes" thing, too, is kind of a meaningless statement. What does 1-1 from SMB1 have again? Bottomless pits. What's the difference between a spike and a pit? You might survive... the spike.
There's no harm in breaking a formula and using its tools to shape your own creation. In fact,this is how creativity works. Take what you know and mix it in new ways. Think outside of the box. Figure out what's fun.

Enjl wrote:

arcade999 wrote:ÉDIT: wait wait, are you saying that you can break totally how mario works?! Cuz with your logic, I can said like
"Oh, but I CAN put an smb3 bowser at the end of a the very first level, cuz see, I don't needs to follow how those real games are working, and I CAN put munchers as coins, coins as lava, lava as peach, peach as yoshi, yoshi as Luigi, luigi as toad, toad by toxic shroom, toxic shroom by ropes, ropes by wart, wart by fire flower, fire flower by smb1 goomba, smb1 goombas by smw platforms, smw platforms by volcano lotus, make blind jumps, a goomba with 100 lives as the final boss and all the levels will contains tons of booms booms, because see, it's not because the real mario games aren't doing this that I cannot!!!" I mean, this is not ONLY mario level rules, they are VERY basics videogames rules; DONT start your game roughly with big monsters and bosses, because your game will be too hard, and won't be well selled! Also I never said that your first level should be a grassland; it was an EXAMPLE, Just don't start with lava and spikes and everything classic from hard last levels, because as I said, no matter what the videogame is (mario, sonic, rayman, goldeneye, angry bird, etc), the game must have a PROGRESSIVE difficulty to be fun to play.

I won't talk about your massive paragraph on sprite replacements that is completely unrelated to the topic you're trying to adress.

Game Design doesn't care whether you are SMB2-styled, SMB3-styled, SMW-styled or rayman. It only cares about what holds the game together. SMB2USA is a great game and it has a boss in every level. Hm. There has to be something wrong here, because you claim the game, as a result, is too hard, and doesn't sell well.
Here's the thing, though. There are reasons for why you would WANT to have a boss in the first stage of your game. The birdo fight is the conclusion to the first level, a test on the player's abilities to jump and pick up/throw objects. It checks if the player has learned the game's mechanics. SMB1, SMB3 and SMW do not rely on picking up & throwing objects, so those skills aren't essential to be taught in the first stage.

Other games sometimes put a later reoccuring boss in the first stage to make the player experience a threat firsthand. Mega Man X comes to mind.
The "don't put lava and spikes" thing, too, is kind of a meaningless statement. What does 1-1 from SMB1 have again? Bottomless pits. What's the difference between a spike and a pit? You might survive... the spike.
There's no harm in breaking a formula and using its tools to shape your own creation. In fact,this is how creativity works. Take what you know and mix it in new ways. Think outside of the box. Figure out what's fun.

If it's made well, it can work,like smb2, even if there is lava, everything is about how everything is placed. I am just saying that you shouldn't put too hard things in the firsts levels, because yeah, the game will be too difficult and won't be selled well. I think I heard that from Nintendo. The episode ``another adventure`` from disomikron is a good example about changing conventions, (like, it start by a pretty cool factory level) but realy well made, and the factory level is also relatively easy, so yeah, a lot of things are possible if it's well made.

What a pointless off topic discussion.

arcade999 wrote:What a pointless off topic discussion.

Whoosh.
He's calling you backpeddller.

arcade999 wrote:What a pointless off topic discussion.

Now you're just being hypocrite. How can you tell a "joke" but when someone else makes an actual good joke it becomes pointless??

HackPlayer7 wrote:

arcade999 wrote:What a pointless off topic discussion.

Now you're just being hypocrite. How can you tell a "joke" but when someone else makes an actual good joke it becomes pointless??

It's not about the ace post that I was was talking about, but about this whole discussion about what I said, you are also making a fake analogy.

Now, I would like this discussion to stop.

arcade999 wrote:

HackPlayer7 wrote:

arcade999 wrote:What a pointless off topic discussion.

Now you're just being hypocrite. How can you tell a "joke" but when someone else makes an actual good joke it becomes pointless??

It's not about the ace post that I was was talking about, but about this whole di9scussion about what I said, you are also making a fake analogy.

Now, I would like this discussion to stop.

"Why are you angry after me for putting something humoristic to my message? "
Yeah, fake. Anyway ok

HackPlayer7 wrote:

arcade999 wrote:

HackPlayer7 wrote: Now you're just being hypocrite. How can you tell a "joke" but when someone else makes an actual good joke it becomes pointless??

It's not about the ace post that I was was talking about, but about this whole di9scussion about what I said, you are also making a fake analogy.

Now, I would like this discussion to stop.

"Why are you angry after me for putting something humoristic to my message? "
Yeah, fake. Anyway ok

You seems to misunderstand what I am trying to mean.

Can't this discussion DIE?!

arcade999 wrote:

HackPlayer7 wrote:

arcade999 wrote: It's not about the ace post that I was was talking about, but about this whole di9scussion about what I said, you are also making a fake analogy.

Now, I would like this discussion to stop.

"Why are you angry after me for putting something humoristic to my message? "
Yeah, fake. Anyway ok

You seems to misunderstand what I am trying to mean.

Can't this discussion DIE?!

Btw if you just stopped instead of continually flipping out this would have stopped a long time ago

arcade999 wrote:

HackPlayer7 wrote:

arcade999 wrote: It's not about the ace post that I was was talking about, but about this whole di9scussion about what I said, you are also making a fake analogy.

Now, I would like this discussion to stop.

"Why are you angry after me for putting something humoristic to my message? "
Yeah, fake. Anyway ok

You seems to misunderstand what I am trying to mean.

Can't this discussion DIE?!

In case you didn't notice, I said "anyway ok"
A

HackPlayer7 wrote:

arcade999 wrote:

HackPlayer7 wrote: "Why are you angry after me for putting something humoristic to my message? "
Yeah, fake. Anyway ok

You seems to misunderstand what I am trying to mean.

Can't this discussion DIE?!

In case you didn't notice, I said "anyway ok"
A

Oh ok, I tough it was irony.

PixelPest wrote:

arcade999 wrote:

HackPlayer7 wrote: "Why are you angry after me for putting something humoristic to my message? "
Yeah, fake. Anyway ok

You seems to misunderstand what I am trying to mean.

Can't this discussion DIE?!

Btw if you just stopped instead of continually flipping out this would have stopped a long time ago

No offence, but it's not my fault if users are alway reviving it. (like what you did)

Now this discussion is dead. Please don't revive it.