Page 46 of 75

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:04 pm
by Zha Hong Lang
Enjl wrote:So is anyone with proper information going to answer the initial question of why Betterified was not yet featured? I heard it was considered for last month but rejected "because a moderator helped with its creation". But that can't be it, because it's the dumbest excuse I've heard for anything ever and has got to be nothing more than an offhand remark I picked up.
I mean that isn't a completely bad reason for rejecting an episode to be featured. Since the staff are the ones responsible for featuring the content, there is some potential for bias when something from one of their own is featured, and if not then at the very least that's how it appears at face value to others. It's still a weak reason, but I don't think you're giving it enough credit.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:13 pm
by Emral
It would be valid if the episode wasn't more fun to play than anything featured since (SMSE and whatever was featured this month)

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:17 pm
by Snessy the duck
I think another possible reason as to why it's not featured might have to do with it being a joke episode, as well as an edit of another episode (The Invasion 2) so it might not have been deemed feature-worthy by the mods because of those things. But hey, what do I know?

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:18 pm
by Cedur
Fun isn't the only thing that comes into play when featuring something; it should be a good showcase of what you can productively do with the engine, and it should also be "apropriate" for bystanders, which I think is definitely not the case with deliberate bizarre elements that make the joke of Betterified.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:22 pm
by Valentine
It'll be featured when we fix the fact that the game is still broken.

You can't progress past the big open water level of world 7

Maybe it's not featured because you know, the thing wasn't even beta tested

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:49 pm
by CynicHost
Could you guys add a rule to the Levels forum that the user must specify if it's a 38A/1.4 level? I've spent many a time wasted downloading levels only to find out they aren't compatible with the version of SMBX I use.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:46 pm
by HenryRichard
^ I second this. Maybe they should have a separate subforum even.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:48 pm
by FireyPaperMario
HenryRichard wrote:^ I second this. Maybe they should have a separate subforum even.
I third this!

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:49 pm
by Thehelmetguy1
MarioRPGExpert93 wrote:
HenryRichard wrote:^ I second this. Maybe they should have a separate subforum even.
I third this!
I fourth this

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:59 pm
by Quantix
what everyone else said

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:16 pm
by Thehelmetguy1
Well


CC7 was apparently a lie according to Quill

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:55 am
by Cedur
isn't it said that 1.4 will have it's grave dug anyway upon Beta 4's release? I don't think a subforum makes sense, but tagging should be mandatory of course

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:55 am
by Thehelmetguy1
Cedur wrote:isn't it said that 1.4 will have it's grave dug anyway upon Beta 4's release? I don't think a subforum makes sense, but tagging should be mandatory of course
It is said by 2.0 users. The PGE forums won't agree with this statement.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:42 pm
by Zha Hong Lang
Have the PGE forums put forth a good reason to use 1.4 over SMBX2 though?

Image

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:01 pm
by ElectriKong
As long as 1.4 has things that 2.0 does not, then people will still prefer 1.4 because it has that. Beta 4 therefore does not look like it will be able to completely own 1.4. Beta 4 will dig 1.4's grave, but it will more likely be beta 5 or 6 or even 7, maybe it will only be the full version of 2.0 that finally buries 1.4, or an 2.1 or 2.2. Though if we are being real, then a lot more will be possible than what we realise is now by full release. 2.0 definitely has the ability to be objectively better than 1.4.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:04 pm
by Thehelmetguy1
Still doesn't mean that it will kill 1.4. Or you have the power to predict the future? Forgive me if you do have it.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:06 pm
by Noodle
thehelmetguy1 wrote:Still doesn't mean that it will kill 1.4. Or you have the power to predict the future? Forgive me if you do have it.
He's probably from the future.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:08 pm
by Zeldamaster12
There will probably still be people using 38A even after SMBX2 is out of beta simply because they're more adapted to 38A and they don't want to switch to a different version. From what I've noticed, some people in the 38A community are very loyal to the 38A version, and I don't see that changing even if the final product of SMBX2 turns out to be objectively better than 38A.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:41 pm
by Zha Hong Lang
On youtube at the very least 38A gets a lot better advertising, which seems to be the root of much of its popularity. The SMBX2 team is working on giving the engine a better public image though.

Re: Site Discussion Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:43 pm
by Noodle
I keep getting pinged by Pseudo even though Pseudo never posted.