Super Mario Bros. X Forums

TNTtimelord wrote:

Enjl wrote:I can't see the level behind the cluster of custom graphics tbh.

I could say the same thing about Robotics;Shisetsu.

Thank you for bringing up mistakes which I have already learned from.

Why should the looks of something matter when actual level is good? If the level has solid gameplay and but doesn't look appealing does it make the level automatically bad and not enjoyable? I can understand if something looks like horseshit. Not trying to imply that visuals don't matter at all, but still.

simple as 1-1(?)

zlakergirl357 wrote:Why should the looks of something matter when actual level is good? If the level has solid gameplay and but doesn't look appealing does it make the level automatically bad and not enjoyable? I can understand if something looks like horseshit. Not trying to imply that visuals don't matter at all, but still.

If it has solid gameplay, but looks terrible, it isn't automatically bad and not enjoyable. That's not what I said. I said if a level looks terrible but plays well, yeah I'll enjoy the level as a whole, but the terrible looks will be hard to ignore. Again, if I'm playing a level, I want good gameplay, but also something appealing to look at.

Enjl wrote:Thank you for bringing up mistakes which I have already learned from.

Robotics:Shisetsu didn't even look bad. Using a lot of custom graphics shouldn't deem it a mistake.

Zeldamaster12 wrote:

Enjl wrote:Thank you for bringing up mistakes which I have already learned from.

Robotics:Shisetsu didn't even look bad. Using a lot of custom graphics shouldn't deem it a mistake.

That's not the mistake I was implying. The mistake was a lack of contrast between objects you could and couldn't interact with. Quite a few people I've talked to didn't know that the doors were doors and the signs were signs because they blend in too well with the background.

Then yeah, that's not a good use of custom graphics. But using a lot of custom graphics in general shouldn't be automatically deemed as bad unless the gameplay sucks.

Zeldamaster12 wrote:But using a lot of custom graphics in general shouldn't be automatically deemed as bad unless the gameplay sucks.

I'm not a fan of it when levels are recognisable merely thanks to their graphical choices. From what I can tell in the screenshot, this level will be known as "the level which also used the red/purple clouds but decided to add airships for a bit of variety in plaforming". There's nothing remarkable to the layout of the level from what I can see in this screenshot. You could swap out the graphics with a forest/tree tileset and call it a different level, even though it's exactly the same.
What I'm getting at is that to me there's a lack of evidence to support that this level is going to be worth playing. If the screenshot showed an area with an interesting idea (one thing I can see working with this level is blocks of one colour being solid at a time) or if said core premise of the level was explained in the comment above, I'd probably think "oh this looks like a nice level I might play it". It's not hard to impress me, but a screenshot of a palette-swapped grassland level certainly won't.

Enjl wrote:

Zeldamaster12 wrote:But using a lot of custom graphics in general shouldn't be automatically deemed as bad unless the gameplay sucks.

I'm not a fan of it when levels are recognisable merely thanks to their graphical choices. From what I can tell in the screenshot, this level will be known as "the level which also used the red/purple clouds but decided to add airships for a bit of variety in plaforming". There's nothing remarkable to the layout of the level from what I can see in this screenshot. You could swap out the graphics with a forest/tree tileset and call it a different level, even though it's exactly the same.
What I'm getting at is that to me there's a lack of evidence to support that this level is going to be worth playing. If the screenshot showed an area with an interesting idea (one thing I can see working with this level is blocks of one colour being solid at a time) or if said core premise of the level was explained in the comment above, I'd probably think "oh this looks like a nice level I might play it". It's not hard to impress me, but a screenshot of a palette-swapped grassland level certainly won't.

A "level which also used the red/purple clouds but decided to add airships for a bit of variety in plaforming" is not what it's supposed to be, it supposed to be "a sky level being attacked, however the statues are hiding a secret", if it was for having sky and airship tilesets, there would've have been more of the level already and it would've been a mess like one of my scrapped CC13 levels.

"the statues hiding a secret" does sound interesting. There we go.

I will fix the water and most of these graphics.

Darkonius Mavakar wrote:

Spoiler: show

Marvel at the awesome design, brilliant aesthetics and amazing gameplay of the best level ever made in the history of SMBX.

omg linik confirmed to be the god of smbx

Remove all the blocks and it's perfect

Holy crap, Tinkerbell! What are you doing here?

Also, awesome looking level Linik. Best one EVAH!

Linik wrote:

Marvel at the awesome design, brilliant aesthetics and amazing gameplay of the best level ever made in the history of SMBX.

Is that Cedrik's CC12 entry. You know, the one he didnt steal from zlaker.

Shine on you crazy diamond.

Looks pretty good, though I'd change the colors of the bush with eyes to match the colors of the other bushes - it's a little too bright and saturated.