Super Mario Bros. X Forums

Petraheim wrote:Isomorphism (35/40)
Structure (27/30)
Creativity (17/20)
Fun (8/10)
Review:

The atmosphere and aesthetic work very nicely, even though it is nothing too inventive. I like how a lot of different NPCs could be translated to hands in different ways. Simple, yet very neat. I must say, though, that even though the level design was very smooth and comfortable to play, there were some "clarity" issues. Which hand hurts me when I jump on them? Which of them can I spin-jump on? Which of them do I need to avoid completely? I suspect that the outlines on them might have been a hint towards that, but, unless I missed something, there was no obvious way of knowing without having to test my theories. It's better to be over-redundant sometimes in this kind of situations. The painting was translated in a very creative and gratifying way, but I kinda miss the "The creation of Adam" reference and symbolism present in all of the drawing. The hand was not pointing randomly after all! I do understand that that much adaptation and interpretation of the original material is a more advanced and specific thing. It would be really cool, though.

Total (87/100)

DrMekar wrote:Isomorphism ( 40/40)
Structure ( 29/30)
Criativity ( 20/20)
Fun ( 10/10)
Review:
Hard Hands implements it image immensly well into it's the design and that combined
with a unique and beautiful tileset, aswell as enemies that couldn't have been made more
fitting to this level, it certainly accomplishes what it sets out to do.

The only gripe I have with the level, this really being a minor is that the one of the hand
enemies can be defeated with a jump, while none of the others can, even if they have
the same design such as Thwomp or Bullet Bill Hand.

Total: 99/100

55jedat555 wrote:Isomorphism (35 / 40)
Structure (25 / 30)
Creativity (13 / 20)
Fun (8 / 10)
Review: A well put-together level of decent length and flow, but somewhat lacking in aspects that would make it stand out more.
The visuals are pleasant and not too intrusive (apart from the single spot where that's intentional), and they also mimic
those of the artwork pretty well - though I would've liked it more if it leaned even harder into the sort of disjointed
abstractness that characterizes the chosen picture. In terms of its setups, the level remains pretty focused all the way
throughout, with a couple oddballs here and there, such as the occasional boomerang guy or the singular torpedo ted
appearance (which I thought may also hint at the designer's identity, which is by no means a bad thing). The gradual
progression of complexity is also there, though I think it doesn't quite ramp up high enough by the end and instead
remains in the "safe zone" of not too difficult nor confusing setups, when it could've easily afforded to be taken further.
My biggest issue with this level however is just how forgettable it felt, even after having played through it several
times. It's a level that's very much designed in accordance with the current "good mario level" "meta", for lack of a
better expression - and it definitely is a good level, don't get me wrong! - but it also doesn't really do anything
extraordinary, anything that would truly set it apart from other such "good mario levels". I think daring to take a few
steps further in terms of design complexity would be a pretty good start in addressing of that issue.
Total: (81 / 100)