Do good levels really need BGO's

[Radishl]

In my opinion the smbx community is too obsessed wth aesthetics and colorful and cool backgrounds in a level more than they are into gameplay. I see levels spammed with BGO's and they recieve a one way ticket into the best. But in reality it doesn't really matter how much slopes you have or how much linearality or non-linearality you have in a level. Or how much minor cutoff you have because heck, Nintendo had cutoff in their smb3, sml2 ,SML games on a regular basis and they were memoriable games. Not because of their BGO's or aesthetics but hard, cold, gameplay.

And that is what the judges and the community need to focus on.

-Radishl

[HeroLinik]

Just as much as some people judge a level based on the graphics it has - it's that thing again. Just to demonstrate that Nintendo's games included cut-offs as well, look at this screenshot:



But to be honest it's still about the design, and not really the graphics. But then again, it's about how they're used. A clashy level with great design might not look as appealing as the same level but with great graphics, but it really should be a good level, but unfortunately, they get low scores, just because the judges don't want to spend ages reviewing a "bad" level which is actually very good.

[Mable]

People care tooooo much about graphics nowadays and not the gameplay.

[silent_]

Levels with no scenery are quite frankly just bland and dull, and I do think they are essential to making a nice SMBX level, even if they don't effect the gameplay. But the gameplay isn't the most important category when it comes to SMBX. I would say design and placement come first.

[Marina]

To be honest I'm getting tired of these posts.

"Do good levels really have to be non-linear?"

"Do good levels really have to be longer than 1 minute of gameplay?"

"Do good levels really need BGOs?"

What's next? Do good levels really need enemies????

Nobody forces you to put bgos in your levels, but you can't just make boring levels and then expect everyone to like them. Also it's not like the Level Judges make the rules what people like and what not. We just judge after general perception, and if you don't like that, then that's your problem.

I see levels spammed with BGO's and they recieve a one way ticket into the best.

That's not true. This is a stereotype that goes back to the "good levels need CGFX" thing.
We don't judge on if there are cgfx or not, we judge on how they are used. Aesthetics are an important part of the level, but they are not everything. If a level has pretty gfx, but boring gameplay, (example gfx: 10, gameplay: 0) then it would still go to average.

But in reality it doesn't really matter how much slopes you have or how much linearality or non-linearality you have in a level.

Not entirely true. Slopes and linearity affect gameplay, it's not just an aesthetics thing

Or how much minor cutoff you have because heck, Nintendo had cutoff in their smb3, sml2 ,SML games on a regular basis

True, I agree on this point, everyone is way too hung up on cutoff. If it's nothing major like lava just cutting off into nothingness, I'm willing to let something like cutoff slip when judging.

and they were memoriable games. Not because of their BGO's or aesthetics but hard, cold, gameplay.

Not entirely true. If you look at SMB3, there are lots of BGOs, and these add up on how the player perceives the level.


I agree that levels that are in the "best" section often have pretty gfx and are spammed with bgos. But they are not in the "best" section because of that, they are in the "best" section because the creator did something interesting and creative with them, and put thought into his level, and wanted to create an athmosphere.


Pretty gfx + BGO spamming =/= one way ticked to the best section

It's how you USE the Gfx and BGOs that gets you points.

[underFlo]

Nintendo had cutoff and such because the old consoles had limited power and storage and thus not enough space to include some blocks that could fix cutoff. Same for bgos.

[Mudkip]

It is about the graphics nowadays. If you guys are honest, you'd say you'd rather play a level which has awesome graphics in the screenshot than a level which is bland, has cut-offs and uses no custom graphics as well. Everything is better with beautiful graphics. SMB3 and all these games you mentioned Radishl are old-school games, are protected by nostalgia and they were the best games back then. To be honest, I actually disliked the gameplay in SMB3, except for some levels. Most of these levels were boring and they were all the same. All the fucking time. Don't tell me they were fun, it's only something you believe, because it was the greatest shit you could have when you was still a small child. I dislike the fact that regular levels are underrated as well. This gives newbies no chance to improve their skills. Or in general you won't be able to find out the potential in that sort of a level.

But this is, how it is. We can't change it.

[Marina]

I dislike the fact that regular levels are underrated as well. This gives newbies no chance to improve their skills. Or in general you won't be able to find out the potential in that sort of a level.

So you'd rather have us Level Judges give every newby a 10/10 on their basic level so they feel good instead of giving them a honest 5/10 and telling them what they can improve to become better level designers?

[FallingSnow]

The "But Nintendo did it" is a stupid argument that should have no relevance.

[Marina]

The "But Nintendo did it" is a stupid argument that should have no relevance.

True. Notice how Nintendo's levels today are really easy, just to be family friendly? (Also notice how levels today have LOTS of stuff going on in the background. Who says we can't do the same in SMBX?)

[DarkMatt]

Why don't you guys stop trying to list examples (Nintendo) as legitimate proof your way is best and explain, in an artistic sense, why custom graphics aren't necessary to make enjoyable levels.

And for those who insists custom graphics be used, if you're not considering the level theme, then you're not fully appreciating the art. You're just clapping your hands at pretty images.

[Marina]

And for those who insists custom graphics be used, if you're not considering the level theme, then you're not fully appreciating the art. You're just clapping your hands at pretty images.

Like I said, it doesn't matter IF there are CGFX, it's HOW they are used.

[HeroLinik]

And for those who insists custom graphics be used, if you're not considering the level theme, then you're not fully appreciating the art. You're just clapping your hands at pretty images.

Like I said, it doesn't matter IF there are CGFX, it's HOW they are used.

To be exact, I coined that phrase from reviewing a level back when CGFX were the thing and it was all about them and nonlinearity, and it's stuck from there. I still use it, but really that phrase should now apply to when some people get distracted by some really cool graphics that the gameplay starts to suffer, resulting in a really bad level which sucks design-wise, but it still has those cool custom graphics. Levels like those should go in the Trash Can, not to the Best.

[Marina]

-

[DarkMatt]

Someone saying something you agree with is someone agreeing with you.

Stop posting just because you can't read their posts to figure this out.

[RudeGuy]

I've seen only a few people saying "this level doesn't have GFX 0/10"
About BGOs, if there aren't them, the level would be bland and it affect the atmosphere.
About slopes, they are good, but you can do awesome levels without them. And also, they affect the gameplay, not the atmosphere.
Finally, spamming BGOs and slopes isn't a ticket for the best section. A level could be average even if it doesn't have cutoff and clash.

[HenryRichard]

yes

Unless it is REALLY fun. Most official Mario games have them too. (SMB1, SMB2, SMB3, SMW, YI, etc.)

[Willhart]

Good levels are well polished. Both the gameplay and graphics are important, but everyone can make whatever they like.

[bossedit8]

Background Objects can be placed around but not everything to be honest. I mean, in a SMW Cave, there aren't any background objects to choose from (except water and sizable) and still it looks good.

[sezixor]

Background objects are really important and should always be used in my opinion. It's a visual turnoff to see a long, flat stretch of tiles with nothing on it. However, the corresponding level must have good design and gameplay for the effect to work. Admittedly, I used to make levels with great custom graphics as a first priority, but now I am focusing on design as much as possible. A level shouldn't be criticized for going over the top with the graphics if the design, gameplay and placement are good as well.