Super Mario Bros. X Forums

I made another level, I found the ending of the level hard, but eventually
I thought of what to put, but I don't know whether it fits


Screenshots:

This looks interesting, might try it out.

Playthrough Made:



Original Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqcbIJsIyQ

Cloth pocket wrote:I made another level, I found the ending of the level hard, but eventually
I thought of what to put, but I don't know whether it fits


Screenshots:

Spoiler: show

I like how the mushrooms look.

where you see mushroom here?

SMBXRaptor wrote:where you see mushroom here?

They're shown in the 3rd screenshot.

Not only is this another basic, average level, but the level design just felt uninspired. Some of the block placements seemed like they were taken directly from the first Super Mario Bros, and I'm pretty sure that the rest of it actually was taken from the first Super Mario Bros. The only other thing about the level that was noteworthy was having the flag lower when the player collects the ? sphere at the end. In conclusion, I'd say that this deserves a 3.5/10. Try to make more original levels next time.

Imaynotbehere4long wrote:Not only is this another basic, average level, but the level design just felt uninspired. Some of the block placements seemed like they were taken directly from the first Super Mario Bros, and I'm pretty sure that the rest of it actually was taken from the first Super Mario Bros. The only other thing about the level that was noteworthy was having the flag lower when the player collects the ? sphere at the end. In conclusion, I'd say that this deserves a 3.5/10. Try to make more original levels next time.

Sorry I don't know what you mean, when you wrote 'I'm pretty sure that the rest of it actually was taken from the first Super Mario Bros.'
do you mean the GFX or the level design? Because the I did remake GFX From SMB1 but I didn't get level design from it. Also you said 'the level design just felt uninspired' what do you mean by that, because the level design was inspired by SMB1, as you said yourself. One more question. Was there actually anything that was good in this level in your opinion? Because you only mentioned things that were bad about it.

Cloth pocket wrote:Sorry I don't know what you mean, when you wrote 'I'm pretty sure that the rest of it actually was taken from the first Super Mario Bros.'
do you mean the GFX or the level design?

I was referring to the level design. You can tell because the subject of that sentence (what "it" is referring to) is "block placements." Besides, I never mentioned the GFX in my review, so I'm not sure how you thought I may be referring to that.

Cloth pocket wrote:Because the I did remake GFX From SMB1 but I didn't get level design from it.

Really? I saw quite a few similarities:

Cloth pocket wrote:Also you said 'the level design just felt uninspired' what do you mean by that, because the level design was inspired by SMB1, as you said yourself.

There's a difference between being inspired by something and taking entire block placements and copying them into your level. Just because your block placements are not in the same order as or not exact replicas of SMB1 levels doesn't mean they're not obviously taken from SMB1.

Cloth pocket wrote:One more question. Was there actually anything that was good in this level in your opinion? Because you only mentioned things that were bad about it.

Having the flag lower when the player collects the ? sphere was a nice touch; I thought I said that in my review. Besides, even if this level's design was original, it's still an average level; there's nothing inherently bad about it (besides the unoriginality), but there's nothing in the level that really stands out, either.

Only a 3.5? I have seen worse levels than this getting way higher than that, dont you think you need to review the level, not just one paragraph about what you dont like?

(Here come the down reps, you watch...sadness....)

AirSeus wrote:Only a 3.5? I have seen worse levels than this getting way higher than that

I know, right? It's almost like different people have different standards.

AirSeus wrote:dont you think you need to review the level, not just one paragraph about what you dont like?

Um...have you played the level? Not only is it really short (meaning there isn't much level for me to review in the first place), but practically the entire level is comprised only of different parts of SMB1's levels strung together with very minor changes (if they were even changed at all). I don't remember seeing a single original block formation in that entire level, and for me, an unoriginal level is worse than a level that has a few flaws here and there.

AirSeus wrote:(Here come the down reps, you watch...sadness....)

I don't think you deserve a down vote for that; I can understand where you're coming from.

Imaynotbehere4long wrote:I don't remember seeing a single original block formation in that entire level, and for me, an unoriginal level is worse than a level that has a few flaws here and there.

Please can you tell me what you mean by Original and Unoriginal?
Did you actually rate my level on the GFX for did you just rate it on the tile placement?

And can we please stop discussing how bad my level was please?

One more thing, I made a level, it was short as hell and it got put into the very good section so, I think the length is out of the question. It depends how enjoyable the level is to be honest.

Cloth pocket wrote:Please can you tell me what you mean by Original and Unoriginal?

Original is something that you made by yourself; unoriginal is something that you took from something else (in this case, level design from SMB1) with no or minor changes.

Cloth pocket wrote:Did you actually rate my level on the GFX for did you just rate it on the tile placement?

The way you worded this makes it seem like I should have rated this based on GFX rather than tile placement. If this is what you meant to say, let me tell you that of course I rated the level on tile placement because that is a pretty big factor when it comes to level design; good and fitting GFX should be a given. If you wanted the emphasis to be on the graphics, you should have posted this in the graphics sub-forum.

Cloth pocket wrote:And can we please stop discussing how bad my level was please?

I would, but you keep asking me about it, so I have to come back and explain myself. If you stop asking me, I'll stop answering you, but if you continue to ask me, I will continue to answer you.

AirSeus wrote:One more thing, I made a level, it was short as hell and it got put into the very good section so, I think the length is out of the question. It depends how enjoyable the level is to be honest.

Having played The Final Stroll, I can say a few things:

1) Your level actually has original level design.
2) Your level has more variety than Classic Path could ever hope to achieve.
3) bossedit8 rated your level too high in my opinion. Two Mouser sprite swaps and two Wart sprite swaps, are you serious?? By the time the second Wart sprite swap appears, the bomb generator has gone off-sync in just such a way to where if the player loses the fire flower, he/she either can't harm the boss without getting hit himself/herself or is unable to get the bombs to Bowser in time to deal damage. Plus, the Dry Bowser part can be broken by just standing in the hole where the Billy Gun is and jumping out occasionally to deal damage. The rest of the level was pretty good, though, but the Jumpin' Piranha Plant sprite swaps that you put over the lava don't spawn for some reason. 4.5/10.

But I digress. My point is that different people have different standards. Just because we're both level judges doesn't mean we have a hive-mind.

--EDIT--

Another good example of this would be the reviews and scores of Sharp Objects Are Usually Deadly. Even if we only consider the reviews of the two users who are still level judges, TNTtimelord (now known as Layla) would have put my level in The Trash Can, but bossedit8 was half a point away from putting my level in The Best. If that doesn't show how different level judges' standards can be, I don't know what will.

Imaynotbehere4long wrote:I would, but you keep asking me about it, so I have to come back and explain myself. If you stop asking me, I'll stop answering you, but if you continue to ask me, I will continue to answer you.

Yes but that doesn't mean you have to constantly criticize classic path in the process of answering a question.

For example: You wrote 'Your level has more variety than Classic Path could ever hope to achieve.'
Perhaps it would be helpful rather than just saying how bad it is, to say what I could improve on, And please stay on topic.

Also, you said I should post a level that mostly focuses on GFX in the graphics requests forum? That is the graphics sum-fourum isn't it?

Cloth pocket wrote:Perhaps it would be helpful rather than just saying how bad it is, to say what I could improve on,

Oh, I think I understand you, now. Let me try and explain something:

If you're making a project, having a level like this near the beginning wouldn't be much of an issue, as episodes need difficulty curves and all that. However, if you're going to post an individual level by itself in the Levels sub-forum, you need to try to make it the best level it can possibly be; that means it needs to be enjoyable, varied, of decent length, and last but not least, your own. If you just make an average level, like this, it won't go far. A good start would be not to make predominantly flat levels with minimal variation in NPCs.

Cloth pocket wrote:And please stay on topic.

AirSeus brought up his level; I was merely responding to him.

Cloth pocket wrote:Also, you said I should post a level that mostly focuses on GFX in the graphics requests forum? That is the graphics sum-fourum isn't it?

No, no! This is the "SMBX Forum," and it has various sub-forums, like Levels, Episodes, General, and Graphics. The Requests sub-forum is not the Graphics sub-forum, it's the Graphics' sub-forum (note the apostrophe). In other words, you should post it in the same place you put "SMB1 Styled SMB2 Smashable blocks." Does this clear that up?