 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in SMW Hacking. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - SMW Hacking - Level design philosophy... |
New poll |  |  |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
srothroc Red Paragoomba                    Since: 04-27-06 From: Chambersburg, Pa Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| This may be a bit of a "noobish" question, but I was wondering what everyone here thought of level design in terms of difficulty. My friend and I are working on what I think is an interesting game idea (though everyone says this, I'll bet), and one of the things we're having problems with is balancing the game so that it's not just wickedly difficult, but actually FUN to play.
It's targeted at people who've actually played and beaten the first game with 100% completion, so we don't think we're setting our sights too high; it's just that we've come to a point where we're wondering how difficult a level should be before we tone it down. I thought about posting here because of the results of the Super Metroid hack in the other forum -- people were complaining that it was too hard, that the tweaks were ridiculous, that it wasn't a game for people who were looking for another Super Metroid game, but rather, a game for people who were Super Metroid freaks and spent time bugging out the game to find every single little thing they could exploit. To pose the question in a more practical way -- how many times can a player die in a level before it should be tweaked a bit? Are one-up farm levels a viable solution to this? A game of levels so hard that you're EXPECTED to die quite a few times before you can beat it -- is this really that fun to play? Many of the worlds in Super Mario World are incredibly easy to play and beat. My friend and I have both been beta-testers for another friend's hack, which is incredibly, incredibly hard. I'd probably go so far as to say that it will be one of those hacks that's aiming for the Mario fanatic. I'm afraid this might have skewed our perceptions of 'acceptable difficulty', so I'm interested in hearing what everyone else has to say. Sorry about the long-winded post. |
|||
Radiation UFO  Since: 11-19-05 From: Techno City, The Moon Last post: 6351 days Last view: 6290 days |
| ||
| One-up farm levels are bad, unless you really really need them. You should be able to get unlimited one-ups, but only through a trick that's hard to notice that you have to repeat several times or something.
Well, I think it's fun to just have a nice challenge without getting too frustrated. If you're aiming for players who consider themselves "pretty good", that's cool. But there are some sure-fire signs that your hack is probably too hard: 1. You have to use savestates or slowdown or like go-back-in-time or cheat coddes during the level copiously on it. Never use savestates when testing a hack. Come on, guys. People that use these are probably cheaters unless they're just flying through a hack to see what it's like. You should probably put a half-way point in your level if you have to use these. 2. You need 3-up things. 3-Up Moons are a nice prize for a challenging level, but if you throw one in at the beginning of the level, that's bad. After about fifteen tries, all of the fun is most likely drained from playing the level. 3. It takes a long time to get to the first save point and the chances of you losing five lives during that time is pretty high. Here's what you do if your hack is really hard and people are going to be turned off by a five-level impossible jaunt: put a saving level at the beginning where people can save and make it explode after you beat the first save level. Problem solved. 4. Despite what you might think, tossing a bunch of hazards and enemies and fire and lava and spikes into a room does not make it fun. When it comes down to the point of a huge wall of near-impossible-to-navigate hazards, it stops being hard even and just turns stupid. Any point in your hack that requires split-second frame-by-frame movement to even make it through unscathed is bad. What's worse is when that area is optional and the prize is a 1-up. Actually, that's pretty funny. Hehheh. 5. Things that you can't see off the side of the screen that will kill you if you don't know they're there. Look, you made the hack, so you know what's there. Try taking into consideration what other people know. Maybe put a sign that says INSTANT DEATH and a little arrow and then have a Thwomp come out of the ceiling. Heheheh. 6. It is my sincere opinion that, unless it's really integral to the level design, that it should never be necessary to take a hit to beat a game. Level design that's like "whoops look here it's a wall of spikes have fun getting small on it" is kind of frusturating. At the very least, just make a tiny, tiny bridge that's near-impossible to cross. Sure, I'm going to walk across the spikes anyway, but at least I know I could have done it if I tried. Things that are fun are more difficult. Here's some challenge-things that I actually think are fun: 1. Optional challenges. Like, an extra level in an extra exit that's really hard. Mandatory challenge is good and keeps the stuff fresh, but if you're itching to make something extremely hard that'll take like twenty lives to beat, make it like optional. That way, everybody wins! The best kind of optional levels are the ones that make the player say "this is retarded" without making him/her (yeah right her) throw down the controller. Or a level that has a weird theme or something. 2. How many times a player can die? I have no idea. It sort of depends on how the level is. If the level is actually fun and I can have a genuinely good time playing it because the level design is awesome and stuff, then I really wouldn't mind even dying twenty times. However, if it's just Donut Plains 1 except you changed all the enemies into death-traps, that's not fun. It's uninspired. It's like, after two deaths you don't want to play anymore. The amount of times a player can die is totally proportionate to how much fun is in that level. So if it's a good-awesome level, feel free to make it hard. Although after thirty deaths, no one will want to play the level anymore. 3. A good indicator of challenge is that the maker of the hack can beat it pretty easily and someone else can barely beat it on their first try. It feels awesome to beat things on your first try. But it feels lame if you feel like "wow if I did that again I could have done it like fifty times". The point is to make it so the person who beat the level feels like "wow, I barely made it that time. That was pretty cool!" And stuff like that. 4. Puzzles are fun. Puzzles are always fun. The most fun puzzles are the puzzles where you don't have to walk all the way across the entire stage in a mad trial-and-error dash. Even if it's just a little thinking, it's appreciated. 5. Okay, as I said before: Make your hack hard, not stupid. A level where you jump across flying red-koopas for most of the level is fun, yet hard. The same level where there are also death-spewing Lava Plants is suddenly not. Maybe in an alternate universe. And by that I mean a level called Alternate Universe where you take a level you've already done and make it unfairly hard. Everybody loves that! That was a pretty intimidating block of text, huh? |
|||
|
srothroc Red Paragoomba Since: 04-27-06 From: Chambersburg, Pa Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Wow, I really appreciate the time you've taken to write all of that! I'd always been of the opinion that 3-up moons should be a reward for exploring all the corners of the level -- if there's a hidden section that requires some thinking and/or skill to get to, it should have a 3-up moon. However, if there's a three-up moon in every level, I guess that makes things a bit different...
Insightful, though! |
|||
HyperHacker Star Mario Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_< Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828 Since: 11-18-05 From: Canada, w00t! My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn. STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^( Last post: 6290 days Last view: 6290 days |
| ||
I don't care if I still have 400 lives left, if I die at the same point 10 times in a row, I'm going to be pissed. And if I don't just quit right there, I'm damn well going to use save states for at least the rest of the level. 
List of things that are bad in level design (not just in SMW):
|
|||
Skreename Giant Red Paratroopa Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6290 days |
| ||
| One of the most significant things in general... If you (the designer) have difficulty completing a level you designed, it's TOO HARD. That is the most easily-seen thing for difficulty... Anyone who builds a level has a natural advantage in the level, because they know how everything is put together. So... if you have trouble, even with that, it means that the one playing it who DIDN'T put it together will have an even harder time.
Otherwise, I think the others have covered it pretty well. |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - SMW Hacking - Level design philosophy... |
| |
