Chanceful Coast (old level)

Levels that have good quality and are worth playing.
User avatar
ssumday
Fighter Fly
Fighter Fly
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 1:18 pm

Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby ssumday » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:32 pm

This level was from a old canceled project. After much time I thinked: why not post it? (I've posted it? I don't know...)
They are simple but beautiful I think and I hope you enjoy it.

Screens:
Spoiler: show
Image
Image
Download

Reviews and comments are welcome! =)
Last edited by ssumday on Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
ShadowStarX
Bronze Yoshi Egg
Bronze Yoshi Egg
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:21 am
Current Project: The Mysteries of Bowser's Castle
Chat Username: ShadowStarX
Contact:

Re: Two old levels

Postby ShadowStarX » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:38 pm

Well, it's not good to have two levels in one thread if it's not the casual levels subforum.
Please, post the 2 levels seperately. (well, just take out one of them from this thread and post it in a different thread.
It's not okay here because what if one of the levels belongs to the Pretty Good and the other one belongs to the Average in quality?

The levels look decent though, might play 'em. :)
"Look me in the eyes and tell me that ad isn't funny." - Shadow Yoshi, 2015
"hitaswitchtohitanotherswitchandseewhathappens" syndrome - Waddle, 2016
"I am in a call with a Natsu" - MECHDRAGON777, 2016

Chocolate Contest X1 - Starting after Patch 2's release
My Project - The Mysteries of Bowser's Castle


User avatar
ssumday
Fighter Fly
Fighter Fly
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 1:18 pm

Chanceful Coast

Postby ssumday » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:44 pm

ShadowStarX wrote:Well, it's not good to have two levels in one thread if it's not the casual levels subforum.
Please, post the 2 levels seperately. (well, just take out one of them from this thread and post it in a different thread.
It's not okay here because what if one of the levels belongs to the Pretty Good and the other one belongs to the Average in quality?
Sorry for this. I already fixed it.

User avatar
Magus
Koopa Troopa
Koopa Troopa
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby Magus » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:15 pm

This level was quite nice to play. It wasn't a hugely innovative level, but as a beach/underwater level, it did what it had to do well enough. Aesthetically, it's more of a mixed bag, though, and I feel like while you definitely tried something interesting in that regard, you didn't necessarily succeed.

Style:

Choice of graphics: Like I said, my main problem with this level is the way it looks. You use three or four different tilesets, one of which doesn't look very well enxt to the other two, you use a plethora of different kinds of BGOs from different games (recoloured to fit in better, but still there's too much difference imo), sizeables from three different kinds of tilesets (of which only one sizeable corresponds to the tileset used), green underwater blocks from SMB1 that absolutely seem out of place, and so on. There's just so much going on on the screen in terms of colours that it becomes a bit of a sensory overload. My recommendation is to stick to one particular style and not try to cram too many types of graphics into one level. 0.4/1.0

Placement of graphics: Related to my previous point, you seem to have a tendency here to absolutely overwhelm the player with all kinds of things going on, and it's not always very pleasant to look at as a result. One thing I should like to mention is that I feel like the underwater rock tileset should only be used in the underwater section, because it looks rather bad when put in the same frame as the brightly coloured sand tileset, and vice versa the sand tileset shouldn't be used at all in section 2, it's way too bright to fit with the darker background. There's also no real need to have like, 5 different kinds of BGOs sometimes crammed into the very same frame. Here the criticism also is: keep it simple. Don't use grass/plant BGOs from three different games, it's bound to cause a bit of a sensory overload. 0.5/1.0

Music: Both the music for the beach sections and the music for the underwater section do their job. No complaints here. 0.5/0.5

Gameplay:

General design: The level overall is well-designed, with only some nitpicks preventing me from giving a higher score. First of all, the underwater parts of sections 1 and 4, as well as most of section 2, felt a little too cramped. There's also the problem that some of the jumping Paragoombas and Paratroopas were placed in such a way that they would get stuck under rows of bricks, which just looks silly and can be quite annoying. The Blooper in section 1 is also quite troublesome, since you have to time your jump into the water very well in order to not get hit by the Blooper immediately. Placement of Dragon Coins was totally fine, the only one I found annoying was the one above the Nippers. It's a cool idea in theory (spin jump as the Nippers below you jump on top of the bridge thingy), but in practice I would still accidentally get hit, and it's probably better if you just remove the bridge thingy to make the chance of the player getting hit by accident lower. Coin placement was fine, although there were a looooot of them, and the ones in the bubbles later on sometimes were placed somewhat out of reach, making me wonder who would bother making some hard jump for a single coin. Finally, there's no indication that the 1-up block right before the checkpoint exists, making it so that the player can only find it by sheer accident. Otherwise, there were plenty of nice obstacles here, nothing really felt too unfair, there's plenty of powerups, so that's all fine. 1.8/2.5

Difficulty and length: I feel like some of the Hammer Bros and the occasionally cramped spaces force difficulty in an annoying manner into an otherwise pretty easy level, but alas, it's no big deal. The length of the level is pretty much perfect. 2.3/2.5

Creativity and variety: There's nothing this level does that is too creative, you mostly do what's been done. However, there's still enough variety in the level to make it fun all the way through, thanks to underwater sections, vertical sections, that kind of stuff. I like that. 1.4/2.5

Overall, there's plenty of good design going on here, basically an entirely competent level that gets held back a little by questionable choices in the graphics department. Fun nonetheless, and imo deserving of going into the "pretty good" category. 6.9/10

PixelPest
Link
Link
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:38 pm
Flair: Tamer of Boom Booms
Current Project: Boom Boom Evolution
Chat Username: PixelPest
Contact:

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby PixelPest » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:28 pm

I agree with this review for the most part, although I don't think "creativity" should be such a major factor. The review does however highlight some important things to note about the level, so I'll approve. I think I may have scored it a bit higher, but still a score of Pretty Good

User avatar
snoruntpyro
Pokey
Pokey
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:36 am
Contact:

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby snoruntpyro » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:34 pm

PixelPest wrote:I agree with this review for the most part, although I don't think "creativity" should be such a major factor.
I disagree with this. Would you rather play a level with a gimmick you've never or rarely seen before or the same old cgfx-spam castle/ruins/grassland/volcano level? I'd take a level with an interesting gimmick over a 'safe' level any time.
Spoiler: show
Image
Spoiler: show
Image

PixelPest
Link
Link
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:38 pm
Flair: Tamer of Boom Booms
Current Project: Boom Boom Evolution
Chat Username: PixelPest
Contact:

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby PixelPest » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:37 pm

snoruntpyro wrote:
PixelPest wrote:I agree with this review for the most part, although I don't think "creativity" should be such a major factor.
I disagree with this. Would you rather play a level with a gimmick you've never or rarely seen before or the same old cgfx-spam castle/ruins/grassland/volcano level? I'd take a level with an interesting gimmick over a 'safe' level any time.
I see where you're coming from and I agree. When I review a level, I give the designer extra credit for a new or creative gimmick/idea, however I don't penalize them for having a "safe level" as you call it

User avatar
Magus
Koopa Troopa
Koopa Troopa
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby Magus » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:41 pm

PixelPest wrote:
snoruntpyro wrote:
PixelPest wrote:I agree with this review for the most part, although I don't think "creativity" should be such a major factor.
I disagree with this. Would you rather play a level with a gimmick you've never or rarely seen before or the same old cgfx-spam castle/ruins/grassland/volcano level? I'd take a level with an interesting gimmick over a 'safe' level any time.
I see where you're coming from and I agree. When I review a level, I give the designer extra credit for a new or creative gimmick/idea, however I wouldn't penalize them for having a "safe level" as you call it
I think it's justified to be harsher on less creative levels, it's not too hard to at least reuse old gimmicks in interesting ways. Simply going from point A to point B can be all fine, and this level certainly does it well, but without that little bit of extra it's still not a great level. I would never give a level a perfect score even when it has no real design flaws if the concept of the level is to simply move from A to B and there's nothing extra to it.

PixelPest
Link
Link
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:38 pm
Flair: Tamer of Boom Booms
Current Project: Boom Boom Evolution
Chat Username: PixelPest
Contact:

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby PixelPest » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:46 pm

(Not going to quote all of that text.)
Yes, I also agree with that as well, however I wouldn't penalize them a full point for being uncreative or not doing something cool and new. When I was applying as a Level Judge one of my reviews penalized a level for not being unique, and I received multiple comments on that statement, so I suggest you don't do that in the future, unless a level is scoring like 9.2+, in which case I still wouldn't drop a full point

Enjl
Cute Yoshi Egg
Cute Yoshi Egg
Posts: 7950
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:58 pm
Flair: Orphion Egamalenitar Osmos IV, Esq.

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby Enjl » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:49 pm

PixelPest wrote:(Not going to quote all of that text.)
Yes, I also agree with that as well, however I wouldn't penalize them a full point for being uncreative or not doing something cool and new. When I was applying has a Level Judge one of my reviews penalized a level for not being unique, and I received multiple comments on that statement, so I suggest you don't do that in the future, unless a level is scoring like 9.2+, in which case I still wouldn't drop a full point
I don't think you can pull arbitrary numbers out of your hat like that. The amount of creativity varies from level to level , and I don't agree with "taking off one point" due to a lack of such, but only once it's noticable at a certain degree.
The amount of creativity influences fun factor and cleverness in design from the start, you can't transform it into an arbitrary variable after reviewing or not account for it at all.

PixelPest
Link
Link
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:38 pm
Flair: Tamer of Boom Booms
Current Project: Boom Boom Evolution
Chat Username: PixelPest
Contact:

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby PixelPest » Sun Mar 27, 2016 6:55 pm

Enjl pretty much sums up what I was trying to say. And 9.2 was just a random number I threw out there

EDIT: Just to say one more thing, I would most likely give a comment and have creativity influence my score of a level if there was a custom bossfight, or the level was a boss rush or just a bossfight

Enjl
Cute Yoshi Egg
Cute Yoshi Egg
Posts: 7950
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:58 pm
Flair: Orphion Egamalenitar Osmos IV, Esq.

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby Enjl » Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:05 pm

I don't see how I was saying exactly what you were trying to say, I was saying the complete opposite. My stance is on the side of Magus and snorunpyro and I disagree with your view on how to weigh criticism in a review. I think Magus summed it up best and there shouldn't have been a "but".

PixelPest
Link
Link
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:38 pm
Flair: Tamer of Boom Booms
Current Project: Boom Boom Evolution
Chat Username: PixelPest
Contact:

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby PixelPest » Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:12 pm

Enjl wrote:I don't see how I was saying exactly what you were trying to say, I was saying the complete opposite. My stance is on the side of Magus and snorunpyro and I disagree with your view on how to weigh criticism in a review. I think Magus summed it up best and there shouldn't have been a "but".
Lol because what you said doesn't match with what Magus said

User avatar
Magus
Koopa Troopa
Koopa Troopa
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby Magus » Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:17 pm

PixelPest wrote:
Enjl wrote:I don't see how I was saying exactly what you were trying to say, I was saying the complete opposite. My stance is on the side of Magus and snorunpyro and I disagree with your view on how to weigh criticism in a review. I think Magus summed it up best and there shouldn't have been a "but".
Lol because what you said doesn't match with what Magus said
It actually does though! He said what I was trying to say pretty well so uh yeah. Let's not continue with this conversation though, I think we are just about done with it and I don't like spamming some poor sod's level thread with a discussion on how to rate levels.

User avatar
ssumday
Fighter Fly
Fighter Fly
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 1:18 pm

Re: Chanceful Coast (old level)

Postby ssumday » Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:53 pm

Magus wrote:
Spoiler: show
This level was quite nice to play. It wasn't a hugely innovative level, but as a beach/underwater level, it did what it had to do well enough. Aesthetically, it's more of a mixed bag, though, and I feel like while you definitely tried something interesting in that regard, you didn't necessarily succeed.

Style:

Choice of graphics: Like I said, my main problem with this level is the way it looks. You use three or four different tilesets, one of which doesn't look very well enxt to the other two, you use a plethora of different kinds of BGOs from different games (recoloured to fit in better, but still there's too much difference imo), sizeables from three different kinds of tilesets (of which only one sizeable corresponds to the tileset used), green underwater blocks from SMB1 that absolutely seem out of place, and so on. There's just so much going on on the screen in terms of colours that it becomes a bit of a sensory overload. My recommendation is to stick to one particular style and not try to cram too many types of graphics into one level. 0.4/1.0

Placement of graphics: Related to my previous point, you seem to have a tendency here to absolutely overwhelm the player with all kinds of things going on, and it's not always very pleasant to look at as a result. One thing I should like to mention is that I feel like the underwater rock tileset should only be used in the underwater section, because it looks rather bad when put in the same frame as the brightly coloured sand tileset, and vice versa the sand tileset shouldn't be used at all in section 2, it's way too bright to fit with the darker background. There's also no real need to have like, 5 different kinds of BGOs sometimes crammed into the very same frame. Here the criticism also is: keep it simple. Don't use grass/plant BGOs from three different games, it's bound to cause a bit of a sensory overload. 0.5/1.0

Music: Both the music for the beach sections and the music for the underwater section do their job. No complaints here. 0.5/0.5

Gameplay:

General design: The level overall is well-designed, with only some nitpicks preventing me from giving a higher score. First of all, the underwater parts of sections 1 and 4, as well as most of section 2, felt a little too cramped. There's also the problem that some of the jumping Paragoombas and Paratroopas were placed in such a way that they would get stuck under rows of bricks, which just looks silly and can be quite annoying. The Blooper in section 1 is also quite troublesome, since you have to time your jump into the water very well in order to not get hit by the Blooper immediately. Placement of Dragon Coins was totally fine, the only one I found annoying was the one above the Nippers. It's a cool idea in theory (spin jump as the Nippers below you jump on top of the bridge thingy), but in practice I would still accidentally get hit, and it's probably better if you just remove the bridge thingy to make the chance of the player getting hit by accident lower. Coin placement was fine, although there were a looooot of them, and the ones in the bubbles later on sometimes were placed somewhat out of reach, making me wonder who would bother making some hard jump for a single coin. Finally, there's no indication that the 1-up block right before the checkpoint exists, making it so that the player can only find it by sheer accident. Otherwise, there were plenty of nice obstacles here, nothing really felt too unfair, there's plenty of powerups, so that's all fine. 1.8/2.5

Difficulty and length: I feel like some of the Hammer Bros and the occasionally cramped spaces force difficulty in an annoying manner into an otherwise pretty easy level, but alas, it's no big deal. The length of the level is pretty much perfect. 2.3/2.5

Creativity and variety: There's nothing this level does that is too creative, you mostly do what's been done. However, there's still enough variety in the level to make it fun all the way through, thanks to underwater sections, vertical sections, that kind of stuff. I like that. 1.4/2.5

Overall, there's plenty of good design going on here, basically an entirely competent level that gets held back a little by questionable choices in the graphics department. Fun nonetheless, and imo deserving of going into the "pretty good" category. 6.9/10
Thanks for the review (by the way good review). I realized that the higher problem in the level is really the graphic choice. I tried do make a level with various SMB3 recolors, but in the result the level looks a mess of objects and diferents graphics, I don't know why I put mushrooms (?) in this level and others things.
The lack of gimmicks is too a big problem in this level, honestly I hoped a more rigid review about it and I think you took out few points for this. I too put some Q-blocks and coins only for visual, but it's looks not good.
Again thanks for the review.


Return to “Pretty Good”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest