Topic: Mario Builder

[tendoboy1984]

Anyone here use it? I've made a few levels that I posted on Youtube.

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 7 (edited and reuploaded)

What do you think?

[ThomasO]

Some good level designs, but there are some glaring problems. My first thought was "you have an unhealthy obsession with elbowed pipes." There's also some moments where you're expecting that the player will unquestionably do something, or you assume that the player has knowledge of the level beforehand. There's also parts of the levels that are obviously filler, because they are repetitive or consist of empty space.


Level 1: most of the time is spent inside a pipe, meaning for most of the level the player provides no input, which is extremely boring.


Level 2: You're giving the player a lot more coins than they need. 1:40 into the video: Looks like you're expecting that the player sees the Koopa coming out of nowhere without warning, which is a bad idea. 2:25: You're overdoing it with the small platforms.


Level 3: lots of flat, empty space. You're overdoing it with the Thwomps at about 3 minutes in. After that point, you're doing the same exact jump over and over for the next 25 seconds.


Level 7: Definitely the best level. However, if the player does not clear away the coins after hitting the P-switch 1:55 into the video, how do they escape? Looks like a "screw you" moment because now they are stuck indefinitely or have to kill themselves. Same with the P-switch that follows. With the four pipes at the end, there was no indication that the space between them wasn't a pit. You're expecting the player to make a leap of faith to find a bonus. There was also no indication that the player needed to jump from the last pipe to the Goal Flag.

[tendoboy1984]

Some good level designs, but there are some glaring problems. My first thought was "you have an unhealthy obsession with elbowed pipes." There's also some moments where you're expecting that the player will unquestionably do something, or you assume that the player has knowledge of the level beforehand. There's also parts of the levels that are obviously filler, because they are repetitive or consist of empty space.


Level 1: most of the time is spent inside a pipe, meaning for most of the level the player provides no input, which is extremely boring.


Level 2: You're giving the player a lot more coins than they need. 1:40 into the video: Looks like you're expecting that the player sees the Koopa coming out of nowhere without warning, which is a bad idea. 2:25: You're overdoing it with the small platforms.


Level 3: lots of flat, empty space. You're overdoing it with the Thwomps at about 3 minutes in. After that point, you're doing the same exact jump over and over for the next 25 seconds.


Level 7: Definitely the best level. However, if the player does not clear away the coins after hitting the P-switch 1:55 into the video, how do they escape? Looks like a "screw you" moment because now they are stuck indefinitely or have to kill themselves. Same with the P-switch that follows. With the four pipes at the end, there was no indication that the space between them wasn't a pit. You're expecting the player to make a leap of faith to find a bonus. There was also no indication that the player needed to jump from the last pipe to the Goal Flag.

Yeah, I like making complex levels that are a pain to beat.


Here's the newest level I made today:

[ThomasO]

You can still make levels that are both fun and "a pain to beat."


Anyway, I did see this new level. And here are my thoughts.


The level feels stretched out and needlessly big; I think it could be smaller or trimmed of the filler, such as jumping up nine platforms of unavoidable flames (which in itself is a bad design choice) or slowly moving through a piranha plant shaft 10 pipes long.


The abundance and placement of Coins is questionable. Coins in Mario games are given as rewards for jumping a certain way or performing a certain task. Even NSMB2, which seems to shower coins at any given turn, still gave them in exchange for the player doing something, which made collecting them feel awarding. In your levels Mario mostly walks or falls into 100 coins at once, so there's even less effort needed to collect them than what was needed in NSMB2.


You also made it way too easy for the player to reach of the top of the Goal Flag.


In the moving water shaft, you didn't offer any visible initiative or incentive for the player to go down the Cheep-Cheep path, so the player will more likely take the path that is closer, moves faster, and has no visible hazards. And it was obvious there was no reward for going down the Cheep-Cheep path anyway, which made the invisible coin blocks redundant since the player is not inclined to go back. This makes the Cheep-Cheep path completely pointless.


Back to the unavoidable flames: I think levels that make the player dependent on power-ups (like your Level 4) are bad because power-ups are not replenishable and will often screw the player over. In normal 2D Mario games they serve only to make progressing easier and are seldom necessary to beat any level. Forcing Mario to shrink near the end is completely counter-intuitive and, given that you had placed a Mushroom right before that, makes no sense. If the player can complete the level as small, large, and all other forms of Mario from start to finish (and able to completely avoid all enemies and power-ups at the same time), then I consider it a well-designed level.

[tendoboy1984]

You can still make levels that are both fun and "a pain to beat."


Anyway, I did see this new level. And here are my thoughts.


The level feels stretched out and needlessly big; I think it could be smaller or trimmed of the filler, such as jumping up nine platforms of unavoidable flames (which in itself is a bad design choice) or slowly moving through a piranha plant shaft 10 pipes long.


The abundance and placement of Coins is questionable. Coins in Mario games are given as rewards for jumping a certain way or performing a certain task. Even NSMB2, which seems to shower coins at any given turn, still gave them in exchange for the player doing something, which made collecting them feel awarding. In your levels Mario mostly walks or falls into 100 coins at once, so there's even less effort needed to collect them than what was needed in NSMB2.


You also made it way too easy for the player to reach of the top of the Goal Flag.


In the moving water shaft, you didn't offer any visible initiative or incentive for the player to go down the Cheep-Cheep path, so the player will more likely take the path that is closer, moves faster, and has no visible hazards. And it was obvious there was no reward for going down the Cheep-Cheep path anyway, which made the invisible coin blocks redundant since the player is not inclined to go back. This makes the Cheep-Cheep path completely pointless.


Back to the unavoidable flames: I think levels that make the player dependent on power-ups (like your Level 4) are bad because power-ups are not replenishable and will often screw the player over. In normal 2D Mario games they serve only to make progressing easier and are seldom necessary to beat any level. Forcing Mario to shrink near the end is completely counter-intuitive and, given that you had placed a Mushroom right before that, makes no sense. If the player can complete the level as small, large, and all other forms of Mario from start to finish (and able to completely avoid all enemies and power-ups at the same time), then I consider it a well-designed level.

Good points. I felt the "forced power-down" at the end of Level 8 ("Tower") was an interesting and unexpected twist.


Do you have any Mario Builder levels on Youtube?

[ThomasO]

If you had a rare or awesome power-up you got from another level (like a Tanooki or Hammer Bros. suit) and you lost it not because out of carelessness but because the level would've been impossible to complete, wouldn't you feel pissed off?


I can't run Mario Builder or Lunar Magic on my Macbook, although I have been tracking a small journal of level ideas I'd like to try. I plan to buy a new computer and get both operating systems in the coming months though.


EDIT: Your Level 5 is undoubtedly your worst level. It's "jump, wait 5 seconds, repeat" for 3 minutes straight. There's absolutely no variety at all and you gave 100+ coins in the first 30-40 seconds for no reason.

[Mop it up]

I think levels that make the player dependent on power-ups are bad because power-ups are not replenishable and will often screw the player over.

I can see why Nintendo avoids doing this, but I actually like to see this stuff from custom levels. Some power-ups open up some interesting possibilities for level designs, though the whole level should be centered on the power-up instead of just one random part in the middle of a level. For me, I like custom levels that use the elements in ways that Nintendo's games don't, those are the ones I find worthwhile.

[ThomasO]

I think levels that make the player dependent on power-ups are bad because power-ups are not replenishable and will often screw the player over.

I can see why Nintendo avoids doing this, but I actually like to see this stuff from custom levels. Some power-ups open up some interesting possibilities for level designs, though the whole level should be centered on the power-up instead of just one random part in the middle of a level. For me, I like custom levels that use the elements in ways that Nintendo's games don't, those are the ones I find worthwhile.

You can still center levels on power ups. It just takes more skill to make it work. The Galaxy games have replenishable power-ups, so they often have levels that focus on them. 2D Mario games don't, so they have to be more creative.

[KDR_11k]

Creating levels for a Mario game is a pretty meh thing to me, there's a reason all those early 90s mascot platformers were ****.