-Bank 6, Object 5, a.k.a. that freaking green chomper thing (especially when combined with either or both of the above)
I disagree. Sometimes, less actually is more. It all depends on what kind of atmosphere you are trying to achieve.
- Not using music: Sometimes a level may seem better silent in theory, but more often than not using music leads to a better final product.
I disagree. Sometimes, less actually is more. It all depends on what kind of atmosphere you are trying to achieve.I agree, but in my opinion, taking a song and using it as custom *music* instead of ambiance is the worst of both worlds.
Now: someone needs to make a level with all of these horrors in it. (Though I can name a few already-existing levels that have most or all of them.)Oh my god! I have to do that!
-Using invisible tiles to block off voids. Blech.Or worse, using invisible tiles to block voids, which you can climb to reach different voids.
My advice to any new users of the editor: make levels with default content, but don't release them. Eventually you'll get tired of making levels that all look and feel the same, and will want to make custom tilesets and such; that time is when you should start doing so, and hopefully not be wearied by having "too many levels out there already."Honestly, I care more about level design than I do about tilesets. I completely agree with you on the issue of music, though, primarily because I can't stand the standard music's failure to loop.
Oh my god! I have to do that!I'd
I like the big green thing that hides in the ground and eats you; it's probably the only way of dying in KS that makes me laugh. (It's the silly "thlurp" sound effect, I think. Plus, the happy grin on its face.)I hadn't noticed. :P
Granted, I'm not really in any position to make authoritative announcements on what is good or bad KS level design, as I'm a relative newbie.Hey, that's hardly stopping me.
-Using invisible tiles to block off voids. Blech.Yeah, it's lazy. Yeah, it breaks immersion horribly. Do I still do it occasionally? Yeah, but at least I make sure to make them no-climb.
I consider the act of laying out screens and actually designing a level to be trivial at its best
For instance, in A Strange Dream, if you don't yet have the climb powerup, your surroundings are shaped such that you'll be funneled gradually towards it regardless of what direction you go.
I have never seen a level that uses The Machine's tilesets in ways they weren't used in the level, and still makes them look good. If you can link me to a level that uses default tilesets yet feels new, then do so.
I think we're comparing apples and oranges to trees and cows.*
Now, granted, there may be people who are so jaded that they only get moved by something entirely new and surprising and original anymore... but I don't think that that is the audience an artist should aim for (or rather, the artist should only aim for that audience if s/he feels the same way). - For me there is something (near-)universal about aesthetically successful work, and aesthetic success is not connected to novelty. You can do aesthetically successful work with the oldest, most unexciting materials.
... Ultimately, this may be just a fairly minor difference of taste, anyway: I don't think you're looking for total originality either: you want something that still feels like Knytt Stories, after all. You just like the 'subtle variation' I talked about in my previous post to happen in the tilesets, while I like to see it primarily in the screen design. It's not like (most) custom tilesets really add anything fundamentally new - just some new patterns, some new plants, etc.
Let me back up and approach from another direction: to me, tilesets are like... building blocks; brushes and colours; in other words: the material from which you build something.
All I have to say on this matter is: it's all personal preferences. There could be a level that many consider perfect, but some people will hate its guts.
Using no-climbs and/or no-jumps to block of voids.I actually find using no jumps to block off voids above to often be handy, nifty, and, if done right, aesthetically pleasing. I'm not sure if this is the way you've seen them used, but I like to put a line of them at the very top of the screen.
It incredibly annoying when you find a wall that you should be able to climb or jump around, but you can't, because the level designer could not be bothered to draw the wall properly in the first place.
Visual themes should be carefully implemented. Things without a point, or things that just "look cool" can be confusing if they don't fit in with context.
One trap some designers fall into is falsely labeling their levels, breaking rules whenever they see fit. Nifflas included the level sorting feature for a good reason, as it makes large libraries manageable - but only as long as designers cooperate. That is, they actually read and follow Nifflas' level labeling rules, and not break them just because. <_<
Another trend I've noticed is that custom animations tend to be under-used. I'm not sure why; maybe COs are too challenging to make, or perhaps they came short of the popular expectation as moving, death-dealing interactive objects.
Other traps:
enemy inside juni syndrome
Simply put, starting the player inside of a killer object. NEVER advisable, even if it's a trap or a joke level.
Bank 12 - Object 12That's a legitimate enemy. Just because it's hard, doesn't make the level it's used in bad.
Water drops of death are disturbing...
All the people who make good levels are long gone.
PROTIP: A level which randomly kills you is never fun!Except for the sadists who make it.
And those crazy enough to LP it (ProtonJon =D).PROTIP: A level which randomly kills you is never fun!Except for the sadists who make it.
You mean the guy who LP'ed the fiendishly hard "Don't eat the mushroom", and "Dark sky of wish mountain"? :P2And those crazy enough to LP it (ProtonJon =D).PROTIP: A level which randomly kills you is never fun!Except for the sadists who make it.
To hook in into the conversation of random deaths. I pulled this off in "The Explorer Challenge" by giving a set of choices of which you had to guess which choice didn't kill you. Repeat that 8 times and I thought to have a nice challenge.Thank you for mentioning that. That was my least favorite part of that level by far.
People really didn't liked it at all, even while it was a matter of: learn their locations by trial and error and you'll beat it. Difficulty was medium even.
So from first hand experience, people don't like it when they don't know that they'll die just like that. Doesn't matter if there are savespots near those locations.
This is meant to be a thread of indisputable flaws that can appear in a level
This is meant to be a thread of indisputable flaws that can appear in a level
Well, it's likely that, somewhere, there's someone who thinks every single one of these "flaws" is a good thing to have in your level. The problem is, it's also likely that there's someone who thinks Batman and Robin was a good movie.
Shifting juni out of a projector or umbrellaWhat does this mean?
In the case of umbrella, make an upward vent to prevent the player from passing the shift with umbrella out. Otherwise, make a cutscene that saves.
Cutscene restartI don't get this too. I can understand why a cutscene could restart, but I don't understand how there may be a need to save game after cutscene.
Make it save. Simplest fix yet.
A cutscene triggers a respawnThanks, that explains a lot.
Okay, here's one that's just been annoying the heck out of me in Return to the Luminous City: there's the following sequence:
1.) Run across half of screen A.
2.) Run across screen B.
3.) Climb upwards through screen B.
4.) Climb upwards through screen C.
5.) Climb upwards through half of screen D, then jump with the umbrella to -
6.) float halfway through screen D -
7.) and through all of screen B -
8.) and run across screen E -
9.) and then jump across screen F -
10.) and climb up through screen G -
11.) at which point you have to try to get past a nasty combination of several deadly critters that in combination are rather certain to kill you at least 50% of the time, if not more often. Which means: going back to step 1.) and repeating it all. Probably more than once.
It gets old. *Really* old.
Oh yes. But effective and I feel, in this case, the correct answer to an age old problem of level design.
There are SOOO many ways of keeping players in bounds that are more elegant and practical than using invisible walls.Not to mention that neato trick with the custom objects and Juni wallswimming into a shift off to the side.
Okay, let's break this down. You're complaint seems to be that IWS breaks the suspension of disbelief in a level. I can agree to that up to a point, but I don't see the problem in levels where the 4th wall is broken as a habit anyway.Not suspension of disbelief. Immersion. Breaking the 4'th wall intentionally as a joke is all good and well, because it doesn't make the player focus their mind on something else than enjoying the game. Players experience that as "oh hey, that was a clever joke, haha, now where was I..."
I'm saying, like any spice to a soup, there's a time and a place for it in a level.No it isn't. If breaking immersion can be avoided, then you should avoid breaking immersion.
The argument isn't about whether or not invisible walls should be used at all, PP; rather, it's about whether or not blocking off areas with a giant invisible wall is OK. Which I say it's not, as there is nearly always another way to do it that would result in a better experience.
Know what? I'mma call stalemate on this one. How about we agree to this: I will continue using IWS when I think it necessary, and you can continue not liking it. It's pretty obvious neither of us are budging on the issue.
3 screens sounds like too much of a gap, unless the screens have very, very little challenge.Maybe it's a Lunatic level?
PYP: Explain why anyone would want to see a "surprise trap" in a level in the first place.
Surprise traps don't need to be enemies at the start of the screen: They can be a pool of water that you might not expect, a sudden fall right next off the bat, etc. They usually pop up due to small mistakes in screen design.
Again, why would you intentionally put one in a level?
They usually pop up due to small mistakes in screen design.
Ponder the meaning of the word "mistake" and then ask that again.
I like to include a save spot right before "surprise traps" (i.e. screens with no prior warning that you can easily die in by mistake).
(noone wants an unexpected fall to their death in an environmental level)
In fact, one could argue that certain traps in the original KS actually are surprise traps by default - e.g. spiky walls that appear from beneath the ground when you get the eye,Spoiler: (click to show/hide)
I never said anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out that KS includes surprise traps by default, and demonstrates their use inIn fact, one could argue that certain traps in the original KS actually are surprise traps by default - e.g. spiky walls that appear from beneath the ground when you get the eye,Spoiler: (click to show/hide)Spoiler: (click to show/hide)
(noone wants an unexpected fall to their death in an environmental level)
Whenever I end up with a surprise trap in a level I've made, it was a direct result of how I build my levels: I don't plan out anything more than the vague ideas of what I want, and then I just kind of let the screens build themselves. I don't really pay much attention to the gameplay aspect (unless I'm making a challenge level, which I rarely do), so the screen may have a small surprise trap that I didn't notice while building it. Later, when I come back through to add savepoints, if I notice the surprise trap, I'll try to remove it. The problem with this comes when removing it makes the screen look lackluster. When that happens, I just shrug and add a savepoint in the screen right before it, so that anyone who falls into it doesn't have to trek all the way back to that area, and can respawn right away and continue on their way, knowing that the trap is there.
people thinking it's fine doesn't mean it's actually decent design
what pumpkin described ("a large amount of water with no more than one tile of warning") is perfectly fine, especially if there's a savepoint.
More specifically, I want you to give an example of someone who played a level with such a trap, liked it, and posted about that.
what pumpkin described ("a large amount of water with no more than one tile of warning") is perfectly fine, especially if there's a savepoint.
No, it's not fine.
Notice that I didn't provide any reason for it not being fine. Notice also that you provided no reason for it being fine.
Please provide a reason for such a trap being better than the absence of the trap, rather than the trap being better than an even more unfair trap.
After all, what does the trap do? It kills the player with very little warning. There is no skill involved in avoiding it; all it does is encourage the player to pause after walking into a new screen. How can that be perceived as good?
Finally, perhaps you would like to cite a few of your "countless examples." More specifically, I want you to give an example of someone who played a level with such a trap, liked it, and posted about that.
Making the player pause and actually look at the screen. Most players will simply run through a screen without bothering to pay attention to the scenery; if they fall into a surprise trap, they're that much more likely to pause and take a look at their surroundings rather than simply rushing through them.If the player isn't paying attention to the scenery it's because (s)he doesn't want to - why force them?
Give us an example of someone who played a level without a trap and posted that they liked it because it didn't have a trap.Ignoring the logical fallacy: yohji mentioned "countless examples," and that statement was a clarification of what I would consider an example. If they're countless, surely there's at least one positive reaction?
People don't post about something they like if it's been done several times before; they'll only post that they liked the level. Surprise traps can be surprisingly frequent, depending on how wide your definition of them is, so most people have already seen them. Most people don't post things like "I didn't like it because on the 43rd screen you can fall in water right away;" rather, they'll simply post a generic comment saying they disliked the level.Is this actually relevant? It seems to provide no support for either side of this argument.
stuff about The MachineAnd the ghost spike bars were, to me, the most annoying and pointless part of The Machine - one of the only annoying parts, in fact. Imagine that.
Finally, all in all, there's a limited number of surprise traps in the whole level, and a limited variety: after the first death, any player would know what to expect, and where s/he can let her/his guard down. There's also no 'warning' Save Point before them, if I remember correctly, because there's no need, as the nearest one is a couple of screens before the trap, with no hard challenges in-between (no frustration, yet no 'surprise spoiler').You say "no frustration." I don't get how a surprise trap isn't frustrating. It is, by our presumably agreed-upon definition, something that serves only to make the player slow down (either by having to be cautious or by dying).
I'll say it again: surprise traps, when used correctly and without going overboard, contribute to a type of gameplay that encourages caution in a player, making the game/level into a genuinely (as far as video games go) dangerous experience.KS isn't a game that normally feels like a "genuinely dangerous experience." Even so, when "caution" means "go through every screen really slowly because something might kill you otherwise," it's not any fun, at least not for me.
It feels more real: instead of just progressing from one obvious challenge to another, in a level obviously constructed to guide the player through it, you get a real environment that has a life of its own. Also, like PYP said, once the player realizes the level can have surprise traps, they'll be more careful and will stop and look rather than run trhough, heightening the immersion.Hmm. I've always had the opposite reaction: surprise traps feel like something obviously constructed to artificially extend the time spent on a level, thus breaking immersion. But we're hardly about to alter each other's personal experiences, so I'll leave this one be.
Okay, provide a reason for such a trap being no worse than the absence of the trap (which you definitely implied VERY heavily - "I really don't understand what's so bad about surprise traps," "I think it's safe to assume most players have no problem with surprise traps in general." But you already did and I responded, probably not to your satisfaction, so yeah.Please provide a reason for such a trap being better than the absence of the trap, rather than the trap being better than an even more unfair trap.
What? I never made such ridiculous statements, why should I provide reasons for something I never said? Whether something is better than something else in a level depends entirely on the level in question and the particular screens.
games that aren't Knytt StoriesI guess I wasn't specific enough. I was talking about surprise traps in Knytt Stories. See my explanation of why they work in Spelunky, and why they don't in KS. Also keep in mind that "this game has a flaw" doesn't mean "this game is a bad game." I agree that many of the traps and some of the puzzles in La Mulana were stupid, but those are far outnumbered by the puzzles that are fair and fun to figure out, not to mention all the other, more tangentially related things that make the game fun.
If the player isn't paying attention to the scenery it's because (s)he doesn't want to - why force them?If the player absolutely refuses to pay attention to the scenery, then a surprise trap won't force them to do so, sure. But if the player has forgotten that there's actually scenery around them and is simply rushing through the level (something that has often happened to me), then a surprise trap can serve as a reminder that, "Hey! There's more going on here than flat surfaces to run on!" I build levels with scenery for a reason, and as the level's designer, I'm perfectly allowed to try and get the players to play my level the way it's intended. If that requires forcing them to slow down to at least see if they like it better, then so be it. However, I would never put a surprise trap on every screen simply to force the players to look out for them all the time; that would defeat the purpose, as they would then be focused on that instead. After one or two consecutive screens without any traps, the player will probably feel relaxed enough to stop looking for them intently, but will still go a bit slower and notice the screens themselves.
Ignoring the logical fallacy: yohji mentioned "countless examples," and that statement was a clarification of what I would consider an example. If they're countless, surely there's at least one positive reaction?First, please explain what the "logical fallacy" there was. Second, yohji's "countless examples" referred to the many video games that have featured surprise traps but have scored highly. Not simply Knytt Stories levels. (yohji, correct me if I'm wrong here.
Is this actually relevant? It seems to provide no support for either side of this argument.That was support for an argument I made just before it that people won't post about surprise traps in comments because they're not that rare.
You say "no frustration." I don't get how a surprise trap isn't frustrating. It is, by our presumably agreed-upon definition, something that serves only to make the player slow down (either by having to be cautious or by dying).The difference between "surprising" and "frustrating" occurs when dying causes you to lose a lot of work, have to redo a particularly difficult/annoying part of a level, or simply have to trek around for a long time. Those kinds of traps are worse, because they result in "cheap" deaths, or deaths where what you gain is less than what you lose. If a death you can't have expected makes you lose the next twenty minutes trying to get past a really hard room again, it's a "cheap" death; however, if it makes you lose the moment it takes to respawn in the previous screen, it can hardly be considered to have devastated you.
My problem isn't really with surprise traps in general, by the way. It's surprise traps in Knytt Stories, a game which feels totally unsuited to them.Funny, I've always liked Knytt Stories levels without any enemies at all to be the better ones. But we all work with the given medium as best as we see fit.
[In Spelunky], however, making the player slow down actually has a purpose.I believe I've already made the point and backed it up that there is a purpose for making the player slow down in a Knytt Stories level. Several times.
Certainly, they still have disadvantages: they can be frustrating, and on occasion they feel a bit cheap. But they also have the considerable (hopefully) good effect on gameplay that I mentioned above.Note what I mentioned about cheap deaths above. If every time you died in Spelunky, you could simply wait a moment and restart the room, your deaths wouldn't feel nearly as cheap (although some still might). In fact, in some cases you might enjoy certain things more than before, because then you can continue down with the knowledge that that arrow trap is waiting for you, so in order to survive you should duck.
In Knytt Stories, I don't really see anything good coming out of surprise traps. Time spent is not a factor at all, you have infinite lives, and unless the level designer is clueless, you have plenty of save points. So having to slow down to avoid traps is not only annoying but uninteresting - it feels like something you just shouldn't have to do.Sometimes players need to slow down for their own good; you can't enjoy an environmental level if you're focused on running through it as fast as possible. Walking through the entire level is a bit extreme, and can limit environments greatly, but a small pool of water near the beginning of a screen will cause the player to take it slowly for a little bit. During that time, they may become interested in all the visuals they've been missing, and will take it more slowly of their own accord from that point on. That's why you should never put several surprise traps in a row; that amounts to teaching the player that there really are hoardes of surprise traps waiting for them, and they'll become so focused on avoiding those that they miss the entire point of the first one.
Oh, one other key difference between surprise traps in Spelunky and surprise traps in Knytt Stories: Spelunky levels are semi-randomly generated - you can't die and then replay the level knowing where the traps are. KS levels are the same every time, as are the surprise traps.Exactly; this means it's much less of a pain when you die from a surprise trap in Knytt Stories, because you can learn from your experience and avoid dying from it again.
KS isn't a game that normally feels like a "genuinely dangerous experience." Even so, when "caution" means "go through every screen really slowly because something might kill you otherwise," it's not any fun, at least not for me.If you're going through every screen that slowly, there's something wrong with the level. A surprise trap of the sort I'm describing shouldn't be intended to inspire such a paranoia that you hold the A key all the time and take baby steps to try and trip any further traps. This is exactly the kind of result that could occur if several surprise traps are placed one after another, or if the first one is made of "pop-up" objects, like hidden spikes or spiked ghost walls. A pool of water is an excellent surprise trap for slowing down the player without ruining the game, because it's something that's always easily visible from any distance (barring poor color schemes and those concealing objects that vanished when you get near them).
Also keep in mind that "this game has a flaw" doesn't mean "this game is a bad game."I've got a question for you: What's the fatal flaw about surprise traps that means that you should never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, use them, because it ruins the level they're in? That's the position you seem to be coming from. I'm not asking this question because I think you don't have an answer, by the way; rather, I'm asking because I'd like to see what your primary reason for this is. You've only mentioned one or two small things so far (at least, I consider them small).
37 posts about IWS. :overwhelmed:What?
However, I would never put a surprise trap on every screen simply to force the players to look out for them all the time; that would defeat the purpose, as they would then be focused on that instead.Which is what yohji was (seemingly, anyway) referring to. I don't have a big problem with using a "weak" surprise trap to get the player to look at the scenery. I still think it'd be better left out, but this is a complete divergence into personal opinion, so never mind that.
I've got a question for you: What's the fatal flaw about surprise traps that means that you should never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, use them, because it ruins the level they're in?There isn't one, and of course that's not the position I'm taking, but you seem to be aware of that. It's a case of almost always rather than always. My primary reason is, of course, that some people don't like surprise traps and very few people would prefer surprise traps to the absence of surprise traps - that is, in the typical KS level. And isn't the primary goal of level design to make something that people like and enjoy?
I don't think it would. If a player is simply rushing through a level without regard for the scenery, then how is killing them without warning going to make them look more at the environment? They would just be a little more focused on looking for surprise traps, and slightly annoyed.If the player isn't paying attention to the scenery it's because (s)he doesn't want to - why force them?If the player absolutely refuses to pay attention to the scenery, then a surprise trap won't force them to do so, sure. But if the player has forgotten that there's actually scenery around them and is simply rushing through the level (something that has often happened to me), then a surprise trap can serve as a reminder that, "Hey! There's more going on here than flat surfaces to run on!"
I build levels with scenery for a reason, and as the level's designer, I'm perfectly allowed to try and get the players to play my level the way it's intended. If that requires forcing them to slow down to at least see if they like it better, then so be it.You shouldn't have to force players to slow down in the first place.
The logical fallacy in question is actually a combination of the negative proof fallacy (there is no evidence against X, thus X) and an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the default side, the skeptical, rather than the credulous.That was aimed more at proving that it's next to impossible to find examples of levels where people have specifically posted that they didn't like a surprise trap in it by turning into something that I thought you might find easier to understand.
I don't think it would. If a player is simply rushing through a level without regard for the scenery, then how is killing them without warning going to make them look more at the environment? They would just be a little more focused on looking for surprise traps, and slightly annoyed.That's an example of the kind of person who is more intent on moving quickly through the level than paying attention to it. In that case, a surprise trap doesn't really do anything to make them slow down and pay attention; really, at that point, I don't think much can.
You shouldn't have to force players to slow down in the first place.You shouldn't have to, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes you do.
I'd say that if the player doesn't want to play your level the way you intended, then you've already kind of failed designing it.How is that my failure? I can only build the level; the player chooses how to play it. I can't prevent the wrong kinds of people from playing my level; the best I can do is try to guide them as to how it should be played. For example, let's say in one of your challenge levels, someone decides to use the KS cheat to get past everything. That's certainly not how you intended for it to be played, and thus, by what you've said, you failed to design the level correctly.
I'm not saying that scenery is bad or anything, but if you want players to look at it, you should make the scenery more interesting instead of punishing them for not being interested.If someone isn't interested in a level I've made, then why are they playing it? If they're not going to bother to pay attention they might as well get something to pay attention to. If they dislike the level enough that a momentary respawn puts them off it, then they're not missing anything they would've liked.
Besides, if someone is absorbed in the scenery, he or she probably wouldn't notice a surprise trap springing up in front of Juni.No system is perfect; this is the reason for the savespot right before the trap. If the player is absorbed in the scenery that much, then falling into a puddle of water, respawning, jumping over it, and continuing on their way won't interrupt their enjoyment of the level to a large degree. However, as stated above, if the player is put out enough that they lose any desire to see the rest of the level, then they weren't sufficiently interested in it anyway.
You shouldn't have to, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes you do.No you don't. The player chooses how they want to play a level, not the designer. All you can do as a designer, is making your way of playing more enjoyable.
For example, let's say in one of your challenge levels, someone decides to use the KS cheat to get past everything. That's certainly not how you intended for it to be played, and thus, by what you've said, you failed to design the level correctly.Yes. They obviously didn't feel that my challenges were worth playing through.
If someone isn't interested in a level I've made, then why are they playing it? If they're not going to bother to pay attention they might as well get something to pay attention to. If they dislike the level enough that a momentary respawn puts them off it, then they're not missing anything they would've liked.That's kind of my point. Why design a level to slow down people who wouldn't have liked it anyways?
Ouch! I got singled out in this thread. I have to agree though. I think the main problem with the pipes in A Knytt in Time was the length. Those pipe, were crucial to the story and the flow of the game. I wanted the machine at the heart to be ominous. The pipe couldn't just end at the machine. If I let Juni enter the machine then that would undermine its mysterious nature.
Gameplay wise however, they are a disaster. What was intended to be a shortcut to any part of the world, ended up becoming a boring, time-eating trek. OK the first time (they're like little environmental levels, a break from the action.) But, if you're lost as to what to do next and you've gone through them more than twice, then not OK. I thought, "People might run into the spikes once, but then they'd know better." However, the pipes can lull you into a since of security. Your mind starts to wander. You get spiked. (TheyThe spikes were removed from the LoCP edition.)
So, I'll go ahead and add that to the list. If you're going to make a large safe area, don't put any dangers before the first save point no matter how easily they can be avoided.
one word.
solidgrass.
:)
:huh: I don't find solid grass that bad. If it's restricted to one tile in order to keep a wandering creature from wandering off an edge.
But people complained, so I had to use an alternative for my level.
Okay, provide a reason for such a trap being no worse than the absence of the trap (which you definitely implied VERY heavily - "I really don't understand what's so bad about surprise traps," "I think it's safe to assume most players have no problem with surprise traps in general." But you already did and I responded, probably not to your satisfaction, so yeah.Please provide a reason for such a trap being better than the absence of the trap, rather than the trap being better than an even more unfair trap.
What? I never made such ridiculous statements, why should I provide reasons for something I never said? Whether something is better than something else in a level depends entirely on the level in question and the particular screens.games that aren't Knytt StoriesI guess I wasn't specific enough. I was talking about surprise traps in Knytt Stories. See my explanation of why they work in Spelunky, and why they don't in KS. Also keep in mind that "this game has a flaw" doesn't mean "this game is a bad game." I agree that many of the traps and some of the puzzles in La Mulana were stupid, but those are far outnumbered by the puzzles that are fair and fun to figure out, not to mention all the other, more tangentially related things that make the game fun.