How to define screensizes for a level?

Quote from: Mr. Monkey on March 07, 2010, 05:31:11

People cannot be trusted to...

• rate their own works man I've seen too many people proclaim their terrible works great.

True, but people also seem to fairly frequently mischaracterise the Size and Difficulty of their own levels. One person's Large level is under 100 screens, while another's Small level is over 100.

For the screen sizes, What are the recommended screen quantities for the size categories
Small: Up to ____ Screens
Medium: ___ to ___ Screens
Large: ___ Screens or Over?

I've split this topic to a new post. Otherwise we might end up getting 2 discussions in one topic, making it hard to follow both.

There is absolutely no definition for this, partly because number of screens has nothing to do with the actual length of the level.  I wouldn't worry about size tags, though; they're not like difficulty or category where choosing the wrong one will turn forumers rabid.

But assuming a "normal" level, that is, no screen-hungry shift work or ridiculously hard screens, less than 50 screens should almost certainly be Small, and over 300 screens will probably let you get away with calling a level Large.  Alternatively, you could try to use Nifflas' levels as guidelines, but also unlike other tags, those are probably not the best choice as they have a tendency to sit on the size fence.

I think what I was told when I asked this question before releasing Falling Water was

<50: small
50-100: medium
>300: large

And all these numbers only go for unique, playable screens, of course. So, I usually don't count sky (unless it's sky with something interesting in it, which you can reach by jumping or with the umbrella), nor dialogue scenes that consist of one screen repeated via shifts, etc.

<50: small
50-100: medium
>300: large

Yes, well, I disagree.
Large starts at somewhere around 80, and small is somewhere around 30-40. I'm being imprecise, because how you perceive the size of a level is important too, and it can vary depending on the layout.

I also consider the easiness of the screens part of the size. (my opinion) For instance, in the Explore challenge, some screens were easy to pass by, but most would took you quite some time to get past them. Though the level doesn't have much screens, probably around 40 or so, I would consider the level medium sized based on estimation, as the playtime of the level is affected. True, playing the level for a second time when you know all the secret passages, will make it very short. I know this is not what people expect, but this makes me think that perhaps the playtime of a level from beginning to end could be some kind of indicator.

Like: playtime from 0 to 20 minutes = small, 21 to 60 minutes = medium, 61 minutes and longer = large.

I agree with LPChip on this one. However, if a 20 screen level takes over an hour to finish, I'd be hard pressed to call it Large. When in doubt, ask your beta testers. Their playtimes and experiences will vary from your own. If it's still a split decision, then flip a coin. As minmay said, "I wouldn't worry." It's not vitally important.

I don't agree. The size is how many screens there is. So to say a level is 10 screens but extremly tricky and hard, should it be medium sized for the time it would take to complete it over running through 10 screens in an enviromental level? The size is in the number of screens, not the time it takes to finish the level.

Also, there is no oficial limit because I've never heard Nifflas said anything on this.
It doesn't matter anyway, level size is not important, like Minway said.

I agree with Salmoneus. Size is how many screens there are, period. I can think of at least one or two levels with just 4 or 5 screens that take forever to complete, because of the difficulty, but to call them "large" would really be... odd.

Selecting the right size really only matters for searching; people with large KS folders with numerous levels use the "search by size/difficulty" function. So if your level is really small, less than say, 20 screens, don't label it medium, etc.

Whoops, I just noticed the screen numbers I'd posted don't make any sense. So... I think the *actual* numbers were supposed to be

0-100: small
100-300: medium
300-infinity ;-): large

As for the 'how long does it take to play' measurement, I don't think that can be taken as the basis for measuring level size. It would have various faintly absurd side effects: e.g., a level with two different difficulty settings would have two different 'sizes', even if it had exactly the same number of screens in either difficulty setting. Also, a level would be 'changing size' when played by a very good versus a very bad player. ;-)

I think anyone who wants to get a (very vague) idea of how long it will take him or her to play a given level can just derive that information from looking at the size, type and difficulty of the level. When I see the tag combination "environmental, medium, easy", I will assume the level will take at best ten minutes or so; when I see the combination "challenge, small, hard" I will assume that it may take me months to finish it. Etc.

How about you just pick what it feels like. That's what I always do.
I don't like imposing numbers on something like this, because then somebody is inevitably going to go "Your level is tagged large, but it only has 150 screens!".

How about you just pick what it feels like. That's what I always do.
I don't like imposing numbers on something like this, because then somebody is inevitably going to go "Your level is tagged large, but it only has 150 screens!".

To be honest, the only time when I, personally, really use the size tags for sorting levels is when I feel like having a 'quick bite' of KS in between doing other stuff - so, in those situations, I select for 'small' (and environmental). Hence, I don't really care that much if someone classifies a medium level as large or a large level as medium. But I do prefer my small levels to be actually small, because when I'm pressed for time and want to play a level I can actually *finish* in a five to fifteen minute break, it's frustrating to discover that the level just... doesn't finish, and you have to break it off in the middle instead.

I tend to make my judgment calls for level sizes based on the time it takes to complete the level. However, if the level is hardly linear, I go by screen sizes, with small being less than 50 or 100 screens (depending on what I think is appropriate for that case), medium being up to 200 screens, and then large being anything above that.