Nifflas' Support Forum

Level Editing Support => Knytt Stories Level Editing Support => Topic started by: the Jack on March 06, 2010, 20:13:07

Title: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: the Jack on March 06, 2010, 20:13:07
The KS Level Archive is set up with seven categories: Tutorial, Challenge, Puzzle, Maze, Environmental, Playground, and Misc(ellaneous). This wasn't an arbitrary decision on LPChip's part; it's coded right into the World.ini file of every KS level.

Quote
; ---Level Categories---
;
; Tutorial        A tutorial that teaches you to play Knytt
;                 Stories and contains tips and tricks.
;
; Challenge       A Challenge level - make sure your skills
;                 are sharp!
;
; Puzzle          In a Puzzle level, you need some serious
;                 thinking.
;
; Maze            A Maze Level - Can you find where you're
;                 going?
;
; Environmental   An environmental level - No puzzles, no
;                 monsters, no challenge, just beautiful
;                 landscape.
;
; Playground      A Playground doesn't have an ending or a
;                 goal - a good place to practice.
;
; Misc            A level that doesn't fit into any of the
;                 other categories.

I wasn't around when this community was at the old forums, so I don't know how long ago the change started to happen... but many KS players seem to use the term "Environmental" to describe levels that are visually stunning, even though they may have some moderate challenges in them. Salmoneous's "Mashu Prapa", and "Gaia" by Anydel & Drakkan, are two prime examples of levels which are mostly challenge-free, yet because of that 0.5-5% challenging-screens content, technically, they cannot be called Environmental levels. Yet 'Environmental' is exactly how most players think of levels like those, including those two in particular.

Arguing for a change in what the Environmental tag means seems moot at this point; Nifflas has said he wants the categories to remain the way they were originally set up, and as the guy who gave us this awesome game (among others) he deserves for us to respect his decision.

I'd just been thinking about bringing this issue up while I was offline last night; and this morning I logged on and discovered, thanks to a timely thread bump, this comment:
@LPChip: It would be nice if the new archive had some feature that allowed users to search for levels that 'look nice', though. I think I'm not the only one here who's mainly interested in KS as an aesthetic experience, and thus will prefer environmentals in most cases, but will tackle a challenge level if it's a really good-looking one. It would be nice to be able to separate, via some search term, maybe, challenge levels with a strong aesthetic focus from those that just focus on presenting the player with, well, a challenge.

and this comment:
I'd like to second that. Perhaps this could be discussed in a separate topic somewhere on the forum? Because I remember there were other challenge vs. environmental debates before, with different participants, and it doesn't seem like most people would be happy if the categories were made completely separate, with no means of searching for good-looking levels.

(I admit I'm biased, though, because my levels kind of fall into the challenge+environmental thing too.. I think.. only the environments are really weird  :crazy: and the challenges kind of basic  :oops:)
from a couple of months before I found the forums.

The fact is that people are using the term Environmental to refer to a particular kind of level, which most people seem to recognise ("I know it when I see it"  ;)) and want to call something to distinguish it from levels which, while they aren't necessarily ugly, aren't visually stunning the way the levels we're all so tempted to call Environmental are.

Calling these levels Playground wouldn't be any better (and arguably worse) than calling them Environmental; Misc is hopelessly vague and better suited to levels like "AniMate", "Don't Eat the Mushroom", "The Organ" and "Teenhmifnoeafgil" which defy categorisation.

What we need is a new category.

I propose that it be called Aesthetic "Scenic".


Hopefully the level archive (if not, alas, KS itself) can be set up so as to allow users to search for Aesthetic Scenic-tagged levels. So "A Knytt in Time" for example would turn up in a search for either Challenge or Aesthetic Scenic. (Both? Is the new-and-improved archive going to allow multi-category searching?) "Dungeon" would show up for Maze and Aesthetic Scenic.

There's a possibility that some level designers (or "Knytters", TM Hmpf) would abuse the option of listing as Aesthetic Scenic a level which ...wasn't, but that seems a relatively minor potential annoyance compared with the ability to accurately label those levels we all think of as sharing a category but which, until now, haven't had a term that was rightly theirs to be called by.

edit: I didn't mean to put it in Level Previews, I just... failed to pay attention. Oops. Thanks for the move, LPChip!

edit 2: I have read everyone's comments so far, and I agree that the term "Aesthetic" is particularly prone to potential abuse, since not checking that box would amount to saying 'I think my level is ugly but you should play it anyway LOL.' Therefore, I am now putting forward "Scenic" as my #1 choice -- again subject to consensus / change. A level can be perfectly attractive without being scenic; calling a level "Scenic" is referring to its having 'beautiful landscape" as in the official definition of "Environmental" but without the additional "no puzzles, no monsters, no challenge" restrictions of the Environmental category. Scenic levels, like Environmental levels, feature a cohesive environment as a fundamental element of their design and gameplay.

And just to reiterate: This is existing usage in search of a proper term, not a random suggestion for adding a new category just because. People are using the unsuitable term Environmental for a recognisable group of levels which nevertheless don't fall under the official definition of the Environmental category. Picking another term is far preferable to continuing to badger LPChip to let us tag our levels Challenge/Environmental.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Hmpf on March 06, 2010, 20:21:49
I second the motion.

Wrong forum, though. ;-)
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Purple Pineapple on March 06, 2010, 20:52:21
You can always add custom categories to your levels in the ini file.

My KS mod (http://nifflas.lpchip.nl/index.php?topic=2458.0) has the ability to filter for custom categories. [/shamelessselfpromotion]
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: AA on March 06, 2010, 21:35:37
I think 'nice-looking' is a bit too subjective for a category. Since the new level archive should display the first screen of a level, you could make a nice-looking first screen.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Hmpf on March 06, 2010, 21:43:53
I think 'nice-looking' is a bit too subjective for a category. Since the new level archive should display the first screen of a level, you could make a nice-looking first screen.

Well, but it's probably fairly easy for a level creator to decide if s/he consciously tried to make something that is not just challenging but also pretty - even if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the level creator will know if s/he at least *aimed* for it. So I think it would be nice to give people a chance to indicate, when they submit a level, whether they paid special attention to the level's look. And people who are mainly looking for 'pretty' levels are probably more likely to find such levels among the works of creators who consciously aimed for something aesthetically pleasing - even if there are inevitably going to be duds among those levels.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Pumpkinbot on March 06, 2010, 22:59:00
I can see how a lot of people are with Envi/Chal levels, but I can also see from LPChip's point of view, where there's no real difference.

I agree to this, though, because I think the purpose of "environmental" isn't to have a no-challenge level, but instead a focus on environment. Take the original Knytt, for example. It's quite environmental, correct? Ah, but there's hazards! And mandatory collectibles scattered about! So it can't be environmental, from LPChip's point of view. From our point of view, however, it'd be Easy/Envi/Chal. Which would fit it more than Easy/Chal. ;)

But I doubt anything would be done, 'cause LPChip's so stubborn...
...! In a good way! :oops: Don't hurt me...
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: the Jack on March 06, 2010, 23:08:06
@AA:
The only difference between "Aesthetic" and "Environmental" would be that "Aesthetic" could be used in combination with the "Challenge" category, as well as on levels that aren't deserving of the Challenge tag overall but still contain too many enemies / trick jumps / whatever to qualify as Environmental.

As I said, people are already in need of a term to use, we're calling levels Environmental which -- by Nifflas's definition -- are not.

Individual level designers putting their own non-standard tags, e.g.: pretty, landscape, scenic, envirochallenge, challenmental, visual, decorative, etc., etc. would be of little help to players wanting to easily search for the type of level I'm proposing the Aesthetic category for. So we need to settle on a single term.

I'm not stuck on Aesthetic, either; that's just a proposal, and if the community consensus is to call levels-that-we-aren't-supposed-to-call-Environmental something else, whether that something else is "Scenic" or it's "Dodos" I don't much care. By all means, suggest and/or cast your votes for the term you think is best!

The idea is to have some term we can use and know what we're talking about. Because "Environmental but not really" doesn't cut it. We're not going to be physically able to upload levels tagged both Environmental and Challenge once the new level archive is in place. Being forced to tag a level on which the designer spent more time beautifying the screens than developing the challenges as Challenge only is unfair to both designer and players; and tagging a level that's really attractive just Environmental when it's actually a very pretty Challenge level makes members of the League of Crap Players weep tears of blood. And nobody wants that.

@Pumpkinbot:
The perceived focus on environment is precisely why people have been using the term to refer to the levels they do, despite those levels containing mild to difficult challenges as well. We can't change the categories Nifflas established; that's been discussed repeatedly, and always been shot down. So the obvious alternative is to pick a new word for the levels we shouldn't have been calling Environmental in the first place.

It was my impression that LPChip was opposed to changing the meaning of the existing categories, and to allowing levels to be tagged both Environmental and Challenge (with the good reason that Nifflas Said So); if someone else has already suggested picking a new term for these levels that wouldn't conflict with the level categories Nifflas laid down, and LPChip shot that down, I haven't seen it...
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Pumpkinbot on March 06, 2010, 23:35:36
@Pumpkinbot:
The perceived focus on environment is precisely why people have been using the term to refer to the levels they do, despite those levels containing mild to difficult challenges as well. We can't change the categories Nifflas established; that's been discussed repeatedly, and always been shot down. So the obvious alternative is to pick a new word for the levels we shouldn't have been calling Environmental in the first place.

It was my impression that LPChip was opposed to changing the meaning of the existing categories, and to allowing levels to be tagged both Environmental and Challenge (with the good reason that Nifflas Said So); if someone else has already suggested picking a new term for these levels that wouldn't conflict with the level categories Nifflas laid down, and LPChip shot that down, I haven't seen it...
*slams fist on desk* Got it! A level can be environmental and challenge only if the challenge is relatively easy, or you don't have to focus on the challenge at hand all the time, like in a harder level.

Sound good?
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 06, 2010, 23:55:31
Honestly,

A level that is entirely focussed on the environment and only has a little bit of challenge, like in Knytt should not be labelled as environment/challenge at all, but just environment.

The idea is indeed pointed out by Nifflas, and I'm only enforcing what he's saying (because I entirely agree with him) is that you don't label a level environment just because it looks pretty. If you put hard challenges in the level that you cannot avoid, the level is not environmental any more. Secondly, an environmental level should not have a difficulty harder than easy IMHO.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: minmay on March 07, 2010, 00:02:55
The proposed idea has a huge problem: people are attention-seekers, so almost everyone will tag their crappy-looking Challenge level with "aesthetic."

I honestly don't think such a distinction is necessary, as a level which has truly had reasonable effort put into it will be good-looking enough to be environmental anyway.  The Environmental category, counternituitively, does not encompass good-looking levels with little or no challenge - it isolates levels with no challenge at all.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: egomassive on March 07, 2010, 02:43:29
Since the proposed classification will only pertain to the the level archive and the archive is not finished, this may be a non-issue. I haven't heard any mention of how the ranking system will work. If it's a multifaceted system then visuals may be ranked individually. eg:

gameplay 1 to 5
graphics 1 to 5
music 1 to 5
overall (which is not the average score) 1 to 5

Furthermore, this sort of thing should be on a scale. With Jacks idea the choice becomes, "My level is aesthetically pleasing," or, "My level is ugly." Imagine if we only had two difficulty categories, easy and hard. That wouldn't be nearly as helpful as the 5 categories we have.

Even if nothing is done to help sort the pretty from the ugly on new archive. AA's right. The previews screens will be a huge help in determining attractiveness before downloading, installing, and playing. Better than what the archive has now, which is nothing.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Mr. Monkey on March 07, 2010, 05:31:11
Problems with ratings:

People cannot be trusted to...

Rather, a system of rating focus (regardless of quality) may be better.
that way people can say the intended result without getting in a fuss about others' conflicting opinions

Sorry if this was what you meant; in that case, perhaps my post can clarify for people who were confused, like me. :o
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: the Jack on March 07, 2010, 12:06:10
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. (This could potentially be at least partly addressed by having the new archive show a range for number of screens to level designers during the upload process... though not everyone is going to bother to loom up how many screens their level actually has, and some levels' screen-counts are "off" for various reasons, like The Machine with its two difficulty levels, and AniMate which only appears to be a single screen. Filesize is useless for determining level size due to the effect of custom graphics and especially custom ambiance or music file sizes.) One person's Hard level seems just Normal even to a card-carrying member of the League of Crap Players like me; another person's Easy level has us LoCP members stuck two or three screens in due to much higher difficulty than listed.

At any rate, LPChip says he's come up with a way to implement a ratings system which will be workable despite people's worse nature, so we'll just have to wait and see what that is. (Not pester him to tell us. Not pester him to tell us. And definitely not declare the very notion unworkable and pointless, either before or after he eventually reveals the mechanism he's come up with.)


I do also like the idea of a Story-type category (Storytelling? Narrative? Plot?) since there really are only a few levels that try to tell, or be, one overarching story -- "A Knytt in Time" is at the top of that list -- and so they can be hard to find except by searching the forums... and even searching the forums is going to stop being useful for finding those kinds of levels in the archive once the KS Level Releases temporary forum, with all its useful comment threads, goes away. But, on the other hand, there are only a few levels that really qualify for a Story category (whatever it's called) so it might not make sense to code that in... plus, there's the potential for this to turn into a free-for-all of lots of people all saying "ooh, make Trick-Jumping a category!" "Make Custom Graphics a category!" (before you even think about chiming in on that one, consider how annoyed you would be to download a level expecting all-custom or at least significantly-custom tilesets, music, COs etc. only to find just a single 24x240 gradient in its level folder) "Yeah, and make Green its own category too!" etc. ad nauseam. Then again, there aren't actually that many Playground levels, and Playground has a lot of overlap with Environmental to begin with...

...No, I'm sticking with suggesting that some term for levels like Mashu Prapa -- which are environment-centric but are not completely free of enemies, puzzles or other challenge -- needs to be added. Because if the Environmental tag is to be used only for levels that meet all its requirements, that still leaves us needing another term... and I don't actually think that just letting levels like Mashu Prapa "get away with" being called Environmental is the ideal solution, either, because then people who really want a level that has no challenge to playing every part of it are going to wind up downloading those "Environmental, wink wink" levels and being frustrated and disappointed. MP in particular isn't very hard even at its hardest, but there are absolutely players out there who would feel betrayed to discover they couldn't explore the whole level due to their (lack of) platforming ability. And that seems like something it would be better to avoid.


tolerate negative ratings or criticism man I've seen too many people complain about even the most friendly and constructive criticism they just aaaaa.

I haven't seen that much friendly or constructive criticism around the forums just lately, honestly. It seems to be either "ooh, shiny" or "you suck!" with little if any middle ground -- more's the pity. But I'm afraid I have to call off-topic on that issue. Do feel free to make your own post about it, though.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Pick Yer Poison on March 07, 2010, 12:39:02
Props for making a thread about this. It's one of my pet peeves when people post a level as Environmental when it has Challenge elements in it; when I download a level that's labeled Environmental, it's because I want a nice, restful experience where I can just watch things without having to dodge them. I specifically labeled one of my own levels Playground just because there were parts where you had to try not to die, while most of it was just a scenic romp. I have stopped playing some levels before simply because I realized I was dying multiple times in an "Environmental" level.

I like the ideas going on in this thread; I would definitely love a category like that. And I do think that levels where you have a bit of effort required should still be allowed as Environmental, since the pure description of the Environmental category makes it sound like you'll be raged at if you put a pool in your level that people can jump in. XD
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: the Jack on March 07, 2010, 17:16:13
1. Heads-up for those who might otherwise miss it, I've revised the proposal so that my suggestion for the new term to replace mis-use of Environmental would be "Scenic" rather than "Aesthetic" -- subject to further change as this discussion develops.

2.
Props for making a thread about this.
Thanks!

3.
Quote
the pure description of the Environmental category makes it sound like you'll be raged at if you put a pool in your level that people can jump in. XD

Nah, I think a little surface water in an Environmental is fine so long as there's a savepoint next to it.  ;)
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: yohji on March 07, 2010, 17:58:00
"Scenic" sounds good. I'd vote for anything if it solves the environmental+challenge problem, really.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Hmpf on March 07, 2010, 19:17:01
Actually, if the new archive will have an option for rating the graphics of a level, that *will* take care of this problem to some degree. I'm very glad to hear this.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Neotrice on March 10, 2010, 23:51:25
A problem I'm noticing within a few comments is what people will rate their levels to attract attention... And I have an idea, but I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement it.

An author could choose a genre for their work, but the system could also have a player genre rating. It's not offensive, because it wouldn't be like a 5 star system, but the players choose if it's "Environmental", "Scenic", "Challenge", etc.
After all, one author's "Challenge" is another player's "Very Easy".
How would that work?
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Pick Yer Poison on March 11, 2010, 02:19:58
An author could choose a genre for their work, but the system could also have a player genre rating. It's not offensive, because it wouldn't be like a 5 star system, but the players choose if it's "Environmental", "Scenic", "Challenge", etc.
After all, one author's "Challenge" is another player's "Very Easy".
How would that work?
I like that idea. It should tally the votes people make for each category, so you would be seeing what the majority thinks instead of what everyone thinks at once.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: the Jack on March 12, 2010, 12:29:10
An author could choose a genre for their work, but the system could also have a player genre rating. It's not offensive, because it wouldn't be like a 5 star system, but the players choose if it's "Environmental", "Scenic", "Challenge", etc.
After all, one author's "Challenge" is another player's "Very Easy".
It should tally the votes people make for each category, so you would be seeing what the majority thinks instead of what everyone thinks at once.

These are all great suggestions, but we're starting to stray into implementation issues... and since LPChip has explicitly said he will not consider any suggestions, or even acknowledge suggested features he was already planning to implement, for the new level archive, I'd rather this part of the discussion go into a separate thread.

This thread is intended for us to come to a community consensus on what new term to use for the levels we tend to call "Environmental" but which don't match the official definition. It would be awesome if LPChip could actually include the new category -- whether it's called Scenic or something else -- but even if it's just a custom category each Knytter has to enter manually in the world.ini, we'll still have a term we can use to sort out the current confusion. And levels that are Scenic/Puzzle, Scenic/Challenge etc. won't be rejected by the level archive (if I understand LPChip correctly) the way levels tagged Environmental/[pretty much anything but Playground, Misc and maybe Tutorial] are going to be.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 12, 2010, 18:55:46
The system will natively support what Knytt Stories support, to ensure that finding a level in the archive will also be as easy to find as in the game itself. If Nifflas changes Knytt Stories to support a new category, it will also be supported in the archive.

And with this I mean: you can search/filter for specific categories, much like you can in Knytt Stories. You can always upload the level with any kind of category, but as in Knytt Stories, you can only find it if you don't apply a filter.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Pick Yer Poison on March 13, 2010, 00:33:28
Just a suggestion: perhaps levels that are tagged as Environmental and Challenge should be displayed as Scenic? That way the old search filters would still work, and level designers wouldn't have to manually add their category.

Just a suggestion; you don't need to use it.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: minmay on March 13, 2010, 00:52:33
Encouragement of incorrectly labeled levels?  Pass.

Really, guys, this won't be a problem in the archive if anyone actually bothers to rate levels (good KS levels also look good).
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Pick Yer Poison on March 13, 2010, 06:19:30
Encouragement of incorrectly labeled levels?  Pass.

Really, guys, this won't be a problem in the archive if anyone actually bothers to rate levels (good KS levels also look good).
No, this would solve the problem of that, because then they would automatically be sorted to where they should be.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 13, 2010, 09:48:16
PYP, maybe you should reread my post.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Neotrice on March 14, 2010, 02:59:40
Sorry to be breaking the rules of the discussion, I might be doing so like I did with my last comment.

Yes, I KNOW you can't change them.
But an Adventure genre would be nice. Like, it's not too challenging, not too much of a maze, focused on scenery and the environment to some extent, with a central plot? I don't see much option for something like that besides "Misc.", and nobody likes that genre. It just sounds so... Miscellaneous.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Exp HP on March 14, 2010, 07:30:26
Usually, Adventure genre levels are just classified as "challenge." but I've always thought there should be an adventure category.

Anyways, asking LP to add a category to the archive isn't a viable option.  And this is not only because he isn't open to change.  You see, it's difficult to defy the logical reasoning in his current choice.  The category field in the archive is presumably currently read from the level itself, so the categories recognized by the archive should be the same as the categories recognized by the actual game.  So if you really want a Scenic or an Adventure category, your options are these:

or,
or,
or,


I like option 3
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: the Jack on March 15, 2010, 05:51:34
When you open up KS and mouse over an installed level, the Difficulty, Size and Category are all displayed, regardless of whether the level designer used a default setting for each field or a custom one. It's perfectly possible to have a level display "Difficulty: Purple, Size: Monkey, Category: Bingo" for example. (Useless, but possible.) I haven't seen anything to indicate that the level archive would definitely not be able to display this same information.

As for searching, no, as of right now, neither KS itself nor the in-progress level archive support being able to search for custom categories (though I understand there's at least one KS mod which does support this). This is fine. It is not necessary to be able to search for Scenic-tagged levels for the Scenic category to be useful. Because the custom category tag will still display normally -- certainly in KS, and as far as I know in the forthcoming level archive as well -- all we need is to come to some community consensus about what to call the levels this thread is about, either "Scenic" or something else that covers the sense of "Environmental" as it's come to be (incorrectly) used.

Since levels can have two categories, and much of the issue with misuse of the Environmental tag has been that it's by definition mutually exclusive with Challenge and Puzzle, this means that users will be able to find the type of level they want by searching (so long as the designer didn't designate only the custom Scenic category and no second category) for Challenge, Puzzle, Playground or whatever other sort of level they're looking for, and just look for the levels within the displayed results which are also tagged Scenic in addition to the searchable category.

Obviously it would be most helpful if the level archive LPChip is working on will indeed display whatever categories each level is tagged with the way KS itself does for installed levels, but even if it doesn't (and again, LPChip is not taking any suggestions at this time, so let's not badger him, hm?) just being able to spot the Scenic levels in one's own installed-levels listing will be a good thing.

Quote
The category field in the archive is presumably currently read from the level itself

Yes, and this is exactly why having Scenic remain a custom category, rather than an official one, will work just fine. If the level designer puts Scenic in either the Category A field or the Category B field, then the Scenic tag will be read by the game and, hopefully, the archive as well. It may not be possible to search on Scenic as a category; but that, again, is fine.

Just a reminder, although levels whose world.ini list both Environmental and either Challenge or Puzzle are going to be rejected by the new archive automatically, according to Nifflas's definition an Environmental cannot contain any challenges, puzzles, or enemies... which means that quite a few excellent levels currently on the archive tagged Environmental only (or Environmental/Misc. or Environmental/Playground) are actually Scenic levels -- that is, they are "Environmental" only in the sense which the community has come to use the term to mean, which brings us back again to the reason why we need to settle on a term other than Environmental for these levels. Well-known examples include Flood*, Gaia, and Knytt on the Moon. (Contrast with Dark Waters, a 'true' Environmental despite having no encoded category designation.) While these levels could be re-uploaded to the new archive as-is, it seems far more useful to players (especially players who don't visit these forums, which do not show up in search-engine results nearly as readily as the level archive itself does) for only levels which actually meet the official definition of Environmental to be tagged as such. Scenic is self-explanatory enough that someone new to KS and/or unfamiliar with the forums shouldn't have to scratch their head too much over what it could mean.

I'm now going to briefly break my own rule -- though I still think this should be its own separate topic -- to touch on the idea of an Adventure category. I'm not actually sure whether Neotrice and Exp HP mean story-focussed levels in general, or quest-type levels in particular. Nifflas's own The Machine, A Strange Dream and An Underwater Adventure are what I would consider quest-type levels, whereas the gold standard (IMO) of a story-focussed level is Egomassive's A Knytt in Time -- though Alamaster Moody's The Outsider is a very different kind of level that is nevertheless equally story-driven. If we're going to have a consensus-termed custom category name for the latter type of level, too, I propose we follow JayIsGames.com's lead and call the genre of "story-games (http://jayisgames.com/archives/2010/03/immortall.php)" Narrative... another self-explanatory word. "Adventure" as a category name might be too broad, as there are very few levels which couldn't be considered an adventure of some kind.

As far as getting Nifflas to OK adding one or more level categories to KS 1.2.2 or 1.3.1 or whatever it would be numbered, asking him about that is certainly an option, and if he were to say yes then the issue of level-archive (and in-game) searchability would be resolved also, yes. But let's not put the cart before the horse. I'd like to see a lot more players and level designers weigh in on what they would like their that-other-Environmental levels' categories to be called, and I'd like to give people at least a month or two of opportunity to find this thread and weigh in. I don't think the new archive is ready for imminent release, so there's no rush. I imagine that, if we wait until we A) build a strong community consensus for both what to call the new category (or categories), and B) hammer out a clear definition of what that category does and does not include, as well as C) pointing to specific existing levels which are caught in the non-Environmental-Environmental morass, we're more likely to get a positive response. Just PM'ing him and saying, "Please add these categories to Knytt Stories!" is unlikely to get us anywhere.

Spoiler: *About Flood: (click to show/hide)
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 15, 2010, 09:56:33
I still don't get it why people need to put Environmental and Challenge in the same level. Either its environmental or its a challenge.

Environmental means: focus lies primarily on the environment where the difficulty of the level will be easy. The hardest challenge will be the fact that there's water. The entire idea is that you wander around in it. Having tops one enemy on the screen and enough power-ups to get past it (or an alternate route) is no problem. That doesn't suddenly make a level challenging thus challenge. If you put more challenge in it, thus the level becomes challenge, then you simply have a pretty challenge level with difficulty normal. Its no longer environmental.


Its funny that this same mistake is being made with the music style Ambient. People often think: my song contains excessive use of strings, so my song is Ambient/electro or Ambient/disco or whatever.

Ambient is, like environmental, focused on creating an atmosphere. With ambient, your goal is to create one flow of sound that changes continuously (mostly very subtle) to challenge the listener to feel its texture. I fell for this trap before I knew what Ambient is all about, and as soon as I added strings with flow in it (while still maintaining a rhythm in the song) I labeled it Ambient. I got frown upon for this actually, but I didn't understand why. Basically I stopped using the ambient style together with my other styles to be on the safe side. Much later a new member asked for the definition of Ambient which led to a discussion making me understand why it actually went wrong all these time.

This very same discussion is one we should have here about Environmental. Many people believe its just about graphics, but there's a whole feel to it. Environmental definitely doesn't mean that a level looks good. There's a whole lot more to it.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/environmental ->
Main Entry: en·vi·ron·ment 
Pronunciation: \in-ˈvī-rə(n)-mənt, -ˈvī(-ə)r(n)-\
Function: noun
Date: 1827

1 : the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded
2 a : the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors (as climate, soil, and living things) that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival b : the aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or community
3 : the position or characteristic position of a linguistic element in a sequence
4 : a computer interface from which various tasks can be performed <a programming environment>
synonyms see background


— en·vi·ron·men·tal  \-ˌvī-rə(n)-ˈmen-təl, -ˌvī(-ə)r(n)-\ adjective

— en·vi·ron·men·tal·ly  \-təl-ē\ adverb


So I again think that another label is still silly. By definition, an environmental level (which puts the main focus on its environmental feel) doesn't have challenges. If you put enemies in there because an environment can be hazzardeous, then note that in real life, you would not take that path either, but look for an alternate route. This is perfectly acceptable in an environmental level too.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: yohji on March 15, 2010, 12:12:22
Environmental means: focus lies primarily on the environment where the difficulty of the level will be easy. The hardest challenge will be the fact that there's water. The entire idea is that you wander around in it. Having tops one enemy on the screen and enough power-ups to get past it (or an alternate route) is no problem. That doesn't suddenly make a level challenging thus challenge.

Er, what?

Quote from: Nifflas
; Environmental   An environmental level - No puzzles, no
;                 monsters, no challenge, just beautiful
;                 landscape.

(emphasis added)
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 15, 2010, 16:38:51
In the ini file, Nifflas mentioned that. On the forum, he later said that one enemy on the screen as being part of the environment was okay, as long as it didn't pose a challenge to the player (which it wont if you get double jump with high jump on an easy enemy), or when the enemy is out of reach or otherwise not having to be dealt with.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Razzorman on March 15, 2010, 17:33:56
Basically;
Environmental = No challenges
No challenges =/= No enemies
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Pick Yer Poison on March 15, 2010, 19:22:27
Basically;
Environmental = No challenges
No challenges =/= No enemies
Well, closer to:
Environmental == No challenges
No challenges > No enemies

Just nitpicking though. :3
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Mr. Monkey on March 15, 2010, 20:50:40
LPChip, I do not understand how you do not get it why people need to put Environmental and Challenge in the same level.  It is possible to have an emphasis on environment, yet still pose a challenge.  Furthermore, it makes sense, in my opinion, to have an environmental level without challenge exclude the challenge tag from its world settings file, whereas a level with both would just have both in the file; you don't need to force exclusiveness where it doesn't fundamentally apply (since Environmental/Challenge makes sense, disregarding the silly "environmental is mutually exclusive with challenge" rule). Say you had a system where you could chose with the KS tag system to have option A, B, or neither, which happen to be mutually exclusive in definition (without tweaking just to enforce whatever purpose (I'm assuming for the environmental/challenge restriction that it's so it's possible to find levels which are environmental but not challenging without implementing more complicated searching; see below for my proposal of more complicated searching)): choosing A and B would make no sense, and it would be impossible to pair any of them with neither of them; this is such a system where you don't need new definitions of what it means to be A or B (see the redefinition of "Environmental" to mean focus on environment and lack of challenge (?!?!?!?!?!?!?)) to make the restrictions sensible.

In short, letting people make Environmental/Challenge hurts nobody (well I guess it hurts either the people using a dumb search or the people who don't want to implement a better search), but restricting a level to only one makes levels which have an emphasis on environment and challenge impossible to fully classify (the only option to pick would be challenge but since that doesn't convey the focus on environment you wouldn't be giving all the information you should be).

However,
if a system were made to, say, search for levels which were environmental and not challenging, you would be able to allow environmental/challenge and find all those levels which went by the old ks definition of environmental, right?

(I hope I made sense; please ask about any of the above if I happened not to [make sense].)



PickYerPoison, so you're adding an additional equals sign to the first thing (really I don't see how this is necessary if you don't need some other definition for single equals (you don't) but whatever), and saying that no challenges is a superset of no enemies (or should I take the > literally to mean "greater than")? Please explain your notation.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Pick Yer Poison on March 15, 2010, 22:30:12
PickYerPoison, so you're adding an additional equals sign to the first thing (really I don't see how this is necessary if you don't need some other definition for single equals (you don't) but whatever), and saying that no challenges is a superset of no enemies (or should I take the > literally to mean "greater than")? Please explain your notation.
The extra equals sign is only semantics. However, the greater than sign says that having no challenges "means more than just having no enemies," as opposed to "not meaning having no enemies."

Like I said, just very fine nitpicking.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: the Jack on March 15, 2010, 23:19:35
Among linguists, there are two camps often described as descriptivists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguistics) and prescriptivists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription). Descriptivists focus on recording, analysing and describing how people are actually using a given language; prescriptivists focus on analysing and formulating rules prescribing how people should use a given language. (One group notes that usage of 'whom' has nearly disappeared among English speakers; the other just wants everyone to know how to use 'whom' correctly.) Realistically, almost no one is either a pure descriptivist or a pure prescriptivist, though, because if language were a complete free-for-all people wouldn't understand each other, but at the same time language has to evolve to describe new concepts -- just think about all the internet-related words that we use regularly which didn't exist 20 years ago, or which have a new internet-age meaning, like... 'forum'.  ;)

What we have in this community is a classic descriptivist-vs-prescriptivist divide.

On the one hand, there's a group of KS users who say, "We're using 'Environmental' to mean [ABC], therefore that's what it means." On the other hand are those who say, "The definition of 'Environmental' is [XYZ], therefore that's what it means.

LPChip, I agree that the existing definition of Environmental shouldn't be changed (unless Nifflas decides he wants to change it, anyway). The existing definition is useful, and there are two years' worth of legacy levels which (mostly) use the Environmental category tag in its intended sense.

But it's unfair and, frankly, kind of condescending to claim that the other meaning which has come to be attached to the term 'Environmental' is unnecessary and should simply be ignored entirely, not even given a standardised term for custom use. There is a type of level that Nifflas did not imagine when he created KS but which now exists and can be recognised by KS users when they see an example of one, which has been getting called 'Environmental' and for which I began this thread to propose an alternate term. No one is demanding that a new category be added to either the game architecture or the archive currently under development. I said it would be nice if the new archive would be searchable using 'Scenic' (or whatever this type of level winds up being called) but I've repeatedly said that it would not be necessary for the archive to be searchable for, or even to display, the 'Scenic' category for levels whose world.ini specify Category(A/B)=Scenic.

I have gone out of my way to be respectful of the work you are doing on the archive, your positions regarding level categories, and your statements about user input about the archive, LPChip, and I would appreciate it if you would extend a modicum of respect to the substantial number of players who recognise the existence of the type of level this thread is about. You don't have to like the idea of a new category, and you don't have to use a new category. The problem is not that we don't understand the original definition of 'Environmental'; the problem is that there is a type of level which is not adequately described by any of the existing categories and which people want to be able to categorise so that such levels can readily be found.

This isn't a battle that has to end with one side being 'right' and the other 'wrong'. We can leave the definition of Environmental that Nifflas gave us intact, and we can use the custom category feature KS's programming allows, combined with discussion here so that 5 different level designers aren't calling the category 5 different things and hopelessly confusing players looking at their levels, to ensure that players who want to find this type of level can do so. That is an everybody-wins situation, and since it won't require you to do anything whatsoever in order for it to be implemented, I'm really not sure why you're arguing against it.

At the risk of seeming disrespectful... if you have nothing to contribute to this discussion, it might be better if you didn't participate.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Exp HP on March 15, 2010, 23:20:08
Quote from: LPChip
Environmental means:
  [. . .]
The definition of the Environmental tag has been discussed to the ground.  By this point, I don't think anybody in this topic is having trouble understanding its definition.  The problem is that we don't like the definition of the environmental tag.  Nifflas made this tag with a specific type of level in mind.  But for some of the community, when we see this tag, we yearn for something more versatile.

Quote from: LPChip
I still don't get it why people need to put Environmental and Challenge in the same level. Either its environmental or its a challenge.
I feel like say the question is more like "why wouldn't people", but I'll explain one mindset that I think is common: The mindset of "calling your level Environmental is how you say you focused on visuals."

One contributing factor is that the environmental tag exists.  There is a category that designates levels as pretty.  And because of this, a level author may feel that their pretty level needs to have a "pretty" category.
The other factor is that environmental tag is the only pretty category.  Together with the first reason, this is why people feel they need to put Environmental and Challenge in the same level.  Because they see a way - and only one way - to tag their level as aesthetic, they want to use it.

So when people can't use it, they feel like they're being told that their level is "too difficult to be called pretty."  This is why the environmental category causes such frustration.  The only pretty category is incompatible with other categories!  If there's going to be one and only one "eye candy" tag, it ought to be compatible with any other tag whose name isn't "Plain"!


To the Jack, I'll add what you're saying to my list.  Although I do think that an official category would be 100x more effective than the use of custom categories.  Of people browsing the archive and/or their installed levels, I see several cases:
Spoiler: (click to show/hide)
And of level authors, I see three types:
Spoiler: (click to show/hide)
All in all, even though we'll know about it, I doubt it would be very popular.

Aaaaand I got ninja'd by the Jack.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 15, 2010, 23:40:36
2The Jack: yes, I think its disrespectful to say that.

If I don't know why people favor this, isn't it my job to ask about it?

Furthermore, to not look stupid, I also give my vision. Does that automatically mean that it will  happen like that?

Thus far, I only emphases what "used to" be the definition of Environmental, layed down by Nifflas himself. Why? Many new people are around here who basically "learned" what Environmental/Challenge seems to be, because many levels are posted by it like that. On the old forum, we actively monitored levels for this combination, and we told people that it wasn't how Nifflas saw the category Environmental. When we went to this forum, I added the temporary levels forum so that people were able to share levels. But at the same time we stopped actively monitoring the topics in these forums and mostly change things based upon reports.

Does that mean, I suddenly approve of the environmental/challenge combination? Of course not. Do I really care? Well, I still am the person Nifflas trusted his site to, which basically means that I'll do whatever Nifflas wants me to, including sharing his vision.

Will I stop people from doing this? No. Will I stop giving my opinion? Of course not. The fact that people feel offended by me giving my opinion says something about these people too, not just me.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: the Jack on March 16, 2010, 00:27:59
If I don't know why people favor this, isn't it my job to ask about it?

If you don't know why people favour this, then I have to question whether you have even read any of what I, Hmpf, Pumpkinbot, Pick Yer Poison, yohji, Mr. Monkey and Exp HP have written, in this thread, about why we feel this Scenic/other-Environmental category exists and just needs a name since 'Environmental is taken. There are three pages of posts; we've said a fair amount.

You haven't asked questions that seemed like you were asking for clarification of anything we've said. Instead, you've said rhetorical-sounding things like "I still don't get it why people need to put Environmental and Challenge in the same level" -- after comments in which several people explained exactly why they felt some levels needed both the Challenge category tag and another tag similar to Environmental. (But not 'Environmental'. You did see where we're not using this thread to try to talk you or Nifflas into changing the definition, right...?) If you have read all the pro-Scenic comments in this thread, and you sincerely do not understand what we're talking about, please ask for more specific clarification. Examples of the kinds of levels we're talking about have even been given. Frankly, I don't understand how you can possibly not understand.

As I said, LPChip, I have been making a special effort to be respectful of your position -- and I mean 'position' in terms of both your stance on issues related to this discussion and your role in hosting these forums and developing the level archive. But, precisely because you do hold the position (in the second sense) that you do, stating your position (in the first sense) in this thread the way you have been doing runs the risk of having a chilling effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(term)) on the discussion... and for no good reason.

All we are talking about is using the custom category feature Nifflas implemented in KS in the way it was intended to be used, to deal with an unforeseen situation amongst ourselves and not have to pester you or Nifflas. I really don't understand what about that you could possibly find objectionable. Ideally, it's going to lead to people using the 'Environmental' category 'correctly' again, which seems like something you want to have happen -- so, again, I do not understand on what basis you are objecting.

If you're objecting simply because you've stated you would reject all suggestions related to the level archive (even if they're things you plan to implement) until after you release a beta... no, then I'd be right back to "did you actually read anything we've been saying?" Because I have personally, explicitly stated multiple times that all we're talking about is what to call these levels amongst ourselves and in our levels' world.ini files, and that we won't, can't and shouldn't get into how the new archive will handle custom-coded Category(A/B)=Scenic levels for the time being.

Your objection seems to be the equivalent of telling us we can't pick a term to call the class of animated (as opposed to static) custom objects by, or that we can't hold a community vote to decide what name to call the critters at Bank 2, Objects 1-2, 5-7+ (are they birds? bats? insects? flying bouncers?). In neither of those cases would users discussing terms and choosing one by consensus cause any kind of problem with the game, the archive, or anything you do as forum administrator and archive developer. The discussion we're trying to have in this thread is likewise causing no problems, and could potentially solve a couple of existing problems.

Hopefully I have now adequately explained why I don't understand what reason(s) you have for seeming to be so negative towards this otherwise-friendly conversation.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: egomassive on March 16, 2010, 03:41:23
I've read every post in this topic, and I don't understand. If Scenic is the chosen word, then what is its meaning? Jack insists that the community has come up with its own category, a combination of Environmental and Challenge. Whenever I see this used, I immediately reject the level personally. By their official definitions those categories are mutually exclusive. So, what then is Environmental/Challenge supposed to mean other than, "I have ignored or disregarded the rules?"

My understanding from this discussion is an Environmental/Challenge is level created to give an experience to the player with its atmosphere alone, but it also includes gameplay elements like searching for keys/power-ups, avoiding monsters, and reaching goals. It's a definition that seems to contradict itself, but it's the best I could come up with.

If I am accurate, then how does Scenic convey E/C? Scenic feels like it's simply referring to the visuals. Despite what meaning Scenic is given in this discussion, I think it would be used as a Scenic/Challenge meaning nice-to-look-at/Challenge. Nice-to-look-at doesn't describe the style of gameplay. The purpose of categories is to describe the style of gameplay.

I can't think of a word for E/C, but I'm not the one to ask anyhow. To me a good Environmental level is an amazing accomplishment, a level that can convey a feeling through its sights and sounds alone, a level I'll replay again and again just so I can experience that mood again. I don't think I could author such a level. Now, to add challenges to a level without distracting players from the environment, without dropping the mood, is near impossible I say. None of the so called E/Cs I've played have accomplished this in my opinion.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 16, 2010, 08:59:02
The Jack, don't feel offended. It is not my intention to offend anyone.

Like egomassive, we simply don't understand it. Egomassive explained my and Nifflas' vision rather well I think. Its about the gameplay.

I am not against custom categories, but the reasoning given in this topic as Environmental being about the graphics is wrong IMHO. Should I shut up because you want to create a form where Environmental and Challenge suddenly mean something?

As for the levelarchive, it will support levels in the same way as the game does, and I won't obstruct its function just because I disagree. I will do so however if Nifflas or the staff in general decides to (unlikely, but possible)

Also, have you considered that already released levels as E/C will need to be changed, to make it conform a new custom name?
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: AA on March 16, 2010, 09:28:19
If I am accurate, then how does Scenic convey E/C? Scenic feels like it's simply referring to the visuals. Despite what meaning Scenic is given in this discussion, I think it would be used as a Scenic/Challenge meaning nice-to-look-at/Challenge. Nice-to-look-at doesn't describe the style of gameplay. The purpose of categories is to describe the style of gameplay.

I can't think of a word for E/C, but I'm not the one to ask anyhow. To me a good Environmental level is an amazing accomplishment, a level that can convey a feeling through its sights and sounds alone, a level I'll replay again and again just so I can experience that mood again. I don't think I could author such a level. Now, to add challenges to a level without distracting players from the environment, without dropping the mood, is near impossible I say. None of the so called E/Cs I've played have accomplished this in my opinion.

I agree with your opinion there, egomassive. Regarding the Environmental tag, I give much more weight to the 'no challenge' part because that's what I think should matter when choosing a level.

However, I understand that there are users here who really care about pretty-looking environments, to the point that, for example, they won't play a level unless it has custom graphics (can't remember who said that, sorry). There's certainly a desire for a suitable tag or tag combination, but not because level makers need it (because I think that would be just bragging about their efforts); it's rather for discerning players who would like a way to identify the levels in which effort has been put in making beautiful environments.

With regard to that need, I don't think it wouldn't be a good idea to 'legalize' the Environmental/Challenge tag, because players searching for purely Environmental levels would find Challenge levels along with them; being able to search Environmental but not Challenge or Puzzle levels would need negative filters, and would make the filtering options too complicated. Therefore I suppose that a Scenic tag would be the way to go if you want something to be done.

I partly blame Nifflas for this situation, for including the word 'beautiful' in the description of Environmental levels; everyone knows beauty is often the source of conflicts. :P2
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 16, 2010, 09:39:46
Also, we're currently trying to implement an option to see if custom content is being added before downloading the level, and it might even become something to filter on.

It'll be like: Custom content: Music, tilesets, Custom Objects

I do not want to say much about the rating yet, but I can ensure you, that you'll be able to rate graphics. This was the plan from the beginning.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Hmpf on March 16, 2010, 12:51:14
AA has it right: this is about making it easier for people who really care a lot about spending time in attractive virtual environments to find such. For me, prettiness beats gameplay, and I'd like to be able to select for it.

Custom content isn't necessarily what makes an environment attractive, btw. I've seen levels with custom tilesets etc. that still weren't pretty (you can make an ugly tileset; or use a nice one badly); I've also seen levels with public or even default tilesets that were amazing.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: the Jack on March 16, 2010, 17:01:44
'Scenic' is not "a combination of Environmental and Challenge." I have no idea where Egomassive got that from.

Levels which have been identified by their creators as both Environmental and Challenge are, obviously, not using the original definition of Environmental. Those levels are actually what-I'm-calling-Scenic and Challenge.

However, Scenic levels are not necessarily also Challenge levels.

Let's look again at Nifflas's definition of "Environmental" (which I purposely put in the very first post in this thread so that everyone reading and commenting on it would be aware of it even if they had somehow never seen it before):
Quote
; Environmental   An environmental level - No puzzles, no
;                 monsters, no challenge, just beautiful
;                 landscape.

"An environmental level." Half the definition is solipsistic; even Nifflas apparently assumed people would recognise the visual distinction of an Environmental level on sight.

The definition can be broken down into two components, the "No puzzles, no monsters, no challenge" part and the "An environmental level ... just beautiful landscape" part. Aside from the fact that the official definition combines these two components, there's nothing about them which makes them belong indivisibly together.

A level can be environment-focussed, with notably striking (though this doesn''t necessarily mean beautiful) landscape, without being challenge-free, monster-free and puzzle-free. (A level can also be devoid of puzzles, monsters and other challenges without being notably scenic, but such levels are generally suited to being called Playgrounds or Misc. Googoogjoob's "Capitalism!" is a prime example of a good level of this sort.)

To illustrate what Scenic means separate from the issue of levels tagged Environmental/Challenge or Scenic/Challenge, let's look at the Maze category. Dukit's 4-level series "Logic", "Reason", "Three Square" and "Four Square" are highly-regarded levels (some of the first I saw level recommendations for) which are clearly Maze levels, but also, though not ugly, clearly not Environmental or Scenic. By contrast, "Dungeon", by Evangelos, is both clearly a Maze and obviously -- despite not being category-tagged as such by its designer -- "an environmental level" with landscape that communicates a strong sense of its environment to the player. This sense of environment isn't established solely through visuals, though the use of a striking tileset along with Liquid (water & waterfall tiles) and Nature FX (RAIN & the sunbeam) certainly do a lot of the work; the song used as a custom Atmosphere/Ambiance track is part of how "Dungeon" communicates its sense of place to the player as well.


One more example to demonstrate what kind of level Scenic is intended to describe: Elder/Salmoneous's "Mashu Prapa". Sal has this level tagged as a Playground. It has (IMO as a LoCP member) too much challenge to qualify as Environmental, yet it has an undeniable focus on its environment. To address the issue of gameplay style as a fundamental component of level categories, Mashu Prapa is an excellent example of the sort of level I believe should be called Scenic: the entire purpose of the level is to explore its environment, and Salmoneous put undeniable effort into creating, through his use of (largely custom-created) tilesets, gradients, objects, music, atmosphere, and level design (the way the possible routes through the level are constructed), a particular feeling or series of feelings in the player which other levels do not evoke.

To illustrate what I meant when I said Scenic refers to levels that are environment-focussed but not necessarily beautiful, another of Sal's levels, "Organac", provides an excellent example. The world Juni finds herself in, in this level, is neither beautiful nor ugly; but it does have a striking, carefully-crafted environment (again accomplished through audio and level design in addition to visual elements) which does not feel like any other level.

(By the way, Egomassive, sorry, but I consider "A Knytt in Time" Scenic. And Narrative, for that matter. You're a category-breaker.  ;))

Also, have you considered that already released levels as E/C will need to be changed, to make it conform a new custom name?

... O_o

YES?!? Part of what motivated me to create this thread in the first place was seeing that levels already on the present archive would have to be re-uploaded to the new archive, and that on the new archive, levels tagged Environmental/Challenge or Environmental/Puzzle would be rejected automatically. So... those existing levels are going to have to be changed anyway. I see this as an argument in favour of using the Scenic category (entered manually by the level designer in the world.ini file), not against it. If levels currently tagged Environmental/Challenge or Environmental/Puzzle have to be changed anyway, why not allow their designers to use a category that indicates what they meant Environmental to designate about their level, instead of forcing them to either categorise their level as Challenge or Puzzle only, or have to upload their level elsewhere or not at all?

(Also, being a custom category rather than an official one, use of the Scenic category by level designers would be entirely voluntary. In other words, nobody would be forced to call their levels Scenic; but if a level which feels Scenic to players is categorised as Scenic in its .ini, that will make it easier for players looking for Scenic levels to find it. Which is the whole point of categories, after all.)

If we're going to restrict use of the Environmental tag to levels which meet both components of Nifflas's definition -- having a well-developed environment and being free of challenges (not just non-Challenge but also lacking puzzles & challengingly-placed monsters, traps etc.) -- as I agree we should, then we need another term for levels in which their well-developed environment is an essential element of their gameplay but which also contain challenges. The fact that so many people want to double-tag levels as Challenge and Environmental (or Puzzle and Environmental) is proof that this term is needed.

Anyone who doesn't like this concept is free not to use it on their own levels, and to ignore the tag when level designers use it. But no one has given a good reason why those of us who want to be able to find environment-focussed, i.e. Scenic, levels which may also contain challenges, monsters and/or puzzles, shouldn't be able to use a term other than Environmental to describe them and help us find them amongst the hundreds of available levels.

Since I see AA and LPChip have ninja'd me:
@AA, thanks for your support, even though (if I understand you correctly) you don't feel a need for the Scenic tag yourself, as opposed to recognising that other KS users have a legitimate need for it. (Please do  note that 'Scenic' can refer to environment-focussed levels that are visually striking but not necessarily beautiful, though -- just as, in visual art, a painting can evoke a scene, such as the vision of Hell in the Book of Hours created by the Limbourg brothers for the Duc de Berry (http://www.rotten.com/art/limbourg/hell.jpg), or an emotional response, such as in Edvard Munch's The Scream (http://www.theonlineartgallery.org/images/The%20Scream-middle%20quality.JPG), without being what most people would consider 'beautiful'.)

@LPChip, thanks for the additional tidbits about the features you're planning for the new archive. I am looking forward to everything you've mentioned so far, and the ability to search based on (or at least display) whether a level has custom content of various sorts will be helpful to many KS players to whom custom content is of high importance. Nice to see that at least some currently-unsupported needs will be addressed by the new archive...

C)p And now Hmpf has ninja'd me too, whilst I was hunting down links to appropriate example paintings, and dealing with some RL stuff that took longer than expected.
AA has it right: this is about making it easier for people who really care a lot about spending time in attractive virtual environments to find such.
Yes! That. Though, again, in my personal view there are levels I consider Scenic which don't exactly qualify as pretty. "Pestilence" by yohji would be another example of how a level's design can be strongly environment-focused without being pretty (with "Moonlight" serving as the counter-example for "Pestilence") and without meeting the other standards for Environmental, such as lack of challenge. Of course, since this thread's purpose is to establish a community-consensus term and definition, if others interested in a Scenic category feel it should be limited to aesthetically-pleasing, environment-focussed levels, I will go along with the consensus.

Hmpf wins at succinctly stating what I've been trying to say. Brevity can but rarely be numbered among my virtues... :oops:
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Hmpf on March 16, 2010, 20:18:30
Quote
again, in my personal view there are levels I consider Scenic which don't exactly qualify as pretty.

Uhm, yeah. I was using 'pretty' as shorthand for 'visually interesting/attractive', not necessarily 'beautiful'. And I have a really broad definition of 'visually interesting/attractive' - so levels like Organac and Pestilence definitely qualify for that label in my book. (ETA: Actually, I think Organac is beautiful even according to a narrower definition of beauty. Maybe not *pretty*, but beautiful - yes.)

Quote
Hmpf wins at succinctly stating what I've been trying to say.

Being rather pressed for time helps. ;-)
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Headgrinder on March 25, 2010, 12:45:54
Maybe someone has already said this, but to me this is kind of a simple issue.  Knytt stories lets you identify a level using 2 different tags.  Since many of the tags are, in the views of many here, incompatible, it seems obvious that the tag that comes first is the primary tag of the level, and whatever tag comes second is a modifier of that tag. 

So, if you are JUST doing an environmental level, you wouldn't even use the 2nd tag.  If it was an environmental with a spot or two that could be considered maze or puzzle like, you don't just drop the environmental tag altogether, you modify it with the second tag.  Likewise, if you have a challenge level with a lot of scenery, it makes a ton of since to have the modifying tag (the 2nd tag) be environmental.  Even if this changes the meaning of the tags, it is the closest we can get in the system that currently exists and it seems very straight forward.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: AA on March 25, 2010, 15:16:42
^ It's not that simple. To quote myself:

Quote from: AA
[...]I don't think it wouldn't be a good idea to 'legalize' the Environmental/Challenge tag, because players searching for purely Environmental levels would find Challenge levels along with them; being able to search Environmental but not Challenge or Puzzle levels would need negative filters, and would make the filtering options too complicated.

Besides, the filters in the game don't distinguish between primary and secondary tags, and even if the new archive implemented these additional tag semantics, there would still be the issue of older levels.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LA2019 on March 26, 2010, 19:14:30
As far as I can tell, the whole debate here is pointless.  You have LPChip, who doesn't want to officially honor the "Scenic" tag, and the Jack, who wants it to be an unofficial custom tag that everybody uses as a de facto standard with an agreed-upon meaning.  Where's the conflict?  Unless LPChip is against the idea of people using the "Scenic" tag at all (and, really, I can't imagine that that's his position), why does this "argument" even exist?
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Razzorman on March 26, 2010, 20:24:18
Because LPChip would have to code a system that allows custom tags? :huh:
I have no idea, as I haven't read the topic.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LA2019 on March 26, 2010, 21:23:32
Because LPChip would have to code a system that allows custom tags? :huh:
I have no idea, as I haven't read the topic.
Obviously.  One of the Jack's major points is that such a thing would be unnecessary.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 26, 2010, 22:46:16
It seems that this topic started as a suggestion, and turned into a discussion because people misunderstoot eachother. At a certain point that faded away so went the discussion X)
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: Mr. Monkey on March 27, 2010, 00:48:31
^ It's not that simple. To quote myself:

Quote from: AA
[...]I don't think it wouldn't be a good idea to 'legalize' the Environmental/Challenge tag, because players searching for purely Environmental levels would find Challenge levels along with them; being able to search Environmental but not Challenge or Puzzle levels would need negative filters, and would make the filtering options too complicated.

Besides, the filters in the game don't distinguish between primary and secondary tags, and even if the new archive implemented these additional tag semantics, there would still be the issue of older levels.
I suggested to implement a way of searching for levels that are environmental and not challenge but I don't think that will happen.
Title: Re: I do not think that tag means what you think it means...
Post by: LPChip on March 27, 2010, 11:13:48
^ It's not that simple. To quote myself:

Quote from: AA
[...]I don't think it wouldn't be a good idea to 'legalize' the Environmental/Challenge tag, because players searching for purely Environmental levels would find Challenge levels along with them; being able to search Environmental but not Challenge or Puzzle levels would need negative filters, and would make the filtering options too complicated.

Besides, the filters in the game don't distinguish between primary and secondary tags, and even if the new archive implemented these additional tag semantics, there would still be the issue of older levels.
I suggested to implement a way of searching for levels that are environmental and not challenge but I don't think that will happen.

Actually, if you currently select environmental levels and difficulty easy, I think you have just that.