I do not think that tag means what you think it means...

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.

Basically;
Environmental = No challenges
No challenges =/= No enemies

Basically;
Environmental = No challenges
No challenges =/= No enemies

Well, closer to:
Environmental == No challenges
No challenges > No enemies

Just nitpicking though. :3

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.

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.

Among linguists, there are two camps often described as descriptivists and prescriptivists. 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.

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.

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:
And of level authors, I see three types:
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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

'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):

; 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?

...

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, or an emotional response, such as in Edvard Munch's The Scream, 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...

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...