What do you think it means for a level to be good?

I personally think that a good level requires a layout that works, decent flow, well placed events and of course looking good. My reviews are always based off these factors, and they are usually fairly accurate (when I say accurate I mean that they are similar to the average rating of the level). I believe that a structured rating system like mine works best and rewards people more for doing a good job because it is able to analyse the detail and work they put into the level. Using my rating system, a quick review of Diamondus Warzone (in its original state, completely non-edited) may go like this:

Diamondus Warzone, while a decent level, has some major flaws to it. The layout itsn't bad, although some flow-related problems exist in it such as the V-poles located in the middle of the level. The level is slightly imbalanced due to the fact that getting from red base to blue base is slightly faster than going the other way, which can create some problems in 1vs1 play but otherwise isn't much of a problem. The ammo is placed well, but I don't like how it is possible to start close to the enemy base for either team, but red more so. DW isn't the best looking level either, with quite a few eyecandy bugs, and the scenery is quite monotonus making it hard to know where you are unless you are quite experienced in this level. There is also the huge problem of a shield being in the level and it is also very prone to flag bug. I give this level a 5 out of 10, which I think is fair.

My review of this level is quite low, but when looking at the different aspects of the level, it is accurate, assuming 5 is a straight average. Another reviewing philosophy is a more simple one, which bases the total score simply on how fun the level is. Most gimmicky levels recieve high scores by people who review like this, but it is not a bad thing. It's a good arguement that because a level is generally designed to be fun, that is what makes it good or not as opposed to the more technical review that I do. A DW review might go somewhat like as follows if this method is used:

I have had many great games in this level, and it has a reason for being one of the most popular. It's great to play in because everyone knows the layout (almost), and it it is pretty much fun no matter how many people play. I especially like the usage of the warp, as you have to end up predicting if somebody is in the carrot room or not. Lots of good strategy here. I give the level a 7 because it's just so fun.

Anyway, what do you think the proper way to review a level is? What do you think makes a level good? Pick something. Don't say both. I want to be able to debate this

I think what makes a good level is that it doesn't look too shabby, has a nice, smooth layout and the gameplay flows along quite nicely. It must be fun to play in, and must be enjoyed by all.

A good level IMO is a mix between:
-Playability
-Eyecandy
-Originality

If the level only passes one of the 3 points, it is NOT a good level IMO.

If it passes 2 of the points, it is decent/funny.

If it passes all 3, it is a good level.

.Quality
.Playability
.EyeCandy

My thoughts on this.

written in November 2000, some things may have changed since then.

Ok, i'm mostly into the looks of the level or tileset i admit i'm rather picky on the graphics of the tileset. I think what makes a "good" level is:

1 Eye Candy

2 Gameplay

3 Quallity

4 Originallity

etc...

Which is about what most everybody thinks makes a "good" level.

BTW EvilMikes right about DW being (slightly) unbalanced.

The Playability... The puzzles... the traps... eye candy... good balance... and you're still able to kill without seekers in the level. I would rate this one "low level" high becuase it has no seekers (which are in every level) and you can snipe in it.

I think all of these responses will be quite the same, if not identical.

My new method...

Originality - 3

Music - 1
Tileset - 2

Gameplay - 5

Dead-ends/Traps - 2
Stucks - 2
Flow - 1

Fun - 2

Anything else is taken off of the total score.

I'm too lazy and tired to post any well thought-out or coherent argument...but blue base to red base is faster, not the other way around, as you don't have to climb up the hill and it involves more falling and flying through the air. Believe me, I know-Boarder and I must have scored at least 1000 points in DW in practice, heh. Whenever one of us scores (playing blue), the other captures.

And DW rulez.

I'd have to agree with no. 1

Evilmike basically mentioned all the nitty gritty stuff so I don't have to write a whole list. I'm certain that if some of the top levels of today were included in a demo of jj2 so that everyone played it it would've been just a popular as DW.

Sometimes I wish there was another 'norm' to play in. It's getting annoying playing the same level over and over just because everyone knows it to prevent the other players from getting an unfair advantage or 'cheating'. You know what I mean (I hope).

I wish you people would disagree with me more.

You want people to disagree with you mike?

You want us to disagree more?!? Is that even possible??

Let's see... A level should have losta dead-ends for strategy, no flow at all, it doesn't even need organized eye-candy, random ammo placement (who cares?!?), and it must (and I mean must) be ripped off from an official Epic level.

But seriously, you can't really avoid these fundamentals. I feel that all a level really needs is the basics (as listed previously by everyone else), especially originality. I think that's the best part about levels, and without it we'd probably get bored of seeing the same old thing. I kinda see it like this (tentative):

1. Originality
2. Layout
3. Eye-candy
4. Ammo Placement

That's all I have to say for now (to be honest, I kinda had to rush this). And so this is my general opinion on how a level should be made.

In a good level Graphics mean a lot, but NOT everything. The level needs to be exiting, but not too hard. It needs to be clear, so you don't get stuck in the half of the level. And most important of all, you need to have fun in it.
It also needs to be quite big, so you don't beat the level in let's say 1 minute, and there has to be a lot of change in the level.

According to these demands I'm going to judge a few levels from games:

G = Graphics
E = Exitement
F = Fun
B = Big
C = Change

1 = worst, 100 = best

Level 1
Game - Banjo Tooie Level - Hailfire Peaks
G: 100
E: 95
F: 97
B: 100
C: 100

Average: 98,4

Level 2
Game - Jazz 2 Level: Knight Cap
G: 65
E: 80
F: 95
B: 75
C: 90

Average: 81

Level 3
Game - Banjo Tooie Level: Jolly Rogers Lagoon
G: 100
E: 100
F: 100
B: 100
C: 100

Average: 100

(THIS IS MY ALL TIME FAV LEVEL!

Originality is all bonus points in my book. New ideas are great, but are not inherently good. Obviously a level shouldn't be copied, but beyond that, a level can be pretty 'generic' and still be excellent.

Then again, I haven't downloaded a jazz2 level in a year or so... so who knows what my opinion is worth. ;)

stripe

Hmmm, I don't think dead ends are a bad thing. Well, they shouldn't be overused, but can be used strategically. Sometimes I think it is nice for a player to take a risk in order to become better. Having to go into a dead end to get a powerup or something. It just makes it a lot more fun with guessing games and such wondering if it is safe to get that powerup you want or finding out where your enemy is in a duel so that you can know if it's safe to get the powerup and blah blah blah. I can go on for hours.

Then again it's also fun to put somehting powerful way in the open where everyone can get it. Man, you can have some interresting battles that way.

I kinda think that the first option is nice for CTF where ppl have to try and stay alive for long. The second option is a nice one for battle, it encourages huge fights in the area