Levels- big or small?, which is better?

I'm working on a mario game (which I am programming from scratch), and I'd like to know, what do you think is better, A game with many small levels you only need to complete once, or maybe twice (like SMB3), or a game with fewer levels, but each one has multiple objectives that require you to go through the level many times (like SM64)?

edit: when I say multiple objectives I'm referring to the collectible items (like stars, shines), in which you have to enter a level, complete a task, and get the item, and then re-enter again with another objective. As for "many small levels" i mean levels with possible secret exits, however the main objective of each level is to reach some kind of goal point.

This post has been edited by Godot on Jul 12 2008, 02:54 PM

edit: Nevermind, the first one sounds good.

This post has been edited by Bigbowsa on Jul 12 2008, 12:48 PM

I generally prefer a large amount of average-sized levels for a standard 2D fangame.

Think you're being a tad too vague there but whatever

I enjoy large levels with lots of stuff to do in them (Metroid is a good example), but not if the game is going to lag a considerable amount because of it.

I mean as far as Mario platformers are concerned you can't go wrong with more than one exit and several routes to get to said exits. Levels where you hold right and jump are very dull. Take a page from the book of Wario Land 3 level design or something.

Large levels lots of stuff to do.I liked smb3 though.

That is actually hard to do unless the game is tested on an older machine that meets the requirements

Well I think I'm going to head in the SM64 direction, in which each level will have multiple objectives. If anyone disagrees, feel free to raise an objection (Phoenix Wright pun intended)!

Either or is fine with me, so long as it's fun.

Just don't make us waste our lives away waiting for it forever.

depends on the game style

but generally short if fangames are concerned, since they tend to be horribly unbalanced

Depends on your game, really.


This poll seems more like a game-play decider.

The larger levels thing would be something new for a change, but if you make your small level ones like not-so-bad, then...yeah.

I'm not going to vote, I can't decide.

But if you are doing smaller levels, make sure to like....make the levels not so small.

Go with large levels if lag is not an issue and you can make it interesting.

Few and large levels gives the game more varieties than a million OVERWORLD/UNDERWORLD/UNDERWATER-TYPE LEVELS LOL like in SMB. You can see, like, how SM64 stages are far more remarkable than NSMBs, for example.


However, my opinion is that you don't need to make a SM64-ish game just because you are using large, multiple-task stages. You could do a map just like SMW, and you could advance to the next stage after you find that one's star/shine sprite, but you could (or you would need to) go back to it to get the rest of them.
I hope you understand me.



EDIT: I got an better idea. you could use the same scheme I say above, bhut instead of taking others "stars", you could use a quest/goal system. For example, the main, primary goal when you play a stage for the first time is "Reach the goal flag". When you pass the stage, it'll get a ticked "V". Then you can come back and accomplish things like "Find all the bunnies", "Collect every green coin", "beat all Goombas" or "Hit all "?" boxes".

This post has been edited by Drezus on Jul 13 2008, 09:49 PM

I say large levels if it doesn't cause lag.