Inexcusable?

[DustyPorViva]

We all know Graal has 'standards' when it comes to levels, or at least styles or such that people like, and others that people think are ugly. But is it exceptable for levels to be 'low quality' if that's what the server is going for? As you all know (points to my thread I made a month or so ago), Zelda 3 levels are nothing like what Graal levels are like nowadays. They also aren't like what Graal levels were 5-8 years ago. I don't think Graal has ever really matched the simple style of Zelda 3 properly, but it seemed no one ever had a problem with the levels in Zelda 3. Anyways, my question is, if a server is going for the same style, would levels get the same criticism that other levels do because of their simplistic and blocky style?

[Inspiration]

There is a difference between a "low quality" level and a poorly made level.

A low quality level is loaded with tile errors, poor object placement, ect. It's not at all pleasing to the eyes, and the tile placement makes no sense.

A low detailed level would be like anything in Zelda. Everything fits, everything looks right together, and flows nicely.

[Rapidwolve]

Originally Posted by Inspiration

There is a difference between a "low quality" level and a poorly made level.

A low quality level is loaded with tile errors, poor object placement, ect. It's not at all pleasing to the eyes, and the tile placement makes no sense.

A low detailed level would be like anything in Zelda. Everything fits, everything looks right together, and flows nicely.

Hah, I actually understood that. But I would rather see things that please my eyes.

[Tom]

Basically you dont need to over detail something to make it look good.

And what inspiration said was perfect

[Ducati_Link]

Look as V$. Wan and the rest of the team made extremly basic levels, very zelda like, but that are truely to a amazing standard. Zelda levels are basic.. but again.. they are on a amazing level of depth and detail within themselves.