Before I explain, examples.


Fire_byrd's contribution to the current LMAT thread.


Screenshots I took from a level BR made using a tileset by Disguise.

The first example is.. functional. Besides that it does currently lack "corner" tiles, these tiles would be very easy to use and can be made into just about any kind of structure one desires.

The tileset by Wisety, on the other hand, has a certain unique style. It restricts the user in his or her possibilities with ground tiles like the seemingly chopped-off tree trunks by giving the platforms using those tiles a predefined size. However, even though the tileset isn't exactly one of Disguise's prettiest, it has a certain style, and the restriction forces, or at least encourages the user to build the level in a way that makes it look more natural. And it looks better in general, too.

Well, I guess that was written in a kind of biased way, and it's obvious that I prefer style. But whatever my opinion, what do you think about the subject?

Functionality first. Just as I always say:

Function over fashion (When someone points at the huge ball of hair on my head. I always keep a pencil and a note in it during school, so when someone talks about my hair, I say: "Function over fashion. Note to self *Pull out note and pencil* Do NOT talk to *Insert name* anymore. Long story, longer than my answer )

You're comparing apples and oranges, so to speak. Firebyrd's contribution is a set of platform tiles. The images you linked to use a complete tileset.

Wizetea's tileset isn't a good example to compare to Firebyrd's platforms. Instead, let's take a tileset I made a long time ago for example: I called it "kitchen sink". It was a picture of my sink, masked so it could be used as a level. There was only one level you could make with it. The picture covered the whole map. It looked okay, but had no functionality past making a single level.

Comparing Kitchen Sink and Firebyrd's platforms is comparing two extremes. A good tileset (also, most tilesets) contain both basic platforms that are easy to use (like Firebyrd's) and some fancy, pretty stuff to add variety. Both are important, and are used differently depending on the situation and levelbuilder's skill. A good tileset needs both. Asking which is better or more important is like asking whether we prefer the front or back wheel on our bicycle.

Well, I agree that the examples weren't really well-chosen, but they were the first things that came to mind. They were only examples anyway. Besides, your "kitchen sink" is inarguably a much more extreme example.
I know that a good tileset needs both aspects, of course, but I'm asking which you value more.

aha. LRK didnt make that level faw, i did ;(. in 2002.

Oh. Sorry.

Noraa's 3D tilesets are also a good example of having only style

Yeah, but people (defalcon? unsure.) have made other levels using those tilesets.
A good tileset uses a combination. One of my favorite Disguise tilesets is Nature's Ruins because it does this just so well. The ground types are very simple and easy to fit together, but the tileset also has a lot of enormous structures that can only be used in one way, and enormous structures are awesome to look at. Inferno is a good example of going a little too far with style, as half the tiles can only be used with five specific other ones right next door.

I was almost tempted to vote for style, but I definitely have to go with functionality. Uniqueness is great and all, but it limits the types of levels that can be made and they will all basically look the same. Functionality is a JCS user's best friend since it's mostly up to that person to use the tileset to make a unique level.

Basically, style is good for making a few interesting levels and functionality is good for making numerous unique levels.

It should be noted that comparing functionality to style is like comparing gameplay to originality. Style is a part of functionality, and it doesn't necessarily denote how good a tileset looks.

BlurredD's post somehow reminded me of the simple contest. People were told to make a good level with a really simple tileset with just a few different blocks of a few colours, nothing but one-colour blocks. People made some really nice-looking levels, proving that functionality can provide a lot of style.

Originally Posted by Fquist

BlurredD's post somehow reminded me of the simple contest. People were told to make a good level with a really simple tileset with just a few different blocks of a few colours, nothing but one-colour blocks. People made some really nice-looking levels, proving that functionality can provide a lot of style.

It wasn't quite that bad... there were slope tiles, and vertical yellow lines.

Originally Posted by BlurredD

Style is a part of functionality, and it doesn't necessarily denote how good a tileset looks.

I agree, although...

Style is good if you want to make a level with a definite theme; Sets that are mostly style provide more for that theme and even provide the right atmosphere. Levels that use a greatly functional set tend to be used to achieve only a single theme, which is not as advanced as a level with the same theme using a set that is built for that theme in particular, in most cases anyway. I went with style.

I always like functionality. It gives levels more variety. But structure can look nicer. I'd say both. One example of a tileset that uses both is Swamps of the Sleeping Jaguar. Kinda hard to explain how it does, but I think it does, anyway.

A good tileset needs both.

If I had to choose one though, I would go for functionality.

A) I know my work was horible...

B) If it doesn't function then why use it?

C)If you really put effort into making levels even with the most restricting tilesets you can eventually figure something out

Originally Posted by fire_byrd08

A) I know my work was horible...

Hmm, depends on how you see it. They aren't bad considering the basis you worked with ( the tile Unknown made ).
The reason why I made it an example is that, well, beaches/sand don't usually.. take on a platform-ish shape like that. The tiles are usable to form just about anything, but they look unnatural.
That's more or less the point of my preference for "style", or whatever better formulation you might have. ( The last two thirds of this post were directed at everyone, by the way. ;o )

I'm suprised no one (besides Lark) has mentioned Agama's works yet, who has style and are functional.

Functional?

I remember trying out the Egypt set. A pain.

Indeed, it's pretty hard to create a level with Agama's set that doesn't look like all other levels made with those sets. That's why I prefer block-based sets (Mez, Odyssey etc), you can do much more with them.

Well, that really depends on the user. For example, you could just as well use Egypt to make a level that looks exactly like Colonius.
It has all the tiles necessary.
Or it could be turned into a dark dungeon.
Or whatever.
Well, it's not that easy, but something a skilled level-designer should be able to achieve...

I know, but it still has the same uhm... "feeling", in my opinion.

And Mez1 still has the same feeling no matter what you do with it- whatever you make it looks somewhat unnatural, since there are very few themes that involve giant mazes made of huge glowing colorful blocks.

You forgot option 3: Both!

YOU NEED BOTH!

THE MYSTERY OF THE TWO!

I know you need both. It was obvious that EVERYONE would vote for both if I gave the option. =P

Functionality, so you can be creative yourself.

style so you get good looks cause you dont want the level with the best gameplay ever to look bad

Style. A highly functional tileset is similar in structure to any other. A well-styled tileset is unique. Functionality is still important, but it shouldn't be the reason you make the tileset.

You need both. It's hard to pick over the two, but style wins since it's not really a tileset in my terms unless it has enough functionality to make at least a SP or battle level with it. With that in mind, it should be easy to add in style.

Originally Posted by Risp

Style. A highly functional tileset is similar in structure to any other. A well-styled tileset is unique. Functionality is still important, but it shouldn't be the reason you make the tileset.

You sir, deserve a cookie, a really big one!

THE WINNER, IT'S YOU!

(Why is functionality winning?)

I suppose it's because a tileset with only style is essentially useless to anyone other than the tileset creater if it has no functionality. But that's just the extreme case.