He has uploaded this video explaining his feelings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-TNkQGvIdQ

I rule it "not an exploit". Nevertheless it's good that he found it. On to the pig slaughtering rest of the level!

This is getting fucking weird, man.

Wait, I haven't watched his attempts yet but was he just referring the block you have to jump at an angle to get?

If so, that's not an exploit at all, just a complete dick move, aka normal Dan stuff. Saying it's an exploit, and @patrickklepek implying @danryckert went against his "no exploits" lifestyle, is the dirtiest thing those two have done.

If it's something else, then ignore the previous part, and those two can resume being scum to each other for all of our entertainment!

Well that was certainly odd.

Glad Patrick finally figured that out, those streams were getting tough to watch.

Ehh it pushes the "too shitty" line for me but stays on the clean side of "exploit". It's a total dick move but fair game.

That video is great though. I very much prefer Patrick's slightly unhinged descent into madness character to Dan's played out heel shtick.

@villainy said:

I think that the first question mark block could have contained an 1UP mushroom. Its a subtle hint but it tells the player that he does in fact need to get up and get that second question mark block. With how Patrick thinks during his runs, I think he could have figured it out faster.

Totally fair and reasonable. I thought this was one of the most clever elements of the level.

The player knows that something is within the block since it's a "?" Block. If the player hits a wall with the level without uncovering what's in the block, that is their fault. It could be something useful, it could be something that makes the game trivial. If you assume good level design, then you would assume that it is there for a reason. Now, there are red herrings in MM level designs sometimes, but determining whether something is a red herring or not is part of solving the puzzle of levels. If the player gives up with the block acter exhausting other possibilities to complete the level, it is their lack of knowledge of the game mechanics that has led to their failure of solving the puzzle. The designer can assume some players have the ability to conclude that an invisible block must be hit from the bottom to activate, and that mario can maintain momentum to hit the bottom of the block on top.

I find it very reasonable to expect players to be able to solve this mechanics puzzle if they're also expected to solve other vague puzzles that are rife with red herrings.

It straddles the line, but I think it's ultimately "fair" and not an exploit. Still kind of bullshit, but Patrick managed to get it by accident so it's not impossible.

@irishfighter38 said:

There's an invisible block obfuscating access to it, and there's a cackling sound that is triggered by hitting said invisible block.

Also, he should've recalled from numerous times in the past (e.g. the first Giant Bomb level) that he could pass through invisible blocks that he didn't trigger; and if he didn't, Dan was even generous to provide a backup strat in the form of a Bob-omb in the lower block.

I say it's fair. (Also, it was frustrating watching Patrick not try this even before I had any sense that it was what you had to do.)

I'll be the first in this thread then to say that is totally an exploit in the context of designing levels in Mario Maker.

The mechanics of invisible blocks make it possible because the character is able to jump or fall through it without bouncing off, and have it trigger when hit from below. I highly doubt Nintendo, the actual developer, intended for this to be a thing, where an invisible block would force the player to try to hit the block from a specific trajectory through it to trigger the visible block, but not the invisible one. Unless someone can point to examples by Nintendo that don't involve using a shell or cape, Dan is exploiting the mechanics of the blocks that Nintendo did not foresee.

Clever/jerk use of an exploit? Yes, but still an exploit.

The almost entire actual point of Super Mario Maker is to use the given framework of Mario mechanics in ways that perhaps Nintendo hadn't themselves thought of or previously used in their games. If you're using that as your definition of exploit, nearly every level in SMM is filled with exploits. This area of Dan's level is entirely within the confines of the game's outward mechanics and thus fair game. The "no exploits" stuff is in reference to, e.g. Griffin McElroy's level for Patrick, which used an actual exploit with the game's editor to make blocks that appeared to be solid but could be passed through. Using invisible blocks in devious ways is something that's been done forever in the romhack scene and even to some extent in Mario 2. It's effectively the same thing as avoiding "kaizo blocks," only with the intent of hitting a ?-block instead of jumping a gap (also it's a fair bit less assholish and more obvious).

In any case, Patrick even said in the comments of that video that he was joking around and wouldn't consider it an exploit. I'm actually a little bit over this excruciatingly overwrought rivalry thing, but I guess everyone else still loves is, so w/e.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I can't think of any Nintendo-created levels that force you to run through a sawblade to progress with the express purpose of removing your cape/fire flower/mushroom/helmet/Yoshi for the next section of the level, so by that logic, something like 30% of the Expert levels use an 'exploit.'

Unintuitive use of game mechanics that still behave normally within the confines of the game: not an exploit
Using an actual glitch in the editor, such as in Griffin's level: an exploit

Invisible blocks have behaved the same way since Super Mario Bros. 1; if you hit them from the side or top, you won't activate them. No part of Dan's level changes those rules.

Next you're going to tell me that Dan's section where he makes the player throw the P-Switch and pick it up while spin-jumping is also an exploit because you can't normally spin-jump while holding an item. I'm fairly certain Nintendo didn't plan on people using a single-frame window input to jump off of P-Switches in the air, either, when they were coding the game. Is that also suddenly an 'exploit?'


It seems as if some people picked a side in the 'rivalry' and then threw all logic out of the window.

It's definitely a borderline case, so I can understand both the arguments for and against it being an "exploit". To some degree it probably depends on how exactly you want to define "exploit".

At the very least I'll say that I think it's a real shitty move. It's an abuse of the way invisible blocks work that makes it difficult to to intuit how to proceed in the level. I'd say the same for the way you have to grab the p-switch while spin jumping. Neither are technically a glitch, but they're both kinda shitty things to do.

Like....I get the argument for why it's not technically an exploit, but you'll have to forgive me if I still think it's bullshit. The fact that one would even need to try so hard to justify it is proof enough of it's bullshittyness.

The mechanics of invisible blocks is one of the least vague mechanics of Mario games, though..

Totally not an exploit. An exploit is something you do that breaks the game. Something somebody couldn't know exists by playing the game normally, and that they have to look up to even understand how it works and what it does. I've known you can jump through invisible blocks by coming at them from an angle since I was like ten goddamn years old. You learn that just by playing a lot of Mario. I honestly don't know how you could avoid learning that. If Patrick hasn't played a ton of Mario and isn't familiar with the nuances of the mechanics, he probably shouldn't have gotten himself into this whole mess of playing tricksy levels in the first place. Dan using the pow block to get into a door is a far more obscure tactic than this, imo, because that's not something that ever comes up in the real games. Still not an exploit though, just bringing it up as an example of people being hypocrites since I don't recall any controversy about that.

So, I decided to watch a playthrough, because I figured I get far more entertainment from watching Patrick futilely bash his head against a wall for hours and rooting for him to fail for lols, and then giving him his due props when he inevitably triumphs over Dirty Dan, than I do from being with him "in the moment" and not necessarily knowing (but sometimes knowing) what the next thing to do is either.

...having watched said playthrough, that is some bullshit. (And you'll note that I called the invis block bit fair above.)

All's fair in love and SMM.

Can love bloom on the battlefield

Dan sent Patrick to hell, but he's even going deeper.

As someone with a lower-than-average knowledge of Mario games, this seemed fairly self-explanatory to me. There's a ? Block but you can't hit it from underneath because of an invisible block, so you have to take a different approach. It's even in a nice open area and not surrounded by deathtraps. I didn't see this part of the creation stream and wouldn't have considered it to be an "exploit" until you mentioned it just now. Perhaps its just one of those things which people who have played a lot of Mario games find harder because they're so entrenched in how those games traditionally operate.

I'd say the POW block door entry is as much of a mind-muddle, but that quickly became Mario Maker Trick 101 stuff so it doesn't feel like as much of a sneaky tactic. It's cool people are continuing to discover new ways to utilise the game's mechanics - seems like a pretty clear thing to try out once you have a basic grasp on how the physics of invisible blocks function.

He is playing him like a Damn Fiddle!

My secret hope is that this contest continues on for a long time, and toward the end Patrick's videos to Dan are just blue-tinted shots of hunks of meat. And instead of talking there's just an ever-increasing-in-volume screech for the entire video.

Exploit? No.

Learning the absolute fundamental gameplay mechanics of Mario in order to achieve a goal? Yes.

I don't think it's an exploit at all. If Dan would have also made that block invisible then I might have leaned toward yes it's an exploit. Is it hard to hit that block? Of course, but this isn't supposed to be an easy level to finish.

Not completely on topic, but after watching a lot of Patrick playing this level, after watching Dan playtest it on the extralife stream, Dan's assertion that he's better at Mario Maker than Klepek looks shaky as hell.

But that's just Dan for you. He completely seriously said that he thinks he could take a wolf in a fight. His perception of himself is pretty damn skewed.

Has Patrick beat the level or close to beating it?

He came pretty close last attempt. His death nooooooo was pretty good.

He has now beaten it but I don't know if the VOD is up yet.

*EDIT*

It's on Patricks Twitch channel.

I'm enjoying this back and forth between Dan and Patrick. Even if he's not on staff any more, Patrick's remains an awesome duder.

Patrick beat it and spoke to Dan about their next challenge. Didn't set a date but there is another level in the future!

Oh he beat it? That's great to see. Barely kept up with this one, but that's nice he beat it quickly again. Not sure which part of the level this is referring to, but it's probably one of the 45 different tedious, arbitrary trial-and-error things Dan liters in his levels every time.

I can't help but feel this is a pointless struggle because as much as Dan won't like to admit it, him and Patrick share a very similar skill level when it comes to playing the game. So the moment it becomes a beatable level for Dan it becomes a beatable level for Patrick. The only thing that stops Patrick from beating the levels as quick as Dan does after making them is the lack of knowledge about the levels' design.

@dan_citi: The part the OP was talking about is that there's a POW block you need contained in a hidden block, but that there's also another hidden block under that block. The only way to get the one with the POW block is to hit it at an angle without hitting the bottom part of the bottom block. Hidden blocks don't interact with Mario in any way unless Mario hits them from underneath.

Well, at least you're not bitter about Dan.

It's disappointing that so many of the Mario maker levels are either just bullshit, cheap hard or treadmill levels that play TV show theme songs. I guess making fun levels is too hard.

@giantlizardking: It makes me appreciate actual Mario levels more, where they have the restraint to maybe give a mechanical theme to the level, and have some tough parts but ultimately the level is possible.

Super Mario Maker is great in letting you make levels and that's empowering, but when you actually search for other levels to play, you're just playing levels made by assholes (either technically difficult or an obtuse puzzle), or autoplay levels. I hope at some point one of the level tags is "this is like an actual Mario level".

Have you guys seen Jeff's new level?

It's fucked.

This is one of those videos that gets way better when you play it at half speed. It gets downright creepy.

To play at half speed click the settings "gear" at the bottom of the video player then select speed->0.5. The best part is at 1:05:

https://youtu.be/T-TNkQGvIdQ?t=1m5s

I can't believe I'm saying this but... is Dan slowly making a face turn? Is Patrick turning heel?!

Patrick wrote an article about this level.

Also, to put it to rest, a quote from Patrick in the article:

To be clear, the diagonal jump trick is not an exploit, but it did exploit my own ignorance of how Mario mechanics work.