level design

[Walsingham]

No time to read the OP right now. But damn you've put some effort in. Well played.

[anubite]

I can empathize with AAA developers in a sense - let's consider the drawbacks of non-linear level design:

 

-Harder to bug-test

-Harder to quality-control (as in, "Is this fun? Is this too hard? Is this too easy?")

-Harder to market (Building set-pieces makes sense if you intend to use said set-pieces for demos, trailers, cinematics, etc.; linear game sections "look cool" to the masses but are pretty underwhelming in the short and long run)

-Harder for artists to contribute directly (I'm not sure how this works - but if you procedurally generate rooms, for instance, artists can only stipulate what "looks good" in a vague, abstract sense, and can only tweak alogirithims to try and suit their tastes)

-Less cinematic and tailored experience

-Some players become lost (Ever play Deus Ex? It's pretty common for you to wind up where you started on your first run of some levels; it can get dizzying staying oriented with your objective)

 

But I think the general public craves non-linearity. I watched my brother finish Max Payne 3 today, watched the whole last hour or so of gameplay. Now, MP3 isn't an RPG, but the general level design stuff still applies. The end of Max Payne 3 is quite literally one hallway, all the time. You can't leave a room until are all enemies are dead. You can't backtrack to even pick up ammo if you run out. Doors mysteriously seal themselves off and open all on their own (for a cinematic game this seems self-defeating?). The setting is pretty, but save for a few physics-object-chairs, nothing is interactable. Key items (like 'pills' and 'clues') blend into the background and you just get tunnel vision, walking forward constantly. My brother only just finished it, because in his words, it's a nauseating game. All you do is the same thing over and over with no progression in gameplay. I wasn't all that impressed with some of the set pieces either, the best one being a car chase toward a run-away airplane (but it's short-lived and so scripted that there isn't any tension at all).

 

Max Payne 3 sold like dirt, if I understand. I'm not surprised, though I wonder why. Did the public know it was going to be that kind of game? Did they know the game wouldn't appeal to them? Was it TPS-fatigue? Bad marketing overall? Why did it not perform? The damning thing about video games is it's hard to try them before you buy, so bad level design can't be the cause for a failed game, only a failed sequel. Maybe it says something about MP2? I don't know

 

But Tomb Raider sold pretty well, which surprised the **** out of me (despite this, Square didn't make any money on it). I haven't watched any gameplay or played it myself, but from what I've heard, it's about as linear as Max Payne 3 (which is kind of stupid, I thought TR was about exploration?). I don't have enough contact with the kind of people who play hyperlinear kind of games, so it's hard for me to understand what the appeal is. Is it just the desire to have a shooting gallery? Would they enjoy a non-linear version more?

 

I've been playing a Deus Ex mod (The Nameless Mod) the last few days. It's very... um, weird. It's okay. It's got some tight level design (well, to be more specific, you have options, but those options are very limited by your supplies... lock picks and electronics crackers are fairly rare; guards and robots patrol in much shorter, narrower patterns, making typical Deus Ex duckwalking tricky) which results in some fatigue on my part. I want to let loose and shoot some guys, but there's a money bonus for doing non-lethal in the mod... And, when I say the level design is tight, I don't really mean it's tight at all, lol. Levels are huge, sprawling; massive. I no-clipped through one and almost **** my pants, they're humongous. There's a huge danger with making level so big - namely, player transportation. There's too much goddamn walking! I spend more time walking than I do doing ****, it's annoying. Non-linear games definitely need to have ways for players to move rapidly through already-cleared sections of the games, OR they need to shrink levels down and make choices meaningful, deep, et cetera - while not taking up too much walking space. Nobody really likes backtracking, especially if you have to do it ten times in a level in order to solve it or get lost. It's probably a very happy coincidence that VTMB and Deus Ex have small non-linear levels - the hardware at the time probably couldn't have supported more sprawling places... but then again, VTMB does have Going the Way of Kings. Eugh. Going the Way of Kings is about as bad as Max Payne 3.

 

I guess I think it's important, when designing levels linearly or non-linearly, to generally vary what's going on and be mindful what a player could be doing BEFORE you start building the level. Set-piece hyper linear games can be fun, I think, if you get the right pacing down. Max Payne 3 is just awful. Literally, there is one level where you lay siege to a police HQ - catwalks and corridors for about 45 minutes. It is the most boring thing to watch in the world and isn't helped by the fact all the enemies are bullet sponges. There is nothing to vary the game. Yes, there are cutscenes intermingled, but just with some bleeding old men, half of whom don't even speak ****ing English (and there are no English subtitles for their dialogue). There's nothing stimulating about the game at that point; it's monotonous.

 

It's important to encourage creativity and alternative experience in games. Players should be given the freedom to experiment. I think level designers, at least for AAA games, are too focused on making everything crisp, shiny, and pristine-looking. "Just like the concept-art" I think that they're thinking. This is totally wrong - if a player finds a way to beat your level that wasn't intended, then you have good level design. This means players should be given tools to clear your levels, but that your levels should also invite the usage of said tools in creative ways.

 

Everyone I know who starts Deus Ex for the first time is told to "invest in swimming" - it's a joke. Swimming is largely useless, save for a few segments in the game (which can be solved using other means). It wouldn't have been hard to make swimming a very valuable skill - just put some very good resources in locations you can't reach without swimming. Put more safe havens to avoid guards with in the form of deep pools of water (holding your breath for a long time allows the guards to disperse). Of course, hyperlinear trainwrecks like Max Payne 3 don't even bother to create the ability to swim (there is a LONG docks level where if you fall in the water you die - it literally makes no sense, the least they could do is light the water on fire or fill it with man-eating fish), so it's a moot point to even bring up the balancing of player options...

 

Erm, sorry, it's hot out and I'm just rambling to kill time for this room to cool down. I need to sleep. Been thinking too much about game design, really. It's a simple fix: give players choice. I get that time is money, but it seems like a lot of people in AAA game studios aren't doing anything (how else could a game like Max Payne 3 be created? Did the developers of that game really feel like they put out their best effort?).

Edited July 5, 2013 by anubite

[JFSOCC]

What I always think about some of the more linear level design thoughts are: Why is it not OK for a player to outsmart the game? Why must a player see that set-piece you've put all attention in? Is it absolutely required for the player to enjoy his experience? Why can't I explore a little more, it's my own damn fault if I fail because of it.

 

I play Roleplaying games to create my own experience, not to have the best solution for problem x.

[yog-sothot]

I am confident that Obsidian will nail the level design with talent. 

 

I just hope that not every dungeon is an actual... dungeon. I mean, I also loved the parts in the sewers and stuff like that in older Infinity engine games.