Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Level Design

Naveen

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
1,115
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
"Expert: clear research of real-world buildings"

There's the problem, that he thinks the "pure gameplay" of Advanced is inferior to that.

"imbues spatial differentiation with cultural differentiation."

What the hell is that supposed to mean?
 

Unkillable Cat

LEST WE FORGET
Patron
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
27,091
Codex 2014 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy
Very few isometric games have verticality, and of those few, not many do it well. So at a very basic level, you have to ask whether elevation matters, or even more basically, what the movement verbs are.

While I thank you for a very good response, this is the only part of it that I see a reason to respond to...mainly to say that I agree with what you're saying.

The isometric perspective, in and of itself, has pros and cons, most of which have become irrelevant in modern game design, but that's another topic of discussion. But yeah, isometric perspective, depending on how hard it is enforced (like say Head Over Heels) can actually serve as a deterrent to the player to have to take the z-axis into account - yet Head Over Heels does exactly that, but because it does so in the most basic of manners it doesn't detract that much from the overall game experience...though I'll admit that modern-day gamers giving that game a go may have trouble with realizing that there may be rooms above the one you're currently in.

As to the original image, and it's implications - I agree with what many have said, the ideas as presented therein only apply to a narrow perspective of games, and the designer himself has a...interesting approach to what makes a good game. To the point that I believe it is perfectly acceptable to dismiss his opinion entirely. But at least it makes for a good discussion.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
Of course, many aspects of such good design are orthogonal and actual design may vary wildly in quality of its different aspects.
Take Skyrim, for example.
On one level its dungeons are mostly inexcusably terribad linear room-corridor-room affairs. On another level they also feature some nice z-axis and tend to go off the grid in all directions - including vertically.
As a counter-example you could take Oblivion (surprise!), which on the surface has much more complex and labyrinthine dungeon layouts, which ends up being completely pointless — there's practically no use of verticality, no meaningful tactical opportunities brought by the level design, no apparent logic behind how the dungeons are built, no real incentive for exploration (which is of course helped by certain other mechanics like level-scaled loot)... You get dungeons that on the surface have several paths through them, but which in reality are just random corridors followed by small, uninteresting rooms that are detached from all other rooms in that dungeon, are utterly dull gameplay-wise (at best you might be able to set up a choke point somewhere or find a spot from where to shoot arrows at enemies a few feet below you), usually serve no apparent purpose in the game world, and in general have no memorable or unique features whatsoever.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
MRY Carrion
The problem with #2 is that it's a number of completely separated boxes. Basically you have a good chance that what happens in the box, stays in the box.
Contrast with #4 where you can for example move around outside the circular room and fire into it from two different directions nearly simultaneously.
#3 is poorer, more abstract variant of #4.
#1 is basically "dude, have you ever made a level?", it has got bad scale and level of abstraction (individual structures are only indicated), has no structure to speak of and is going to be completely impractical for DM even when actually built.

Is it the same approach with level design when you're making isometric or first person view game?
Isometric sucks at z-axis, going off the grid and, especially, going off the grid vertically.

Fun, abstract level design, blows boring, linear shit out the water and always will. Blood and Quake 1's level design mops the floor with any of those games with so-called 'Expert' Level Design.
Blood level design was anything but abstract.
+M
And even actual abstract level design started to include actual recognizable architecture reminiscent of #4 as early as Doom 2 (Doom 1 was entirely randumb non-OSHA-compliant space base and hell stuff that didn't really make you expect any logic, but Doom 2 mixed that with proper architecture):
latest


This dipshit doesn't even understand the meaning of level design and has warped its meaning to reflect his own narrow-minded logic. He asks for a multiplayer level and wants a linear Uncharted level that tells a story. He probably doesn't even understand the meaning of the word gameplay and has confused it with QTEs that "tell a story".

He should spend some time playing certain Doom wads, and maybe he'll understand level design and gameplay.
This dipshit clearly (as in "clearly enough to be immediately understood by an ASD person") meant story in terms of architecture and layout with not just game reasons to be the way it is - you know like RL architecture.
You, OTOH, don't even understand the meaning of basic English sentences - illiterate much?
:M
 

ghostdog

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
11,079
Dude, I obviously understood he didn't mean actual story narrative. sperg much ? :lol:
 
Self-Ejected

Ludo Lense

Self-Ejected
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
936
This discussion makes no sense as long as the systems for which you are level designing are not specified. The rules obviously dictate how a level should look like.

The fact that Doom has great abstract level design and the Hitman series (generally) has great realistic level design is irrelevant if taken just by those metrics. Those games have great level design because of how they work in tandem with the systems of those games.

This is why I dislike judging level design by "layouts" alone. It makes no sense. For example, if it is a singleplayer game I want to see the A.I. spawns, their preset patrols if any, how the A.I. works so I can determine if the player can properly interact with it via level design etc.

For multiplayer level layouts alone are even more useless. If you show me a new Counter Strike map I need to know how and where you can prefire,prenade, if smoke covers this area or that etc. before I can judge its quality.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
The problem with #2 is that it's a number of completely separated boxes. Basically you have a good chance that what happens in the box, stays in the box.
Yeah. It's the same problem as in the case of Oblivion I mentioned earlier.

Many decent multiplayer maps, especially in CS and other team-based games, do follow a somewhat similar pattern, though, with a lot of focus on trying to capture or hold specific chokepoints or rooms. A layout closer to #4 is generally more interesting in this regard, at least potentially allowing for more varied scenarios and tactics and making it more difficult to just camp in one place and wait for an enemy to pop up from a doorway, but #2 can still be functional if executed properly. It depends a lot on what exactly is in those boxes, like whether there's stuff breaking line of sight, multiple entrances, windows, stairways, balconies or other stuff that forces you to coordinate your actions with other players.
 

MRY

Wormwood Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,703
Location
California
DraQ I confess that I actually missed the multiplayer bit, in part because none of those look like multiplayer maps to me -- perhaps because the multiplayer shooters I've played are either too old (e.g. Doom, Quake) or too different (e.g., L4D, Enemy Territory) or both (Tribes). They seem crazily small, I can't even see where spawn points or capture points would be. But I'm largely ignorant of this.

Without knowing whether these are intended to be death match or team death match or capture the flag or what, I don't really know how to "read" them, but the fourth to me stands out as problematic in any genre because it is so linear -- you can only get into the outbuilding or whatever through the south-east door in the main building, which has a foyer with only two exits (outside and deeper into the house). You can't get into the front yard except through the main door, which similarly leads into a foyer with only one other exit. If this is a team vs. match, I suppose one team would spawn somewhere around the front yard and the others in the outbuilding, but it basically seems to funnel everything toward the main mixing bowl without any backdoor strategies. Anyway, I don't know much about this kind of map design, so I'll be quiet.
 

Severian Silk

Guest
Again, you can't seem to be able to read the map. #4 has two exits for the small South building. The main complex has three, possibly four points of entry. (I'm not sure the small horseshoe-shaped part in the middle is fully enclosed.)
 
Self-Ejected

Repulsive

Self-Ejected
Patron
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
1,864,770
Location
Wasteland
MRY Carrion
The problem with #2 is that it's a number of completely separated boxes. Basically you have a good chance that what happens in the box, stays in the box.
Contrast with #4 where you can for example move around outside the circular room and fire into it from two different directions nearly simultaneously.
#3 is poorer, more abstract variant of #4.
#1 is basically "dude, have you ever made a level?", it has got bad scale and level of abstraction (individual structures are only indicated), has no structure to speak of and is going to be completely impractical for DM even when actually built.

Is it the same approach with level design when you're making isometric or first person view game?
Isometric sucks at z-axis, going off the grid and, especially, going off the grid vertically.

Fun, abstract level design, blows boring, linear shit out the water and always will. Blood and Quake 1's level design mops the floor with any of those games with so-called 'Expert' Level Design.
Blood level design was anything but abstract.
+M
And even actual abstract level design started to include actual recognizable architecture reminiscent of #4 as early as Doom 2 (Doom 1 was entirely randumb non-OSHA-compliant space base and hell stuff that didn't really make you expect any logic, but Doom 2 mixed that with proper architecture):
latest


This dipshit doesn't even understand the meaning of level design and has warped its meaning to reflect his own narrow-minded logic. He asks for a multiplayer level and wants a linear Uncharted level that tells a story. He probably doesn't even understand the meaning of the word gameplay and has confused it with QTEs that "tell a story".

He should spend some time playing certain Doom wads, and maybe he'll understand level design and gameplay.
This dipshit clearly (as in "clearly enough to be immediately understood by an ASD person") meant story in terms of architecture and layout with not just game reasons to be the way it is - you know like RL architecture.
You, OTOH, don't even understand the meaning of basic English sentences - illiterate much?
:M

Blood's levels vary in abstractness, from levels based off cult horror classics, having massive castles and Hellish levels made from flesh. The architecture for the most part isn't abstract and resembles the locations it tries to portray fairly accurately but the levels are abstract in many ways.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Blood's levels vary in abstractness, from levels based off cult horror classics, having massive castles and Hellish levels made from flesh. The architecture for the most part isn't abstract and resembles the locations it tries to portray fairly accurately but the levels are abstract in many ways.
When you can tell what it is, it's no longer abstract.
+M
 

Melan

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
6,603
Location
Civitas Quinque Ecclesiae, Hungary
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! I helped put crap in Monomyth
:MFor shits and giggles, here is the first level I sketched out (and I actually implemented most of it, although I got the scale horribly, horribly wrong :lol:):
Concept_Map.jpg
The diagram in the OP is not dumb if it is specifically applied to multiplayer levels, which are all about map flow and keeping things in motion. The fourth map has a desirable layout because:
  • it is based on interlocking circular routes, encouraging motion and random encounters;
  • as you move through the level, you can observe varying amounts of space, while you also receive varying amounts of cover (lots of colonnades), which contributes to the feeling of a hunt, and rewards observation;
  • there are also a few big areas where you can duke it out - e.g. I'd put a valuable spawn in the circular NW room, which draws in players but makes the susceptible to being spotted and attacked;
  • there are clearly what seem to be height variations;
  • it'd be attractive to look at if properly implemented, and it'd feel like an actual, continuous space with proper distances and distinct, memorable shapes.
As written before, exhibit one is a randumb box maze, two is isolated boxy rooms with isolated action, and three is "four but less".

SP levels have different design principles, but the above points are still relevant.

There are wrong things with modern game design, there are wrong things with Robert Yang (who sadly went from a sharp analyst of game designery to yet another identity politics-infected SJW muppet), but this is not one of them.
 

Riskbreaker

Guest
Much is wrong with this, starting from the fact that his levels come from games with radically different demands (singleplayer shooter, multiplayer shooter, Uncharted) and then going to his reasoning.
 

Karellen

Arcane
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
327
I haven't played multiplayer shooters literally in years, so there's not a whole lot I have to say about what the image is about specifically, but it seems to me that a "blackboard test" isn't strictly ideal in those kinds of games, though, since drawing a "map" like that you're likely to end up lacking meaningful verticality in design, which (in my opinion) is pretty critical for genuinely interesting levels in just about anything, multiplayer shooters included. A fast-paced arena shooter would work with a simpler map, too, but then again, a multiplayer shooter doesn't need to have that kind of pace - some of the most fun I've had playing Dark Souls multiplayer has been about extended hide-and-seek sessions, trolling and traps, which the Dark Souls levels (elaborate and dangerous as they are) are very good for, even if they're primarily designed for single-player. Variety is the spice of life and all.

In the interest of promoting discussion about good level design in RPGs or single-player shooters, though, rather than merely bemoaning the dark days we (by and large) live in, let me link to Justin Alexander's Jaquaying the Dungeon article series. It deals with classic D&D dungeon maps and the kind of non-linear design that is appropriate for PnP dungeon crawling in particular, but a lot of the things discussed there are entirely relevant when it comes to cRPGs and basically almost any kind of single-player computer game in which exploration is a relevant element.
 

tormund

Arcane
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
2,282
Location
Penetrating the underrail
If author wasn't pushing an agenda, he would have made a better choice of games, ones whose gameplay and design goals can be directly compared, and maybe would have put something like Blood's "The Haunting" for #4 as an example of expert level design.

As it is, image was made to support standard agenda: game design has been following an unbroken, linear course of improvement, and a 2016 game is unquestioningly superior piece of design to a 10-15-20 years older game of even comparable type.
 
Self-Ejected

Repulsive

Self-Ejected
Patron
Joined
Aug 14, 2016
Messages
1,864,770
Location
Wasteland
If author wasn't pushing an agenda, he would have made a better choice of games, ones whose gameplay and design goals can be directly compared, and maybe would have put something like Blood's "The Haunting" for #4 as an example of expert level design.

As it is, image was made to support standard agenda: game design has been following an unbroken, linear course of improvement, and a 2016 game is unquestioningly superior piece of design to a 10-15-20 years older game of even comparable type.

This, complete masterpiece of a level.
 

Severian Silk

Guest
In the interest of promoting discussion about good level design in RPGs or single-player shooters, though, rather than merely bemoaning the dark days we (by and large) live in, let me link to Justin Alexander's Jaquaying the Dungeon article series. It deals with classic D&D dungeon maps and the kind of non-linear design that is appropriate for PnP dungeon crawling in particular, but a lot of the things discussed there are entirely relevant when it comes to cRPGs and basically almost any kind of single-player computer game in which exploration is a relevant element.
Those maps are pretty good examples of "boring by necessity". You simply can't have organic maps in PnP due to them being grid based and designers lacking in skill. (Maps of cathedrals/temples don't count because they're supposed to be geometric.)

JA2 and Underrail are good grid-based CRPGs though.

And then there are single-character CRPGs like Gothic which have interesting level design.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

skacky

3D Realms
Developer
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,506
Location
The City
That's a very broad and simplistic diagram, mostly here to show varying degrees of space usage. The Advanced/Expert fluff is here in relation to architecture complexity, not layout. Another thing is that these are just top-down views that don't represent height variations or any of that stuff. It just can't be properly represented on a 2d plane. You can have a level that's very well made layout-wise with lots of vertical action but looks like #2 and then have a super flat level with a complex arrangement of rooms like #4. In this case #2 will be much more interesting than #4 despite a simpler architecture and space arrangement. But hey, who designs vertical levels nowadays in AAA?

#4 here is perhaps the most 'accurate' representation of what a MP level should be from top view:
CqpV_7pWcAAsR1E.jpg:large
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom