In most games, the path of the player is actually fairly
linear, and in simplest terms the level involves guiding the player from point
A to point B. This means that when designing levels, the most important aspect
designers have to think about is how the player will move through the
environment, including how their movement will be directed or impeded by
obstacles such as secondary objectives and enemies.
Many games only have a single path the player can take if
they wish to advance the game. Sometimes this linear gameplay is obvious
because the player is funnelled towards their goal by the scenery, whereas
other times a seemingly open environment will have invisible constraints that
force the player to visit certain sections in a set order with - most this
often simply the player’s limited ability to jump.
Linear gaming like this is not necessarily bad, and such
railroading is generally judged differently depending on the genre. In platforming games especially, discovering
the limits of these constraints is a large part of the gameplay, and with many
combat-orientated games the player doesn’t want
to be constantly getting lost while fighting enemies. (Conversely, some puzzle
games will use combat specifically to make the puzzles arbitrarily harder – the
puzzles in Amnesia take very little brainpower, but are difficult to complete
while your character’s curled up in a corner crying.)
Non-linear gaming can take several different approaches,
with different types of dynamic gameplay. Games such as sandbox games make
every effort to give the player freedom, at least within the set parameters,
while some games simply provide more than one path for the player to take.
Sometimes this is a feature built into individual levels,
with multiple ways of solving a given puzzle. For instance, in Deus Ex each level
environment is fairly open with multiple paths the player can take depending on
their preferred play style, whether they decide to sneak around and pick off enemies
one by one, or to charge in head first.
1) Kill now or 2) Kill later |
It could be argued that - by nature of giving the player
control - any game is non-linear, as no two players will do exactly the same
thing. However many games actively work against this, for instance by blocking
off areas the player has already been through or killing the player if they try
to go off course, so from the point of view of a level designer there is
certainly a conscious decision.
It’s difficult not to think about the context of a level
when you think about level design, partly because the environment will have a
large impact of how the level feels to play. A good demonstration of the difference between
level design and environment design can be seen at the beginning of Portal 2.
The first few levels – the puzzles and the positioning of
key elements - are often identical to those at the beginning of the first game,
but with the overgrown scenery, open spaces and organic lighting, the environment is very different.
Subsequently, while in Portal these levels felt almost claustrophobic, in Portal
2 the exact same level designs give you a brief sense of freedom and healthy
dose of déjà vu.
Portal 1 vs. Portal 2 |
I only just discovered you can add captions. |
Portal is in fact
often taken as a parody of the idea of level design over story; highlighting
the lengths games sometimes go to explain level design and puzzles within the
context of an environment. The game makes little effort to disguise the purpose
of the ‘testing chambers’ as anything more that the puzzles they are, leaving
the developers open to fully explore the possibilities of the genre without
having to justify everything. In fact, the developers published some tutorials detailing the process.
I’ve found that
games often fall into one of two extremes – although that might be due to my
own polarizing preferences for genre, since I tend to go for either RPGs or
platformers.
On one hand you get
games like Portal, where the puzzles seem to have been given the most leeway
and the environment has been slotted in around it. In particular, I remember
one of the Prince of Persia games where there are some very conspicuously placed tree branches. Sadly I don’t have a
screenshot, but take my word for it that their attempt to incorporate the
environment into the level design failed spectacularly. Games like Uncharted
are also occasionally guilty of this, although they do seem to be getting
better at it, perhaps because of more flexible game engines.
At the other end you
get games such as Skyrim and other RPGs, where a large proportion of the
gameplay mainly comes from the context of the story and the visual aspect of
the environment. Not to say that the environments in these games aren’t somewhat
concerned with playability; in my post about environment design, when discussing how level design is blended into the environment I talked about
how most Skyrim dungeons provide a shortcut back to the entrance. However, in these games level
design often takes a backseat to put narrative behind the wheel.
Following the path to the right and jumping down takes you back to the entrance. |
That’s not to say
context is entirely removed from level design. Some portion of the feel of a
game still comes from the layout of different elements, and both environment
and level design can lean on one another. Narrow spaces can create a feeling of
urgency, or give the player a sense of objective, and large spaces can either
give the player a feeling of freedom or leave them feeling vulnerable.
Vertical space can also have an effect on the player, climbing up and climbing down invoke different emotions, and can be used to support the narrative. A player will probably perceive moving upwards as more effort than climbing down and expect a larger pay-off, even if the gameplay is almost identical.
Vertical space can also have an effect on the player, climbing up and climbing down invoke different emotions, and can be used to support the narrative. A player will probably perceive moving upwards as more effort than climbing down and expect a larger pay-off, even if the gameplay is almost identical.
Often the context of
the environment inspires the level design, for instance Assassin’s Creed takes
the concept of climbing buildings and weaves it - seemingly effortlessly - into
the environment, the gameplay and the level design. Rather than using buildings
simply as props or background scenery, the game takes the concept of a
sprawling city and tailors the gameplay towards the environment. There are some conspicuous gameplay elements,
but these are mainly minor things, such as boxes and flagpoles placed to help
you move fluidly.
Much of level design is simply about balancing different
interactions, constantly giving players something do without the tasks becoming
repetitive or boring. This is where predicting the path the player takes
becomes important, as it allows the level designer to make a vague timeline of
player activity. Long distances between points translate to long periods of the
player just moving around, and forcing a player to backtrack through the same
place multiple times becomes tedious.
Of course, it’s impossible to fully predict how a game will
feel without playing it through, which is where blocking out levels and play-testing
comes into play. Creating fully fleshed out environments is expensive and time
consuming, so to get a feel for the gameplay early on the development designers
create a white-box, a very basic outline of the level without all the visual
aspects.
White-boxing levels allows play-testing almost from the very
beginning of production, and most importantly the environments can easily be
changed to improve the player’s experience. The developers get a better idea of
what the game will be like to play, and when the art team begin to flesh out the
visual part of the game, they know all their assets will actually be used.
No comments:
Post a Comment