Good video on level design

[Moonbo]

Here's a very good video dissecting the gameplay of a level in Half-Life 2. HL2 is a very different game from TDM, but the basic principles that Valve uses to keep the player engaged and thinking work just as well for FM makers and can help make your FM more alive. I got a lot out of it:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEC45BH6w6I

[Obsttorte]

Maybe a matter of taste, but imho Half-Life 2 was one of the worst games in regardence to gameplay I've ever played. May watch the video anyway.

[Lux]

A good video with a lot of important tidbits and also a number of them that I noticed as far as the "feeling" in different areas that are instilled in the player that the narrator didn't mention. Parts of the level and animations done to effect the player; make them feel "happy", "trepidatious", "fear", etc. I guess the important bit was that it was constantly changing which makes the player think and evokes different emotions.

 

A lot of good stuff and some things do apply in broad scope to general gameplay although for stealth game play vs. an fps, some of these things are altered or different. Still, some good things to pay attention to.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Lux

[SteveL]

Excellent video. The guy doing it is a really engaging presenter and loves his subject. I'm only 2/3rds of the way through -- I've been watching it in snatches between calls -- but I'm looking forward to the rest.

[SteveL]

Are there videos like that on designing stealth gameplay, or even specifically Thief-related?

[Melan]

It is a good video about Half-Life 2 missions, and it has smart commentary, but it also highlights some of the issues which made me get bored with that game (and in fact, why I never completed Episode 2).

• The level is completely, utterly linear. There is some very-very limited wiggle room in individual scenes, but otherwise, you are locked into a predetermined path. There are no alternate ways; in fact, the game goes out of its way to remove even the off chance of decision paralysis as it funnels you. There are periodic points of no return (pointed out in the video) where you are prevented from going back to previous positions.
• Linearity also extends to the playing experience. Your responses are anticipated and dictated to you through strong pacing and a lot of psychological manipulation. Where the author talks about how perfectly in-game situations are set up, I could also remember how these same sections felt unrewarding to me because they felt over-engineered, and they took the last shreds of control out of my hands.
• The game is structured into digestible, discrete chunks which you tackle one by one. Although there are reasonably varied challenges, you don't do any big picture stuff like choosing an access point and executing a break-in by exploiting a gap in security measures; or like planning your route and approach through multiple (potentially overlapping) possibilities. Dishonored, a game that also follows a lot of modern design conventions, nevertheless succeeds because the same places accommodate very different playing strategies: going in guns blazing, sticking to unseen corners, climbing up on vantage points to get out of sight, or exploiting one of your powers to alter the conditions on the playing field. In Half-Life, you do not have these possibilities at your disposal. Valve gives you the Valve-designed, Valve-approved experience. And it feels like following someone's Youtube playthrough, not striking out on your own.
• Half-Life carefully avoids aspects of level design which we consider a virtue in Thief and TDM. It has very little meaningful (functional) verticality, except to create transition points where backtracking is impossible. The player's line of sight is carefully controlled, and you don't really have to look out of your usual vision cone (unless cued). Exploration-oriented gameplay is mostly missing. Dead ends are completely avoided. Unused space is kept to a minimum (ironically, it is when the commentator points out these instances that you can see precisely how small and insignificant they are).
• In part it comes from the environment, but HL environments come off as incredibly boxy. One of the big things in Thief map design is "breaking the cube" and experimenting with odd shapes*, and you get rewarding things out of that. Here, it is all standard boxes stacked together, down to the fine details. No strange angles and none of Unreal's bold geometric experiments.

I understand why Half-Life 2 is a much-beloved game that has won several awards and become the gold standard for designers. But I wish not everyone internalised these lessons, and instead, also looked at other, alternative good practices. And also, there is something else I have also been thinking out for a while (partly as an examination and self-criticism of my own mapping practices):

• There is such a thing as too much design. It is possible, through experience, to become cynical and calculating, and remove the element of creative randomness from your work that makes maps genuinely interesting. Even a good formula can get formulaic, producing a dissatisfying or standard experience. You should let the map "breathe" a bit, let it develop its own structure and gameplay opportunities. Don't be afraid to experiment and make mistakes. Don't be afraid of making something odd and inexplicable. It might sometimes be better to fail interestingly than succeed at being mediocre.

__________________

* In fact, DarkRadiant makes this harder than Dromed, and tempts you to stick to the lazy, cubical path. This is a problem.

[Melan]

Coincidentally, the channel has a recent analysis of one of skacky's Quake maps, which offers some really interesting counterpoints. Irrational architecture, obscure (but optional) secrets, and a strong vertical element that results in non-standard situations and rewarding exploration. Check it out and see for yourself.

[Moonbo]

While, yes, HL2 (being an on-rails shooter) is very different from TDM, I do think there are general guidelines that can apply to both. For me, the big thing that I got out of that video was the importance of giving each area a purpose and something unique/interesting to do. Thief gameplay is mostly based around a few central activities (collecting stuff, navigating space, defeating AI) and way too often FM makers use these core gameplay mechanics in vanilla, repetitive ways that make for boring maps.

 

The concepts of using minigame-esque sections to break things up is very applicable to TDM. Even simple things such as having a winerack in a room that requires the player to stop and search for the loot, or a few moveables to shuffle around, or an obvious secret door without an obvious way of opening it, can break up that standard gameplay and keep the player engaged.

 

Another thing brought up in that video was to use AI in creative ways. This is a pet-peeve of mine in TDM maps: way too often the majority of AI are set up the exact same way, being placed on long, meandering routes. That's all good but: 1) since all the AI are set up the same way, all the AI require the exact same strategy to beat, and 2) with these setups you can often just stand in one spot of a map and KO a good majority of the AI as they all walk past, leaving the rest of the map without enemies.

 

By mixing up how AI are placed, you can very easily create a different set of challenges, which mixes up the player experience. Having an AI standing in one spot, but turning occasionally. Having an AI standing fully lit without moving so that the player must navigate their way through side rooms to get around behind them. Placing a sleeping AI in a room with a loud tile floor. These more tactical uses of AI (mixed with more standard long patrols) make the player pause and think, and have a varied, more engaging experience.

 

That principle of making sure that the player is able to engage with the game's core mechanics in interesting and varied ways is always a good thing to keep in mind while putting together a FM.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Moonbo

[Sotha]

Interesting video.

 

Many things apply to TDM too. Keep the player in control. Give meaningful options how to approach things. Make sure the location has a story to tell. You should show the goal somehow and let the player know they are on the right track.

[Paralytik]

Very nice video with lots of different techniques that can be applied to TDM gameplay and level design.

I would love to see more use of sound cues and local problem solving/challenges in maps. Also, I don't think "point of no return" map designs are inherently negative to either gameplay or linearity, if used cleverly and in moderation.

[Sotha]

I would love to see more use of sound cues and local problem solving/challenges in maps.

 

These are often used in TDM. Near a secret passage, mappers often put air humming. Also, scratches on the floor are also a good sign to start looking that hidden lever.

 

Point of no returns are a bit bad in a TDM missions, where maps work in many directions, more like a simulation or a sandbox location than linear shooter. They do have their places, for example in those non-guarded entryways (flooded sewer and such)

[Paralytik]

To be honest, I overall haven't played many maps due to 1: my lack of a good PC at home, and 2: my lack of a stable internet connection at the studio so I can download TDM and maps smoothly.

Though, I was mainly thinking of sound cues as a tool for immersion and story-telling rather than being used in gameplay situations. Like an echoing minor chord once you've reached location X, or a howling wind one-shot going off at the mouth of a cave, or something similar.
Sounds can be very useful for setting the mood and also to "reward" players by showing them they've made progress in the map.