Level Design

“Level Design is the data entry and layout portion of the game development cycle. A level is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a mission, stage, map or other venue of player interaction.” - Tim Ryan, Gamasutra

From the title screen onwards, nothing should remind them they are in the real world. The player must attain a level of escapism for immersion to take effect, which is only achieved by making sure nothing reminds them that they are sat at a computer, jamming with a keyboard.

Immersion can be broken by a variety of common mistakes: Graphical glitches, bugs.

In terms of design, something like a car going over a bridge in the background of a medieval setting. Things like being told to 'press R to reload' or 'right-click while pressing W' can break immersion as it reminds the consumer that they are playing a game.

Though some would not admit, we all love a challenge, and games deliver us these challenges frequently. Though there is indeed the overarching challenge of merely beating the game there are also mini, sub challenges throughout most games that constantly keep a player on their toes like; Do x in y amount of time, or get from a to b while y does z etc.

Challenges within levels can range from traversing a hedge to surviving a room full of elite soldiers complete with rocket launchers.

The tough part with making a game challenging is not making it too challenging so that the majority find it more frustrating than fun. Emphasis on 'majority' here, as that is your main audience thus you need to find that medium difficulty that does not neglect most player only leaving the most skilful satisfied. This can be seen as unfair towards people of higher (or indeed, lower) capability, however not all is lost as games frequently have extra content to challenge skilled players and those who perhaps have already completed the game, and maybe might like to try something a little harder.

To clarify somewhat; if your game is a FPS, you should challenge your players aiming skills, from how accurate to how fast they are. If a real-time strategy game, challenge the players ability to manage his or her defence and offence while maintaining a steady economy within their base.

Challenges are essentially training, so its a good idea to constantly challenge your player as to get them up to snuff as games generally get harder as they go on.

Games, as do films and books and any other medium within the entertainment industry need to be... entertaining. If a player gets bored they could well go do something else. As a game designer this is death, you want people to play this game so for one to just turn it off should feel like a knife in the heart, and for the most part (psychological issues aside) it is the designers fault.

This reminds me of a game called Mass Effect, you may have heard of it. I did, and I also heard all the hype behind it, about how it is such a great story, completely immersing etc. So I finally bought it and began playing. Didn't think it bad by any means, in fact, I'd go as far to say I was rather enjoying it. Then the Citadel part came. Just one hour earlier I was fighting robots with my laser gun, throwing grenades at some resurrected blue buggers and unravelling a tale of struggle, impending doom and treachery but now... I am running around for three fucking hours on this massive ass 'town' going through loading screen after loading screen and talking to people I really could not give a damn about who have this problem or that problem and could I perhaps find it in my heart to do this or that for them and... you know what? I quit.

Citadel

Assuredly I have a personal preference for combat unending over prolonged amounts of banter yet still this caused me to stop playing. Begrudgingly I picked the game back up a month or two later with the promise that it got better after the Citadel, and it did. Yet that doesn't forgive the game for it's massive flaw. Barely two hours into the game and I want to quit and let me tell you, I love narrative, I love story but do I give a shit about Joe Predicament? NO!

Robots are attacking human colonies and one of the Citadel's finest agents has betrayed us and I've had a vision of some evil big bastards coming to gobble up our galaxy so I'm now on my way to talk to the high council on what our next move will be, because it could well determine the fate of not just humans, but all other life in the cosmos... no, I'm not going to hand over your love letter.

Back on track.

We've talked about games needing to be immersive, challenging and entertaining. These are pretty much the building blocks a game is made from. A little further reading however.

Indeed

 

A game should invigorate a players senses; when they go into an area their mind should race with ooh's and aah's, they should WANT to progress through the level, if they see something interesting, they will go to it. A nice trick with this technique for a complete level is to show the player where they will end up later. For example: looking out a window to the street below and then ending up down there in a few minutes, or showing a massive radiant light emitting structure a mile away only to end up there soon enough. Another good one is showing something like this throughout the level so the player not only can see where they are headed, and await it with anticipation, but also to give the player a sort of triangulation point so they know where they are in relation to where they've been, or possible in relation to somewhere else they have seen.

Other ways to subtley lead players through a level include lighting, or something as simple as where your enemies are. Don't know where to go? Follow the gun shots. Simple, subtle, works every time.

Players also require freedom. This is their game, they've bought it, it is theirs to do with what they want. Telling them they must go down this alley, although a simple command to follow, is somewhat condescending. Like the big arrow in the old Streets of Rage games telling you to go forward... yeah no shit buddy.

Presenting the player with options is always a great idea. All you need to do is set the playing field and just let them work it out, kind of like a monkey with a children’s puzzle box. You don't tell them how to put the shapes in the holes, you leave them to it, trying to ram a circle into the triangle slot doesn't work so they try something else. Not only does this add a lot of variety to the areas, it also gives the player a quick sense of accomplishment, which is very powerful motivator.

Giving a player the option of two routes that end up at the same destination is another great piece of level design, the power is in their hands. Do they take the stealthy route through the vents or the balls to the wall front door approach? It's their decision to make and makes them feel like they're playing the game the way they want to, you're not penalising a stealthy player by making him go through the door. It all adds to the immersion.

With all this said, however, the main thing to keep in mind is that you must make the player care. Story plays a big part in that motivation however if the levels are poor (Citadel from Mass Effect) they will stop caring about the game. Make them exciting, make them want to progress, to explore and reward them for doing so and you'll find them squeezing in that extra level before bedtime.

Composition

The basic idea is to reduce the chance of achieving a low quality end result. This generally falls under composition.



Composition:The nature of something's ingredients or constituents; the way in which a whole or mixture is made up.



There's an old saying: Well begun is half done. This is quite apposite in the field of art as we've all been there at some point; looking at a painting we've been working on for a good few hours only to step back and realise... 'This is shit.'

Now there are a lot of reasons for this, lack of technical skill aside. Usually, if not most of the time it's due to a poor composition, that is, a poor choice of shape placement or the wrong colours etc. So many artists all around the world waste SO many hours on failed painting, paintings which they would believe they failed half way through when in fact, it's probable they failed it before they even put brush to canvas. What do I mean?



Bad PLANNING!



The difference between a compitent artist and an incompitent one is simply the ability to hold off on getting started on a piece to simply step back, look and study what you want to paint instead of rushing into it because you have this GREAT IDEA and want to get it down ASAP!



We've all done it - have an idea in our head, be it a creature concept or a super-kewl robot, and upon getting it down on paper we convince ourselves it's DA BESTEST EVAH! possibly taking it to a final piece there and then.

And with absolute conifdence I can say that it IS NOT the greatest it could be. The reason for this being that you can always push it further, add extras or take the crap away that doesn't make much sense. Even things like the characters expression or number of fingers can be changed out, the temperature of colour to set the mood and invoke certain emotion in the viewer and so on.

A famous illustrator and Sci-fi art legend, Syd Mead, really goes all out when it comes to planning. We're talking 30 hours or more before he even starts his final. Now, he works traditionally so this number would be cut down a lot nevertheless he refines his idea so much that by the time he comes to the final piece there isn't a doubt in his mind that it'll be successful. Pages upon pages of thumbnails, both environment and asset study from people to plants to his signature Hyper-Van. On top of that he also refines his colour pallette by doing colour thumbnails ending in a ~two hour blown up piece to see if it works well with an increased level of detail.

AND THEN he starts the final piece. Safe in the knowledge that he's pushed it as far as he can without wasting too much time on planning. As there comes a time when you have to say 'enough planning' and just get on with it due to deadlines approaching.

Really, nothing should be left to chance. I'm going to quote another artist here, again it's about composition though it's easily translated for game development as a whole:

Creating a good composition can be challenging but fixing a bad one can be frustrating – if not impossible. -Ian Roberts, Mastering Composition



Simply put, it's optimal to spend a lot of energy in the beginning getting it right as appose to jumping onto the production too soon only to hit a wall that's either really difficult, and time consuming (time is money) to get around. If it's even possible at all.

Elements of game design - Planning and Concepting

If you don't iron out the kinks in your designs or push them as far as you can, be it characters, environments, story or the way you progress through the level etc then your game is not going to be as good as it could be. If it's not at it's best when shelved (if shelved at all) then you're going to have problems. Not stating it would be unsuccessful, merely that it isn't doing as well as it could be.



This reminds me of an illustrator by the name of Iain Mccaig, best known for designing Darth Maul. While drawing he constantly takes an eraser to his work (another traditional artist), this is usually frowned upon as we're often taught to learn from our mistakes by leaving them in there and trying to adapt them (within reason), however he has a saying for this:

“If it's wrong, take it out.”

It's an obvious thought but Mccaig practices this statement with utmost zeal in his drawings. If it's even slightly off, say the arm is just so that it doesn't quite convey the exact feeling he's trying to achieve (despite being anatomically correct), then he'll chop it off without a seconds thought.

In his GNOMON DVD – Visual Storytelling he frequently quoted the literature saying:



“Murder your darlings”- Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch



Basically what it means is sometimes you create something that you're rather fond of however it might not fit in the grand scheme of things so in the end, to get the best result out of your painting/writing or whatever, there may come a time where you have to 'murder' it for the greater good.



In a previous post (I believe it was the one on environments) I described the different ways in which level designers go about creating environments using techniques such as silhouette, function and storytelling. These are all part of the planning process for a level, and as such, the entire game.



One of the most common parts of achieving a good or believable design are to use references, this goes from Google images to the real world. The use of Google images gets knocked a bit by artists because it’s apparently ‘shit’ or ‘cheating’ but that isn’t a reasonable argument, if the resources are there to use a reference from then why would you give yourself MORE work in finding something in person when it is right there in front of you? I’m not backing Google images I’m merely arguing why it’s seen as wrong to use it; probably a pride thing.



That’s not to say you shouldn’t go out and get real references, in fact I’d encourage it more than Google for the obvious reason that it’s better to see something up close and really get a feel for it. On top of that your photo references will be a lot more tailored to what you need instead of trudging through page after page of non-helpful images on Google. Still don’t think Google is wrong though, and you’d be an idiot to think it is.



Simply, using references will make your designs accurate as appose to bringing them out of your head which are likely hazy at best if not practiced regularly.



Process and planning is the part of design where you get it all right before you even begin the final piece because no one likes spending forty hours on something only to realise it failed right from the start due to poor planning and conception.

'Ere we go.

So I scored 51% last year.

Shit.

Derp

Ah well, not like it was a surprise. I mean, I did the bare minimum if I'll be honest. Not intentionally of course it's simply been my mentality towards education for years. The only part of the course I seemed to do well in were these blogs - which I'm quite proud of.

Throughout the first year I was constantly warring against 3DS Max, convincing myself I hated it and would rather just do 2D, as to that, I was sure my 2D was complete balls as well. Whether it is or isn't, is hardly the point - it's more about the mentality. A defeatist attitude will just hold you back. Whilst you're moaning and wollowing in self pity you could be jamming out some really poor sketches or models. Poor or not, it's something and that's what counts.

So long as you're actively trying to fix your negative attributes, you're on the right path. Sitting there and moaping about it will just keep you down and inactive. As Mike said, if you're getting at least twenty sketches done in an hour, or spending thirty minutes a day on something you don't understand or struggle with in 3DS Max or another program then that's good. Extra-curricular of course. This is appose to spending eight hours on something boring and then burning yourself out on the first day, not to revisit it for a week.

Little by little.

That's my reflection on last year, now that I've had a summer to think about it. The work wasn't the hard part, it was my negativity which led to a lack of motivation and consiquently affecting my results.

As to this year; well, I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say 'I'm going to work harder'. Sounds pretty clichéd – 'yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before.' This is akin to new years resolutions. Still, doesn't hurt to try and of course, if I don't, I'm screwed... so, not like I have an option.

That said, I'm quite enthusiastic about this year, group project aside, I'm eager to just go for it and I think the key to this is a system.

My feelings towards 3D last year

For 2D I will do more than the measley twelve thumbnails, instead going for several pages as well as artifact study i.e. if I'm to paint a landscape then I'll study the trees and other foliage as well as other little doodads such as fences, benches and bins etc. It's that extra mile that'll really push my grades I believe. On top of that I'm not going to do just one final; I'm going to do one traditional and one digital piece. Combine that with all the sketchbook work and I'll have done 15-20 hours a week easily I recon.

For 3D, it's simply a case of being more proactive; Get the model finished within the first couple days, within reason, get it unwrapped and textured asap (not to be confused with rushing) and once that's done, if I have time, which I should, then I'll do it again. I aim to do every project at least twice, three times would be preferable but with all the 2D work and blogs I'll have to assess that on the night.

On a side not, I want to actively seek out new tools and modifiers etc just to get the best results. Just push, push, push myself to make the best work I can.

Lastly a quick word on blogs. I did pretty well last year, as I said, and so have a pretty good idea of what is expected of me. Though this is a pretty boring post, with a severe lack of humour, my other posts (moreso personal ones) should be more entertaining, or at least that's the idea.

Review games I play, review movies I watch, write about game-related subjects I find interesting (or just for practice), whack up some of my work and maybe... maybe, a tutorial here and there. Not that I feel confident to give tutorials I merely think the activity of simply learning to do tutorials could be beneficial; making a tutorial requires you to basically review the way YOU work, something that we don't naturally do... to us it's near second-nature so when someone asks us 'How did you do that?' we often stare into space for a few seconds trying to compose our thoughts and processes.

One final note. Feedback: I'm now convinced this is the best way to improve and as such I will be getting my work critted often, all of it.

I appreciate your feedback.

What a long, strange trip it's been.

So the first year is over with just some loose ends to tie up and a few extra personal projects, then it's on to year two. I'm sure everyone says it but damn, this went fast. Seems only yesterday I was failing at drawing cars... oh wait, that was yesterday. Need more work on that.

Anyway, I'm extremely grateful for this chance to progress and to really find what I aspire to accomplish in the future. I'll be honest and admit I'm not very fond of 3D; I don't necessarily find it boring or difficult as I did at the start of the year, it's more or less a case of disinterest; I can still get on with it, and I want learn however that's really because any extra knowledge of the elements of game design on top of 2D is crucial. Therefore I will learn.

I became aware of this when I realised I never went looking for 3D art as I do 2D. I'm always going on concept art websites, or looking at the art from games like World of Warcraft, God of War and (the one I cant wait for solely because of the art) Guild Wars 2.

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/media/concept-art/

Nevertheless, I'll keep at it because it'll be of paramount importance for sealing a job. I've become slack with game production as well, not to say I wasn't trying hard at it but I could have tried far harder and practised more out of projects. I found that when there was a lecture on new tools and techniques I got lost within five minutes because I hadn't caught up on the previous weeks tutorials assuming I'd catch-up... I did, just took months. So a more proactive approach for next year as well as a shit ton more practice during the summer break.

Something I will do next year to aid this will simply be to go to the labs as oppose to staying at my flat to do work under the credo that my fridge and entertainment are there. A lunch box will sort that out and entertainment only stifles my work flow. Really is a pity that it took me a year to concur this.

As for 2D; love it. Simple as. I want to be a concept artist (yeah, one of them) and this year has really been quite significant in turning me into an artist. Not necessarily in the skill department but in the mindset. I like things I despised and tried things I didn't care for. All for the better.

Then of course there's the blog. Something I was pretty keen on from the start though found the earlier projects quite dull (history of games – I'm a heathen). The reason for me looking forward to blogging was due to the chance to improve my writing; no idea if it has however I feel the ability to write constructively while holding interest is key for just about any walk of life; like exercise, it's just something every should do to improve themselves. On top of that it's one more notch in the proverbial axe that is my resumé.

To highlight on that; more I hope to achieve in the second year is to become a better communicator. There's the game review planned as well as the standard presentation of the first semester so these are but two chances to try. I'm gonna go red and my voice is likely to sound like a pubescent geek but it's gotta be done. Maybe I'll just grow my hair long so I can shield my face from the judgemental gaze of the world. Although that might lead me to listening to Linkin Park and I'm not sure I could take that.

Something that I believe would help the students (even if they'd oppose this) is to make it mandatory to come into the labs at least 2-3 times a week for the full day. Not that the course should demand we work, this should be something we all want to do however we all get distracted when at home, and often prefer our cosy room and nearby fridge. This would simply improve productivity and assure decent grades at the end, which of course help the course to look better.

I'd dearly like to do more for the course, given the current cut to funding and the merge with... err.. humanities however I just don't feel like I'm at the skill level to really say: Hey, this is what the course can teach you. I imagine it wouldn't aspire to much. Hopefully by the end of the second year I'll be able to show off what I've learnt. For the moment however I shall remain in the shadows, learning what I can hoping that that will be enough to reflect the course's high standards and well-deserved accreditation.

Elements of Game Design - Environment

The design of a level starts with function; what is the purpose of this level? Or rather what is the player's purpose, their objective, their goal as well as their ability must be taken into account.

For example: If the player can jump high then there should be reason and room for such exercise; why give them a big jump if they can't utilize that? So, you would maybe put in ledges or gaps to leap across. This is something that is considered at the early stages of game development; the reason for a large jump would have been determined early on and so levels would be designed accordingly.

Forms follows function – Louis Sullivan

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function)

Form follows function is an old rule of architecture, considered a simple truth, this is arguably the basis all architecture is grounded on. However, this is related more with the world we live in as oppose to the imagined worlds of gaming.

“The principle is that the shape of a building or object should be primarily based upon its intended function or purpose. “ - wikipedia

Mad Photoshop skills.

The reason for this being more related with the real world is that gaming environments need not necessarily adhere to the laws of physics that our world does. Also things like resources, manpower and time hold little cause for concern in games. i.e. a one-hundred foot tall crystal palace is entirely conceivable given the context, whereas in the real world it is quite fucking bonkers.

Hence you can construct a grandiose area that supports the games intentions while delivering a compelling experience due to limited restrictions. Limited restrictions being memory and deadlines though given the current state of equipment, memory doesn't seem to be a massive issue; that is if you don't go over the top and know to pace your level; don't clutter expensive assets etc.

Out of place

At any rate, there are certain attributes and techniques a level designer will use when creating a level, here are a few:

Silhouette: This not only serves as one of the best designing tools but also takes purpose in the actual game. Team Fortress is a very good example of this as by just looking at the characters you can tell who they are, even from across the map which means a player can easily identify who it is.

Team Fortress character sheet

Function: As explained above.

Storytelling: This is pretty much the same as function however it has more purpose. The level should tell a story all in itself. For example: In Modern Warfare 2 you shoot your way through a favela in Brazil. Just by looking at the scene you can tell that it is a deprived area; shanty town, broken/stripped cars and other vehicles as well as trash and junk all over the place - a real shit hole.

Favela

Going back to function and silhouette for a second, some of these buildings have a 2^nd floor, windows and doors as well as some other chest high walls here and there. The player, in the heat of a gunfight can instantly concur that:

1. enemies are likely to poke their heads out of these windows and file out of the doorways and
2. these holes (windows) and chest high areas could also be used as a viable source of cover.
   This is what a player needs; to be able to compose a plan within an instant in order to succeed. Good use of silhouettes helps the players mind to work faster, composing plans on the fly.

Other techniques such as space and light, immersion and consistency are also employed. Immersion and consistency going hand in hand in importance. Nothing breaks a game more than to think 'yeah right' as your mortal man just jumped 30 feet to the ground and didn't seem to bat an eyelid. That said, there are certain levels of unlikelihood we as players will accept; like taking 10 bullets in the chest and still being alive or after taking said bullets in the chest only to hide behind some cover for a few seconds as the wonders of nature heal your Swiss cheese meat and potatoes.

http://deanemccullough.com/post/3124728295/bulletstorm-developers-people-can-fly-epic 

Bulletstorm developers (People Can Fly & Epic Games) take the piss out of the Call of Duty franchise

Something that broke immersion for me in the much acclaimed (and boned over) Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (among many other things) was the part where he climbs out of the train in the mountains. He has been shot in the side, yet still manages to climb up this derailed train that's hanging over a cliff in the freezing cold weather only to then trudge through the snow in nothing but his jeans and jumper fighting off the bad guys.

Coincidence?

During all of this he is bleeding profusely from his gut which would make him cold from blood loss, then factor in the freezing conditions of the mountain and you'd have one dead Nathan Drake. Not only that but if you've ever had even just a bruise on your side, even the simplest act of lifting your arm becomes a tad painful, let alone going for a little climbing exercise.

However that is more of a storyboard error than level design. An example of an immersion breaking design flaw would be for example, in a shooter; you have guns that shoot lead and grenades that blow shit up. Right, so you've blown up that lovingly placed crate and it's now pencil shavings. However, that wooden door over there, no matter how much you unload into it or how much explosives you use, it doesn't leave a dent.

Some games that boast destructibility, like Black, also fall short on this. What broke the immersion for me in this games was that everything I could blow up and smash to pieces seemed almost too planned out. Especially the cars that you can blow up. They were never out of the way, or down some alley; no, they were always in the center of somewhere, where enemies would ALWAYS run to. Whenever I saw a car I just waited for the fuckwit ensemble to merry it's way over there, oblivious to the fact their mother and sister are the same person, to then fill their organs with the finest of German engineering.

On top of that, despite supposedly EVERYTHING being destructibility, there was a wall in a house, made of buggered plaster and withered planks that was surprisingly invincible. A 3 inch thick wall stopped bullets that go through stone like butter. This broke my immersion, because for having so much fun in this game, blowing shit up, an enemy was behind this wall where I felt particularly clever with the idea to exploit said destructibility by shooting through this weak wall and killing him without a face to face confrontation. Denied.

It's key for level designers to work with the storyboarders, this allows for a more streamlined, immersive experience when handled properly. Thinking like the player helps here; should I put more cover here? A chest, more enemies or a puzzle etc. A map that goes from A to B appears easier to design, as you are guiding the player through and so testing this would be easy. However a sandbox game or an open world must be far harder to populate. Is there anything truly memorable about the streets of GTA, or the arid lands of Red Dead Redemption? Only that they look pretty. Compare that to then something tailored like scaling Mt. Olympus on the back of a titan in God of War 3. 

Here is an environment I particularly like:

It's Warsong Hold from World of Warcraft. The story behind it is that the evil bad guy sent some of his minions to strike fear into the hearts horde members in the capital. The horde built this in the bad guys lands as a response - 'the Horde fears nothing.'  

What made this particularly cool was that it is the first building of this kind you see for the horde. This base is the start of the content and so to turn up here, see this great black stone keep with fire and spikes jutting out of the country side as YOUR base inspires you, the player. It represents intimidation, dominance and immovability - which is what the Horde is. Now, many of the Horde structures in World of Warcraft employ this architecture including the rebuilt capital of Orgrimmar which has been there since the start. 

It tells a story in itself whenever you see it, that the horde started out with wooden and clay structures, as if to fall down at any moment and now the massive black stone structures of superiority. 

As for this particular place, you can tell that it is in a quarry, however there are also cobwebs all over the place. Instantly you know what's going on. The Horde are mining resources yet now they've come under attack by a spiderlike race and need to defend. The first several quests have you clearing out the immediate area from all foes. They put you straight into the action; no 10 minute walk to the quest area, it's right here, right now! This was a brilliant set piece by Blizzard to get the expansion going. 

Semester 3

Right, just got back to uni yesterday, and after a nice break I'm ready to get on with some work.
Going to set a breif reading list for this term (to be done by summer break) which should keep me nicely occupied.

Books to read: I've bought a few books over the year to do with art yet never really picked em up for more than a few minutes here and there. Therefore they will be going here on top of other things.

Mastering Composition - Ian Roberts: "Without it(composition), even the most compelling subject will look flat on the picture plane."

Atlas of Human Anatomy for the Artist - Stephen Rogers Peck: Life drawing can only teach you so much, knowing what lies under the skin and that which causes us to move the way we do is an invaluable, if not mandatory, base of knowledge for getting anatomy right.

Color and Light - James Gurney: Speaks for itself really. I'll be combining this book with the Colour Mixing Bible to help get a solid grounding on colour theory.

This post was more about a reading list than anything else, I may edit some more info in at a later date (after assessment) so to bulk out and have a solid work plan.