Level Design in Games; What Exactly Is It?

[cheat-master30]

Level design is a term thrown around an lot in articles and blog posts on good video game design, but is it one that has an objective meaning? As I read more and more online, the fact so many writers have only really attempted to explain good design for certain aspects of games makes me more and more unsure that there can be any real consensus on this matter, what with differing opinions on game quality in the first place.

So today's debate; what do you consider important in the design of a level, or what makes a good level? Is it graphical power? The music/sound effects? The placement of enemies/objects, general design of an overall map? What kind of fancy gimmicks and tricks can be implemented into the level that haven't been seen before? I have a few opinions, they'll be in the next post.

[cheat-master30]

Now, my opinion. First of all, I say level design on a level basis is not really something that relies purely on one of the above. They can all enhance it, but one being far better than the others really just can not disguise the reliance on one minor aspect over everything else. For example, an unusual gimmick can easily be implemented poorly, or overused (see complaints about sailing in The Legend of Zelda The Wind Waker, FLUDD in Super Mario Sunshine or likely numerous other games where one core mechanic was often the weakness of the game). On another note, disguising generally poor level design under fancy graphics or clever technical tricks is a severe problem in some games. I'm sure plenty of games with great graphics for example had horrible gameplay that became more apparent the longer you played, or other flaws, and there are quite a few Mario hacks and fan games which stick so many fancy gimmicks in, they neglect anything else, slapping the rest together almost randomly with no structure at all.

I also think level design can age. It can be improved by better and more modern games in the same genre, and many classics now have quite a few rather poor choices in this aspect only really tolerated due to nostalgia based factors.

What's your opinion?

[Chrisjh0223]

First off, good level design depends on the core mechanics and rules of the game. For instance, the early Command & Conquer games (ie Red Alert 1) have you build bases on a map and you fight against at least one enemy commander. On these maps, many factors determine your success such as how much land you have to build your base on and around, it must be clear space without any rubble/trees/other obstacles in the way.

If you build a structure and just one tree/crashed plane/other vehicle graphic is on a cell, you cannot build overtop it. These crash vehicle sites are useless and are only a hindrance, real vehicles controlled by factions in the game (land, sea or air) blow up entirely without a trace when destroyed. I feel the maps would have been better off without them at all.

You also have occasional bridges and bodies of water. If a bridge was destroyed in one of the first two games, it was gone for the rest of that match. In Tiberian Sun and onward, you can send an Engineer into a bridge repair hut to repair that bridge. Back to Red Alert 1, you can build navy yards or submarine pens (depending on your faction) over bodies of water in accordance with your base space.

So we have land and water management to deal with as players, and it's up to the level/map makers to create an ideal amount of real estate for us to interact with. They need to appropriately decide how big to make a map (traditional sizes are small, medium and large) and what to put in such as water, bridges and potential hazards. They decide how much base building space we get, such as how many power plants and ore silos/refineries we can put up while ensuring we have sufficient space for staple structures. In a small map (especially island based) this is an issue while not as much to consider for bigger maps. In the good old map "A Path Beyond," there is a single island which covers the entire map while right outside its perimeter is a rectangular surrounding of water. This is a very good map that gave inspiration to future maps of its kind. Not only can you do battle on mostly land, there is also potential for navy battles and bombarding enemy bases with navy siege units. It was a very good map that Westwood created, and I played on it the most often.

Here are some good mechanics of building a base and how they affect you. You have some land adaptation to deal with. How far off is the nearest ore field to your base (that obviously the map maker put in), and what can you do to deal with this? If an ore field is right outside, just establish a single refinery or more as close as you can to it and let the Harvesters do their work, your base defenses will help them. If you exhaust those resources, then seek out the next closest patch of ore and send Harvesters there. If you notice due to scouting that the closest patch of ore is a distance from your base, try expanding. I have seen people build the cheapest structure in a chain to that ore patch, and then establish a refinery or more there so the Harverters can easily collect resources fast for you. The further refineries are from your base, the slower you will receive funds to build your war machine.

When you find your refineries are too far from your base, you need to balance defensive units and structures (the latter requires sufficient power plants as well), so consider how many tanks and soldiers defend your base while others guard the refineries and Harvesters at distant ore fields. This mechanic of the game is formed by the map makers, so you want to establish sufficient ore fields in your custom maps near player starting points. Don't make the closest ore fields too far away from the player beginning points.

What I guess I'm getting at here, is that good map/level design should include the resource gathering at close proximity to your base while also granting the possibility of resource gathering at distant locations to expand base building possiblity. This is a good issue of consideration for real time strategy games.

For platform games (especially Mario world game hacks) the level creators shouldn't throw in gimmicks such as repeated use of the same old design techniques. Kaizo Mario pioneered funny deathpits and pinpoint required accuracy. Future R0M hacks should try something else and if they do something related to Kaizo, then they should put in more effort and spice it up with their own pizazz of some kind and this makes for a more enjoyable, diverse experience.

As for graphical power, I don't give a care. Who cares about aesthetically pleasing/stimulating graphics when the gameplay itself (and thus level design) is what you are to focus on? The music and sound effects are also something I don't worry about unless it's dynamic (changes at your state of playing) and even then it doesn't affect the level design in actuality. So good level design is honestly not affected by graphics, music, or sound effects.

Dynamic music is something that some games have. I think Quake had it. It depends on what you're doing, such as when you are just walking around and smooth ambiance plays in effect. But when you are in the heat of battle, heavy guitar riffs are heard and you're battling it out to a steel war theme. While this background music adds to the entertainment value and helps shift the atmosphere of the game, I feel it does not actually affect the quality of the level/map design.