Mister Chippy
Member
This reminds me, I need to get around to working on my Doom maps.
If anyone's interested I'm going to start rambling incoherently about Dooms level design, the trade-offs between more open or more linear styles of level layout, and other such things. Feel free to laugh at me if you manage to get through the upcoming wall of text. I'm sure I'm gonna say a lot of dumb stuff.
The primary difference between Doom and more modern games (disregarding the 2D) is that levels in Doom are far less linear than in most modern FPS. In fact, many levels have multiple different routes to the exit, and that's not even counting the secrets! Doom also features far more open areas than most shooters today, with most levels being a combination of large rooms joined together by maze like passageways. Speaking of mazes, those were something Doom had plenty of, while you're unlikely to see mazes in any game aside from puzzle dungeon crawlers these days. Finally, one of the most notable differences in level design between Doom and more modern games is Secrets. Plenty of areas in Doom were totally concealed, with nothing more than a slightly discolored wall to mark their location. Often these areas would hold useful weapons, powerups, shortcuts, and sometimes alternate exits!
Modern FPS games (that bother with level design) take a fairly different approach. I'm going to ignore the games that quite literally shepard you through the game and make no attempt at level design aside from strategic cover and focus on ones that make a concerted effort (Borderlands 2, Left 4 Dead, etc.) The biggest feature that these modern games have that Doom lacks is verticality. Doom tried this with it's elevations, but combat is still purely horizontal. As for level layout, modern games in general have adopted the philosophy that clarity matters. If someone might have difficulty finding their way, that is considered a problem and steps are taken to fix that (such as the giant glowing arrows in the Slab Hideout in BL2). In the same vein, modern games normally make the "optimal path" for going through a level compulsory. This means that while you might have plenty of freedom of choice and movement in encounters, once you leave the encounter arena you basically have no choice in where you go next in order to minimize the chances of you getting lost. Finally, levels are now full of so many more things such as props, cover, particle effects, and loads of other visual distractions.
Skip here if you want to hear my thoughts on Doom style level design compared to modern level design.
The first thing that needs to be mentioned when talking about the merits of Doom's design philosophy is that there are multiple ways to complete any level. This is actually really uncommon, not just in FPS but in all genres. We're starting to see more of this with the coming age of the proceduraly generated Rouge-Like, but honestly it's been something of a rarity throughout all of gaming history. Traditionally it's been confined to MetroidVania, Stealth Games, and the occasional adventurous dungeon crawler or RPG. There are a few reasons for this, one of the biggest ones being that it's hard as hell to do right. It's just requires you to design more encounters, place more collectibles, and just do more work in general to create a level. Harder still, it requires you to say "I'm ok with the player missing content." because honestly that's what's gonna happen. Most gamers aren't going to go through the whole level, they're gonna head straight to the exit and leave as soon as they get there. If you have more than one route to the exit, that means they've missed everything on all those other routes. I'm not talking about missing collectibles or upgrades here, I'm talking about missing gameplay. Its really tempting to take that awesome fight with the Beholder and the wrecking ball and put it in a place where the player cant miss it, because you worked so hard on it and you know its totally awesome. Its hard to shove that off in some corner where the player might go if they decide to go left at one point and press E in front of the right statue. However while missing that awesome fight might suck for everyone who doesnt get there, its gonna be somewhat cooler for everyone who manages to find it. The question you need to ask yourself is if youre willing to potentially let all your hard work go to waste and allow many of your players to miss out on the fruits of you labor just to provide an extra reward for the adventurous few who manage to find it.
There are more practical reasons why the open style of level layout isnt used very much, the biggest of which being length. Length is one of those things that people see as a measure of a games worth. People will complain if a game only took them 6 hours to beat, and other people might hear that complaining and shy away from the game. In the eyes of many devs trying their hardest to meet a length quota without going under budget, if youve got an encounter youre gonna put it after the last encounter and force the player to go through it. Whether this is artificially lengthening the game or providing more open levels is artificially shortening it I cant say. The sad fact is that level layouts like Dooms are a luxury, one that is often too expensive nowadays with how costly it is to make games. It was doable back when anyone with coding skill, talent, and a decent computer could make a top of the line game, but its not so easy now. The second practical reason why Doom style level design isnt practiced so much these days is getting lost. Lets face it, getting lost in games normally sucks (with the only exceptions being games like TES that are so full of content getting lost just means youll find something else awesome) and its purely detrimental to gameplay. One of the traits of a great level designer is the ability to prevent the player from getting lost without excessive handholding. However thats honestly pretty difficult, especially when youre in a confined space and arent able to use tricks like background landmarks to help give the player a general idea of where to go next. Rather than risk the player getting lost and quitting, its easier to make it impossible for the player to lose their way by giving them only one way to go. The worst possible scenario though is if you allow the player to miss an item that they really should have to be able to continue on in the game, but that they dont necessarily need. Theres really no excuse for allowing that to happen and its just poor level design if it does, and its much more likely to happen in a game with more open levels than a linear game.
Now I feel like Ive been being a little hard on Doom style level design in the past 2 paragraphs, so this one is gonna be all about the great things it can offer, because its seriously cool. Honestly, when done right its awesome, and its fully possible to do right while still avoiding most of the pitfalls lined out earlier. You can do things like allow the player to tailor their game experience to their own preferences without them even knowing it! Take this example; the player has to get inside a factory. Theres the front door, the sewers, and a pipe connecting to the roof. The player remembers that the previous sewer level wasnt exactly her cup of tea, but she really loves battling the areal enemies using her jetpack. Bam! Suddenly youve just empowered your player with choices and made the game experience better. Also replay value from more open levels is pretty huge. Sure, a level with all the content lined up will probably contain more exciting moments the first time you go through it, but how about the second time, or the third? By giving your player the option to essentially customize their game experience every playthrough you ensure that theyll be enjoying their fifth go at the game just as much as the first (well, almost as much). Even if they dont know whats coming the first time around theyll at least be able to say I remember I hated that fight last time, Im going the other way. during their second attempt. To go back to the first paragraph in this section where I talk about how an Open level design artificially shortens the play experience its possible to see that aspect of it as once again allowing the player more customization of their gameplay experience. Im pretty sure this is one of the reasons why Doom just holds up so goddamned well even 20 years after its release. As a side not, if you do have the luxury of being able to pursue an open style of level design in a game you make youre able to create the optimal path, which represents the bare minimum of exploration needed to finish the game, then add on plenty of other areas to explore and potential shortcuts and secrets. This both satisfies the unadventurous players and those who want something more from their games and dont mind having to explore a little to find it. The one thing to remember about this approach is that you need to very clearly mark the optimal path so that the unadventurous gamers dont get lost. This wont impact the experience of the explorers; it just makes your game more accessible to everyone else.
Skip here if you want to my opinion on how good the map design of Doom itself is.
Well, Ive sure been talking a lot about open level design and the pros and cons of it, but it seems like Im forgetting something Oh right! I need to actually talk about Doom itself! Well to get right down to it its good. However it also isnt perfect, which is fairly understandable seeing as Doom itself was something of a grand adventure into the world of game design. If I had to select one thing that it consistently does badly all Id really be able to come up with was that Romero was something of a miser when it came to information. Typically, he was very good when it came to laying out levels in a manner that both guided players towards the exit while allowing them to explore and take different routes (See House of Pain), but there were a few levels that were really bad about that (like the extraordinarily stupid Slough of Despair). I also think he liked mazes a little too much. That said he also managed to use his habit of withholding information from the player to provide some great experiences. Its a purposeful design philosophy and one that I dont personally think meshes all that well with open level design (allowing someone to make choices is meaningless if they dont know what choices theyre making) but Romero was damned good at it.
As for what Doom did right Well, basically everything else. Honestly, Dooms level design is so good that its kinda hard to talk about, since its just easier to point out the few things it did wrong than everything it did right. Collectables and powerups were very well distributed so you almost always had exactly what you need. Secrets were hard to find, but not impossible. Romero also knew exactly how the game was supposed to be played and he laid out his encounter arenas masterfully. Just like collectables were always right where you needed them (although some took a bit of looking), fights were also always laid out so that the terrain would either provide you with the tools you needed to win an otherwise hard encounter or would turn an otherwise dull fight into a fun and challenging one. If you were in a fight against an enemy who you needed to be mobile to survive, you had the space you needed. The enemy placement was superb. Enemies placed specifically to surprise you were never anything you couldnt handle easily if your reflexes were good enough and they never felt cheap. Another thing that was really well done about the level design in that game was the texture placement. Romero might not have always wanted you to know which way you were supposed to go, but he did want you to be able to differentiate between different areas in a level. No two sections of any map looked exactly like each other, so even with the fairly maze like design of the map it was surprisingly hard to get lost. I can probably sit here and keep thinking of things Doom did well with level design all day, but Im gonna wrap it up.
Summary
Doom is actually a very hard game to talk about. Comparing its level design to that of more recent (good) games is unfair for both parties, since both simply are unable to do some of the things that make the other party great. Its open world level design philosophy is pretty damned cool, but sadly it also has its tradeoffs and is a luxury that few game devs are able to afford in this day and age. Disregarding its exploration based level design, its still an incredibly competently designed game.
TL;DR Doom gud.
If anyone's interested I'm going to start rambling incoherently about Dooms level design, the trade-offs between more open or more linear styles of level layout, and other such things. Feel free to laugh at me if you manage to get through the upcoming wall of text. I'm sure I'm gonna say a lot of dumb stuff.
The primary difference between Doom and more modern games (disregarding the 2D) is that levels in Doom are far less linear than in most modern FPS. In fact, many levels have multiple different routes to the exit, and that's not even counting the secrets! Doom also features far more open areas than most shooters today, with most levels being a combination of large rooms joined together by maze like passageways. Speaking of mazes, those were something Doom had plenty of, while you're unlikely to see mazes in any game aside from puzzle dungeon crawlers these days. Finally, one of the most notable differences in level design between Doom and more modern games is Secrets. Plenty of areas in Doom were totally concealed, with nothing more than a slightly discolored wall to mark their location. Often these areas would hold useful weapons, powerups, shortcuts, and sometimes alternate exits!
Modern FPS games (that bother with level design) take a fairly different approach. I'm going to ignore the games that quite literally shepard you through the game and make no attempt at level design aside from strategic cover and focus on ones that make a concerted effort (Borderlands 2, Left 4 Dead, etc.) The biggest feature that these modern games have that Doom lacks is verticality. Doom tried this with it's elevations, but combat is still purely horizontal. As for level layout, modern games in general have adopted the philosophy that clarity matters. If someone might have difficulty finding their way, that is considered a problem and steps are taken to fix that (such as the giant glowing arrows in the Slab Hideout in BL2). In the same vein, modern games normally make the "optimal path" for going through a level compulsory. This means that while you might have plenty of freedom of choice and movement in encounters, once you leave the encounter arena you basically have no choice in where you go next in order to minimize the chances of you getting lost. Finally, levels are now full of so many more things such as props, cover, particle effects, and loads of other visual distractions.
Skip here if you want to hear my thoughts on Doom style level design compared to modern level design.
The first thing that needs to be mentioned when talking about the merits of Doom's design philosophy is that there are multiple ways to complete any level. This is actually really uncommon, not just in FPS but in all genres. We're starting to see more of this with the coming age of the proceduraly generated Rouge-Like, but honestly it's been something of a rarity throughout all of gaming history. Traditionally it's been confined to MetroidVania, Stealth Games, and the occasional adventurous dungeon crawler or RPG. There are a few reasons for this, one of the biggest ones being that it's hard as hell to do right. It's just requires you to design more encounters, place more collectibles, and just do more work in general to create a level. Harder still, it requires you to say "I'm ok with the player missing content." because honestly that's what's gonna happen. Most gamers aren't going to go through the whole level, they're gonna head straight to the exit and leave as soon as they get there. If you have more than one route to the exit, that means they've missed everything on all those other routes. I'm not talking about missing collectibles or upgrades here, I'm talking about missing gameplay. Its really tempting to take that awesome fight with the Beholder and the wrecking ball and put it in a place where the player cant miss it, because you worked so hard on it and you know its totally awesome. Its hard to shove that off in some corner where the player might go if they decide to go left at one point and press E in front of the right statue. However while missing that awesome fight might suck for everyone who doesnt get there, its gonna be somewhat cooler for everyone who manages to find it. The question you need to ask yourself is if youre willing to potentially let all your hard work go to waste and allow many of your players to miss out on the fruits of you labor just to provide an extra reward for the adventurous few who manage to find it.
There are more practical reasons why the open style of level layout isnt used very much, the biggest of which being length. Length is one of those things that people see as a measure of a games worth. People will complain if a game only took them 6 hours to beat, and other people might hear that complaining and shy away from the game. In the eyes of many devs trying their hardest to meet a length quota without going under budget, if youve got an encounter youre gonna put it after the last encounter and force the player to go through it. Whether this is artificially lengthening the game or providing more open levels is artificially shortening it I cant say. The sad fact is that level layouts like Dooms are a luxury, one that is often too expensive nowadays with how costly it is to make games. It was doable back when anyone with coding skill, talent, and a decent computer could make a top of the line game, but its not so easy now. The second practical reason why Doom style level design isnt practiced so much these days is getting lost. Lets face it, getting lost in games normally sucks (with the only exceptions being games like TES that are so full of content getting lost just means youll find something else awesome) and its purely detrimental to gameplay. One of the traits of a great level designer is the ability to prevent the player from getting lost without excessive handholding. However thats honestly pretty difficult, especially when youre in a confined space and arent able to use tricks like background landmarks to help give the player a general idea of where to go next. Rather than risk the player getting lost and quitting, its easier to make it impossible for the player to lose their way by giving them only one way to go. The worst possible scenario though is if you allow the player to miss an item that they really should have to be able to continue on in the game, but that they dont necessarily need. Theres really no excuse for allowing that to happen and its just poor level design if it does, and its much more likely to happen in a game with more open levels than a linear game.
Now I feel like Ive been being a little hard on Doom style level design in the past 2 paragraphs, so this one is gonna be all about the great things it can offer, because its seriously cool. Honestly, when done right its awesome, and its fully possible to do right while still avoiding most of the pitfalls lined out earlier. You can do things like allow the player to tailor their game experience to their own preferences without them even knowing it! Take this example; the player has to get inside a factory. Theres the front door, the sewers, and a pipe connecting to the roof. The player remembers that the previous sewer level wasnt exactly her cup of tea, but she really loves battling the areal enemies using her jetpack. Bam! Suddenly youve just empowered your player with choices and made the game experience better. Also replay value from more open levels is pretty huge. Sure, a level with all the content lined up will probably contain more exciting moments the first time you go through it, but how about the second time, or the third? By giving your player the option to essentially customize their game experience every playthrough you ensure that theyll be enjoying their fifth go at the game just as much as the first (well, almost as much). Even if they dont know whats coming the first time around theyll at least be able to say I remember I hated that fight last time, Im going the other way. during their second attempt. To go back to the first paragraph in this section where I talk about how an Open level design artificially shortens the play experience its possible to see that aspect of it as once again allowing the player more customization of their gameplay experience. Im pretty sure this is one of the reasons why Doom just holds up so goddamned well even 20 years after its release. As a side not, if you do have the luxury of being able to pursue an open style of level design in a game you make youre able to create the optimal path, which represents the bare minimum of exploration needed to finish the game, then add on plenty of other areas to explore and potential shortcuts and secrets. This both satisfies the unadventurous players and those who want something more from their games and dont mind having to explore a little to find it. The one thing to remember about this approach is that you need to very clearly mark the optimal path so that the unadventurous gamers dont get lost. This wont impact the experience of the explorers; it just makes your game more accessible to everyone else.
Skip here if you want to my opinion on how good the map design of Doom itself is.
Well, Ive sure been talking a lot about open level design and the pros and cons of it, but it seems like Im forgetting something Oh right! I need to actually talk about Doom itself! Well to get right down to it its good. However it also isnt perfect, which is fairly understandable seeing as Doom itself was something of a grand adventure into the world of game design. If I had to select one thing that it consistently does badly all Id really be able to come up with was that Romero was something of a miser when it came to information. Typically, he was very good when it came to laying out levels in a manner that both guided players towards the exit while allowing them to explore and take different routes (See House of Pain), but there were a few levels that were really bad about that (like the extraordinarily stupid Slough of Despair). I also think he liked mazes a little too much. That said he also managed to use his habit of withholding information from the player to provide some great experiences. Its a purposeful design philosophy and one that I dont personally think meshes all that well with open level design (allowing someone to make choices is meaningless if they dont know what choices theyre making) but Romero was damned good at it.
As for what Doom did right Well, basically everything else. Honestly, Dooms level design is so good that its kinda hard to talk about, since its just easier to point out the few things it did wrong than everything it did right. Collectables and powerups were very well distributed so you almost always had exactly what you need. Secrets were hard to find, but not impossible. Romero also knew exactly how the game was supposed to be played and he laid out his encounter arenas masterfully. Just like collectables were always right where you needed them (although some took a bit of looking), fights were also always laid out so that the terrain would either provide you with the tools you needed to win an otherwise hard encounter or would turn an otherwise dull fight into a fun and challenging one. If you were in a fight against an enemy who you needed to be mobile to survive, you had the space you needed. The enemy placement was superb. Enemies placed specifically to surprise you were never anything you couldnt handle easily if your reflexes were good enough and they never felt cheap. Another thing that was really well done about the level design in that game was the texture placement. Romero might not have always wanted you to know which way you were supposed to go, but he did want you to be able to differentiate between different areas in a level. No two sections of any map looked exactly like each other, so even with the fairly maze like design of the map it was surprisingly hard to get lost. I can probably sit here and keep thinking of things Doom did well with level design all day, but Im gonna wrap it up.
Summary
Doom is actually a very hard game to talk about. Comparing its level design to that of more recent (good) games is unfair for both parties, since both simply are unable to do some of the things that make the other party great. Its open world level design philosophy is pretty damned cool, but sadly it also has its tradeoffs and is a luxury that few game devs are able to afford in this day and age. Disregarding its exploration based level design, its still an incredibly competently designed game.
TL;DR Doom gud.
