Support NeoGAF

[LanceStern]

It's strange because I constantly hear on message boards, especially when it's a sequel to a popular game, that people don't like the sequels as much as the first game because "it's level design is bad".

Or I'll hear how one particular game level is an example of "good level design" or "some of the best level design ever". And I'm trying to get a good grasp of what makes this "good level design" that people are holding titles up to the mark.

People accuse New Super Mario Bros. of not having good level design, and I'm not understanding what's so bad about it. The only thing I can see is that the levels were too flat and straightforward: not enough multiple paths or vertical levels.

But then I get into the 3D realm and it REALLY loses me. The biggest example I can think of is in the Mario Galaxy thread, where people were comparing Sunshine to Mario 64 and they said "Wet Dry World is one of the best elvel designs ever".

I'm not understanding how a stage where water is being raised up to different levels by switches constitutes good level design, especially when done in Super Mario World. which brings up the case that people said Super mario World had worse level design than Super Mario Bros 3 but I had tons more fun with World than 3.

Any help or ideas on that

 

[Defuser]

No reused textures.
Unique architecture design.
Something that can fit in the situation.

 

[LanceStern]

No reused textures.
Unique architecture design.
Something that can fit in the situation.

That sounds more like nice-looking level design/nice graphics more than what makes a level design good and fun

 

[PantherLotus]

If you always know exactly where to go without feeling like your hand is being held.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

The greatest Zelda Dungeons

 

[titiklabingapat]

You can't get enough of it.

 

[rakka]

They should bring out the best gameplay in a game, provide an immersive experience, and advance the storyline.

Good use of textures and sounds can go a long way towards convincing ppl they're walking through a lush tropical forests or crawling inside a wet gloomy cave.

Das how you get thumbs up from chad

<_<

 

[_Alkaline_]

Resident Evil 4.

 

[Danthrax]

Any level that hasn't appeared in a Sonic Adventure game.

 

[sprsk]

1. Creativity - This ties in with the next two, but the ability for a level to surprise you and give the feeling of freshness is very important.
2. Tempo - The rhythm of the stage, the pacing.
3. Flow - Good level design must have a good sense of highs and lows -- just like in music or in film.

Level design pretty much is like writing a piece of music. They follow the same guidelines.

 

[AndersTheSwede]

Its entirely subjective, thus the source of infinite amounts of arguments.

IMO its all about the "flow" of a level. How it naturally guides you to where you need to go, how it has the right amount of enemies, not too hard, not too easy, calm periods in between action, interesting architecture and ambiance.

Basically play Half-Life 2.

 

[Ravidrath]

No reused textures.
Unique architecture design.
Something that can fit in the situation.

That's art, not level design.

Level design is primarily about flow, pacing and communication. If the level flows well, you're unlikely to get lost because you can see everything you need to see when you need to see it, and know how to react accordingly. Bad design includes things like blind corners, useless dead ends, etc. - a designer from Sony gave a great high-level talk on this at GDC, and I'm trying to track down the Powerpoint slides now because it's something every designer should see.

A well-paced level has enemy encounters, new rooms, etc. in a pleasing rhythm, never letting you get bored and always pushing you forward through the level. Basically, it holds your interest, and isn't overwhelming except when it's supposed to be.

The communication component isn't strictly within the purview of level design, and part of flow. Many games have a "visual vocabulary" set up for the player to respond to, like drainpipes for Sam Fischer to climb or the hookshot targets in Zelda. This fits into flow, but is more specific than that, kinda.

There is an emotional component as well, which is a little more elusive. It's related to pacing, but not. For example, if you have a long hallway leading up to a giant door, behind which is the boss, there is a sense of building anticipation that enhances the experience.

 

[fernoca]

This..

1. Creativity - This ties in with the next two, but the ability for a level to surprise you and give the feeling of freshness is very important.
2. Tempo - The rhythm of the stage, the pacing.
3. Flow - Good level design must have a good sense of highs and lows -- just like in music or in film.

Level design pretty much is like writing a piece of music. They follow the same guidelines.

And this...

If you always know exactly where to go without feeling like your hand is being held.

 

[AzureNightmare]

Nice flow, a decent layout (not mind numbingly linear), good logic, unique and varied room designs, and i would have to go with a certain level of challenge. No level should be so easy that a toddler could beat it.

Edit: An excellent example of what not to do in level design would be what the designer did in Phantasy Star Online. they did get away with it (only because the game played so well and had incredible music), but if they did it today, reviewers would likely rip them to shreds for it.

 

[revolverjgw]

One element I personally look for is clever aesthetic design that doesn't employ invisible walls, and ridiculous barriers that you could easily jump or climb or destroy. It's impossible to avoid some leaps in logic, but the creative designers can make it generally seem convincing, presentation-wise, within the context of the gameplay.

 

[Scrow]

If you always know exactly where to go without feeling like your hand is being held.

^ yep

good level design usually leads the player's eye with clever use of light and colour. there's heaps of tips and tricks level designers can use to lead a player through a level, none of which i can remember off the top of my head or put into practice myself

 

[GhaleonEB]

-The level feels like it is part of the world in which it is set. If it's in a city, the city feels real, and not like an arena for you to play in, for example.

-The level holds up to repeated playthroughs. This usally means there's enough flexibility in the level to experiment and try things differently, with entertaining and viable results.

-It needs to progress, and not be the same thing over and over. Levels that constantly surprise in the encounters are the most entertaining.

-A feeling of progress. It's important to me to feel like I'm making headway, by passing landmarks, or by a large objective in the distance getting closer. I hate levels that are "surprise, you're at the end!".

 

[Danthrax]

If you always know exactly where to go without feeling like your hand is being held.

The problem with this definition is that it's incomplete -- it doesn't take into account NSMB. Like the OP mentions, the levels are kinda flat and boring. So good level design should also challenge players to use all the skills they're provided with.

 

[Coen]

Diversion and challenge are the keywords here. A game has to challenge -but not frustrate- me and it needs to do so in different ways throughout the entire game.

 

[Grayman]

trick jumps that don't blatantly look like trick jumps

Variety is a big part. There shouldn't be a lots of repeating areas or elements. The level can't just have empty floors or rooms connected together.

 

[Sir Alemeth]

Water Temple - OoT

*Don't flame me*

 

[AppleMIX]

In singleplayer it deals with well thought out paths.

The player should know exactly where to go, how to get there, and how to reach the next point after that... all at the same time reducing backtracking.

For mutliplayer, it's just making sure all sides are balanced in the map.

 

[Esperado]

I think the most important part of level design is making it clear on where to go next. One of the most tiring things for me is running through a level and constantly running into dead ends or circles. Things like this will make me stop playing a game well before the end. One game that did this for me, though most likely a bad example, is Morrowind. It is most likely just the openness of the levels that I personally, am not used to.

The second most important thing, in my opinion, would probably be the puzzles (if the game has them). These puzzles should be cleverly designed with so they are challenging, but not frustrating. My favorite puzzles in games have been in ICO and the God of War series of games. I could see someone liking impossibly hard puzzles though, probably for the feeling of accomplishment after solving said puzzles.

Third, I would say is enemy placement. Placing enemies precisely in areas so that the player is being consistently challenged and not walking around blind is probably one of the hardest things to do. Many games I play just seem to have random enemies around every corner and don't give enough rest times, or place enemies to sparsely so that I'm running around bored half the time.

I'd say there really is no tried and true formula for "good level design" though, everyones list is probably much different from mine. Everybody has their own separate tastes, and what constitutes good level design for one, might not be the same for another. Also, we must all keep in mind that level design, while one of the most important parts of a game, is only part of the overall package and to make a great game you must also take into account the controls, the visuals, the artificial intelligence, and many more factors that I can't place my mind on at the moment.

 

[Grayman]

In singleplayer it deals with well thought out paths.

The player should know exactly where to go, how to get there, and how to reach the next point after that... all at the same time reducing backtracking.

For mutliplayer, it's just making sure all sides are balanced in the map.

What type of multiplayer do you have in mind here?

 

[Sharp]

I know I was going to go to sleep but Starcraft speedruns are awesome. And you need look no further than Super Metroid for probably the best level design ever.

 

[Scopebob Sniperpants]

Good level design constitutes a lot of things.
- Challenging enemies (but not overwhelming)
- Balanced weapons/items/health (You receive the items you need as need them. No surplus items really)
- Navigation is somewhat puzzling, but not perplexing
- Boss is interesting, new, challenging (but once again, not too overwhelming)
- Level style is unique and fresh ( Not like every other level so far )
- Involves a new gameplay mechanic that the previous part of the game hasn't introduced yet
- or.. it completely changes the gameplay you are used to - BUT DOES IT WELL.

I guess. More thought will be put into this when I'm sober. Expect an update. Don't quote directly.

 

[Ether_Snake]

A level designer's job is to take the gameplay mechanics and build a level around those mechanics in a way that the player will experience fun.

Hence a good level designer is someone that makes a level that is fun...

 

[Date of Lies]

It all depends on the genre, focus (action/exploration for example), art style, difficulty desired, AI and gameplay system. The importance is CONGRUENCY between all of the aforementioned components.

In a fighting game like SSBM, it's desirable to make level extremely varied in form. But other fighting games keep the same layout, and only change the aesthetics.

If your art style is realistic, say you want to recreate Jerusalem in Assassin's Creed, then there isn't two ways about it in terms of form. However, adding a layer of options on every square inch is desirable in a game which focuses on acrobatics like AC.

Jedi Knight has one of the VERY best level design I've seen. I can tell you in great detail why:
1) First off, they start with a layer of realism. Buildings, environments that are realistically PLACED and completely believable. (I dislike illogical transition based on simplifying the environments for the sake of implementation in games that try to be realistic)
2) Then they gave me options to explore.
3) The ones that were harder to find ('secret rooms') has power-ups and weapons (rewards)
4) Transition between the environments were ALWAYS obvious but hard to reach.
5) Stretches of time where the focus was exploring the milieu and pushing forward, stretches of time with a lot of enemies.

You can't go wrong with variety.

 

[AppleMIX]

What type of multiplayer do you have in mind here?

I was thinking standard FPS team games, but it really can translate into all multiplayer games.

A multiplayer map with a good level design shouldn't be favoring one side.

 

[glaurung]

Basically a believable (game style wise) setting that does not get boring or dull.

Giving the player the impression that everything is where it should be without compromising the fun factor. Even if the game consists of unclogging toilets in hell.

 

[Grayman]

I was thinking standard FPS team games, but it really can translate into all multiplayer games.

A multiplayer map with a good level design shouldn't be favoring one side.

I know that deathmatch and team deathmatch games maps should never be too balanced. Of course these games don't have static spawns based on enemies or friends. If something is overly balanced each side can be content with their current situation and not work to improve it.

 

[Alcander]

When you don't think of it as a 'level'

 

[Dahbomb]

It depends on the type of game really. And even then it's hard to quantify what makes a "good" level, non-aesthetically speaking.

 

[Tmac]

GTA is a good example. Sometimes you just fell like grabing your car to roam around. Every corner with different details, lots of curves, elevations, countryside, changing enviroments, different cities, etc.

Despite having ugly graphics, it has a complete different "feeling" than some gta clones that invest everything in "graphics" and forget what really matters.


Thats a good example of good use of graphics design.

 

[karasu]

The player should know exactly where to go

Doesn't that make things kind of easy?

 

[AppleMIX]

Doesn't that make things kind of easy?

Not really, what makes a game challenging is what is in between where you are and where you are going.

 

[superbank]

Bad Level Design: You, as a game player, can identify things that a wrong/boring/unbalanced about the level.

Good Level Design: You do not notice anything wrong or unbalanced. Maybe it even impresses you somehow.

 

[Dahbomb]

Doesn't that make things kind of easy?

What he means to say is... the player should know where to go without any direct statements, directions or neon signs. The level design just sort of have to make logical sense in that aspect.

An example of that would be like going up to the top of the tower. You see rooms, doors, crates, statues and all that other junk. Your natural instinct would be to look for stairs or an elevator. The game designer would have to put in something resembling that in the level, only in the context of the game. They would probably make something like an air vent on the floor which immediately drums in the head of the player "Ok so since I don't see any stairs/elevator, I see a lot of stuff and this vent going upwards so I guess I have to step on that so it can elevate me up".

Bad Level Design: You, as a game player, can identify things that a wrong/boring/unbalanced about the level.

Good Level Design: You do not notice anything wrong or unbalanced. Maybe it even impresses you somehow.

Yeah that goes in with what I was saying earlier. It's difficult to quantify what a "good level" is but people can sure as hell tell you that the last Hades level in God of War was one of the worst levels they have ever played. :lol

 

[LanceStern]

So how would you classify, say, Wet-Dry world in SM64, or some of the Super Mario Sunshine levels?

Would you say Dungeon Temple designs were better in Twilight Princess than Wind Waker?

Just getting the feeling of GAF. Very decent responses after sporsk came in haha. With a few exceptions before his reply. And superbank that's a very wise response you made

 

[{Mike}]

That's art, not level design.

Level design is primarily about flow, pacing and communication. If the level flows well, you're unlikely to get lost because you can see everything you need to see when you need to see it, and know how to react accordingly. Bad design includes things like blind corners, useless dead ends, etc. - a designer from Sony gave a great high-level talk on this at GDC, and I'm trying to track down the Powerpoint slides now because it's something every designer should see.

A well-paced level has enemy encounters, new rooms, etc. in a pleasing rhythm, never letting you get bored and always pushing you forward through the level. Basically, it holds your interest, and isn't overwhelming except when it's supposed to be.

The communication component isn't strictly within the purview of level design, and part of flow. Many games have a "visual vocabulary" set up for the player to respond to, like drainpipes for Sam Fischer to climb or the hookshot targets in Zelda. This fits into flow, but is more specific than that, kinda.

There is an emotional component as well, which is a little more elusive. It's related to pacing, but not. For example, if you have a long hallway leading up to a giant door, behind which is the boss, there is a sense of building anticipation that enhances the experience.

Please find them!

 

[superbank]

Just getting the feeling of GAF. Very decent responses after sporsk came in haha. With a few exceptions before his reply. And superbank that's a very wise response you made

Yeah that goes in with what I was saying earlier. It's difficult to quantify what a "good level" is but people can sure as hell tell you that the last Hades level in God of War was one of the worst levels they have ever played. :lol

Yep. Good in the game world is an absence of bad. When a level has "bad design" you can immediately tell. You think "How could they do this part wrong? Isn't it their job to know what good game design is?" and it sort of pisses you off. But when somethings good you don't immediately notice. Its more of an afterthought a lot of the time. "Huh... that wasn't a chore to accomplish." It makes sense.

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

Two weeks ago or so, the 1up podcast had a good segment on illustrating how the Enemy Territories series has great level design. It's a fine balance of the freedom of BF2 while still encouraing most folks into areas of interest and focus. I believe it's the one where Shawn illustrated the strength of the game to Garnett.

 

[Doc Evils]

Something that has good replay value & has good memorable moments.

 

[Tristam]

So how would you classify, say, Wet-Dry world in SM64, or some of the Super Mario Sunshine levels?

Would you say Dungeon Temple designs were better in Twilight Princess than Wind Waker?

Just getting the feeling of GAF. Very decent responses after sporsk came in haha. With a few exceptions before his reply. And superbank that's a very wise response you made

I'm LTTP with Wind Waker, and I just got done playing through the first dungeon. I can confidently say that the level design in that dungeon outclasses all but perhaps the Temple of Time and the Sky Temple in Twilight Princess (Arbiter's Grounds is great too). If I get around to a "LTTP" thread for Wind Waker when I'm done, I'll elaborate, but right now it's late and I've got work in five hours.

 

[Dahbomb]

Nintendo games are prime examples of excellent level designs. Metroid, Zelda, Mario - These 3 have staple level designs in various ways. Sure, they may have their 1-2 bad areas but overall these games really push flawless level designs even as back as in the NES/SNES days all the way until today with the Wii.

 

[quetz67]

Diversity is a must for me

 

[Arch]

Would you say Dungeon Temple designs were better in Twilight Princess than Wind Waker?

Twilight Princess had pretty much the best dungeons in any Zelda game ever. Even if certain aspects were disappointing about the game, that was not one of them. Wind Waker, on the other hand, had the polar opposite problem IMO. The world, the story, the characters, everything was so perfect really...except for the dungeon design. Don't even get me started on the fact that there were only 4 real ones. They were too basic and felt like actual "dungeons" as opposed to these strange area's that you were actually exploring trying to work your way through. Too guided. Too much "ok, you're in this room, solve this puzzle, move on" and while all Zelda games have that too an extent, I think Wind Waker has it the worst.

Still one of my favorite games of all time though.

 

[AAK]

Since everyone is giving their suggestions I'll give mine too:

Devil May Cry 1

 

[tetrisgrammaton]

the abilities of your character and how well the level integrates these abilities in order to traverse it

the patterns of input and how the level requires variety of patterns of input

strategic placement of items and power-ups

 

[eXistor]

If a level is fun to play, it's good level design.

A level or surrounding in a game can be very well designed with a lot of good ideas, but still not be fun to play (Water Temple in OoT) . Subsequently, a game can have a fairly simple idea and execution but be very fun to play (God Hand/ any Beat 'em Up).
Hell you can have something that's actually not that well designed, but just because of the way it's presented can be a joy to play (Dungeon Man in Earthbound).

But obviously it very much depends on the game or genre. Some games simply don't need very good level-designs (the aforementioned beat'em up's), others depend on it (Zelda, Castlevania).