|
Post by a Chunk on Nov 28, 2018 17:47:30 GMT
I recently came across the image below from Robert Yang provides an interesting perspective on the various skill levels of level designers. There are widely varying opinions about what differentiates a bad designer from an average one, or a good designer from a great one. Where do you think the image above get's it right? Wrong? What attributes do you think best reflect a designers skill level?
|
|
|
Post by a Chunk on Nov 28, 2018 19:07:36 GMT
I don't know exactly how to differentiate an expert from a really good designer. I don't even know exactly what the criteria should be. Should a person be judged by how well they execute their vision? What if a designers map plays much differently than they intended, but is universally loved?
One of the main things that I notice changing as designers grow is a focus shift, away from the physical building blocks they're placing, and towards the space between those blocks. It's generally the case that inexperienced designers focus entirely upon the structures they're building, and as they grow the awareness shifts towards the angles, elevations, and distances between them. For me, this is how I know someone has moved beyond the beginner stage and into intermediate or advanced.
|
|
|
Post by xzamplez on Nov 28, 2018 20:37:08 GMT
I think this is the mentality that has resulted in the change into modern level design, where form has taken a higher priority, sometimes even to the detriment of function.
This person explains that part of the reasoning for the expert example is that the blueprint reflects what could be a real building layout. The issue I have with that is that real buildings are designed to be as practical and efficient as possible, and that wont typically result in an ideal playspace. So at this point, the priority skews into familiarity and realism, even if the advanced blueprint plays better. It’s superficial.
Although, id definitely agree that engagement on the last blueprint would provide the most variety, with the elevations and angled structure.
|
|
|
Post by purelyfat on Nov 28, 2018 21:19:09 GMT
If a design plays differently than they intended it just means they can't fully recognize what makes a map function. A good designer will take that and use it as a learning experience. They will look to understand why their plan failed. Whether the map is good or not is irrelevant. The real issue with that is the possible social dynamic between designers because a poorly executed plan resulted in an unexpected good plan.
As for the expert. I think he is right but I think he explains it poorly. Because his point would not apply to anything based deeply in fictional fantasy. I think what he is more or less saying is that the designer embraces what they are designing to the fullest and looks to implement the features of the space they are designing in the best possible way for gameplay. Example: Say there is a UNSC Meat Factory in the next Halo game. You would look to see what style of meat factory would work best. Would you be better off to design small sections of the factory and implementing terrain to reach the gameplay goals you have in mind associated with Halo or is there a factory layout that lines up with those goals well enough you could make and indoor experience. I hope that explains what I feel he actually meant.
|
|
|
Post by a Chunk on Nov 28, 2018 23:35:29 GMT
I think this is the mentality that has resulted in the change into modern level design, where form has taken a higher priority, sometimes even to the detriment of function. This person explains that part of the reasoning for the expert example is that the blueprint reflects what could be a real building layout. The issue I have with that is that real buildings are designed to be as practical and efficient as possible, and that wont typically result in an ideal playspace. So at this point, the priority skews into familiarity and realism, even if the advanced blueprint plays better. It’s superficial. Although, id definitely agree that engagement on the last blueprint would provide the most variety, with the elevations and angled structure. I'm definitely with you on this. I really disagree with prioritizing form over function. I think an expert should actually be able to balance both successfully, rather than prioritizing one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by a Chunk on Nov 28, 2018 23:41:27 GMT
If a design plays differently than they intended it just means they can't fully recognize what makes a map function. A good designer will take that and use it as a learning experience. They will look to understand why their plan failed. Whether the map is good or not is irrelevant. The real issue with that is the possible social dynamic between designers because a poorly executed plan resulted in an unexpected good plan. As for the expert. I think he is right but I think he explains it poorly. Because his point would not apply to anything based deeply in fictional fantasy. I think what he is more or less saying is that the designer embraces what they are designing to the fullest and looks to implement the features of the space they are designing in the best possible way for gameplay. Example: Say there is a UNSC Meat Factory in the next Halo game. You would look to see what style of meat factory would work best. Would you be better off to design small sections of the factory and implementing terrain to reach the gameplay goals you have in mind associated with Halo or is there a factory layout that lines up with those goals well enough you could make and indoor experience. I hope that explains what I feel he actually meant. Yeah, that first paragraph is a good point. The second paragraph is complete BS. I kid...don't hurt me. I can't say with any degree of certainty what the thought process was behind the picture. I didn't even find the original source for the image, which may have shared more insight. I actually came across it in a different article that referenced the image. I think you're probably right though. It's very possible that he was even referencing a specific game that is built around relatively realistic combat. Taking things out of context creates more interesting discussion though. :P
|
|
|
Post by xzamplez on Nov 29, 2018 6:19:12 GMT
If a design plays differently than they intended it just means they can't fully recognize what makes a map function. A good designer will take that and use it as a learning experience. They will look to understand why their plan failed. Whether the map is good or not is irrelevant. The real issue with that is the possible social dynamic between designers because a poorly executed plan resulted in an unexpected good plan. As for the expert. I think he is right but I think he explains it poorly. Because his point would not apply to anything based deeply in fictional fantasy. I think what he is more or less saying is that the designer embraces what they are designing to the fullest and looks to implement the features of the space they are designing in the best possible way for gameplay. Example: Say there is a UNSC Meat Factory in the next Halo game. You would look to see what style of meat factory would work best. Would you be better off to design small sections of the factory and implementing terrain to reach the gameplay goals you have in mind associated with Halo or is there a factory layout that lines up with those goals well enough you could make and indoor experience. I hope that explains what I feel he actually meant. I understand what youre saying, and if executed well, I agree that having the geometry feel like a realistic setting is ideal. However, in practice, we see how this can backfire. Geometry that serves no benefit to gameplay existing, simply to capture a ‘feel’. I guess it all depends on what comprimises are made to the environment to enhance gameplay. And at what point do those sacrifices turn the ‘expert’ design into the ‘advanced’ design. A sweet spot combining the best of both aspects of gameplay and atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by purelyfat on Dec 3, 2018 20:07:48 GMT
I don't even necessarily mean make it "realistic". I just mean embrace the inspiration and your goals to the greatest degree you can. If the concept is abstract or whatever then either A) you are basing everything around gameplay in which case you push the map as far as you can to give it that feeling of being unique. If it is abstract but based on an artistic vision then reaching that vision is extremely important.
I guess the best way I could explain this is that function should give birth to form and this revelation of form should add to the function rather than takeaway from it. If it takes away from it then it is most likely not the maps true form.
Also, about giving him the benefit of the doubt. I mostly based my point off of talking to designers I consider to be more art driven and trying to understand their beefs with certain maps.
|
|
|
Post by purelyfat on Dec 3, 2018 20:17:06 GMT
Also, I would like to point out that his diorama for an expert design looks like every design I have seen from someone when they are trying to be innovative.
|
|
|
Post by Preacher001 on Jan 15, 2019 10:14:24 GMT
But I like Quake maps.
I'm not sure I would exactly use Uncharted levels as an example of great level design. I found the levels fairly primitive but the art, story and gameplay is where I found my pleasure. I would even argue that the gameplay had tonnes of room for improvement, and instead it was the story, or to a greater degree the character interactions that made that game so enjoyable.
Then again I am no level designer. Even worse, when building a level I kinda just go by inspiration and feel. I try to come up with something I feel my friends might get a kick out of then I build a space and try to work out how and where they may abuse it, and I adjust either the layout or the weapons locations to counter that problem. I honestly don't even separate the idea of weapons from layout. They are pretty much one in the same to me. Guess I'm doomed to stay a beginner forever.
Truthfully I would much rather have someone else build the map and then I just tweak it to my flavor. Oddly enough I just asked my buddy to tell me what Halo game had his favorite Halo multiplayer maps. He said since I was always curating our experience he never knew what Halo title he was actually playing. (even though we've been playing casually since Halo 1) When I asked him to describe the maps he liked it turned out to be mostly Halo 3. Also there was one map I couldn't place until I finally realized it was a fairly abstract Reach custom map that I heavily modified for function and to twist to our gameplay style. Planet Caravan Arena FYI.
I could probably point out what looks like great level design but truthfully I may still dislike playing on it. To me the greatest level design is one that plays to my friends and my interests. It's just that some peoples interests are more popular than others. Did I mention I kinda hate Fortnight.
|
|
|
Post by Soldat Du Christ on Jan 16, 2019 10:37:16 GMT
This is how i tier design in my mind
1 simply a space, unpredictable and subject to exploits
2 balenced space, predictable and free of exploits. These maps simply 'work' and only serve the mechanics, without any added layers
3 compelling space, predictable, balenced, but most important the map succeeds in ADDING extra layers of depth to the game match. These maps range anywhere from good, to great, to exceptional.
Depending on the games mechanics your aproach to level design should doffer, fortnite and ssb are an example of games you should just make maps that serve the elavorate mechanics. While more simple games like halo thrive off of more advanced designs
|
|
|
Post by Soldat Du Christ on Jan 16, 2019 10:44:48 GMT
Form vs function is synonomous with order vs chaos relasionship, just look at how that works and it translates to level/ game design just the same: Order and chaos create a positive feedback loop ONLY when chaos is submissive to order, controled chaos in other words.
|
|
|
Post by MultiLockOn on Jan 16, 2019 19:13:06 GMT
I am the greatest designer and you're all wrong.
Glad to have the waywo back lol
|
|
|
Post by MultiLockOn on Jan 16, 2019 21:30:55 GMT
I recently came across the image below from Robert Yang provides an interesting perspective on the various skill levels of level designers. There are widely varying opinions about what differentiates a bad designer from an average one, or a good designer from a great one. Where do you think the image above get's it right? Wrong? What attributes do you think best reflect a designers skill level? Also I've seen plenty of studio's design tests, none of them looked anything like that image. What schmuck made that.
|
|
|
Post by a Chunk on Jan 16, 2019 22:50:20 GMT
Also I've seen plenty of studio's design tests, none of them looked anything like that image. What schmuck made that. Maybe they just thought you couldn't handle the 'real' test. :P
|
|