FPS Level Design

[pirateninj4]

Saw this on the halolz site, struck home after my recent playthrough of the new MoH. This makes me sad because the games are getting more expensive, but seem to have less and less actual content outside of the hordes of smelly shitwads that occupy the MP scene.

http://www.halolz.com/2010/11/12/fps-map-design/

For those of you who wash and play MP, good for you. I realize that there are normal people out there playing MP.

 

[Richter_Kleiss]

Heh. The image might be a little biased, but I can understand what they are getting at. Would you prefer to have slightly less linear fps experiences, in favor of take (a route) or (b route), but both end up in the same place anyways?

I think I probably would, but I think there are still better options.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

I agree, the longest campaign for an FPS these days is around 10 hours, didnt it used to be 15 or something?

 

[Antari]

Saw this on the halolz site, struck home after my recent playthrough of the new MoH. This makes me sad because the games are getting more expensive, but seem to have less and less actual content outside of the hordes of smelly shitwads that occupy the MP scene.

http://www.halolz.com/2010/11/12/fps-map-design/

For those of you who wash and play MP, good for you. I realize that there are normal people out there playing MP.

I'm glad some of the younger generation are finally catching up. I've been watching this happen progressively for a long time. I'm basically at the point where I don't buy games anymore because of it. I'd rather play a game made by a high school student as a project than a Triple A title these days. Mainly because it will probably be more fun!

 

[Richter_Kleiss]

Well, I don't think it's really the length that a problem, moreso the fact we don't have options on how to approach problems. At most, you have two prescripted options.

 

[Antari]

Well, I don't think it's really the length that a problem, moreso the fact we don't have options on how to approach problems. At most, you have two prescripted options.

Medal of Honor or Call of Duty ... Activision, or Electronic Arts .. Choice A Choice B ... Oh do I hear ya on this one

 

[Jezzascmezza]

The linear "single player FPS" genre is kinda dying.
I realize there are still games like Bioshock that offer a quality, lengthy single player FPS experience, but even it's sequel jumped on the "add a gimmicky online component" bandwagon.
Developers have realized multiplayer sells, so that's what we're going to get a lot of- Online FPS's.

 

[Netrigan]

I agree, the longest campaign for an FPS these days is around 10 hours, didnt it used to be 15 or something?

Short games have been a fairly frequent complaint since they ditched the episodic approach (Quake was among the last to use the episode structure). Deus Ex (2000) was created with this complaint in mind and some critics complained it went on for too long.

I think it's pretty hard for a FPS to keep a gamer's attention for too long without out-staying their welcome. The original Doom with its three (or four) episodes is pure brilliance (as each episode presented the player with a different starting challenge), but by the time you hit level 16 or 17 in Doom II, Doom fatigue is very much in effect because it feels like you're playing the same level over and over again. I hate, hate, hate Unreal, because it just droned on and on and on and on... but I rather enjoyed the add-on which had a fairly short campaign. The original Half-Life could have cut off the great bulk of the Xen levels and been a much better game. I loved Call Of Duty 4, which had a fairly short campaign and I don't think the experience would have survived another few hours of "story" (or, more accurately, "plot complication").

I think "too short" is one of those things that gets hurled at a game that never really gets going. You're having fun, but you see the potential for a whole lot more fun... and the game never comes close to reaching those heights (MW1 tends to dodge the complaint because of a very good, intense story; while MW2 never reaches those narrative heights and is called "too short"). While "too long" is when the game just starts repeating itself endlessly and you realize it's been hours since you've seen anything remotely novel. The "just right" could be anywhere between eight and 20 hours depending on how deep and varied the gameplay is. As many have pointed out, the extremely short Portal is almost perfect in its length and my biggest concern about the sequel is that by the end of a longer campaign is that ever last bit of novelty will have been wrung out of the game by the mid-point.

As for level design, without the easy-to-use 2D auto-maps, complexity took a huge downward turn starting with Quake. A lot of the better games have disguised the lack of complexity with larger, open maps... but things took a very linear turn a long time ago and that trend just gets more and more pronounced as time goes on.

 

[MasterV]

Haha, I thought I was the only one who thought the FPSes had become, literally, what we used to call "corridor shooters". There's no map anymore. No exploration, no freedom. You're taken by the hand and forced down a very linear, very predetermined path. All in the name of "cinematic feel". Wheee!

 

[Netrigan]

Haha, I thought I was the only one who thought the FPSes had become, literally, what we used to call "corridor shooters". There's no map anymore. No exploration, no freedom. You're taken by the hand and forced down a very linear, very predetermined path. All in the name of "cinematic feel". Wheee!

I think Half-Life was the first game where I felt there was no real exploration... while trying to fool me into thinking that I was in this really big, complex space. Since then, I've lost count of the games which have tried to replicate this experience with what appears to be a complex ship or compound, but because of rubble or locked doors ends up being a series of narrow corridors with few (if any) nooks and crannies to explore.

I also blame the de-emphasis on secrets. A lot of the complexity of a Doom map was hidden, but find a hidden door and suddenly the map doubled in size. Once secrets went away, you never really saw that anymore. Oh, sure, maybe you'll find some ventilation shaft you can follow for several yards eventually leading to a health pack, but it's not the same thing.

 

[Richter_Kleiss]

I know what you mean about game length. It think it just depends on how satisfied you feel after all is done, regardless of length.

If it's specifically about level design here, having a linear system is probably the easiest way to enforce the ideals FPS generally promote. Most often, you have an objective you are trying to take over either by speed or by tactics. Or think of the multiplayer focus: Quick, 15-30 minute matches between teams, trying to complete a given amount of objectives, and rearranging the variables of the matches to see another outcome (maps, teams, objective).

It's an incredibly straightforward focus, and although you have other options that effect your gameplay directly, the bulk of the level design is based around that sort of idea. The main thing I think that causes this is the publisher's need to secure the profitablity of their investments, and having multiplayer as a norm which helps secure that profitablity. Not that multiplayer is a bad thing, but there is only so much time and effort that can be put into a project, so using levels from the single player for multiplayer is cost effective. That means making both single and multiplayer modes as similar as possible.

If you really want more interesting level design in single player, then developers need to start imagining a new sort of multiplayer, or forsake it in favor of single player only (which won't go over well with some publishers, I would imagine.)

 

[PurpleSky]

Heh. The image might be a little biased, but I can understand what they are getting at. Would you prefer to have slightly less linear fps experiences, in favor of take (a route) or (b route), but both end up in the same place anyways?

I think I probably would, but I think there are still better options.

it's not biased at all, fps today suck and are linear, unless the developers actualy base on free roam for the entire game, anything with a story(levels) is just boring, you barely have places to explore, and every time its just for hiden things, not an alternate way around the level


I wish you could proove me wrong with a game, but you can't

 

[TerranReaper]

Depends on the game I suppose. I find it hard to imagine any war game that would have exploration nor do I see it actually working that would make any kind of logical sense.

 

[Richter_Kleiss]

Heh. The image might be a little biased, but I can understand what they are getting at. Would you prefer to have slightly less linear fps experiences, in favor of take (a route) or (b route), but both end up in the same place anyways?

I think I probably would, but I think there are still better options.

it's not biased at all, fps today suck and are linear, unless the developers actualy base on free roam for the entire game, anything with a story(levels) is just boring, you barely have places to explore, and every time its just for hiden things, not an alternate way around the level


I wish you could proove me wrong with a game, but you can't

Well, do you think that fps today suck because they are linear, or that they are bad quality in general?

Honestly, I agree that as far as exploration goes, fps haven't even scratched the surface. I'm not saying that the picture is wrong, just that it simplifies things a bit. Like take CoD Modern Warefare 2 (sorry for using this multiple times, it's just a good thing to point at as an example of the issues right now). Remember the level where you have to save the hostages on the oil tanker, before assaulting the prison? Technically, you could 'choose' either side of the room to assault from, but either way you were on the same track. Where you took cover was pretty much all you had for choice (in level design).

 

[number2301]

With regards to bias, how about you compare the Doom map to Fallout 3/NV or Stalker? I've never played Stalker so I'll leave that to one side but Fallout 3 is to all intents and purposes an FPS with RPG bits added on. How big is the map there?

You're just looking in the wrong places, modern straight up shooters are story driven (which I think is fantastic by the way). This necessitates a more linear approach.

Go for something more freeform and you've got your complex maps.

 

[Antari]

With regards to bias, how about you compare the Doom map to Fallout 3/NV or Stalker? I've never played Stalker so I'll leave that to one side but Fallout 3 is to all intents and purposes an FPS with RPG bits added on. How big is the map there?

You're just looking in the wrong places, modern straight up shooters are story driven (which I think is fantastic by the way). This necessitates a more linear approach.

Go for something more freeform and you've got your complex maps.

Well if they are going to give me a basic map, they had better slap a VERY BASIC price tag on the game.

 

[YesConsiderably]

Call of Duty: World at War had some very limited sections in which you could approach a situation in multiple ways.

I prefer that system than turning FPS levels in a myriad of dead end tunnels and labyrinth like corridors, like Duke Nukem and Doom.

 

[Asehujiko]

Depends on the game I suppose. I find it hard to imagine any war game that would have exploration nor do I see it actually working that would make any kind of logical sense.

You're a russian soldier during the battle of stalingrad and end up behind german lines. Sneaking back will get you shot as a coward and a traitor for running from the enemy by your own, unless you do something awesome while you're away. You get a free roaming city and an overall objective to hunt down some elusive Tiger Ace or something with weapons/intel caches anywhere guarded by lesser forces and resistance pockets etc.

Thinking about it, a nazi version of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. would actually be all kinds of awesome.

 

[PurpleSky]

Heh. The image might be a little biased, but I can understand what they are getting at. Would you prefer to have slightly less linear fps experiences, in favor of take (a route) or (b route), but both end up in the same place anyways?

I think I probably would, but I think there are still better options.

it's not biased at all, fps today suck and are linear, unless the developers actualy base on free roam for the entire game, anything with a story(levels) is just boring, you barely have places to explore, and every time its just for hiden things, not an alternate way around the level


I wish you could proove me wrong with a game, but you can't

Well, do you think that fps today suck because they are linear, or that they are bad quality in general?

Honestly, I agree that as far as exploration goes, fps haven't even scratched the surface. I'm not saying that the picture is wrong, just that it simplifies things a bit. Like take CoD Modern Warefare 2 (sorry for using this multiple times, it's just a good thing to point at as an example of the issues right now). Remember the level where you have to save the hostages on the oil tanker, before assaulting the prison? Technically, you could 'choose' either side of the room to assault from, but either way you were on the same track. Where you took cover was pretty much all you had for choice (in level design).

I'm thinking of my example, which is different from mw2, that one is a linear fps because even if you have some choices you always take the same route, you don't choose it yourself, call of duty games ,recent ones at least if not every single one of them could work well as rail shooters.

Last fps I played was section 8 and I liked it, so it's not about quality.
But that one has no story, it's meant for multiplayer.Cutscenes were just and excuse for a campaign.


If they added to it a better story it would be awesome to explore a world/ do levels in such vast areas, with many many ways of going in.

So level design, the more ways the better for me, or better yet, no routes, free roam as much as possible.

And sure, don't turn them into role playing games but give you more than one possible objective area.Bad Company 2 had that on second thought and I didn't like it...

I'm tired, sorry if I'm rambling



Like what I was thinking, okay you are in a mission to kill Castro, you get to choose how you approach it, either plant bombs around the building, or on the street wherever you want, go to a sniping position , etc.

That way the level won't be, at least won't feel linear anymore because you have a wide area to move around in

 

[number2301]

With regards to bias, how about you compare the Doom map to Fallout 3/NV or Stalker? I've never played Stalker so I'll leave that to one side but Fallout 3 is to all intents and purposes an FPS with RPG bits added on. How big is the map there?

You're just looking in the wrong places, modern straight up shooters are story driven (which I think is fantastic by the way). This necessitates a more linear approach.

Go for something more freeform and you've got your complex maps.

Well if they are going to give me a basic map, they had better slap a VERY BASIC price tag on the game.

Because the only value in a game is the map design?