Is backtracking inherently bad level design?

[Evonisia]

I find myself confused on backtracking. I've complained about Halo: Combat Evolved and it's liberal use of backtracking, to the point where one mission's design is literally a copy paste of a previous mission, just that you move through it in different ways. But then I thought, that mission has different gameplay styles and takes you to new places (usually through flying).

And then I thought about BioShock which is a game I really liked, and it's blatantly obvious that you spend the vast majority of your time backtracking through the rooms searching for different objects and ammo. Resident Evil 4 does this as well and I enjoyed it's level design. I've heard that Metroidvania games also involve a lot of backtracking, too. BioShock, Halo: CE and Resident Evil 4 introduced different gameplay styles when you went back. From flying to Big Daddies to escorting Ashley. Bayonetta also revisits old levels during one mission but presents new enemies with Bayonetta's new abilities.

But are these just the exception to the rule? I mean Silent Hill 4 infamously shot itself in the foot when half the game was just revisiting the first half of the game. In general backtracking just seems lazy as one isn't producing anything new and it's the general sign of cutting corners.

TL;DR: Is backtracking bad level design or just another tool in the kit? What're your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Auberon]

When story justifies it, I'm cool with it (Warrior Within due to timey-wimey nature). Otherwise I see it as lazy design, which is not necessarily bad.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

If it is still fun/engaging to me, then no. Part of the reason I love Metroid games so much is they seem to make the most of the area designs, in such a way you go back later to find even more places to see and stuff to get.

 

[shrekfan246]

Very few, if any, mechanics are inherently bad. They can have extremely poor implementation, but that doesn't mean they're bad by principle.

Backtracking can be evidence of a developer running out of money or time, but it can also be used to link to new areas or create shortcuts through old areas, to find new things and explore a larger, more 'organic' game world. The former would be evidenced by a game such as Devil May Cry 4, where eight or nine of the twenty missions are literally going backwards through the same exact areas of the first ten missions but with another character. The latter is evidenced by games like Metroid, or indeed Devil May Cry 3 to an extent, in which upgrades and items you obtain throughout the game allow you to explore more areas connected to places earlier in the game.

In the case of the first, I don't mind it too much if the gameplay or story can justify it/my continued playing of the game. But I like the second when done well, because it tends to lead to better overall level design and breaks the general monotony of following a straight path with occasional twists and turns.

 

[omega 616]

I wouldn't say level design but game design. I wouldn't even say bad, just ...badly padded.

I think backtracking is a result of "we have finished the game ... but it only takes 4 hours to complete", so they add a few hours in by making up reasons for you to back track.

I see bad level design being things like it being confusing to navigate, being badly made (curbs being impossible to walk over etc), having just an invisible wall (such as in an open field that you can see for miles is just flat land) and it just being difficult to navigate (not like a tricky platforming section but it just wont do it).

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I find myself confused on backtracking. I've complained about Halo: Combat Evolved and it's liberal use of backtracking, to the point where one mission's design is literally a copy paste of a previous mission, just that you move through it in different ways. But then I thought, that mission has different gameplay styles and takes you to new places (usually through flying).

And then I thought about BioShock which is a game I really liked, and it's blatantly obvious that you spend the vast majority of your time backtracking through the rooms searching for different objects and ammo. Resident Evil 4 does this as well and I enjoyed it's level design. I've heard that Metroidvania games also involve a lot of backtracking, too. BioShock, Halo: CE and Resident Evil 4 introduced different gameplay styles when you went back. From flying to Big Daddies to escorting Ashley. Bayonetta also revisits old levels during one mission but presents new enemies with Bayonetta's new abilities.

But are these just the exception to the rule? I mean Silent Hill 4 infamously shot itself in the foot when half the game was just revisiting the first half of the game. In general backtracking just seems lazy as one isn't producing anything new and it's the general sign of cutting corners.

TL;DR: Is backtracking bad level design or just another tool in the kit? What're your thoughts on the matter?

Backtracking is really only bad if it's being used to pad out the game by just making the player spend time walking.

Personally, I prefer level design that's based around making the player feel like he is in a real area, moving to different parts of a map, over "This entire world is one long hallway" design. Non-linear level design necessitates some backtracking by nature.