What makes a good level?

Everything about the level editing process.

Moderator: Moderators

What makes a good level?

Postby tmcsweeney » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:01 am

Ok, so in the threaddiscussing "cheap" tactics I boldly asserted that the solution to cheap tricks is to design better levels. but what makes a good level? When you first look at a new level, what makes you go "Ohh this is going to be fun" as opposed to "Ohh dear..."

Here are a few ideas to get us started that in my opinion are relevant. Feel free to add to or argue with them (I fully expect lots of disagreement, as everyone has different ideas about what the game means to them)

Good things:
    Simplicity (fewer things to break)
    Going up (or across) is better than going down (requires more work on the part of the player, rather than just using gravity)
    Ambiguity (There shouldn't be one single obvious solution)
    Open spaces (require the player to build)

Not so good things:
    Complex machines with a few pieces missing (Usually too obvious to be challenging, although the inordinate fiddling to get the solution to exactly match the author's can be frustratingly time consuming. Plus they can often be solved cheaper by entirely bypassing all the author's hard work)
    Constructed Obstacles (Vulnerable to being broken by a ruthless player)
User avatar
tmcsweeney
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 9:48 am

Postby PeterT » Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:56 pm

I agree with most of your points, though I believe going down is at just as interesting as going up or across. However, everything else you said holds for me as well - that's probably why I like the "Void" levels most among the original ones.
PeterT
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Austria

Postby BFC » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:08 pm

good things:

1) Not overly simple layout (voids can be cool however)

2) Up/Down/left/right is all the same to me, all of them are fun

3) Not one solution possible

4) not too many restrictions in materials

5) multiple "goals". That is, getting to the blue cirlce isn't the only "yes!" moment for the level. Getting past/around/through an obstruction/machine etc should be a "mini" goal.

bad things:

1) single possible solution

2) exact timming required to be successful

3) low budget limit, this really limits things.

4) bad starting area for 'dillo. Putting the 'dillo right in a lower corner for example limits what you can do with him.

5) Untested level solution. That is, release a level without knowing it can be done without specifying that the level is untested.

I like being unrestricted in my choices like everyone else more than anything. Big budgets, no destructions and hopefully rockets are disabled :)

-BFC
BFC
Contest Legend
Contest Legend
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:23 pm

Postby Zut » Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:30 pm

Im not such a big fan of 'void' levels. If I look through my solutions, most 'void's is either done with rockets or pulleys.

I like...

- Partially finished machines. Levels where the challenge is discovering the missing peices are the most fun IMHO.

- Lowish budget. If you are given too much room, you can just build a boring colution that completely bypasses the intended point of the level.

- Too many anchor points! This can really throw you off the cent sometimes, and I think it can be used to confused the player, which makes it more fun!

I dont like...

- Only one solution/too guided. I will concede though that a level is dull where its either obvious what you have to don, or hwere you given noo freedom to think up a better way.

- Destroying things. I like to think of AR levels as machines, and so destroying part of it seems like a pretty poor mechanism to me.

- Overuse of timers. In fact I dont really like to see pre-set timers in a level at all. It sems like another way of forcing you to choose one articular way of completing a level.

- Boring solutions. "Oh I only had to put one piece of metal at this EXACT point." Thats no fun!
Zut
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:33 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Postby kingofthespill » Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:57 am

I am a newbie to making levels, and the posts are quite helpful.

On obstruction I have been thinking of using is rubber walls, or even multiple ones. They seem difficult to explode, especially if they are tensioned down.

>bad things: 5) Untested level solution. That is, release a level without knowing it can be done without specifying that the level is untested.

(opps edit!)
I agree here. I like looking at a clumsy solution to set a budget.
Also it helps to ascertain if multiple solutions are going to be possible.
Last edited by kingofthespill on Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
kingofthespill
Contest Legend
Contest Legend
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:25 pm

Postby DSH » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:03 am

Personally, I agree with BFC - the designer should at least know their level is possible within budget. Part of the challenge is knowing there is a solution and trying to come up with a better way of doing it.

Sure, the designer shouldn't spend all their time refining their solution to near perfection, as everyone feels good getting one in under budget but nobody wants to waste their time on a level with the spectre of it being unworkable hanging over them.

I think David Young's method on the Alphabet series was the best plan. Provide your own nuts-and-bolts solution just to show it's feasible. People don't even need to look at it if they don't want to. It just being there helps.
DSH
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:36 pm


Return to Level creation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron