FPS map design from 17 years ago compared to one today

[CptStern]

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/e2ies/fps_map_design_then_and_now/

 

[ríomhaire]

Utter rubbish. The right graph is simplified to the point of stupidity and the right one is a full map of everything in a level of Doom. I've never played any FPS that had maps made up of just long corridors with apparently no weapons or enemies of any kind. If you're going to make some sort of "hurr hurr video games aren't what they were in the good old days" argument use a valid comparison, instead of taking an actual map with hard work put into it and then comparing it to something you made in thirty seconds in paint.

On the point this retarded drawing is trying to make: Cutscene abundance does bother me but what is wrong with linearity? Sure I don't want every game to be linear, but I don't want every game to be first person either. It's not as if linear map design didn't exist in 1993 or that open levels don't exist now.

 

[Remus]

There's nothing wrong with linear FPS games. However what does bother me is when you don't even have simple options like being able to enter a room from multiple points. Follow the damn yellow brick road. All the Call of Duty games and the latest Medal of Honor game suffer from this.

One example of good linear game design is the maps in the Left 4 Dead games. Even though it's made to lead you down a linear path, you still have the option to for example enter an unexplored house from multiple points. In games like CoD you literally feel on rails, no freedom whatsoever.

 

[CptStern]

not a fan of linear fps. dont like the feeling of being on a tightly scripted rollercoaster. it's always made worse by the fact that it's completely transparent to the player. it just become a turkey shoot excercise that I find boring and overly predictable. the point of the comparison is that the one of the right gives you zero choice in comparison to the one on the left; sure it's an exaggeration but not a wholly inaccurate one. casual gamers dont like to get lost

 

[Deleted member 56031]

is the one on the right supposed to be FF13?

 

[CptStern]

no, call of duty games

 

[Remus]

no, call of duty games

Then, I agree, it is an accurate representation.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Oh okay I guess non-linearity = complexity then. Well glad we settled that one.

 

[Wanted Bob]

is the one on the right supposed to be FF13?

That is exactly what I thought when I looked at it. People can insult Call of Duty all they want, but that at least had some more open areas with buildings to go into and whatnot. FF13 is LITERALLY one path that you get funneled down for most of the game (I realize it opens up after like 40 hours, but that doesnt excuse it).

 

[Remus]

People can insult Call of Duty all they want, but that at least had some more open areas with buildings to go into and whatnot. FF13 is LITERALLY one path that you get funneled down for most of the game.

But... in all Call of Duty games you are funneled down one path. All doors are locked and indestructible except for that single one you're supposed to go through, etc. etc.

 

[CptStern]

Oh okay I guess non-linearity = complexity then. Well glad we settled that one.

my guess is going in any direction is more complex than just going forward

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

no gaems

 

[StarBob]

Ok let's look at this from the designers point of view. They spend hour after hour designing extra content that most people just bypass because it's pretty much unnecessary. So instead they design things you ALWAYS see. In the end the number of hours they spend may be the same, but you actually see everything they've made. Not to mention in 1993 all of those twists and turns were just exact copies of the same 12 textures and 3 sprites pasted on the same 20 polygonal objects.

Of course this is a Stern thread and thus the subject must be wildly exaggerated.

My personal favorite is the multi-path linear design for an FPS. Half Life 2 did some of this but not enough for my liking. Crysis make exceptional use of this early in the game. Instead of the basic 'hallway of enemies' situation - you get maybe three 'hallways' that make use of different tactics and have different approaches and difficulties with potentially different awards. Maybe you sneak by your enemy. Maybe you come in from behind and attack from the flank. Maybe you go in head on and fight it out. It's your choice and it's dynamic.

And of course, the ancient argument against multi-directional maps is that BACKTRACKING SUCKS. It will always suck. No one wants to do what they've already done. That's why FarCry2 was such an epic flop. You had to backtrack constantly. Your reward for backtracking? Respawning enemies. It was poor design and it wasn't fun. Being lost in a maze is not better than experiencing engaging content in a linear setting. There's not even a valid point of argument against that. People didn't like it and that's why it's not around anymore.

 

[15357]

I guess this is why I found Operation Flashpoint, and OpFor: Dragon Rising much more fun than the CoD games.

 

[Xevrex]

I actually heard the one on the right is Metroid: Other M.

 

[Krynn72]

And of course, the ancient argument against multi-directional maps is that BACKTRACKING SUCKS. It will always suck. No one wants to do what they've already done. That's why FarCry2 was such an epic flop. You had to backtrack constantly. Your reward for backtracking? Respawning enemies.

You seem to be confusing multi-pathed level design with open world levels. Nothing in your post really has anything to do with multi-pathed levels. Especially your "they used art assets multiple times hurrr" argument. Back-tracking isn't a unavoidable element of multi-pathed level design, and games that do have you back track aren't unavoidably repetitive. Those are entirely up to the game design as a whole, and any problems with them occur not because of the intrinsic properties of the level design, but because of problems with the game designers' methods and/or time restrictions. Go play Deus Ex (even the second one!) and you can see all the proof in the world that your analysis is wrong.

 

[bam23]

linear cinematic vs multiplayer map?

 

[VirusType2]

My main problem with games is that they try to act like they are real-time but they aren't. They use trigger points all the time.

"Get to the [destination], we are running out of time!"

I can go around searching corridors all day and I'd never really run out of time, liar. The event isn't triggered until you get there. Lame!

 

[Wanted Bob]

But... in all Call of Duty games you are funneled down one path. All doors are locked and indestructible except for that single one you're supposed to go through, etc. etc.

Wasnt quite sure whether you were just making a sarcastic remark or not but...

I certainly think Call of Duty is linear in that there arent really different paths that can be taken to achieve an objective (as opposed to, Splinter Cell, or Crysis). However, they do at least give some wiggle room (this is basing it off the most recent CoD, since thats the one I played most recently). For example, the (kinda a spoiler but I doubt anyone cares)

Spoiler

Russian Invasion level

took place going down just one street, but quite a few of the houses had interiors for you to fight in (which trust me, on higher difficulties you needed to do to have some shelter). There were also some large areas that you needed to defend, which included a lot of nooks and crannies to fight in.

Again, I'm not saying it wasnt linear (because it definitely was, you ended up at each general location regardless), but it wasnt as blatant as Final Fantasy 13 was.

In any case, if that was a sarcastic response then disregard this

 

[Warped]

I love exploration sometimes but its totally a waste of time in video games these days. thats probably why in Fallout I take forever to finish something because I'll be like, "ooooh look something shiny!"

but on the other hand linear FPS's feel chocking and annoying

 

[StarBob]

You seem to be confusing multi-pathed level design with open world levels. Nothing in your post really has anything to do with multi-pathed levels. Especially your "they used art assets multiple times hurrr" argument. Back-tracking isn't a unavoidable element of multi-pathed level design, and games that do have you back track aren't unavoidably repetitive. Those are entirely up to the game design as a whole, and any problems with them occur not because of the intrinsic properties of the level design, but because of problems with the game designers' methods and/or time restrictions. Go play Deus Ex (even the second one!) and you can see all the proof in the world that your analysis is wrong.

1) Putting "hurr" after a statement doesn't suddenly make it stupid - especially if it's your fault you didn't apply it to the subject properly
2) Reusing art assets was the best way to pump out another Doom/Duke Nukem clone in the early 90s. You didn't have to design some exceptional diverse fun multi path level, you just had to make a maze repeating enemies and putting a door with a key on the other side of a maze. That was what everyone did. And the entire way you'd say 400 of the same one or two guys you'd shoot with the same one or two weapons until you got to the next level. It was a cheap way to pump out levels. It wasn't good. Making a big maze level of cloned textures and objects is not good level design and that's why it doesn't exist anymore. Everyone got tired of it.

3)I didn't say that back tracking is unavoidable. I said that it is an argument against multi-path maps because it was SO ****ING OFTEN used.

4) Citing a single game that was made well after the wave of terrible map designs of the early 90s that perfected the multi-path system and is one of the most popular PC games of its time. Yeah - they did it right - but it definitely doesn't represent the tons of games that used that same old boring formula.

5) Many modern games have high quality design both visually and functionally.

So if the argument here is all old games had good maps and all modern games have bad maps. It is completely wrong. Some really good old games had good maps and some really bad new games have bad maps. Of course I think you can say that about pretty much anything at all in the world. Some old things were good and some new things are bad. But - as I said before - this is another one of those Stern sensationalist threads where "zomg this is 100% bad and I'm 100% against it" with no real basis outside of a single piece of evidence without merit.

Anyways this is as stupid a thread as any because we're all going to keep buying new games and enjoying them and pretending old games were waaaaaaaaay better thanks to the way the human mind associates pleasure with memories. So have fun making points about things that may or may not be true depending on the subjects you're referencing and pining for the days of yore where you'd be bored out of your mind hoping to have the wonderfully designed games of the present.

 

[Krynn72]

1) Putting "hurr" after a statement doesn't suddenly make it stupid - especially if it's your fault you didn't apply it to the subject properly

Are you saying its my fault that the point you made is irrelevant to your argument?

2) Reusing art assets was the best way to pump out another Doom/Duke Nukem clone in the early 90s. You didn't have to design some exceptional diverse fun multi path level, you just had to make a maze repeating enemies and putting a door with a key on the other side of a maze. That was what everyone did. And the entire way you'd say 400 of the same one or two guys you'd shoot with the same one or two weapons until you got to the next level. It was a cheap way to pump out levels. It wasn't good. Making a big maze level of cloned textures and objects is not good level design and that's why it doesn't exist anymore. Everyone got tired of it.

Jesus christ. You have no idea what you're talking about here. For one, games today do just as much asset duplication as old games, and in many cases they do it more often. Secondly, they didn't stop doing it because people got tired of it. They didn't stop doing it at all, and the only reason you think they did is because technology has advanced to where computers can support more art assets for them to cover up their modular pieces and disguise instanced set pieces. The duplication of limited sets of models and textures was not an element of multi-pathed level design, it was, AND STILL IS an effect caused by technological limitations and cost restraints. It has nothing to do with your argument against multi-path levels.

3)I didn't say that back tracking is unavoidable. I said that it is an argument against multi-path maps because it was SO ****ING OFTEN used.

So then just say what you mean. If you mean to say that level designers should avoid pointless backtracking, then ****ing say that. It has nothing to do with the concept of multi-path level design, and everything to do with the capabilities of the dev team.

4) Citing a single game that was made well after the wave of terrible map designs of the early 90s that perfected the multi-path system and is one of the most popular PC games of its time. Yeah - they did it right - but it definitely doesn't represent the tons of games that used that same old boring formula.

I used the games as proof that multi-path level design don't inherently have the flaws you suggested it did. Its not my fault your arguments are aimed at the wrong thing.

5) Many modern games have high quality design both visually and functionally.

No shit.

So if the argument here is all old games had good maps and all modern games have bad maps. It is completely wrong. Some really good old games had good maps and some really bad new games have bad maps. Of course I think you can say that about pretty much anything at all in the world. Some old things were good and some new things are bad. But - as I said before - this is another one of those Stern sensationalist threads where "zomg this is 100% bad and I'm 100% against it" with no real basis outside of a single piece of evidence without merit.

The image is a commentary on general trends of game making these days. That doesn't mean it disallows exceptions. The point brought up in the image is a valid observation on the trend in linear games today. That doesn't mean every FPS game is subject to that trend, and only an idiot would think that, and only a slightly smarter idiot would assume that other people don't realize there are exceptions.

So have fun making points about things that may or may not be true depending on the subjects you're referencing

lol, what?

 

[StarBob]

lol, what?

lolwut.

nowai.

zomg.

nub.

ITT: OP makes absolute claim with no reference. Claim is countered - some people get sad that their old games aren't the best and cry.

I guess what you're trying to reiterate pointlessly is that there are exceptions disproving the original statement, but we should all make note of it because some popular games are trending toward linear gameplay with cutscenes. Is is the majority? Who knows, doesn't seem to matter... only matters that they exist and are popular and there is an apparent trend (omg Modern Warfare is similar to Modern Warfare 2 in design!) Does it make them poor? Also another thing that doesn't seem to be relevant since it's entirely subjective and apparently the only comparison is to wire frame maps of nondescript games from 17 years ago. Will more games be made with similar "linear designs" be created, sold, and enjoyed regardless of this discussion? In short - yes. To expand upon it - definitely yes.

All right - Thread over? Yeah. Thread over. Bye kids!

 

[Vegeta897]

I was going to post something very early in the thread like, "This was already posted in the dump, where it belongs. It's not meant to be taken seriously and is just going to cause stupid arguments"

But I decided not to because I figured people would be like "god vegeta why do you always post in stern's threads if you hate them so much"

Welp.

 

[Tagaziel]

Ok let's look at this from the designers point of view. They spend hour after hour designing extra content that most people just bypass because it's pretty much unnecessary. So instead they design things you ALWAYS see. In the end the number of hours they spend may be the same, but you actually see everything they've made. Not to mention in 1993 all of those twists and turns were just exact copies of the same 12 textures and 3 sprites pasted on the same 20 polygonal objects.

This same logic can be used to argue against access for disabled people.

Not to mention that it wasn't "the same 12 textures and three sprites". If you've actually played Doom and paid attention, you'd know that.

 

[VirusType2]

I like multi-path maze games with backtracking and respawning enemies. In fact, my favorite game of all time had all of those things SO **** THAT, baby.

Apparently, I'm not the only one who likes them:

Dungeon Master received dozens of prestigious awards including the first ever Special Award for Artistic Achievement from Computer Gaming World (CGW) when it was initially released.[4] It was retired directly from the top spot in the CGW game ratings as one of the original members of the CGW Hall of Fame in November 1989 after having spent almost a year in the top spot with no serious challenger. There was some speculation by the game's developers that the CGW Hall of Fame was created for the purpose of removing Dungeon Master from the CGW ratings list since the game had achieved its sales records and domination of the rankings despite never buying any advertising for the game in the U.S. market.

The following list of awards is comprehensive, but not complete. Notably, it does not include any of the many awards that followed the game's release in Japan in 1990.

* Special Award for Artistic Achievement awarded in 1988 by Computer Gaming World
* Adventure Game of the Year, 1988 — UK Software Industry Awards
* Best Selling Atari ST Title, 1988 — UK Software Industry Awards
* Best Role Playing Game, 1988 — PowerPlay Magazine (German)
* Best Role Playing Game, 1988 — Tilt Magazine
* Best Sound Effects, 1988 — Tilt Magazine
* Game of the Year, 1988 — Computer Play Magazine
* Best Atari ST Game, 1988 — Computer Play Magazine
* Game of the Year, 1988 — 4th Generation Magazine (French)
* "Golden Sword" Award ,1988 — The Adventurer's Club of the UK
* Best Role Playing Game, 1988 — The Adventurer's Club of the UK
* "Beastie Award", 1988 — Dragon Magazine
* Best Atari ST Title, 1988 — Dragon Magazine
* Best Game, 1989 — Amiga World Magazine
* Best Role Playing Game, 1989 — Amiga World Magazine
* Best Amiga Game, 1989 — Game Player's Magazine
* Best Amiga Game, 1989 — Datormagazin (Swedish)
* "Beastie Award" Best Apple //GS Title, 1989 — Dragon Magazine
* Best Game, 1989 — Info Magazine
* Best of the Amiga, 1989 — Compute magazine
* Inducted as an original member in the Computer Gaming World Hall of Fame in 1989
* Designated as one of the 100 Best Games by PowerPlay Magazine (German, date uncertain)

reaching an astounding market penetration of more than 50% of the Atari STs ever sold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master_(video_game)

To date Dungeon Master retains a small but faithful following online, with several fan ports and remakes available or in development.

Not only that, but the assumption that the reason they don't make games like that anymore is because they aren't any good, or that people don't want them is absolute balls. If there are reasons they don't make them like that, it's because 1) People want to be challenged, but they want to be able to keep playing and not get stuck. But this mostly gives us easy games, instead of the much more difficult to implement game hint (Dungeon Master had 'The Oracle' hint utility) 2) Publishers love it, because then they can sell you another game in 2 months. 3) Creating an intricate and well designed game level is difficult. Creating a linear one is cost efficient and easy for them to produce.

Dungeon Master had riddles and puzzles to solve that were very clever and it was really challenging for me as a child. I guess it took me about a year or more to finish it, with periods of hiatus that I would sometimes spend trying to figure out a puzzle.

I'll give you an example, this riddle was pretty easy: there was an alcove (shelf built into a wall) with words written on the wall "I am all, I am none." and to get the gate to open, you have to put the right object there in the alcove.

See if you can figure out what object that was... and don't forget, you have to find it (multiple path levels and backtracking), and be carrying it. (You can only carry so much). Often, you had a hundred various items in your inventory, but you might be carrying the item, so that might make it easier to figure out.

Well, if you can't figure it out, here's the answer:

Spoiler

I am all, I am none. The item is a hand-mirror.

Read this:

Lateral-Thinking Challenges

In some ways, lateral-thinking challenges are an extension of inference challenges. Certainly, they draw on the same core skills, but taken to the extreme. A lateral-thinking challenge tasks the player to draw on her previous experience and knowledge and combine them in a new and unexpected way.

This knowledge can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic means that the knowledge was gained from within the game world—for example, figuring out a new combination of runes to cast a previously unknown spell, as was the case with the "flux cage" in FTL's Dungeon Master (see Figure 7.9). If the player figured out the meaning of the runes, it was possible to figure out roughly what purpose the unknown spell had, and the player needed to do that to win the game. No knowledge gained outside the game would have helped to figure out that particular problem (unless the player looked up the answer in a game magazine or on the Internet, but that's cheating).

The converse of intrinsic knowledge is extrinsic knowledge. This means knowledge that was gained outside the game world, perhaps in real life. For example, a player could use his knowledge that wood floats to retrieve a key attached to a wooden block just beyond his reach at the bottom of a narrow container by filling the container with water.

Half-Life made great use of extrinsic knowledge-based lateral-thinking problems. In one particularly memorable sequence, the player had to figure out that the giant tentacled monster was sensitive to sound and then could use that as a detection mechanism, necessitating extreme stealth or noisy diversionary tactics in its presence. Not only that, but the player also had to make the mental connection between the oxygen and fuel pipes running throughout the level and the ominous rocket poised directly over the seemingly invincible tentacle. There are many other such puzzles in Half-Life, but these are particularly notable (and ingenious) examples.

http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1942.asp

 

[Ridge]

no, call of duty games

Disagree. That is too many cut scenes, even for COD....that is totally Bad Company 2. Couldn't run 30 feet without hitting a pre-rendered cut scene.

 

[Eejit]

Does it make them poor?

It's part of what makes them poor.