Posted by Stealth on March 20, 1998 at 22:04:34:
In Reply to: Re: JK levels verse levels in other games posted by C@rni on March 20, 1998 at 19:35:05:
> Well that was one thing i hated in those wolf3d levels. You could easily get lost in those stupid treasure areas. hmmmmm i prefer linear. I dont like to spend to long on a level. And i love a incentive to get through the level. I love a story. keep that in mind, i dont think im a single case. I think i only beat doom because i got bored, not because of the story. I never beat quake 2, I got 2 bored. No story.
>
> > > Ok, just wondering if I can get some opinions here. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought that JK, and to some degree MOTS, levels were a bit too linear. That is to say, they aren't really levels in the sense that you can run around the entire level trying to accomplish your mission, but they're more or less just paths for us to follow. I'm talking about the single player levels now, not the multiplayer levels which by design allow access to all parts of the map. The reason I ask this is because I see this as a fundamental flaw in level design. I think back on the Wolfenstein, Doom and Doom II levels, and it seems to me that on many instances, but not all, a player could traverse the entire map and would, in this sense and in my opinion, get a better game experience out of those particular levels. I think about the "Downtown" or "Spaceport" levels from Doom II, and IMHO I think that those kinds of levels are superior to say something like "The Valley Enterance" level which I believe is the first level leading to the Valley of the Jedi in JK, where essentially you follow the stream until you come to a path, then a bridge and so on.
> > > Myself, as I design my level I'm trying to keep this in mind. Am I making a mistake?
> > > Opinions? Agreements? Disagreements? Insults? Admonishments? Praise? What do you think? Blue_Ghost
> >
> > You are totally right... only in Doom, etc. id level designers forced you to
> > explore the full level by making you go after the red, blue and yellow keys,
> > which is kind of artificial. In DF and in JK goals are supposed to obtain the
> > same result, but obviously some of them were botched in JK. Anyway I agree
> > with you that some levels feel totally linear (in both JK and MoTS).
> > I would certainly say that you are NOT making a mistake by trying to force the
> > player to fully explore your level, but don't go overboard and make him revisit
> > the same area 10 times... :-)
> > -CogKing
Don`t think you could say there is a hard and fast rule..
Some people like a level where you more or less have to follow a predetermined path.
Then again some people prefer a level where you can take many paths.
It all boils down to the player and his likes/dislikes .
Obviously it`s a fine line to cut to satisfy them all.
Personaly i like one where you can explore.Has some thing interesting to look at/play with. Puzzles to some extent,but not one where you need to spend 20 mins with your calculator to figure out.
Or you drop the player in a trap/stuck or something with no way out. Always a bummer when that happens.
Enemies etc. It`s not hard to make a Hard level to play that leaves the player with not much of a chance to complete the level. But this kind of level will only appeal to players with a lot of experience. On the other end of the scale one that is too easy will appeal to few also.
A good all round level will be designed so an average player can complete it.
It all boils down to do you want to target a certain type of player for your level or try to have a broader appeal.
Ultimately you choose the purpose and target audience of the level.