20 réponses à ce sujet

[N7Jamaican]

I was watching a Deus Ex Mankind Divided demo (can't wait for this game!), and they were talking about each level making multiple paths to get to one objective (I know some other games has the same design).  Should Mass Effect: Andromeda take the same approach? Having multiple paths, each path could be a player advantage or disadvantage depending which one you take and your play style?

[JeffZero]

It'd be grand, but I fear it'd eat into resources too much if the devs went quite so far with it. Andromeda risks getting stretched overly thin in many ways, given its multiple goals, from a strong narrative and memorable characters to fun sci-fi exploration to great minute-to-minute Mass Effect-y combat. At the risk of sounding pessimistic, I'm not so sure the devs can hope to match Eidos Montreal's rock-solid level design whilst balancing all these other flying daggers.

[N7Jamaican]

It'd be grand, but I fear it'd eat into resources too much if the devs went quite so far with it. Andromeda risks getting stretched overly thin in many ways, given its multiple goals, from a strong narrative and memorable characters to fun sci-fi exploration to great minute-to-minute Mass Effect-y combat. At the risk of sounding pessimistic, I'm not so sure the devs can hope to match Eidos Montreal's rock-solid level design whilst balancing all these other flying daggers.

 

If it'll eat it into the quality of the game and not actually improve it, then I'll pass.

[Jaquio]

I feel like multiple paths and options are best when you have time to plan and strategize and have a general feel for the layout.  Mass Effect has a tendency to throw you blindly into the thick of it, limiting strategic options.

 

Not that I wouldn't like having multiple options, I just think it would involve more than just larger levels.  It would involve a bit of a tonal shift in gameplay.

[Cheviot]

ME3 had something like this in the N7 missions; maps with multiple routes, allowing you to flank (and be flanked).  As Jaquio says, multiple  paths to a map can be utilized more in stealth games, but in TPS games, it allows for dynamic battles moving across the map instead of "go behind cover, shoot a bit, move down the corridor."

[Sylvius the Mad]

I strongly oppose corridor levels (where there's only on narrow path). So anything that isn't that would be good.

[mickey111]

the frostbite engine would be a great opportunity to make levels much more interactive. WOuld love to roll a biotic character with the ability to crush people by pulling down walls, balconies and other heavy objects in urban areas. Or to wash people away in a tidal wave when fighting near a coast, or a lake. 

 

Even something as basic as grappling like in (far cry 4) climbing (every stealth game ever), or the concealment under dark shadows would go a long way to improving Biowares reputation in the level design department, which has improved substantially with each new Mass Effect, but I don't believe ME3s gameplay was good enough that it could have been the big seller it was because of co-op alone.

[themikefest]

I have nothing against having different paths that lead to the same goal

[Mcfly616]

Better than running down a single hallway/corridor on each mission for the entirety of the game. Even then, it's not enough.  It'll be like Gears of War, choose path A or path B, even though they're both essentially the same. 

 

 

They need to open it up alot more than just giving us another path to run down. 

[N7Jamaican]

Better than running down a single hallway/corridor on each mission for the entirety of the game. Even then, it's not enough.  It'll be like Gears of War, choose path A or path B, even though they're both essentially the same. 

 

 

They need to open it up alot more than just giving us another path to run down. 

 

Gears gave you path A or B are certain points in the game.  I feel to make co-op on harder difficulties even... harder.  Single player, doesn't matter.  

 

I don't mind a few corridors here and there, getting stuck and fighting in tight places..  But open the map up to make for much more strategic planning for fights.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Time-delay DP.

[BabyPuncher]

I don't think I've ever encountered a game offering 'multiple paths' that has come close to matching the level design quality and elegance of level design I've seen in single path games. 

 

The brilliance of Half Life 2 comes to mind.

[Cheviot]

I don't think I've ever encountered a game offering 'multiple paths' that has matched the level design quality and elegance of level design in single path games. 

 

The brilliance of Half Life 2 comes to mind.

The high regard Half Life 2 still holds is more due to the atmosphere the game creates (as well as the mythic status of Half Life 3) than level design.

[BabyPuncher]

I doubt that.

 

Elegance is difficult to formulate. Most of things that make HL2 (and pretty much all of Valve's games) so well designed go completely unnoticed by players. Consciously, anyway.

[Mcfly616]

  But open the map up to make for much more strategic planning for fights.

 This is exactly what I'm proposing. If you look at ME1, there were instances where this was possible (sniping from a mountain, rolling up in the mako etc.) But the AI was in no way good enough to actually realize it. MGSV shows what is possible when you greatly improve enemy AI and open up the level design. Freedom of approach (concerning combat) adds so much to the experience. Better than the linear shooting galleries Bioware has been serving up.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I doubt that.

Elegance is difficult to formulate. Most of things that make HL2 (and pretty much all of Valve's games) so well designed go completely unnoticed by players. Consciously, anyway.

If they go unnoticed, then they don't matter.

A linear design limits decision-making opprtunities. It inhibits creativity.

I object to context-sensitive controls for the same reason. It places too much control over my character's potential behaviour in the hands of the developers.

A linear design typically means that the developers left us a specific puzzle to solve, and we're trying to find their solution.

I'd much rather invent a solution that never occurred to them. Because their solution will take into account a bunch of things I don't think the devs should be worried about (like pacing, or difficulty).

[RoboticWater]

The high regard Half Life 2 still holds is more due to the atmosphere the game creates (as well as the mythic status of Half Life 3) than level design.

That's actually not true, and the video is merely one prominent example. Valve are meticulous with their testing and tweaking in all aspects of their game including their level design. New weapons aren't just tossed in at any random moment and new enemies don't just appear. Everything is introduced and expanded upon in a very specific way, allowing the player to acclimate and excel in the environment with each one of their tools. However, the best level design often goes unnoticed, so we may both be right. 
 
Unfortunately (or not depending on how you see it), many people don't appreciate HL2 as much because it's gameplay and pacing are slower than that of modern shooters. Having played both CoD4 and HL2 recently, my personal opinion is that HL2 holds up far more than CoD because of how deliberately the game is paced.
 
MGSV's method to level design, though (slightly) less artful than Valve's in my mind, is intentionally constructed to allow the use of any tool at any time. Essentially each outpost can be seen as a mini sandbox of varying complexity. Technically, every level can be completed with the most bare of loadouts even at higher levels because the core mechanics are designed to work universally. New gadgets and weapons only give new or more efficient approaches to existing problems.
 

If they go unnoticed, then they don't matter.

That's simply untrue, especially for game design. Most players aren't consciously aware of why they like the games they like.

Just ask the average person who plays CoD why they like it. I can assure you that the vast majority won't tell you that they like the simple, fast-paced gunplay that gives constant frenetic feedback and level design that funnels them directly to the action.

The same holds true for practically every other medium. If the design isn't noticed, then it will likely seem like magic. That is generally the goal when designing things meant to be fun.
 

A linear design limits decision-making opprtunities. It inhibits creativity.

There's a difference between on rails and linear when it comes to game design. Obviously, putting the player on a singular path with exactly one thing to do is bad, but focusing the player on specific tasks with specific constraints can enhance their creativity and reduce repetition.

What Valve do and what any competent developer does is construct an arena with a set of tasks and give them enough tools to solve them. Linear design is just a focusing tool, letting players adapt to new challenges in a controlled environment so that in future, more open arenas, they have the most basic understanding of the problem before them but the freedom to face it differently.

Creativity is not a single solution to every problem; creativity is active adaptation to changing environments.
 

I object to context-sensitive controls for the same reason. It places too much control over my character's potential behaviour in the hands of the developers.

A linear design typically means that the developers left us a specific puzzle to solve, and we're trying to find their solution.

We're meant to find a solution, not just theirs. Obviously, there's a baseline intended solution to every linear game, but creativity is finding every other solution.
 

I'd much rather invent a solution that never occurred to them. Because their solution will take into account a bunch of things I don't think the devs should be worried about (like pacing, or difficulty).

Pacing is absolutely paramount in everything. Even books should be wary of their chapter length.

Some people may be content to move along at a monotonous pace, but most require regular stimulation to maintain their interest. The Director for L4D2 was invented for this very purpose: to constantly adjust the game to challenge (and occasionally help) the player despite varying playstyles.

[MrFob]

Hmmmm, the multiple paths in Deus Ex games were usually designed to accomodate different play styles (combat vs. stealth vs. tech). ME doesn't really support that variety in gameplay so the question arises what the point of different paths would be (assuming they dn't add new gameplay opportunities in ME:A).

 

The only thing that ME did offer was to choose the range of combat (sniping vs. mid range vs. close range & melee) and there, some of the level design in the trilogy offered you choices with some cover positions that resemble sniper perches for example.

 

I do expect that with the focus on more open areas that we can explore with the mako, we will also see more tactical opportunities in those areas which is nice but without changes in gameplay, I don't really see the point of multiple paths in more confined levels. I know I would just end up exploring all of them in search for items, so all it would do is to increase backtracking. In that case, I'd rather have them add one more level with it's own side quest or something like that.

[Ahglock]

More open maps, hells to the yes.  Do you pick the sewer or the front door like Dues Ex, not so much.  Don't mind if the sewer option is there, but it should be about having a large logically constructed building that fits for whatever its purpose is supposed to be. And its up to the player on how to tackle it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Let me rephrase:

Linear level design makes it harder to break the game. I like breaking the game.

[Cheviot]

That's actually not true, and the video is merely one prominent example. Valve are meticulous with their testing and tweaking in all aspects of their game including their level design. New weapons aren't just tossed in at any random moment and new enemies don't just appear. Everything is introduced and expanded upon in a very specific way, allowing the player to acclimate and excel in the environment with each one of their tools. However, the best level design often goes unnoticed, so we may both be right. 

I wasn't trying to imply they were poor or even average developers.  I listened to the commentaries in the Orange Box, I know how much work they put in, how many iterations of levels they do, the thought they give to player experience and so on.  The thing is, they are not the only developer to do this.  They are good, but a lot of other people are just as good or maybe better.