level design

<krang> Do you guys ever reflect over how one single change in the approach to a game's development process can totally alter the overall feeling of a game?
<krang> Like how an FPS game can feel totally different depending on whether maps are open areas or narrow, linear and tactical?
<oblivion> depends on your development process
<krang> Well not necessarily mine. I'm talking about a game's concept in the general sense
<oblivion> well in that case
<oblivion> not often
<oblivion> unless its a sequal that fucks up what the predessor did right
<krang> Well I mean, compare a Battlefield game to say, Hexen or Half-Life 1/2
<krang> They're quite different in terms of how you explore your surrounding environments
<krang> The latter type of game is more on-rails but allows for detours and alternate routes
<krang> where the point becomes to sort of keep your eyes open for those things
<krang> and in the former case, you're free to roam wherever you want, but it's too overwhelming so you instead choose to just stay in track
<krang> on track*
<krang> the difference i guess is that designers can apply more attention to detail in linear/enclosed levels
<krang> and create more scripted sequences
<krang> and you get the additional gameplay element of looking around for "ways out of the rail" or whatever
<krang> you get what i mean?
<oblivion> i don't think its that its too overwhelming
<oblivion> its that the open areas don't reward exploration
<krang> Maybe overwhelming is the wrong word, but I mean, when you play an FPS game with a totally open map design, do you explore every inch you possibly can?
<krang> Or do you ignore the surroundings and just head for the goal?
<oblivion> played medal of honor european assault?
<krang> I do the latter, but maybe that's just me.

<krang> I haven't!
<oblivion> i think its the best sequal to the origional psx one
<oblivion> it has openish levels with lots of diffrent places to go
<oblivion> all of which have objectives to complete in them
<oblivion> i felt really rail roaded
<oblivion> by
<oblivion> medal of honor
<oblivion> the first pc one
<oblivion> it was just
<oblivion> an attempt to make a shaving privite ryn game
<oblivion> krang
<krang> Well
<krang> I mean, compare an on-rails/linear FPS game (like Half-Life 1/2 or Hexen) to an FPS game with more open-ended map design (like most war shooters). The former type of game has you running through these narrow, tactical levels where you are pretty much enclosed and limited to "the rail", whereas in the latter case you have the option of going anywhere for quite some time before you get some kind of
<krang> artifical restriction.
<krang> And to me, the former type of game gets the benefit of being more stimulating, architecturally interesting and more tactical, as it's easier for designers to conjure up interesting scenarios and scripted sequences given that they only need to focus on "the rail".
<krang> And plus, you get the additional gameplay element of always looking for detours or ways out of the rail or whatever, which I guess is an incentive to explore. Like you always have this feeling of uh.... "Can I get there, on that other side of that fence, or is that just an artificial backdrop?" whereas in the Battlefield-type games you are free to roam anywhere, and therefor become overwhelmed and
<krang>  instead choose to like.. just head for the goal, maybe look around a bit, but mostly stick to the objective and not wander off.
<krang> So I very much prefer the linear type of shooter over open-ended ones
<krang> do you agree or disagree
<oblivion> what do you mean by war shooters
<oblivion> i only play single player games
<oblivion> most war shooters are still pretty rail roaded
<oblivion> and there isn't much incentive to explore in them either
<oblivion> esspecial modern warfare
<oblivion> you are always pushing foward
<krang> Well, I don't know to be honest. I don't want to name any names because I don't know if I'd be right to name them or not
<krang> Maybe Farcry?
<oblivion> becuase enemies constantly respawn

<oblivion> unless you move foward
<oblivion> i think the diffrence between half life or hexen and cod:blops
<krang> oblivion I guess what I'm saying is that I've played a lot of games where I've thought like.. "this map is very open and it looks like i could go just about anywhere. I can see the horizon in just about every direction, there are tons of houses or trees everywhere, and the overall feeling is just overwhelming... so i guess ill just head for my goal"
<oblivion> is the former are more deliberate
<krang> whereas when playing halflife its like
<krang> "this game is pretty narrow, and makes me want to see how much i can explore and if i can get to some weird area that is visible from here"
<krang> you know what i mean?
<oblivion> yes
<oblivion> but i think the style of combat
<oblivion> plays a massive part in it
<oblivion> did you ever get the urge to explore in halo?
<oblivion> me neither
<oblivion> its fun to drive around in vehicles
<oblivion> but its a risk reward thing
<oblivion> and the rewards in the oldschool fps' were great
<oblivion> i think part of it is due to every game now having regentiating health
<oblivion> you arn't always on the look out for health packs
<oblivion> and since you have regenrating health
<oblivion> battles have to feature alot of enemies to be a challange
<oblivion> so if you explore
<oblivion> you risk another challanging battle
<oblivion> for -at best- some ammo
<oblivion> probably less than you used fighting for it
<oblivion> in half life and hexen theres lots of situations where its one tough enemy
<oblivion> or a few very weak ones
<oblivion> and some useful health-weapon-magic powerups
<oblivion> so yeah
<oblivion> i guess krang
<oblivion> i think game design
<oblivion> like most art
<oblivion> is best approached as something holistic
<krang> oblivion: i hear what youre saying, but i dont think it has to do with risk/reward. i think it merely has to do with the fact that when playing an open game, your brain cannot process all the different possibilities. there's no incentive to go in any

direction because every place is equally interesting/uninteresting
<krang> you have 360 ways to go, so why would you waste time walking all the way over to some potentially unintended venue of exploration
<krang> only to reach a dead end or an artificial wall, you know?
<krang> there's just no reason to go explore that group of houses off in the distance
<oblivion> the problem is theres nothing interesting in these open maps
<krang> because you dont know if its just deocration or if the designer intended you to do that
<krang> well you dont know that oblivion
<oblivion> and alot of that is due to the combat
<krang> i know that some designers like to put weapons and stuff in houses off in the distance
<oblivion> you realise it pretty quick
<krang> others dont care and just use them as decoration
<krang> so how can you know?
<oblivion> and the style of combat can dictate it to you off the bat
<oblivion> see
<oblivion> theres 2 open world shooters
<oblivion> that i've played
<oblivion> where i explored
<oblivion> mercenaries
<oblivion> becuase theres things everywhere
<oblivion> 52 war criminals to take in
<oblivion> along with other side quests
<oblivion> and the 4 main factions quests
<oblivion> and fallout 3
<oblivion> becuase theres stuff to find
<krang> Well, I'm not talking about games that are actually open-ended in terms of gameplay
<oblivion> see my problem with farcry
<krang> im talking about straight up point-A-to-point-B FPS games
<oblivion> and i can only talk about farcry one
<krang> where the only difference is map design
<oblivion> is i found the combat to be shite
<oblivion> like
<krang> either the maps are open with the apparent possibility to go anywhere
<krang> or narrow, with the possibility of going nowhere but forward
<oblivion> it wassn't satisfying to be in gunfights
<oblivion> and there didn't seem to be anything interesting off the main paths
<oblivion> so