Common Sense In Level Design

[Paul Shuttle]

Personally, i felt it went downhill from where he made the assumption that we all look where we're going when crossing the road.



Seriously, however, it did remind me of a Design tutorial i've got in a *very* old PC Format - Around 5 years old now, probably when Sin was released. It was mainly geared towards DM design, but the general rules do crossover, particuarly with regard to the carrot and stick method used in the best maps (mostly DM, but again - applies elsewhere) - Put the best weapons in exposed areas, where the player must take the risk to get the reward. The case for simple design was also made, normally referring to symmetry and flow - points which are more important in DM and TFC type games rather than CS, where symmetry obviously wouldn't work too well.



Certainly helped me get started all those years back. If only i'd have had it back when i was designing for Duke...

[taffer]

Very nice article, and a smart little site you've got going.



Hopefully this is all your own work, and not some hack from another website.



I think we all remember the 'checkers' incident - that was ugly.

[tspoon1066]

I doubt very much that the work on his site about level deisgn is some 'hack', after all, he did make Dust & Dust2, by far two of the most playable maps in CS to date.



I'm sure that he knows what he's talking about when it comes to this stuff.



p.s. I just read about the checkers thing, that article was pretty lame even when it was about CS, how the hell did it even get a mention in the first place???

[Blankster]

[Softy's 24/7 Fraggin]

what do you guys think of 3D-Mike's maps? are they style over substance? the only one that gets any play is survivor. i like his new DE_747 map: it has a very "in the movies" feel.

[Buddah]

David Johnston wrote..

Incidentally, does anyone think the Torn layout analysis was perhaps unfair? I drew out those routes and was actually quite shocked to see how many there were. Was I right to highlight the difference between that and Aztec? As much as I like the appearance of Torn, and indeed Crinity (awesome designer imo), the layout could do with some simplification... but I felt really bad highlighting it.

I'll say yes.

Torn really seems to be 2 maps. On set of routes for the T's another for the CT's. They both meet around or at the bombsites.



Honestly I had little trouble learning de_torn.

[Gpig]

As far as torn being good or not I have no opinion since I haven't really played it much. It isn't hard to learn though. It feels pretty straightforward to get to the sites.

If you want to look at a complex map. How about that graveyard map from RTCW? Everything looks the same(in torn there is different damage to buildings, a car, etc. that all help stuff stand out) so getting out of your spawn is hard to do as an allied. You just have to memorize the way out of there but it ends up not being a problem because all rtcw maps have a learning curve because it's mission based(which I think might be why I loved RTCW) so memorizing the pattern out of your spawn isn't really a problem. You can learn the routes to torn after a few rounds but learning the details to it, like other maps, takes more time. I don't know if torn is any good though because back when it came out I got horrible fps on it due to not having the hefty(at the time to me) amount of ram it needed so people didn't play it when I finally did upgrade. I've only played it a few times.

[David Johnston]

It isn't just about learning routes. Any route can be learnt given time. It's about how the route applies to the gameplay. CS defusion maps seem to work better when they're simpler... which Torn isn't, unfortunately.



I think it has something to do with the 'instant-death' (headshot) scenario, which isn't common in RTCW, and so maps can be slightly more complex. Take the wrong turn in CS and you're dead. Do the same in RTCW and you at least have the chance to rectify your bad move.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

My only complaint was a matter of being fair: Aztec's layout analysis was oversimplified, not hugely, but there's no route line printed for the stairs out of the water (not a ramp, stairs). Apparently the overpass above it made it seem like it was listed, but it really wasn't.



Regardless, Torn ends up being a bit like Piranesi, nice looking and playable, but a bit more complex than they really need to be. I'm not a fan of hugely complex maps for CS in any scenario. However, I do like slightly more comples cs_ maps than de_ maps, as I like to have a chance at sneaking in to the hostages.



Take a game like Natural Selection, though, and probably what I enjoy most about it are the expansive, complex, mysterious and interesting environments. Giving the name of the area really helped with simplifying navigation though, and helped out with the learning curve. Visiting places like "Atmospheric Processing" for the first time was just a scary but exciting experience, filling me with wonder... that alone was enough to make me love that style of large maps.



The fixed version of the article looks even better. Well done. :)

[Ghengis]

Man, the checkers thing was perhaps one of the funniest mommetns of csn that i have seen in my 6 months of coming here.



And De_747 isnt new, and is possibley one of the best 3v3 maps, Well u can have more, but I find it works well with 3v3. Its nice to go cowabunga n surf the crate out of the payload bay with a buddy n try to hit each other in free fall. I owuld like it if 3d mike made the sky bigger, much much bigger, so theres time to aim at the other guy....In fact playing de_747 is betterthan watching airforce one, which sux ass bigtime.

[PCF|Herman]

Mehehe, aye, I personally found the checkers thing highly amusing



(Well done Dave)

[David Johnston]

-:Nighthawk:- wrote..

My only complaint was a matter of being fair: Aztec's layout analysis was oversimplified, not hugely, but there's no route line printed for the stairs out of the water (not a ramp, stairs). Apparently the overpass above it made it seem like it was listed, but it really wasn't.

Both diagrams lack some routes, but even then the difference is quite clear!

-:Nighthawk:- then carried on writing..

Take a game like Natural Selection, though, and probably what I enjoy most about it are the expansive, complex, mysterious and interesting environments. Giving the name of the area really helped with simplifying navigation though, and helped out with the learning curve. Visiting places like "Atmospheric Processing" for the first time was just a scary but exciting experience, filling me with wonder... that alone was enough to make me love that style of large maps.



The fixed version of the article looks even better. Well done. :)

I STILL haven't got round to playing NS. I will... when I get back home in mid-June to the ADSL my parents now have.... but then again I miss TFC as well and want to play that... so little time...



Ta!

[-:Nighthawk:-]

I'm a 56k bitch too, ya know. Excuses excuses. :P



I know what you mean about little time, though... then again, it's mostly based on priorities and such, and I suppose it's wise not to put games as a very high priority. :)



Anyway, as far as NS went, it probably helped that I read the whole damn manual before playing, and then waited until late at night to play, killed the lights, and went for the total immersion thing.

[Doodleman3]

What in your opinion is the best editor for Half-Life?

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Who doesn't use Hammer?