Case Study: Call of Duty 4 "All
Ghillied Up"
As an example of how
pace could be controlled in a game I examined a video of one of the best levels
in one of my favorite games. The level is really a master class in forced
pacing -- I suspect that most people's playthrough times are very similar --
certainly for earlier parts of the level.
(Click here to watch.)
This study examines a
small 10 minute section of the beginning of the level, showing how the threat, tension,
movement impetus and tempo change quickly over the course of the scenario. The
level uses the very clever tactic of a scripted AI buddy to literally drive the
pace at every moment during the gameplay. It isn't generally possible to do
this in most level designs, but it is a very efficient method of controlling
the pace.
Throughout the whole
of this 10 minute section the tempo is never extremely high, as there is little
in the way of fast paced action until much later in the level, but the pace was
maintained constantly by having either threat, tension or movement impetus high
at every point.
There are constantly repeating gameplay elements throughout (as
there always tends to be in FPS games) -- movement to a point, then waiting
before eliminating a threat, returning to movement once complete (which could
quite easily be described as Tremolo -- rapid alternation between two mechanics).
0:18 -- Arrival
Threat: Low
Tension: Medium
Movement Impetus: High
Tempo: Average
- Obstacle up ahead -- "too much
radiation we'll have to go around"
- Tells you to follow him -- he is now
leading you through the first part of the level, we have forced pacing --
he moves pretty quickly, but gives us information as we move.
0:40 -- First Contact
Threat: Medium
Tension: High
Movement Impetus: Low
Tempo: Low
- He stops and the movement impetus slows
for a moment, however the pace is still high as there is tension -- they
make visual contact with the enemy.
- They now creep slowly ahead; whilst there
is forced pacing the movement impetus is low. The perceived threat is high
however, so it feels high paced and tense.
- Option is then offered to take out one of
the two guards when not looking. This slows the pace right down as the
player observes and formulates a plan.
1:29 --
Move Up
Threat: Low
Tension: Medium
Movement Impetus: High
Tempo: Average
- The target is eliminated; suddenly the
obstacle has been cleared. The AI buddy now instructs the player to move,
the movement impetus picks up again.
1:40 --
Go Around
Threat: High
Tension: Medium
Movement Impetus: Medium
Tempo: Low
- The player is told to "hold up".
Suddenly our movement impetus has stopped. Again the tension rises as the
perceived danger increases.
- Movement impetus is started again as he
instructs them to go around to use more cover, but we have seen the enemy
so our perceived threat is now really high.
1:53 --
Four Tangos
Threat: High
Tension: Medium
Movement Impetus: Low
Tempo: Low
- A real threat is presented to the player --
four enemies inside a building in extremely close proximity. The perceived
danger is very high, but your AI buddy instructs you not to engage.
- Whilst you are engaged in this dilemma
another guard approaches outside. You are offered the choice to take him
out or let him pass -- again the pace slows as the player takes time to
make the decision.
2:15 --
Go
Threat: Low
Tension: Low
Movement Impetus: High
Tempo: Average
- Once the threat has been removed then the
pace picks up again as the movement impetus is raised yet again by the AI
buddy.
- This pace is quite staccato however, as he
stops by a set of cover for a moment before continuing.
2:35 -- Guard
in the Tower
Threat: High
Tension: High
Movement Impetus: Low
Tempo: Average
- Again they stop as the AI buddy spots the
enemy in the tower and a patrol closing in. This is effectively a timed
challenge -- forcing a change of pace and heightening the perceived
threat. However the player is forced to make a plan and may take a while
to reach a decision.
- Once the guard in the tower is taken out
again the pace slows as they have the option to take out the patrolling
guard or let him pass.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
One point I took from this article that really makes me think, is using the language of formal music to describe level design - not that musical analogies work in all examples, but that music has a language to describe these things, but gaming does not. With (video)gaming being only a few decades old, this is understandable, and does not need a forced correction, but it will be very interesting to see how the language of game design evolves in the future years. For now, however, I think musical terms make a great analogy.
Many of your Threat analysis moments just take the moment into consideration, but what if the player is playing on very easy just to see the story? Then all threat moments of low+ are actually very low. All the tension moments of low+ are actually very low. Movement impetus is always very high.
Now if the player is playing on very hard then any moment, doesn't matter what is happening threat is very high and tension is very high. The only time in that situation when threat and tension are not very high is right after they see a "checkpoint reached", but 1 minute later they have something to lose and their movement impetus is in danger, and thereby the entire pacing of the game is in danger. If a player dies and in a battle and is set back to a checkpoint the movement impetus actually goes in reverse.
So I think difficulty and resurrection methods also have a very large part to do with pacing. If your game is designed for pacing I think it would be in your best interest to not include any difficulty sliders at all. It would also be good to come up with a resurrection mechanic that won't impede the movement impetus by too much.
Everyone that plays your game isn't going to be the same skill level anyway so I think even with the same difficulty for everyone, not everyone will have the same pace. This is a hard solution to fix for an interactive media type, pacing that is, because of the vastly different skill levels that will be playing your game. So I think the answer is in pacing by mechanics that aren't governed by player skill at all. Keep in mind that perceived threat is part of player skill, if they are good at the game or if it is on easy nothing you can do visually or with sound is going to give them the perception of threat. Also keep in mind pacing mechanics like items laying around could very well be ignored entirely by someone that is good or playing on easy because they don't feel they need them at that point.
Planer line drawings of the flow can help people get a sense of what to expect and strive towards. Dotting the spline with symbols representing experiences described by a simple legend can further aid you in taking your musical score from your noggin to the team.
Maybe it just helps to visualize your levels like an Opera piece. If you can internalize the level in your head and especially in your inner ear, then I believe you start from a much more solid and palatable footing.
Cheers, for writing this. I especially like that you took the extra time to create the breakdown of the CoD level. Watching the video and reading your notes side by side was very helpful in picking out the importance of things that may have seemed purposeless without this exercise.
One point of disagreement though:
"Introduce a threat from behind -- as long as the threat is significant it will cause the player to want to move away from it."
Well, in my experience players always first move _towards_ a threat, even a significant threat, unless it's an obviously unbeatable environmental one on the order of rising lava.
And you haven't mentioned the most significant way to guide a player through a level: leaving a trail of enemies for them to kill (of course, this doesn't necessarily apply, some games with progression through levels don't _have_ enemies I suppose, but it's common enough to be worth mentioning).
I like to think that levels are pieces of music, and the game (the whole single player campaign) is an album or an opera. It's not just the level that should have a carefully crafted pace, but playing through all the levels should create a good sense of rhythm and integrity. It's not just a matter of creating different levels; each subsequent level should have something to do with the previous one, giving something to the player that ticks him to keep playing the game. If the levels are not crafted together, the player loses interest if the levels are repeating themselves, or gets confused, and consequentally bored, if the levels are totally different from one another.