|
[In this detailed design article, Blue Castle (Dead Rising 2) level design director Josh Bridge examines how you design memorable, tactical combat areas for first/third-person shooter games.]
Overview
The following is an attempt to identify,
name and describe the key ingredients to necessary for typical cover-based
video game shooter. Usually in a shooter, the core gameplay revolves around living long
enough to kill what is threatening you or impeding your progress.
The challenge
is to present this small amount of gameplay in new and exciting ways so that
the player is compelled to sit through and play all the way to the end... and
hopefully want to play the sequel.
It should also be noted that the following
is focused solely on the areas of combat within a level, and should not to be
misinterpreted as the sole ingredient needed for an entire level's design.
The
Combat Zone
The Combat Zone is a reference to the area
of gameplay within a level designated for battle. This is a broad term and
doesn't necessarily imply explicit, physical boundaries... though in some cases
it can. In either case, the LD creates areas of expected battle with various
gameplay support; enemies, cover objects, destructibles, impassable points,
flanking positions, etc. The layout and placement carries the expectation that
the player will have to battle through the area -- in essence, the presentation
of the core gameplay.
The
Kill Zone
Defined as the area in which the player
and/or AI is without cover and can be fired directly upon, and potentially
killed. This area can be visible (landmines on the ground) or virtual (tracer
fire). The effectiveness of the design here determines the difficulty of the
firefight. Without an effective Kill Zone, the player doesn't need cover, and
eliminates one of the key ingredients intended for gameplay.
Defensive
Cover
The required companion to a Kill Zone. There
should be areas in which the player and/or AI is protected from direct fire.
Without this, the experience boils down to shoot or be shot. Cover has a huge
impact on play styles and difficulty, which I will go into a bit further on.
Player
Paths
Play
Your Way
Players should be able to play the way THEY
want to. Why? It allows for a more creative experience, something that players
will likely want to come back to again. Limiting the player to one path and
play style over and over again gets tiresome; variety is key to keeping the
player engaged.
Everyone has a preferred play style in
shooters:
-
Run and Gun - guns blazing, shooting
everything on sight as they usually stick to the most obvious play path.
-
Ninja - climbing up and jumping across
everything or sneaking around through small passages that are discovered; they
usually avoid the most obvious play path.
-
Camper - loves to hang back in safe spot and
snipe from as far away as possible before moving in.
In the above level mock-up are examples of
multiple play paths that accommodate these styles:
-
The Run and Gunner will likely shoot their
way across the trench, taking cover only when necessary.
-
The Ninja will likely climb up and jump
across all the cover objects, making their way across the playfield.
-
The Camper will likely look for a safe spot
atop the catwalk to snipe the enemies from afar.
Focusing on accommodating each one of these
play styles in each Combat Zone isn't easy and based on experience really
should be planned from the beginning. However, this element is critical to
getting out of the linear/scripted old school way of designing levels.
When you think you are about done with your
napkin sketch, ask yourself:
-
Is there way to circle the enemy undetected?
-
Can the player climb under and over enemies?
-
Can the player have a variety of cover
options?
-
Does the player have to crouch?
-
Can the player navigate the space by jumping
from object to object?
|
This is why TF2 Payload maps are so compelling. Over a round the combat will shift from free form to defined.
Keep it up :)
/Windfeld
That made me think of Resistance; play the first level and look at the massive crates inside the houses... that a) don't make any sense being there in the first place and b) have no way of getting inside!
I might be the minority that notices these sort of things, but I think it subliminally effects oblivious players as they are working through the game.
If I had to think of one example, I'd say Drake's Fortune had extremely obvious combat zones. You'd turn a corner, look at a clearing with waist-high walls everywhere, and just know something was going to happen. That, and the exploding barrels everywhere...
Daniel, I totally agree; hide your gameplay!
@Kevin and Hélder
Payload is great! I would love to see that concept in a single player scenario as well.
@Daniel
I have seen the biggest wins with hiding gameplay when environment artists are brought into the grey block process early. The ability to develop believable level architecture is a different skill than developing a fun Combat Zone. Some level designers are great at it, while others tend to create fun spaces that make an artist's head explode when they think of how will they make the abstract space believable. More recently, the role of Level Architect is becoming more commonly accepted; a hybrid role that mixes an eye for gameplay as well as world modeling.
Obviously if it is a more realistic setting, photo reference or on sight research is critical for sparking ideas on how to leverage the existing environment for gameplay. Hopefully the level isn't based in a crate factory though;)
@Brad
Sometimes the 'functional design' of areas simply slips through the cracks. Level designers and world artists are on the hook for ensuring the space is believable. This is ultimately overcome with strong reference/research and planning up front. Since most Level Designers likely have not built an actual military base, nor would they be contracted to do so for their government, we need to learn from what these real world experts have already built. Though, since lots of games are based in a fantasy world, developing how a space factory functions isn't easy. Using real world reference is still critical to start with before moving into how it fits within the fiction for the game.
@Rob
Thanks for the head's up on DoD. Been looking at it more closely, and it seems really well though out. I will give it a whirl some more...hadn't had a chance to really sit down with it.
Whether by luck of design, the map fits well into your criteria; though it is a case where the Combat Zone is pretty much the entire level, and it's a little more excusable to have crates around when you're in a warehouse.
Interesting article.
This is a great article for level designers and has a lot of healthy principles that should be taken into account. However, multiplayer level design has a few extra quirks of its own.
That map is CS_Assault, good description. Plus, CS isn't a really cover based game, the in the killzone can easy kill the player in covers, specially in that map, you can shoot through most obstacles, crates and walls.
For the life of me, I couldn't remember the name of the map. Thank you. You're right that CS isn't cover-based by definition, but I think the playing dynamic of having finite health is similar to a cover-based shooter. Even though the objects are penetrable, they do offer protection; and with limited health and aim penalties for movement, you would still stick and move (if not pop and shot). Sorry for mixing catchphrases.
Very insightful and very well exemplified work, thanks for the excellent read.