/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style
	Posted By: Mark Levin	Date: 7/19/04 4:20 p.m.
	In Response To: Opinions on Mapmaking Style (Forrest of B.org) : The first item is what my best friend Mike and I used to call : "refridgerator-switch-on-the-roof" syndrome. This is basically : the notion that somewhere over there is a switch that, for unexplained : reasons, opens up this thing over here; the name comes from the a : hypothetical example that to open your fridge you have to climp up onto : your neighbor's roof. I like to put switches in places that have a story : excuse for them, and make logical sense, though I will sometimes for : gameplay make up a reason why the normal, sensible way isn't working, thus : you have to circumvent it. But I see that others often put switches in : random places relative to what they control strictly to make getting : through the level more difficult. I would agree with you most of the time- it's very, very common for a switch to be placed for no other reason than to force the player to explore a new area of a level, then return to a door. However, I can still think of exceptions to justify this sort of design. If an installation is meant to be a secure area, it's plausible that a critical door could not be opened from a nearby (or insecure) location; the switch could be placed in a guard post overlooking the door but only accessible via a circuitous infiltration-type flow. Or the door in question could be described as an emergency measure meant to be used very rarely, so virtual ease of use could be plausibly ignored and the door controlled from the area responsible for detecting extreme circumstances. : Related to this are poly-activation triggers that open previously locked : doors, simply to make you explore a certain area before moving on to : another. Not for any story reason; just, you have to walk over this way : and discover that the door there is locked before the hidden passageway : back where you just game from will open up. I don't like these, they : frustrate me when playing these maps, but I see them around often. Definite agreement here. It's important to let the player know when something he's already seen has changed; whether this is by having him be aware he is performing the change himself (switch) or through immediately, unavoidable feedback (the level reconfigures itself so that only the new path is available; the player's attention is drawn to the change with, say, a sound). But requiring the player to wander around aimlessly, give up, and memorize the map enough to notice a newly opened door is not fair (on the first try, this will involve either careful scrutiny of the automap, if it's even present (since we're talking about games in general, not just Marathon) or multiple passes through the same familiar, empty, boring area of the level searching for something that hasn't been encountered before. : Basically I think it comes down to whether a space is designed to be an : actual space that was meant to be easy for it's builders to get around in, : and then for some reason or another it is now NOT so easy to get around : it, or maybe it still is but you have to explore a lot to find or kill : something, or maybe it wasn't designed for a human at all but, say, the : S'pht, who can fly, and thus need no stairs... or, if a level is designed : just for gameplay purposes with no real function to it. Do players find : the latter acceptable in a story-driven game? As a designer I can barely : tolerate it, but then I have mild OCD about things like that so I could be : biased. I personally don't think that realism is paramount; there is a point where it can start to degrade the map's playability. One of my pet peeves is that maps set in realistic contemporary buildings (think Prime Target) tend to have a vast number of doors in them, only 90% of them are locked, wasting the player's time on behavior identical to tabbing walls looking for secrets. Some games offset this by having a clear visual difference between permanently locked doors and doors that might have something behind them. Rooms in a real building are packed very tightly together and different floors are often virtually identical; this isn't a problem in the real world since it's impossible to get an X-ray, birds-eye view of a real building but in games it renders map functions unreadable. : Which brings us to my next pair of topics, the "rear admiral" and : infinite respawns. I've heard opinions voiced against both of them. : "Rear admirals" are monsters which beam in behind you as you : enter a room, ambushing you. In general I don't use a lot of monsters : beaming into rooms as you enter, These are really two separate concepts- monsters appearing (teleported or otherwise) in front of you and monsters appearing behind you are quite different. They serve different gameplay and design purposes, and I don't really object to either one if there's no major reason in the scenario that the monsters would *not* be able to do that.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

	Opinions on Mapmaking Style	Forrest of B.org	7/19/04 1:45 p.m.
	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style	blake37	7/19/04 2:52 p.m.
	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style	Forrest of B.org	7/19/04 3:00 p.m.
	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style	blake37	7/19/04 3:25 p.m.
	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style	Mark Levin	7/19/04 4:20 p.m.
	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style	Lt Devon	7/19/04 9:13 p.m.
	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style	Forrest of B.org	7/19/04 10:41 p.m.
	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style	Johannes Gunnar	7/20/04 1:14 p.m.
	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style	Ernie	7/20/04 2:30 p.m.
	Re: Opinions on Mapmaking Style	Lt Devon	7/20/04 3:17 p.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ] Pre-2004 Posts