Bad level design

you might like this thread.

as for bad designing..

* A passage that you can walk down on foot and yet cannot go with a vehicle/mount even though there are no visible reasons. (Zelda : twilight princess)
* A blade that will damage you even if you hit the flat side. (god of war)
* A platform that you can fall right through if you stand a bit too close to the edge (god of war)
* An attack that is not announced that can kill your entire squad in one hit. (overlord 2)

One that always gets me is the misuse of crates, in particular crates in impossible places. How is it possible that a huge crate gets put inside a room when the crate is much too large to fit through any of the doors?

Also air vents that are always just big enough to fit through and that have no logical organization at all are annoying. Seriously, who in their right mind would design an HVAC system with air ducts that go willy-nilly and make no logical sense.

bad level design? squarish undetailed levels(Shinobi and Nightshade for the ps2)

Many of the Sonic the Hedgehog games are guilty of bad level design. Especially the newer ones.

Sonic 3 had the infamous barrel in Carnival Night Act 2. Jumping on the barrel made it slew up and down, and you had to get to a platform below it. You assume that since it moves when you jump on it, that this is how you get past it. Instead, you're supposed to use the up and down directions on the d-pad, something not used for any real purpose anywhere else in the game. Bad. It took me YEARS to figure this out, and you can't beat the game without go past it.

The newer games just have bad level design period. It's way too darn easy to fly off an edge to your doom because Sonic is running too fast to respond to the pits of death that are everywhere. Keep in mind that Sonic is supposed to be very fast, so this means a terrible failure on the level designer's part.

A good level should be discoverable. That is, it should be possible for a very skilled player to navigate a level from beginning to end without having to resort to trial-and-error (dying and reloading) or online guides. That doesn't mean that the player shouldn't die, but rather that his death should be from a lack of skill rather than a lack of knowledge. Secret parts of the level may require trial-and-error, but not an online guide. Forcing the player to consult resources outside of the game is bad design.

Consequently, a bad level is one that is not discoverable. For example, a level that requires a player use a mechanic that he has not been introduced to is bad. Requiring the player die several times to learn how to navigate a level is also bad. I'm thinking Battletoads bike sequences, although it is technically possible to pass those levels on a first try, for all practical purposes its impossible. Other bad mechanics might be insta-gib traps that are not distinguishable from the background, or requiring that a user solve puzzles to progress without giving them any reasonable info on how to approach the puzzle (i.e. "Well I give up, lets try combining everything in my inventory with everything else and see if something works...", or "To get past this point you should have thrown that lever halfway through the level. Have fun getting back there").

Quote:

Original post by Dim_Yimma_H - When ambitious environments totally overshadow invisible walls (Okami slammed you on the nose with... air!)

I'm actually going to pick on Okami, because I felt the level design was a weakness of the game.

I felt that the game tried to encourage you to backtrack, but didn't reward you appropriately for doing so. If you were lucky you got an item that was worth a bit of cash. Contrast to earlier Zelda games where you'd often get heart pieces or something of significance for your efforts. I also feel that the newer Zelda games have watered down the rewards for exploring (I kinda feel that the third game was the best in the series).

I also felt the levels were short and too straight-foward. There's a good balance to strike between making levels too complex and too simple, and I felt that Okami aired a bit too much towards simple. Admittedly, though, I only got about halfway through the game, a bit past the "surprising twist" plot point, so the design may have significantly improved later.

So I guess I'll add:
1) Levels that don't adequetely reward the player for completing tasks
2) Levels that are too complex or too simple. You have to keep the player interested without overwhelming them. Probably the hardest part of level design.

Quote:

Original post by Moe One that always gets me is the misuse of crates, in particular crates in impossible places. How is it possible that a huge crate gets put inside a room when the crate is much too large to fit through any of the doors? Also air vents that are always just big enough to fit through and that have no logical organization at all are annoying. Seriously, who in their right mind would design an HVAC system with air ducts that go willy-nilly and make no logical sense.

LOL this really makes you mad that the air ducts aren't designed in a functionally efficient way?

I think I would rather have the fun experience than realistic air duct design, and pose that this is potentially an example of GOOD level design since the designers realized the fact that realism does not always equal fun :P

IMO!

Quote:

Original post by Dim_Yimma_H - When hazards are indistinguishable from environment (Tombi is terrible with those!)

My pet gripe is a variant on this - buttons that don't look like buttons but instead look like irrlevant level detail (so you ignore them). Or the reverse - level detail that really, really looks like a button you should be able to press (and spend ages trying to) only to eventually realise it doesn't do anything.

Quote:

Original post by Atrix256 Quote: Original post by Moe One that always gets me is the misuse of crates, in particular crates in impossible places. How is it possible that a huge crate gets put inside a room when the crate is much too large to fit through any of the doors? Also air vents that are always just big enough to fit through and that have no logical organization at all are annoying. Seriously, who in their right mind would design an HVAC system with air ducts that go willy-nilly and make no logical sense. LOL this really makes you mad that the air ducts aren't designed in a functionally efficient way? I think I would rather have the fun experience than realistic air duct design, and pose that this is potentially an example of GOOD level design since the designers realized the fact that realism does not always equal fun :P IMO!

It just really bothers me when there are perfectly located and perfectly sized man-ducts that go from room to room that make absolutely no sense from an engineering perspective (say for example, an air duct running just from one room to another when there are no other air ducts in a level, and one of the rooms just happens to be locked.

You have a keen eye for detail Moe! I just run around without thinkin about that stuff :P

Do you have an architectural background or something that makes this stuff stand out to you more? (:

I notice the air duct thing as well. I was playing the demo of Shadow Complex the other day and it was extremely obvious to me. That might just be a side-effect of it being a side-scroller, though (limitations on what you can do in terms of room layout, etc)

Also, if you ever saw that Mythbusters episode where they busted the myth that someone can sneak around silently in air ducts. It's pretty funny :-)

Quote:

Original post by Atrix256 You have a keen eye for detail Moe! I just run around without thinkin about that stuff :P Do you have an architectural background or something that makes this stuff stand out to you more? (:

No, there has just been a few times when I've noticed things like that, and it annoys me a little.

Quote:

Original post by tremault * A passage that you can walk down on foot and yet cannot go with a vehicle/mount even though there are no visible reasons. (Zelda : twilight princess)

Ah, that example actually causes some "problems" to be solved in several Zelda games. I was recently playing Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and there's a flying bear that comes when you play a song - Problem is it "comes" on the wrong platform sometimes, so I had to find a better screen to play the song on. It's surprising how much we accept as it is.

Quote:

Original post by Bru bad level design? squarish undetailed levels(Shinobi and Nightshade for the ps2)

I must say the squarish layout in Nightshade was alright for all the wall runs/jumps though.

Quote:

Original post by Telgin Sonic 3 had the infamous barrel in Carnival Night Act 2. Jumping on the barrel made it slew up and down, and you had to get to a platform below it. You assume that since it moves when you jump on it, that this is how you get past it. Instead, you're supposed to use the up and down directions on the d-pad, something not used for any real purpose anywhere else in the game.

Whoa, that is so true! I sat with that exact zone for near an hour before I shutdown the game because I thought it was a bug. And I still figured out the D-pad, it's just that I couldn't time it well enough - unintuitive.

Quote:

Original post by Rycross "Well I give up, lets try combining everything in my inventory with everything else and see if something works..."

I'm tempted to say, Zelda has its ups and downs.

Quote:

Original post by Rycross I'm actually going to pick on Okami, because I felt the level design was a weakness of the game. I felt that the game tried to encourage you to backtrack, but didn't reward you appropriately for doing so.

Yeah, there were so small rewards that I didn't even really care for them. Plus a freaking sign popped up every time I picked up a wooden piece of semi-treasure. One of the "treasures" i got described for me over 30 times.

Quote:

Original post by Rycross Admittedly, though, I only got about halfway through the game, a bit past the "surprising twist" plot point, so the design may have significantly improved later.

The second half of the game did increase pace and was also more dramatic story-wise than the first 20 hours, but I think if you weren't fond of the first half, then the part between 20 and 40 hours wouldn't be interesting either.

Quote:

Original post by Moe It just really bothers me when there are perfectly located and perfectly sized man-ducts that go from room to room that make absolutely no sense from an engineering perspective (say for example, an air duct running just from one room to another when there are no other air ducts in a level, and one of the rooms just happens to be locked.

Man, you are too intelligent for those games [smile]
Haha, I remember playing Perfect Dark and crawling through all those ducts, I mostly thought they were rather comfy because there I was safe from the soldiers [grin]

I personally hate scenes where the entire playstyle of the game changes, and you have to hit a button sequence to continue, or else you die. That's right, I am looking at you God of War and you too, Resident Evil 5. I don't know why these scenes are so trendy in games today. You are just watching a cut scene and playing a Dragon's Lair style "hit the correct button in time" mini-game. It completely breaks the flow of whatever you are doing, and it is frustrating if a fail results in death and back-tracking in the encounter. It just seems like we should be past that.

As a side note, I have to defend Okami, at least as a whole. Even with the sometimes bad choices in the level design, it still stands to me as one of the most creative Japanese adventure games I have ever seen, and one of my favorite games ever. The graphical style was amazing for the PS2, and the story was so off-the-beaten path that it was a joy for me to play. And beyond that, I just loved the gameplay.

I like Okami too, actually. It's just that I found the compromised level design funny - in a slightly bad aspect. Except that and an extremely babbling dialog I found the game amazing.

Quote:

Original post by jackolantern1 I personally hate scenes where the entire playstyle of the game changes, and you have to hit a button sequence to continue, or else you die.

Quote:

I don't know why these scenes are so trendy in games today.

Good question. I wonder if it's for performing (read as "displaying" [grin]) advanced scenes that couldn't be performed as "nicely" with realtime input.

When they started using them heavily in Shenmue it was basically a way to make film-like action scenes playable, with swift camera movements and that.

those 'quicktime' sequences can be quite effective. it depends on how well the designers impliment it.
I have been playing 'ninja blade' and i feel the quicktime sequences are very well done.
the majority of teh time they require you to press buttons that correspond to the type of actions that you use during other parts of teh game.
so for example, a jump. uses the jump button. a grab uses a relevant direction on hte joystick. it's not perfect but there is hardly any ambiguity in it, it is mostly like how you normally play the game, just drawn out a bit with far more interesting camera angles. very cool sequences. I really enjoy them. expecially when i pre-empt the next move and get a perfect score.

As kind of a side-note about the "Dragon's Lair scenes", I recently saw a commercial for an MLB game (I think The Bigs 2010, or something like that; others may have seen it, too) where the entire length of the commercial, they are showing a portion of the game where a runner is trying to out-run a pitch to homeplate. It is running in slow-motion with a big picture of the PS3 X button, and both players are rapidly tapping it to try to win. That's the scene they were advertising! It just blew my mind that a game would put a mechanic that can be instantly won with a turbo-switch controller as their flagship video in the commercial.

As far as bad button-tapping scenes, Resident Evil 5's were horrendous. The game's action would completely break with no warning, and you would have to complete a tap sequence to advance. Near the end of the game, the female character falls off a ledge, and grabs hold. You have to tap a button so fast that it made my arms hurt and left me wishing I had a turbo controller. It just infuriated me that they would have such cheap gameplay in an otherwise great game.

Bad level design ...

In a game with far apart save points, having a level:

1) with long tedious sequence of very specific actions which if you screw up kills you (and thus reload way too many times) -- often a not well ported console->pc game with interface difference issues (cheap*ss company didnt test/retune it...)


2) with long tedious sequence of NO difficulty after which you reach a difficult part that kills you alot (requiring you to reload many times and suffer through the same tedious sequence each time -- especially obnoxious are long non skipable cut scenes)



Some games like this I actually snapped the CD in half, uninstalled it and threw the mess in the trash for the sake of not wasting one more minute on such a badly done game.

Here's another bad level design:
- Huge world map and no available hint about where to go.

Quote:

Original post by wodinoneeye 2) with long tedious sequence of NO difficulty after which you reach a difficult part that kills you alot (requiring you to reload many times and suffer through the same tedious sequence each time -- especially obnoxious are long non skipable cut scenes)

I agree. Actually, the Zelda: Oracle of Seasons I'm playing now has a "Unicorn's Cave" like that with a really hard boss at the end. I strolled through the temple up to 10 times just to be beaten by the boss.

And now I'm completely stuck in that game because I need some music player item, but have searched through the whole world map and talked to all characters found for 4 hours without seeing/hearing any hint of it.

Despite that game's high ratings I think its level design is not as good as in traditional Nintendo Zelda's.