DNF Level Design. Devs, Keep the DN3D formula!

[Mr.Fibbles]

The portals in the original Prey engine (1997~98) are pretty much the same thing you see in the new Prey game. It was an entire engine made with portals in mind (that was scrapped unfortunately). You could see through to the other room (and shoot yourself through a series of portals). Watch the interview and the trailers from the original Prey and you would know what I mean.

Diablo used teleporters like in Duke and other early games. For all intents and purposes, the Town Portals are just like the stairs in the game. . . which are a lot like the "loading areas" in modern games. You load up a new "level."

A "portal" as a window to another room is like what you have in modern games. The doors between sectors (or blocks) are portals. Unreal has "portals" in as much as they are used to section out the level for rendering purposes. All 3d engines have portals, just not like the portal most people would think of (ala Stargate or some sci-fi). The doorway is a portal from room A to room B.

[Klaus Kinski]

*sigh*
Ok, I'll try to make this clear now.
Teleporters are points in a level that have an entry and exit point. Travel normally occurs only one way in SP, although you can sometimes go from exit to entry as well. This is pretty much regular in MP.
Whatever enters the teleporter will exit it exactly from the coordinates the exit point is located. Often the speed and direction the entering object has is changed by the teleporter. Only certain, predetermined objects travel through the teleporter. Usually only the player can go through but sometimes objects like enemies, NPCs or weapon projectiles (rockets, grenades, plasmabolts or similar things) too. Hitscan weapons don't work through teleporters, splash damage isn't teleported either because bother are not objects.
Now to portals. Many things can be called portals (see Mr. Fibbles Unreal example which is actually about rendering) but the portals we talk about here, the ones Prey and Portal (the game) feature are a different thing. First of all, they can do everything that teleporters can. However, two limitations exist from what teleporter can do.
They can't change your velocity or direction. When you enter a Portal with 20 mph, you'll exit with 20 mph. Always. Only what comes directly after the portal could change that. A force field for example. Or gravitation.
If you enter the portal in an angle of 45 degrees (0 and 180 degrees being parallel to the portal's surface), you will exit the portal in a corresponding degree. A teleporter could change your values, where you look at and how fast you exit.
Example: You have a Portal with an entry point facing south and an exit point facing north. Like a straight tunnel. You enter the portal from south, facing north, you only walk forward, you do not strafe or look into any other direction. Just straight ahead. When you exit the portal, you will still face north. Now, if you'd entrer the same portal facing north-east, you'd emerge still facing that direction.
This is not a given with a teleporter. The level designer can make you face any direction he wants. He doesn't have to, though.
The tricky part about portals is that your exit direction is not dependant on the game world but on the portal surface.
Example: You have a wall and on that wall is the entry and the exit point. You enter the portal facing north but come out facing south. This is because the exit points surface faces south. If it faced east, you'd emerge facing east. If the exit is on the ceiling, you would face the floor. If the exit and entry point of the portal face each other, you could see your back and even fire a rocket into it.
This brings us to the things portal can do but teleporters can't.
Portals work like windows or doors, they are a 2 d shape that allow the player and AI to see through, see the other end. The entry and exit portal are always the same shape. A teleporter on the other side is just a point in space that has a radius in which it teleports the player. It might be marked somehow (for example with a sprite or model) but you can't see to the other side where it exits.
Whatever enters a portal at a point in the entry exits it at the same point at the exit portal. If you had a rectangular portal and you'd shoot a rocket through the upper right corner of the window, it would exit the portal from your point of view from the same corner.
Another difference between portals and teleporters is that everything could travel the portal. Hitscan weapons for example. You could shoot yourself in the back of your head with a rocket launcher using teleporters but you couldn't do that with a sniper rifle. First of all, aiming would be hard because you would see yourself through the teleporter. Second, the hitscan weapon wouldn't work as there is no object that travels. This however would work with a portal, as everything can travel it.
Certain things couldn't travel portals in the past but that is only due to technological limits. In Unreal, sound couldn't travel through portals because the sound engine couldn't handle that. Nowadays though, everything (AFAIK) can travel portals, even sound or splash damage. Portal and Prey show that.
Portals offer many interesting oportunities that go as far as even making a game centered solely around them interesting, the game is Portal. Today we are not as limited in portal use as we were in Unreal. We can make them stick to any surface we want to, at all angles, giving us the posibility to exploit their properties and the physics of the game's world. Play Portal and you'll see their potential. It's more than astounding.
The first game I'm aware of that used portals (portal in the sense I described above) was Unreal.

[Skiffer]

Originally Posted by Klaus Kinski

*sigh*
Ok, I'll try to make this clear now.

It's mostly a summary of what we've seen from 'portals' / teleports so far. It's not like sound and hitscan weapons would have traversed these 'portals' without the codesnippets specifically written to allow just that; reversely teleports could do the very same, with the very same code in place. In the core, the 'portals' demonstrated in Prey & Portal are no different from spawnscripts in Doom or Quake, albeit tweaked to effectively simulate some functions of real portal-tech.

[alexgk]

This is going too far off-topic. Get back to the rails people.

[Klaus Kinski]

Originally Posted by Skiffer

In the core, the 'portals' demonstrated in Prey & Portal are no different from spawnscripts in Doom or Quake, albeit tweaked to effectively simulate some functions of real portal-tech.

What real-portal tech? The one the Pentagon is working on in Area 51?

[Blue Lightning]

Originally Posted by Klaus Kinski

What real-portal tech? The one the Pentagon is working on in Area 51?

You know about that?

So can we all agree that teleport that we saw in DN3D, should be included in DNF? I personally thought that gave us an extra option which is important to level design, in the already somewhat non-linear DN3D level designs. (teleports offered us yet another route )

[trucedAnimal]

Just one thing I still dont understand:
Didnt DN3D have portals too?
Even DN3D had room over room even though the editor did not support the design of that. So what else than a portal was used to get to the other room?
The only difference is that you were not aware of it. Only by looking at the map you could see that you are in a completely other part of the level.
Even the surface of water was a portal to the underwater area since this was like a diffrent room which could not be where it's supposed to be. Thats one reason why you could not see whats in the water. but you can still shoot with any weapon, the aliens also shoot you from under water.
It was diffrent in Shadow Warrior since the rooms where placed to the correct coordinates at load time. This made calculations easier and so they could make water surfaces transparent.
Thats how I understand it.

They then had the idea to make those portals visible as such in the game. thats when they started with Prey.

And what are elevators in DN3D then? Teleporters? They also do teleport you to another room.

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by trucedAnimal

Just one thing I still dont understand:
Didnt DN3D have portals too?
Even DN3D had room over room even though the editor did not support the design of that. So what else than a portal was used to get to the other room?
The only difference is that you were not aware of it. Only by looking at the map you could see that you are in a completely other part of the level.
Even the surface of water was a portal to the underwater area since this was like a diffrent room which could not be where it's supposed to be. Thats one reason why you could not see whats in the water. but you can still shoot with any weapon, the aliens also shoot you from under water.
It was diffrent in Shadow Warrior since the rooms where placed to the correct coordinates at load time. This made calculations easier and so they could make water surfaces transparent.
Thats how I understand it.

They then had the idea to make those portals visible as such in the game. thats when they started with Prey.

And what are elevators in DN3D then? Teleporters? They also do teleport you to another room.

not really a portal in the Prey sense. Room over room was just really just a cheat, and when you'd go from one part of the map to another, that was just a teleport (like E1L2 or E1L5 when you enter the battle lords ship). Not really portals, just silent teleports. (the "smoothness" therein was a trick with the textures and placement of the teleporter, it didnt behave like a portal at all.)

[hark]

Why do you guys insist on "keeping the formula"? If 3D Realms "kept the formula" we wouldn't have Duke Nukem 3D. Instead it'd have been a side-scrolling shooter like the previous Duke Nukem games. Sure, a sequel should have some similarities to the previous games but it shouldn't be that similar. That's what expansion packs are for. Instead of hoping for more of the same, try looking forward to a breath of fresh air. You might actually like it more.

[Blue Lightning]

Well Hark, in the area of level design, I think it is a good thing to "keep the same formula". Of course I do not mean make the maps with the same routes or anything, and new additions to the game are always welcome. I'm just talking about the general "level design formula", meaning "semi non-linear mapping". It is this kind of level design that is a large part of what makes DN3D so fun, and so famous.

As metioned by someone earlier, I haven't really seen that kind of level design since DN3D, until BioShock was released last summer. Some of BioShocks levels (Fort Frolic and Medical Pavilion is a great example, but there are many more), have that same "semi non-linear formula" that DN3D had, and which is partly why BioShock won so many awards...IMO.

[Kien]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Yeah man, no matter what they say, key cards were cool. Same with boxes and exploding barrels.

Hell yes I don't see much bad in the key searching. It gives you a bit more freedom to search over places and the exploding barrels and cracks were just the shit!

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by hark

Why do you guys insist on "keeping the formula"? If 3D Realms "kept the formula" we wouldn't have Duke Nukem 3D. Instead it'd have been a side-scrolling shooter like the previous Duke Nukem games. Sure, a sequel should have some similarities to the previous games but it shouldn't be that similar. That's what expansion packs are for. Instead of hoping for more of the same, try looking forward to a breath of fresh air. You might actually like it more.

Duke 2 kept the same formula as Duke 1, so why can't "Duke 4" retain the same formula as "Duke 3"?

[vcatkiller]

Originally Posted by hark

Why do you guys insist on "keeping the formula"? If 3D Realms "kept the formula" we wouldn't have Duke Nukem 3D. Instead it'd have been a side-scrolling shooter like the previous Duke Nukem games. Sure, a sequel should have some similarities to the previous games but it shouldn't be that similar. That's what expansion packs are for. Instead of hoping for more of the same, try looking forward to a breath of fresh air. You might actually like it more.

I agree with you, to a point. It does seem like most forumites don't want DNF - they want Duke Nukem 3D part 2. As soon as somebody mentions a gameplay element that might run against Classic D3D gameplay, even just a little, it's "no, Duke wouldn't do that because..."

Still, I agree 100% that level design is very important. Multiple routes, tonnes of secrets, locked door puzzles, massively interactive locations...something D3D did really well. I'm not just hoping DNF will do this, but also take it to the next level - more of the above, with tonnes of new innovative twists.

[Bushido]

All I know is this: The reason Duke3d was so memorable is BECAUSE it was so different from the other corridor shooters. It had a lead character with...character. It had levels that felt like they could've been real places back when games looked like shit.


...it's still fresh so if they stick with that I'll be happy, but if they decide to flip the whole formula they made then that's cool too...as long as the next formula is as unique as the first.

[Blue Lightning]

As long as the new formula isn't an "on the rails shooter". Were talking about level design here, and there really are only 3 types: Linear, semi non-linear, and non linear.

DN3D was semi non-linear. Oblivion was non-linear, but got boring real fast. Half Life 2 was linear (for the most part, but there were exceptions)...but Half Life 2 was so well done it could get away with it.

DN3D wont be non-linear like Oblivion, I think we can all agree there. And I don't think a linear DN3D would carry on the tradition of DN3D. Not to mention that a linear DN3D would hurt replay value.

[vcatkiller]

Yep. I agree there, on the semi-nonlinear thing. It's one of my little hobby horses I like to get up on when talking to friends how I dislike the majority of modern fps level design. I think a lot of modern fps game designers could learn a thing or three from some of the classics - D3D in particular.

I do prefer the non linear approach, but you're right, I won't expect that in DNF. Semi non-linearity, secrets, etc. That would make me exceedingly happy.

[Blue Lightning]

Originally Posted by vcatkiller

Yep. I agree there, on the semi-nonlinear thing. It's one of my little hobby horses I like to get up on when talking to friends how I dislike the majority of modern fps level design. I think a lot of modern fps game designers could learn a thing or three from some of the classics - D3D in particular.

Agreed! The classics certainly offer up some lessons that seem to of been forgotton.

Originally Posted by vcatkiller

I do prefer the non linear approach, but you're right, I won't expect that in DNF. Semi non-linearity, secrets, etc. That would make me exceedingly happy.

Indeed vcatkiller, I'm guessing most players would agree. For me, the reason that a non-linear game like Oblivion doesn't work well, is because I like to be guided along. Not pushed along mind you (like a linear game), but gently kept on a general route, with the ability to move off and explore here and there. A few secrets here and there...a different route to choose from (like a vent) to get from one area to another...that sort of thing.

However, I need to clarify what I said about linear games. Even linear games have a certain degree of non-linear qualities. In fact in a sense, the difference (to me at least) between linear "on the rails" shooters, and "semi non-linear" shooters, is only a matter of degrees. I like to use Half Life 2 as an example, not because I love the game, but because I think it is a good example of a linear or "on the rails shooter".


***HL2 vs DN3D in Level Design.***

In HL2 there were some areas that were what I would call
semi non-linear". Highway 17 for example had long stetches where a player could choose to ride along the beach, or up on the road instead, or even in the grass in between. Each of the three routes offered a different experience. And you could choose to explore beach shacks, or just by-pass them. And other levels (like Sandtraps) had a few areas similar to that, plus the game was full of secret places. So HL2 was technically semi non-linear...but not to the degree that DN3D was. Therefore, HL2 is considered linear, and DN3D is considered semi non-linear, because DN3D is non-linear to a far greater degree than Half Life 2.

In other words, DN3D offers more than one route in EVERY LEVEL, not just some levels....you see what I mean? I think that is the real difference between linear and semi non-linear. Anyone agree? And that's how I would like to see DNF.

[Skiffer]

Originally Posted by Blue Lightning

DN3D was semi non-linear. Oblivion was non-linear, but got boring real fast. Half Life 2 was linear

It's not just 'level design' in play when talking about 'non-linearity', there's also scripting to account for. How 'non-linear' is an open landscape, really, if you're basically made to go from X44,Y44 to X48,Y58 to X66,Y87 to push the game forward, like in ES:OB? That's basically a linear sequence in which you create gaps where you deviate from a straight path.

Originally Posted by Blue Lightning

As metioned by someone earlier, I haven't really seen that kind of level design since DN3D, until BioShock was released last summer.

Bioshock certainly had a few levels that allowed for multiple paths, which made it feel a bit more natural, especially since you sometimes had to backtrack a bit. For the most part, however, you were simply provided with 'pockets' in the level design, such as rooms that were without any 'real' objective, and didn't lead anywhere. Can't say it holds up to Duke3d however, being trigger heavy as it was.

Originally Posted by Blue Lightning

For me, the reason that a non-linear game like Oblivion doesn't work well, is because I like to be guided along.

Which is funny, considering Ob had the Allknowing Console Compass that basicly shoved your face in the direction you needed to go, much like Bioshock now that I think about it.

Originally Posted by Blue Lightning

In other words, DN3D offers more than one route in EVERY LEVEL, not just some levels....you see what I mean? I think that is the real difference between linear and semi non-linear. Anyone agree?

Can't say I agree. 'Semi-nonlinear', at least by my estimate, would be just about what Duke3d did with level design:
- make a big room
- fill it with stuff, but leave a good handful of gaps
- add an objective/endlevel trigger somewhere
- make sure the player can get trough the stuff to the objective/elt in two different ways or more.

A fully non-linear level design would pretty much allow me to run straight to the end game boss and start duking it out, without doing anything else. You can't really line up levels 1-12 and call it a non-linear level design, because they're in a sequence.

It's a rare thing to see in games, and even moreso in shooters, because they're heavily reliant on linear progression where story and difficulty are concerned.

A good example of non-linear level design would probably be Fallout, where by knowing the location of the Cathedral you could take a trip down there as soon as you leave the Vault, and find yourself face to face with Master. That's basically finishing the game ( with the 'Ooh Evil' ending ) in no more than 10 minutes.

[vcatkiller]

Would you really want DNF to be completely non-linear? Ok, admittedly I would, but still, linear level progression with each individual level being as open and explorable as possible would be fine by me, ie pre defined level start/finish with multiple ways of getting between the two.

In fact, a Metroid style level design would also be pretty cool imo. The levels start out restrictive and relatively linear to begin with but open up and become more explorable as the game progresses. Back track to earlier levels to find secrets you missed. Gain new abilities/items or solve puzzles to allow progression to several previously blocked off locations. A good handful of objectives to achieve at any given time.

That's my thinking anyhow. I can't think of too many PC games outside of rpgs that behave like that.

[Malgon]

^A bit like a hub style system?

[vcatkiller]

Yes, very similar to that. Only not necessarily having a central map they all connect to - they could interconnect in several locations, in a web like fashion.

[froggerdonkey]

Originally Posted by hark

Why do you guys insist on "keeping the formula"? If 3D Realms "kept the formula" we wouldn't have Duke Nukem 3D. Instead it'd have been a side-scrolling shooter like the previous Duke Nukem games. Sure, a sequel should have some similarities to the previous games but it shouldn't be that similar. That's what expansion packs are for. Instead of hoping for more of the same, try looking forward to a breath of fresh air. You might actually like it more.

Very well said, I dont want to end up playing D3d again just with updated graphics, cool as that would be. I'm sure they know this. If only they'd release a demo so they could get some useful feedback. rather than sheer speculation!

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by vcatkiller

Would you really want DNF to be completely non-linear? Ok, admittedly I would, but still, linear level progression with each individual level being as open and explorable as possible would be fine by me, ie pre defined level start/finish with multiple ways of getting between the two.

In fact, a Metroid style level design would also be pretty cool imo. The levels start out restrictive and relatively linear to begin with but open up and become more explorable as the game progresses. Back track to earlier levels to find secrets you missed. Gain new abilities/items or solve puzzles to allow progression to several previously blocked off locations. A good handful of objectives to achieve at any given time.

Good idea, but I don't think it fits the Duke mold. Unless, somehow, you would have incentive to go back to places because of upgrades/perks/weapons/etc.

Metroid is feggin great.

Now if we really wanted to go off the deep end, how about an "open-world" Duke Nukem game (ie. GTA)? Wouldn't that be an odd choice? And, as Skiffer pointed out, they still are linear. You need to do this to unlock this section of the city, etc. The level/world design, perhaps isn't linear, but with the story that is often not the case.

[Blue Lightning]

Originally Posted by Skiffer

Bioshock certainly had a few levels that allowed for multiple paths, which made it feel a bit more natural, especially since you sometimes had to backtrack a bit. For the most part, however, you were simply provided with 'pockets' in the level design, such as rooms that were without any 'real' objective, and didn't lead anywhere. Can't say it holds up to Duke3d however, being trigger heavy as it was.

Yes, rooms that didn't lead anywhere, which also add to level routing, which I call "dead end routes". I like dead end routes, but only so many. Too many and you feel like your not advancing but speding a lot of time getting lost looking around rooms that lead nowhere. Half-Life 2's Water Hazard had these "dead end routes" in the form of canals that led nowhere but were fun to traverse in the airboat, and sometimes goodies would be at the end of these canals.

So yeah, dead end routing is ok, but not too much.

Originally Posted by Skiffer

Can't say I agree. 'Semi-nonlinear', at least by my estimate, would be just about what Duke3d did with level design:
- make a big room
- fill it with stuff, but leave a good handful of gaps
- add an objective/endlevel trigger somewhere
- make sure the player can get trough the stuff to the objective/elt in two different ways or more.

Agreed..however this is where it get's delicate. I would emphasize that too many pockets or routes could serve to bog the game down. This is what both Levelord and Alen Blum III knew. It is a delicate balence between linearity and non-linearity, that makes a game semi-nonlinear and fun.

An example would be Hollywood Holocaust. We know there are two ways to get to the end. You can run to the back of the theatre and jump up on a pig cop's head, and then jump up on the ledge and finish, or you can choose to go the "regular way" which will take some time. Now, you have two choices if you go the regular way...you can enter the theater from the front, or the back door...your choice. And once inside, you get some choices about which way you go, and there are vents you can use. But both paths inside ultimatley lead to the movie camara upstairs where the keycard is. It is a wonderfuly designed level, but I do not get lost, because there are not TOO MANY different ways to go once inside. You see? It's a balence.

The mappers that did DN3D knew about balence.

[Skiffer]

Originally Posted by Blue Lightning

Yes, rooms that didn't lead anywhere, which also add to level routing, which I call "dead end routes". I like dead end routes, but only so many.

They're nice 'pace-breakers', for when the action bit gets a bit too repetative. As you say, there needs to be a balance. Of course, that statement applies to all aspects of the game.

Originally Posted by Blue Lightning

It is a delicate balence between linearity and non-linearity, that makes a game semi-nonlinear and fun. An example would be Hollywood Holocaust. We know there are two ways to get to the end.

What about Jet-packing up to the platform from the back alley? If i remember correctly, there's also some way to jump up there, from the backstage area in the theatre. No matter.

EDIT: Noticed that it was exactly what you were talking about. Gosh, do I feel dumb.

I'd say it's actually easier to get lost in a linear level, than a non-linear one, based on previous experience. In many a case, especially where trigger-heavy shooters are concerned, there's one main path running from Start to Finish, with 'dead end routes' sticking out of it, to mask the fact that you're basically running down a long hallway. If, for some reason, you have to deviate from the main path ( say a fetch-quest in one of the 'dead end routes' ) it can be a hassle to find your way back. Usually it goes hand in hand with repetative level design and fetch-quest bonanzas.

My point, in any case, is that a linear level forces you to stick to the only path possible, and so any deviation from that path can result in confusion, while a less linear level, like Hollywood Holocaust, doesn't really allow you the option to get lost; there's not really any path you can take that won't get you further into the game, because all the paths link up eventually, and take you to the end of the level.

The main reason we see less and less of this type of level design, is because the story telling process has become alot more cinematic than it was back in the good ol' days. What used to be the rare "Ooh" moment when the dumb as dirt AI did something unexpected ( like circle around a level and pop up behind you and roar ) has now been replaced with scripted sequences where AI knocks down an otherwise unbreakable wall in the typical Hollywood fashion to show that you're dealing with a badass. End-game cgi has been scrapped in favour of mid-game linear storytelling.

In all honesty, I don't consider it a worthwhile sacrifice; there's nothing uncurably wrong with scripted events, but it's a rare treat to see a game make use of dynamic triggerpoints and bypassable scripted sequences in favour of replayability and non-linearity. It's obviously alot easier to just funnel the player into a narrow hallway with pressure plates, and focus the camera on some animated sequence, but it's been done to death in the last 10 years, and deserves to be put out, so that level design and more subtle story telling techniques get a chance to shine yet again.