Hacker News Reader

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

One thing I'd really love game designers to do when designing levels - focus first on what it is, and then only on how it plays. E.g. if designing a space station, first consider how a space station would look like, what facilities it needs, what would be the optimal placement, etc. Only after that add the puzzles, enemies and stuff.

In other words, I'd like game designers to pay more attention to details in world building.

View on HN

The problem with that is that space stations and whatnot aren't designed to be fun as you go through them. Games are supposed to be fun. It would be incredibly misguided for a game designer to design the level around a real-world location first and then add the puzzles and enemies. Do you have "fun" walking through the halls of your doctor's office or through your local water treatment plant? There's a reason why they don't do exactly what you're suggesting.

Different people have different tastes. Yes, I do find it interesting to walk through unfamiliar buildings in real life, and I'd find it more fun to go through a realistically designed level even if that meant e.g. the pacing was a bit uneven.

I think there's a flaw in this want, which is that you don't know what "realistically designed" means. I've never been on a large space station, and aside from academic or artistic ventures, one has never been built.

The same is with wastewater treatment plants, etc. And, if you're targeting realism, size might be an issue.

That said, there are games that are thoughtful about this, such as doorkickers or heist.

>Do you have "fun" walking through the halls of your doctor's office or through your local water treatment plant?

Yes! More fun than playing modern basically-on-rails shooters.

I think some open-world RPGs have been laid out in exactly that manner. MMORPGs especially, but MMOs aren't always played for fun.

Doom originally tried that, with Tom Hall doing a lot of design. Then they figured out that it sucked, and decided to go with more abstract playspaces instead.

Even in Half-Life 2 and things the current industry practice is to "box in" the playspaces to get the flow correct and then skin them to look like actual locations.

If you want a game with some actual attempts at realistic spaceships look at System Shock 1/2 or Dead Space. Even in those cases it's pretty clear that they have taken great liberties with what would make sense.

> focus first on what it is, and then only on how it plays

This is a great way to make a game that is pretty but boring.

Pretty-but-boring is already how they make games.

Which is why the advice is terrible. Games need to be fun first which is why Doom uses abstract levels instead of realistic levels.

I agree that too often, the layout of levels does not look real, as the space they represent (living quarters, warehouse, reactor, office, prison...) don't look like they could fulfill their function. Sometime they just feel like "game space".

And it impacts negatively any kind of immersion.

So I think it would be beneficial for level to be a little more believable in that regard, as it would improve the games.

Of course it only apply for games where such things are important and for players who dislike this break of immersion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com