Good Game With Bad Level Designs

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

I mean, I have a pretty good idea if I sit and think about it but sometimes I don't know.

In some games it seems pretty obvious. Like in Hitman where the stages are designed in such a way as to make it possible to complete your objectives many, many possible ways.

In other games not so much. Castlevania Harmony of Dissonance is ripped apart for its castle layout but there's not much about the HoD castle layout that's appreciably different or inferior to any other game in the series.

Donkey Kong Country Returns Tropical and Diddy's Kong Quest are both lauded for their stellar level design and with Tropical Freeze I can see why, not so much with DKC2. I mean, I like the game, but nothing SCREAMS great level design in that game.

I only seem to notice or really think about it if it's on either end of the good/bad spectrum. I'll notice if it's insufferable bad or cheap and I'll notice if it's sublime. I have a hard time putting my finger on it though. I can tell you I prefer Dark Souls to Dark Souls 2 but I can't exactly tell you why...

All in all, the phrase and how it applies is somewhat nebulous to me and I'd love to know more. I feel like it'd help me appreciate games on a deeper level to know more about how they're constructed. Does anyone have any youtube videos or articles they can recommend?

For that matter, there's a lot of games I'd have trouble judging one over the other. Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre the Knight of Lodis might as well be the same game for me. I can't spot why one would be better than the other. Professional reviews especially do a shit job of explaining just WHY a game is great or shit if it comes down to something deeper than mechanics graphics or controls. So many just seem like descriptions of the games from 30,000 feet with little critical analysis. There are exceptions like those hours long in depth videos that I can occasionally sit through but they're just that--the exception.

It's subjective, much like any aspect of game design. There is no definitive answer, just techniques and design styles that have worked for a majority of players in the past and those that didn't.

Just to use your Dark Souls vs. Dark Souls 2 example, some might say Dark Souls 2 is worse because it lacks the interconnectivity in the level design that Dark Souls had, which gives the world a more fleshed-out, authentic feeling despite being structured in such a way that is impossible in reality. That said, Demon's Souls and Dark Souls 3 both have fantastic level design despite adhering to a more 'archaic' hub and linear level design. So really the issue is in Dark Souls 2's levels themselves, not in the hub and linearity of the levels. Even then I would say Dark Souls 2 is far above the vast majority of games in terms of level design, mainly because there is so much detail, careful thought put into where items are hidden, enemies are placed, bonfires are located to serve as checkpoints, NPCs to interact with, etc. But Souls games are all about overcoming obstacles in a level, a more story driven game may be better served by having simple level layouts or level layouts that mimic real life locations to increase immersion, even if those levels aren't all that interesting on their own. It really depends upon your game.

And then Crysis came along and blew everything else ever made in an FPS away with its open Assault and Onslaught levels.

It was like a glimpse into the bright new future of FPS gaming.

And then it never happened *cries*

This Naughty Dog talk from GDC is an excellent start on the subject:
https://youtu.be/09r1B9cVEQY

Great level design is about a huge combination of things including shape language, lighting cues, affordable, leading lines, etc. Ultimately each games level design will be trying to maximise the players fun in the game by making the playspace hit the goals of the game.

FPS Map Design

2016

I mean there's not a one size fits all answer.

I'm playing Yooka Laylee at the moment and it's pretty clear that what that game needs is smaller levels with clear landmarks which are viewable more or less wherever you are, so you always have a good sense of where you are. It could also do with the quills (most common collectibles) being used to lead you to content, rather than as a reward for exploring nooks and crannies.

But then you apply that logic to an immersive simulation game and it'd be super linear and boring. In fact do that with an RPG and you'll feel less rewarded for exploring the game world.

And then Crysis came along and blew everything else ever made in an FPS away with its open Assault and Onslaught levels.

It was like a glimpse into the bright new future of FPS gaming.

And then it never happened *cries*

I see this image a lot, is it based on actual examples?

Anyway, it's hard to put into words for me, so I'll just jot down ideas

- complements the core gameplay of the game and allows for a satisfying gameplay loop
- has a great difficulty curve
- allows for exploitation of new gameplay mechanics as they are introduced
- good pacing in terms of the order of encounters, puzzles, bosses, cutscenes (this is different for each genre)

That still depends on the intent, the success, and a lot of subjectivity. If your intent is to have very specific scenarios and a focused narrative/direction, then linear level design can be "good"

Being totally honest here, I can't remember good linear level design at the top of my head.

Metro 2033 is maybe what comes the closets to being linear but still good.

Like the old pornography quote "you know it when you see it"

There is some level of subjectivity and depends upon the genre of game in question. I disagree with the person who posted the "old vs new" map as some comment on good vs bad level design. A linear level can have excellent design and a maze can be poorly designed without any good indicators of where you are and tons of needless back tracking for keys through empty rooms.

Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne are really good examples of level design. They teach you mechanics, show you lore, have excellent pacing and even the enemy encounters and designs fit the lore, everything has a reason for being there.

I see this image a lot, is it based on actual examples?

No, the 2010 example is made up.

Being totally honest here, I can't remember good linear level design at the top of my head.
Metro 2033 is maybe what comes the closests to being linear but still good.

edited with examples. There are a lot more but thats the general idea. What you posted is basically just a terrible meme image that doesn't really accurately define good level design.

When it comes to games with puzzles. I think of gameplay mechanics / types of puzzles as muscles. Good level design is one that makes you exercise holistically rather than exhaust a few.

The best level of all time is just a hallway

Good level design is level design that naturally encourages the player towards the intended gameplay experience. That sounds banal but its pretty important actually, because "confusing level design" is good design in a game that's meant to confuse and disorient you etc etc. Bad level design is just level design that creates a barrier between the player and the desired experience

The best level of all time is just a hallway

For as much shit people give MGS4's second half, I thought Act 5 had really good level design. You had the sneaking section, fight section, Screaming Mantis boss, hallway crawl, Liquid Ocelot battle. Good shit

In other games not so much. Castlevania Harmony of Dissonance is ripped apart for its castle layout but there's not much about the HoD castle layout that's appreciably different or inferior to any other game in the series.

There's not really an objective way to explain this, but it's just not very fun to explore. It feels bland. I couldn't point out one specific thing that's done wrong, because it's more of gut feeling. It feels off in a way that the other games don't.

Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne are really good examples of level design. They teach you mechanics, show you lore, have excellent pacing and even the enemy encounters and designs fit the lore, everything has a reason for being there.

I think my favorite example is Bloodborne's unseen village where once you know and give it another look you realize the story is actually happening in real time in your first voyage there, and the second time is the aftermath.

And then Crysis came along and blew everything else ever made in an FPS away with its open Assault and Onslaught levels.

It was like a glimpse into the bright new future of FPS gaming.

And then it never happened *cries*

What's the left map from? also, there are big, complex maps that get a lot of hate, like Turok 2 gigantic maps, for example, so it's hard to say if left or right are supposed to be judged as good or bad based solely on how big the level is.

Mark Brown does the best job I've seen of explaining this. His videos on Nintendo platformers and Zelda dungeons throughout the series are especially great. This is the video I usually link when people wonder why so many gush about Tropical Freeze.

A good example from Overwatch.

Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne are really good examples of level design. They teach you mechanics, show you lore, have excellent pacing and even the enemy encounters and designs fit the lore, everything has a reason for being there.

Yes. And they way they loop back with shortcuts is great.

Arkane are masters as well, Prey being the best example. The ship is one massive level, with every part being incredibly well thought out and offering the player multiple routes.

What both of those video and you'll understand why DKC : Tropical Freeze is the best 2D platformer, and yes, it's about level designing.

Yes. And they way they loop back with shortcuts is great.
Arkane are masters as well, Prey being the best example. The ship is one massive level, with every part being incredibly well thought out and offering the player multiple routes.

Prey is a great example because it nails the imposing challenge of creating a believable location while also making that place fun to explore for 20+ hours.

The critical path for progress is one important aspect that can spoil or save an otherwise excellent map. Hub and spoke design can be tiring but it's useful to compartmentalise micro challenges.

Red herrings for puzzles and progress should be dealt sparingly, but affording partial success is better than roadblocks. Keep the player playing and don't punish them for wanting to untangle your knot.

Recontextualising an area can be a greater sense of progress than a new area, for example running over the rooftops of an area where you were previously limited to the street level.

There's a lot to this topic, and I'm not an expert on level design. I haven't even dipped into the art and aesthetic design. Planning for line of sight is a huge pain but really helps 3D games when done properly. Of course third person cameras can ruin your design plans, as that needs to be treated like another's player.

Level design follows intent. A corridor FPS with a cutscene every 5 minutes could be the intent and engaging and interesting and entertaining. There's no reason it couldn't be, it's just very difficult to execute such a layout.

Every game that is lauded for 'level design' usually is very cohesive and every mechanic and system interact together to become something greater that serves the underlying intent. Dark Souls 1 is a game often praised for level design, but it's not just 'this shortcut comes back to Firelink' therefore it has amazing level design. Of course, that's the easiest and most showable example, so it's reused everywhere. But Dark Souls 1 true strength is in it's density of spaces, it's consistent rewarding for observation, and how it weaves features like fast-travel into it's narrative. It's things like that, and yes, in addition to shortcuts as well, that make 'level design' great.

One basic rule I like to go by, is that each area should have a "central concept" that makes it unique and memorable and dominates the area. Like "this is the room where the water goes up and down" or "this is the room full of doors", "this is the room with a massive pillar in the middle that you have to turn". Same still applies to open world games, games like BoTW break the land up into obvious zones with a dramatic concept. This is the foggy jungle where it's hard to see, this is the snowy mountain with steep cliffs. etc.
Bad level design would be where you've merely designed an atmosphere without a unique navigational challenge, or a sequence of simple mechanics that are already a staple of the game. Like "here you have to press the switch to make a crane drop a crate and then you smash the crate and take the key to unlock the door and then fight 5 enemies before you can leave"

It depends very much on the type of game, and what it trying to be accomplished. There are a few generally agreed upon patterns that games use that tend to be pretty safe, though. Things like showing a player the door before giving them the key, so that way they get a sense of putting 1 and 1 together. If you give them the key before showing them they door, some players might not even put together that the key opened the door at all (and yeah, I've actually been guilty of this before).

For some games, like old school platformers, good level design was one that could generally guide and lead the player to the exit using visual or object placement cues, without making them feel like going through a bunch of corridors. Examples of this would be coins or rings in Mario and Sonic respectively. Both games have complex object editors that let them place objects in levels, and things like coins and rings come in configurable patterns precisely so they can be used to direct the player.

Games like Mega Man tend to follow a pattern where levels revolve around a singular theme or pattern that gets iterated and progressively harder throughout the level. An example might be fighting a large enemy in a small room. The first time, the enemy is just out in the open and you can stand back and hit it while being able to stay beyond the range of whatever attacks it may have. But just a few rooms later, you'll encounter the same enemy, in a similar room, but the room might have gaps that prevent you from standing at that safe distance. Then again, a few rooms later, a very similar encounter, only now the enemy can move and thus his range has motion. Worlds in mario games tend to have a similar pattern spread out over several individual sub-levels of that world. Games like Sonic Colors also employ a similar pattern. In a way, this pattern is reminiscent of showing the player the "key" before giving them the "door." The first levels and encounters are easier to let the player get a feel of what is coming ahead, almost like playing a song slower while trying to learn it.

I would say the prevailing theme of good level design would be a type of design that can convey many rules and conditions to the player, or teach them advanced skills, without resorting to pages of text. Show the player how they need to play, rather than describing it to them in writing.

A bit of personal taste here, but I also believe every single area of a game having some sort of distinct visual trick is pretty important. Some sort of visual theme for every moment of the game. I want to A) continuously be shown new visual tricks and B) associate a visual trick with every moment of my gameplay.

I have nothing to contribute to this as I too would like to know what makes a level design good or bad. Jumping on OP's question, though, what makes Mega Man X's opening stage so great? I've seen lots of people praising it but couldn't find any videos explaining why. What makes some Mega Man levels good or bad? I understand why Blaze Heatnix's level is atrocious, though, lol.

Easy to tell where you are and learn the layout of an area. Each area should be identifiable by colour scheme, architecture, or significant landmark

Should flow and be easy and fun to traverse

Bonus points for good storytelling within, and interactable objects should be clearly identified

Reward players for exploring

I love sims like dishonoured and deus ex or mass effect for there level design. Big enough to explore and feel like a world, but small enough that condensed stories can be told and level design can be intricate.

I have nothing to contribute to this as I too would like to know what makes a level design good or bad. Jumping on OP's question, though, what makes Mega Man X's opening stage so great? I've seen lots of people praising it but couldn't find any videos explaining why. What makes some Mega Man levels good or bad? I understand why Blaze Heatnix's level is atrocious, though, lol.

Most people talk about it due to Egoraptor Sequelitis viseo talking about mega man x. Talks about how the opening level teaches you all the games mechanics without telling you anything

Its a good video, but i do think it over simplifies things because he makes statements as to why modern games dont do this, when in reality mega man x has pretty simple mechanics and not that mechanics to begin with. plus its a game that has not only had 6-7 games to precede it, but its also a platformer in a time where platformers were pretty much the only type of game.

What's the left map from?

Doom 1, episode 1, map 6.

Donkey Kong Country Returns Tropical and Diddy's Kong Quest are both lauded for their stellar level design and with Tropical Freeze I can see why, not so much with DKC2. I mean, I like the game, but nothing SCREAMS great level design in that game.
I only seem to notice or really think about it if it's on either end of the good/bad spectrum. I'll notice if it's insufferable bad or cheap and I'll notice if it's sublime. I have a hard time putting my finger on it though. I can tell you I prefer Dark Souls to Dark Souls 2 but I can't exactly tell you why...

if it helps DKC2 is praised in design for different reasons to TF.
Country 2 is more about how the secret hunt is entwined with the standard stage designs, on their own the stages are just good platforming stages following the standard genre angle of "here's a stage gimmick, escalate it to the end". Within the stages though lie three main collectables, the krem coins require finding bonus rooms which in turn offer a bite size challenge room usually focused around the level gimmick, the DK coin is the big super macguffin often tucked away far more deviously (or on occasion hidden in plain sight in a way that makes sense). The secrets are teased in various ways from the standard pickups like bananas nudging you to investigate certain gaps or walls to even the stage enemies indicating something isn't all it seems.
When you put these things together it's what takes the level design from good to great, I've seen the secret design be described as the devs having a conversation with the player spoken with no words which is a rather cheesy yet suitable way of describing it.

Dark Souls vs Dark Souls 2 at its core is more about the world structure first and foremost, DS1 has an almost metroidvania style world of connecting areas that entwine on each other giving the player a number of "aha it's this area again!" moments and prompts further exploration. Dark Souls 2 opts for having the hub as a center point of an almost ven diagram like structure where a bunch of areas branch off Majula in linear progression, though the game itself isn't linear, there's a bunch of straight paths that mostly lose the unique sense of looping and clever design you see in most of DS1.
And then within these individual areas DS2 just tends to have sloppier scenarios involving enemies bum rushing you in gank squads in lieu of more smart battle scenarios or areas that just lack some imagination and opt for overly direct straight line paths.
(which is not to say there's not some great areas in DS2, if you ever get the time try and see if you can spot what makes the DLC areas tend to feel more engaging than main game ones because they stepped up there for the most part.

I have nothing to contribute to this as I too would like to know what makes a level design good or bad. Jumping on OP's question, though, what makes Mega Man X's opening stage so great? I've seen lots of people praising it but couldn't find any videos explaining why. What makes some Mega Man levels good or bad? I understand why Blaze Heatnix's level is atrocious, though, lol.

It basically a tutorial stage that never feels like a tutorial stage, though there's not much to the basics of Mega Man X, you've got the few enemy types within they help you learn to place your shots, the crumbling bridge is a set piece than forces you into a position to discover the wall climb (and following that gives you a jump just too long to make thus requiring the wall climb to really put the exclamation point on its usage)
Admittedly I don't consider it THAT grand beyond these points myself but there's also the bonus of strong audiovisuals that open the game with a bang.

What makes some Mega Man levels good or bad?

Don't worry. There's ANOTHER Gamemaker's Toolkit that goes over this.

It's with MM11 rather than any of the X games, but it's still good info.

When it comes to platforming I think you can divide good levels into ones that have variety (like Mario Galaxy), and ones that focus on revision (ie, 3D World's 4 step level design). Pacing is also important but I think that most of the big games will have good pacing anyway (and I'm not really as sensitive to pacing as the other elements).

You brought up Tropical Freeze. Now that game often tries to do both in its levels, have variety and revised obstacle design. But it's at its best when it focuses on the latter.

Take 5-3 (Fruity Factory):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91fdf7x5mvs

At 2:06 fruit is chopped up into platforms and they pop up out of the ground

At 4:01 that obstacle is brought back, except they've added three more elements:

--A new obstacle is paired with it that can damage the character
--The timing has been changed which increases the difficulty (at one point the player is waiting for a platform to appear, forcing a tougher jump)
--the platforms get significantly smaller

Apart from increasing the difficulty, I think these revisions are important because by introducing something in a clear way, and then revising it in an equally clear way, the player can understand, and therefore appreciate, the remixed challenges. The knowledge of the earlier encounter provides the context necessary to respect the changes brought about in the remix. It works best if the obstacle design is solid too, which brings me to...

New Super Mario Bros Wii 5-1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBxc-Mxm58

Two sections of this level are home to ptooies, the pipeless piranah plants that blow spiked balls into the air.

But at 0:49 look at how little resistance the obstacle actually provides (and I also just played this and confirmed it's as ineffective as it appears)

The ptooies blow the spiked balls into the air, where they wait, and wait, and wait, allowing Mario ample time and an enormous window to pass by, rendering the obstacle almost totally pointless.

At 1:32 they do revise the ptooies by pairing them with a 4 step platform that Mario drives along a zip line by jumping. Assuming you don't have an ice or fire flower, this does help to redeem the ptooie a little bit. The slowness of the platform helps offset the slowness of the ptooies, ratcheting up their effectiveness by bringing the spiked balls back into play. The ptooies are still a pretty poor obstacle, but they're significantly improved by adding another element to them.

Steam Gardens in Super Mario Odyssey

The answer is The Silent Cartographer.

It's been ages since I played DKC2, but I always appreciated Donkey Kong Country 1 for mixing it up with interesting variety, like pioneering the barrel cannon puzzles, underwater mazes, minecart levels, the platform level with the fuel barrels, the stop 'n' go level with the scary enemies, the levels with the bird lighting only a portion of your level, etc.

You have to give it credit for pioneering what Tropical Freeze builds on 20-ish years later.

For me, great level design feels organic. Encounter design has to feel like the enemies are utilising an environment that existed for a real world reason. The worst ever is the Uncharted thing, where you drop into a huge area with painfully obvious cover dotted around an arena. That is the most embarrassing shit.

It's one of the reasons the frequently lauded DkS2 DLC maps are terrible to me. They exist to be cool, that's it. They don't feel like they could have ever existed for a practical purpose.

For a good example, play Hitman Absolution followed by Hitman 2016. You'll see how good level design can make a world of difference.

Coming from design, it's the ability to keep the player going in a level at a good pace without them wanting to stop.
Very basically, it often involves spacing out new encounters, resources, scenarios and setpieces with breaks in between. (see: Intensity curve in Star Wars: A New Hope as a popular example).

Here OP, this is from the original development of Donkey Kong Country (not sure if 1 or 2) posted by Gregg Mayles on Twitter:

While it doesn't guarantee quality, it would certainly be odd for levels crafted in this careful manner to end up inherently "bad".

Here's some for [the controversially complex] Grunty Industries from Banjo-Tooie:

Good level design is when you like a game and bad level design is when you don't like a game.

It's entirely subjective because there is no "right" way to make a level. What someone calls linear garbage is another mans handcrafted guided treasure. What someone finds is a bloated open world, another finds a joy in finding every hidden collectible in sight.

Good level design is when you like a game and bad level design is when you don't like a game.
It's entirely subjective because there is no "right" way to make a level. What someone calls linear garbage is another mans handcrafted guided treasure. What someone finds is a bloated open world, another finds a joy in finding every hidden collectible in sight.

Well, there's certainly some aspect where you can measure "depth" and how "intuitive" a level is. "Clever" level design is inherently satisfying, even if "simple" design can be acceptable.

Half life 1 is king of level design. Half life 2 is corridor trash.

The entirety of Bloodborne and Dark Souls. Dark Souls 2 is a ridiculous mess by comparison in this regard. Some layouts making zero sense unless we've entered some kind of dreamscape. And I actually like Dark Souls 2 despite this.

For me, great level design feels organic. Encounter design has to feel like the enemies are utilising an environment that existed for a real world reason. The worst ever is the Uncharted thing, where you drop into a huge area with painfully obvious cover dotted around an arena. That is the most embarrassing shit.
It's one of the reasons the frequently lauded DkS2 DLC maps are terrible to me. They exist to be cool, that's it. They don't feel like they could have ever existed for a practical purpose.

I cannot understand for the life of me how Naughty Dog are lauded as level and encounter design geniuses. The level design in The Last of Us outright spoils several plot points of the game.

The forest temple in Twilight Princess has a very interesting progression with regards to its items and mechanics.

The player is introduced separately to an enemy that can be used as a bomb, to monkeys that carry Link across chasms, and the boomerang.

Then, at the climax of the level, all three ideas are combined. Monkeys carry bombs that are picked up by the player's boomerang and used to strike the boss.

Remixing elements in new and surprising ways is something that always works for me.