Func_Msgboard: CPMA: Path Of Destruction For Original Mapping?

#39 posted by Scampie on 2017/05/07 03:02:30

I wouldn't totally agree with my points anymore, especially as gaming has progressed and my own journey through game design and understanding of competitive play has changed my views.

My arguments at the time had far too much of a sense of mapper superiority, that players should play the maps they are given along with whatever annoyances and weaknesses that came along with them. It was a very poor viewpoint, as it argued for level design serving the mapper's aesthetic and gameplay desires first, over the game and player's needs. My understanding of level design as a craft was clearly not really that good.

These days my thinking on what good level design is is that it is level design which serves the needs of the game's design first and foremost, and showcase interesting and unique ramifications of the mechanics of that design in way the player will enjoy. FPS DM games of yore, at their core, are simple beasts and player movement through the environment, target acquirement, and resource management are the major mechanics to consider.

My thoughts at the time were at odds with many of these. Spaces that are tight to navigate, have multiple detail bits which can catch the player, etc are examples of things which have gameplay value in a sense, but unless used with very careful and deliberate effect simply make a level unenjoyable to navigate. A dead end containing a powerful item for example can work, but requires some real consideration and care to make it fun. Poorly lit or overly detailed environments can also distract from target acquirement, and again without careful consideration simply make the game less fun overall when you can't even tell where your opponents are.

A thought which I picked up over the years was the question "Do you allow players to not have fun?". It has an obvious answer of 'no', but so often as designers we let our own wants get in the way of that. We let pretty environments get in the way of having a fun time, or decide for instance that an instant death trap would really separate the hardcore from the rest. Stuff like this does not need to be incompatible with good level design, but often the question of how to make them enjoyable to as many of your players goes unasked because it's easier not to do the hard work to address it. This is short sighted, as players are spoiled for choice where to get their entertainment, they are not subject to your whims as designer god.

In this light, the CPMA maps I was ranting about were overcompensating in the other direction. Their answer to the question of making sure the player had fun was to go fully clinical, mostly abandoning environment art and any other small deficiency. I do still agree here that this was too far, but honestly I went far too overboard in my criticisms back then.

Clearly games did not go in the direction of CPMA and my doomsaying that this was a terrible direction for the future was unfounded. Good visuals sell games (huge if true), and good gameplay keeps players around. All the best multiplayer FPS games of today generally work this balance in their levels quite well. Even the most competitive shooters have good graphics and fun levels with their own little quirks and particulars.