similarities in the expectation of the player in ToG to dodge fire to survive. But the similarity to Doom ends there. Doom has nice level design and you feel like you're exploring as you progress due to the branching nature of the levels. Quake usually has this exploration element in a lot of its maps where you can deviate from "the path".

As soon as someone mentions a game feeling like a classic game, for example painkiller, I always get annoyed because for me the level design is always lacking in those games. I think the "getting locked in and killing predetermined number of guys" is a boring mechanic usually.
It can be done well though, like in Sock's maps where he mixes up the enemy types along with having the neat traps to play with. 

"A good comparison is film. Studios will gamble billions of dollars on a production, and sometimes they lose.

Games studios wouldn't dare take such a risk, and with the cash cow of casual gaming they don't have to."

Don't know if I fully agree with this, at least if we're talking about Hollywood, because that is one thing I feel both mass/casual AAA gaming and movies have in common - never daring to try anything new and just recycling the same old safe crap in the form of sequels, prequels, remakes and whatever else.

Another comparison between movies and games is that flashy stuff sells more than actual content, even with productions that are supposedly "critically acclaimed", like Gravity - real pretty to look at, but not much more depth apart from that. Same goes for alot of overhyped games. 

As soon as someone mentions a game feeling like a classic game, for example painkiller, I always get annoyed because for me the level design is always lacking in those games. I think the "getting locked in and killing predetermined number of guys" is a boring mechanic usually.


Nail + head. 

http://www.theastronauts.com/2014/03/secret-immersive-game-worlds/ is nice. And this is HL2 http://www.theastronauts.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/barrier_1.jpg 

I dont mind barriers as long as they make sense. As a designer it can be a real slog to make intricate levels without them conforming to the flow of the level, however it's also poor to constrain your gameplay too much because you want to make something that is fun to replay.
The reason why Doom and Quake are nice to play is that you can approach the levels differently each time if you like, this is especially true for Quake as the rocket/grenade jumping allows for lots of very creative routes. 

who gives a shit about a light showing you subconsciously where to go next, when most games still can't even get the basic gameplay right (fun)? 

Immediately, as the door closes behind you, enemies appear all around each chamber.

I am no longer listening.

Yeah, sounds boring if that's all the game is. But this pattern can be sparingly put to good use, can't it? I'm thinking of the horde of zendar, sock used this at least twice (the cathedral, and the final fight before the exit unlocks) - imo it was a significant part of the gameplay - and the map was pretty universally loved.

In Daz's videos, he's recently pointed out several points in Q1 maps where a fight is boring because the best strategy is to wait at the entrance to an arena and snipe enemies, rather than going in.

I wasn't about to put one of these locking arenas in a q1 map or anything :P 

1) I'm pretty sure the final monster-deathmatch was not why Zendar was loved.
2) The solution to a player standing in a doorway shooting all the enemies is not to wait until he goes through it to spawn them and then arbitrarily block backward progression. That's a forced fix; a level design hack. 

That's a forced fix; a level design hack.
So whats the conclusion then? Is it that bad? 

Perhaps an open enough layout and good enough AI that the enemies flank and come from behind. 

Ideas:

1. Put a quad or other powerful weapons in the middle of the room. Players want the power, they will run in and grab it. Quad also has the built-in timer as an incentive to do as much damage as fast as possible, rather than being slow and cautious.

2. Create a space inside the arena that is tactically better than the entry point. For example, the player enters the room through a low tight hallway which all of the ogres in the arena can easily target. That hallway would be death and it's much easier to move into the larger central space and dodge grenades that way, than sit in a trench and have 10 grenades all bouncing around you.

3. This might be almost the same as the locked door, but have the player drop down into a space from above. This makes backtracking impossible until they find a new way out of the arena. What makes this different than locking the door behind you is you know and choose to go through the point of no return, rather than it being a cheap surprise. 

4. Built fun close encounter combat instead of filling your big open spaces with toy soldiers.


Metl's Idea 1 is an instant "oh whoopie, how exciting... :|" to me. 3 can be ok if done well. 2 sounds good! 

2. Create a space inside the arena that is tactically better than the entry point.

E.g. Backspawn tarbabies behind the player, yay! 

It's actually a hard problem because the doorway is the safest spot in the room. It's a funnel, you're protected from all threats and can easily scoot to the side when you need to reload or whatever.

You'll be hard pressed to give me a better vantage point than the door to the arena. Unless I'm low on ammo and HAVE to enter the arena to get more but even then ... I'm going to circle back to the doorway.

Back spawning isn't the answer because that's pretty much universally loathed and considered cheap.

"This might be almost the same as the locked door, but have the player drop down into a space from above. This makes backtracking impossible until they find a new way out of the arena. What makes this different than locking the door behind you is you know and choose to go through the point of no return, rather than it being a cheap surprise."

This is usually a good solution although it's also pretty obvious these days. There were several times in RAGE I saw a drop down and saved immediately - you KNOW there's an ambush waiting just beyond that invisible trigger brush on the floor.

But Left for Dead and Uncharted developers have talked about this tactic. L4D has a name for it but I can't recall right now ... but yes, it's all about player initiation. They don't have to activate the encounter until they're ready. That at least gives them some empowerment and control over the situation. 

*brain explodes* 

Players tend to avoid this by instinct and look for alternative routes. The bastards.

5. Place a trap in the corridor before the doorway - once the player sees the monsters they're unwilling to backpedal into a nailshooter or pit of death.

6. Place a big, obvious button in the middle of the room - when it's pressed, the fight starts.

But, number 1 wins. 

Behaviour depends on the player though. I surely do not hide in a safe place to snipe enemies, where would that be fun. 

Sure, everyone is different. But most players will try to conserve health and ammo - and the doorway is the best place to do that from. 

- Don't have doorways

Build organic spaces that aren't conceptually divided by corridors and thresholds, and there's never a doorway for the player to stand in. He's just always somewhere where there are knights in front and ogres above and scrags circling, but still entirely controls the pace of his own progression. 

Dropdowns, lifts that don't go back down again, wind tunnels, and other one-way means of spitting you into a room do all function the same way as back-locking the door. They represent a designer using his power as "guy who built the place" to remove the player's power to turn around and leave a situation he doesn't feel ready for or in adequate control of.

Any time you leverage that omnipotent designer power, you have to be very measured in how much force you apply. Sometimes it's okay, like when you know better than the player does (since you're the only one who understands the next room) that he's ready for it and doesn't need to backpedal and you've decided it's a good time for a panic beat. Using that power now and then to spike the pacing is okay - relying on it just wears the player down.

Eliminating optimal but un-fun choices like sniping from a safe spot (like the door) is also a good time to use the power, but the rules still apply. When you do it with architecture that has that backblocking effect as a natural outcome (the dropdown, the lift) you're playing a little more fair, and also not being quite so naked in your intrusion on the experience. func_plats don't go back down if you stay on them - players already know that. If you can't fly back up through a hole, that's the game world doing that, and players understand why. Doors don't always suddenly lock - someone did that.

Rendering the optimal un-fun choice non-optimal by moving some brushes, shifting where you put the ogres, and changing the nature of the cover just a little bit is a lot more subtle, and leads to a much smoother experience since you're encouraging the player to choose to dive into that room rather than forcing him to. 

Give them a mega health beforehand. 

can't we just make a firing squad follow the player and execute him if he turns around? 

BWWEEEEP BWWEEEEEPPP BWEEEEPPP TURN AROUND YOU ARE LEAVING THE COMBAT ZONE BWWEEEEP BWWEEEEEPPP BWEEEEPPP 

"Build organic spaces that aren't conceptually divided by corridors and thresholds, and there's never a doorway for the player to stand in. He's just always somewhere where there are knights in front and ogres above and scrags circling, but still entirely controls the pace of his own progression."

I was speaking more generally. If you're going to get specific about Quake or Doom, then sure. 

My point being that it's a different challenge with a game like Half-Life or Left 4 dead, which are set in the modern world.