Before I begin, I think it is important to note that level design, like many aspects of game making, is a task that is taken in steps, and is constantly refined as the process goes along. As such as I move on in my education and in my experiences I’ll post some retrospective pieces comparing what I know at that point in time, as opposed to now.

First we should probably talk about what makes a level design good. For me, it’s any time I’m playing a game and I get to a part where the situation looks difficult, feels difficult, and by all means SHOULD be difficult. But thanks to the ingenuity of the level designers I have a multitude of paths to take to resolve the situation, good cover to avoid fire, while still being able to fire my own volleys. The visual clues in level textures that would bring my eye to look at them instead of the wrong path.

Level Designers are perhaps the most key component of whether or not a game will play well. A bad level design, makes a frustrating game, makes a bad review. A good level design, makes a playable game, makes a fun game. And that’s to put it as simply as possible. Note, I used the term “bad review” and “fun game” because they’re rather ambiguous. A frustrating game will still sell, given proper marketing. A fun game will do poorly, regardless how well designed and fun it may be. A lot of good companies have made games that just didn’t get the marketing they deserved and went out of business as such.

So what do level designers do to start their levels?

This will tend to be a process that will vary. Some may make sketches of prospective ideas, others may play around with their level modeling tools until something that seems fun comes to mind, other developers may get an idea of a locale and decide that they want to base a design on that kind of situation.

All of these are good ideas, and any and all of them could work for the preliminary stages. Essentially the genesis of a level will come in one form or another. The writers may simply tell the designer what needs to happen at that part of the game, giving them a setting and a basic story rundown. A multiplayer level designer may feel the need to have a design that would work well for a certain gametype, and would then do his sketches about that central idea.

All of these methods will work.

There’s no need to be discriminate here. Just get a working idea of what you need to accomplish, or what you would like to accomplish with it. Then move on from this preliminary work, and sketch or rough model the project so that you can confer with others about how they feel it would work and what changes will be necessary.

From here on out it’s just a mission of getting the necessary changes made, and then getting the level into a playable product with rough textures and item placements. It’s then important to go through constant revision with artists and playtesters to work out any real design flaws (players get confused here! Why is there a crate in the middle of a fucking forest Jeff?! WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO US?! Can we atleast make it a boulder so it’ll look good, Jesus, man.)

The major objective is, of course, to have a product that is playable at the end of it, that does everything it needs to do in a way that is fun for a good majority of people. The process is a complex one that will take a good deal of a company’s development time, atleast from the way I understand it.

One of the key aspects of playability is for a level to just make sense to a player. As has been said by the developers at Bungie, there need to be visual cues for a player to mark position on the map and make communication easier. “The Flag’s behind the dumpster!” “I’ve got an enemy over here by shotgun spawn!” “HELP ME OUT HERE BY THE PORTAPOTTY!”

These cues need to do two things simultaneously. Direct a player, and fit into the world they’re placed in. As is too often the case, designers have always had a tendency to use crates for certain functions. They’ve got low polygon count, and are thus good for the processor, but they’ve also got a certain aspect that really pulls a player from their experience. Why is there a crate in the middle of a forest? Why are we still using wooden crates in 2552? There’s just a certain aspect of these sorts of things that can really take a player out of the experience, but more importantly it shows some laziness in the design process.

But, that aspect is a discussion for a later date.

Cliffy B, of Gears of War fame, once wrote an article I really liked about what he called “Clarity of Experience,” and its an article that essentially communicates all that needs to be said on the topic of visual cues. In the article he talks about how games like Halo have made online matches nice and easy by designating colors to each team, and making these colors very easily distinguishable visually so as not to cause confusion amongst team members. In a similar way, by putting visual cues into your levels you lessen the confusion of your players, and express a clarity of their mission in the form of what draws their attention. Whether it’s a beam of light coming in through the forest canopy, or the firery remnants of a previous battle. These cues will help a player understand what path they need to go down, to eventually accomplish a mission.

Again, all of this takes a lot of optimization and good play testing to ensure that it works properly. But, by commiting to the design of a level and continually testing and weeding out any discrepancies, a designer can ultimately make the decision about whether a game is fun or not. Whether it’s what it should be or not.

Any and all tips, comments, or concerns are very much appreciated. Any and all advice I could get from anyone would surely be beneficial for me now and in the future.