Nifflas' Support Forum
Released Games => Knytt Stories => Topic started by: StellarJetman on February 28, 2011, 23:17:12
-
Figured that I'd start a thread about it; it might help us to see less of it in the future.
Anyway, I'll start with a list of design decisions that I can't stand, and anyone else can post their own pet peeves below.
:moody: Slippery walls that only exist because the author couldn't be bothered to think of another way to constrain the player.
Slippery walls have their place, and, if employed properly, can really enhance a level. (See the Water Temple in Infestation for a good example of that kind of thing.) Most of the time, though, they're just cheap ways to keep the player from progressing until they've found a jump powerup, or to prevent them from accidentally exiting the level. That's nothing but a cop-out, and it feels really cheap. You might be able to get away with it by distinguishing climbable and slippery walls with different graphics, but it takes skill to pull that off, and it often feels just as forced. (For example, Yggdrasil uses altered tiles to show where slippery walls are, but the walls themselves are so arbitrary that it makes no difference.)
:ohnoes: Disguising a chomper an eater with grass or similar scenery.
I don't know if there's even an official name for those things that lie in wait underground to devour unsuspecting players, but I've always called them chompers. Disregard that; there is an official name. And there are few things worse than using them in places where they can barely even be seen. Every time that it happens to me, I picture the author going, "Ha, ha! I got you!" and then running off to, I don't know, pick his nose or something.
:sigh: Hidden spikes as a cheap way to increase "difficulty".
I see these things used most frequently in three contexts: they're in places that the author doesn't want me to climb, they're in places that otherwise make me let my guard down, and they're in "mazes" of spike-covered blocks that I have to jump through. The first two uses tie in somewhat to the previous items on this list; my comments there apply here, too. That third use can work very well, provided that the author makes it possible to divine where to jump without resorting to trial and error, but, sadly, it's often just a way to artificially lengthen playing time by keeping the player "occupied" with dying repeatedly, and that's never good.
>( Making the player go without the run powerup for more than three screens.
You'd better have a really good reason for pulling this one. Again, it isn't like I haven't seen levels that do it well, but most examples of this that I've seen seem to have been designed solely to test my patience. Not good.
:sad: Over-reliance on pixel-perfect jumping tests.
I like a good, challenging jump every once in a while. It's far more satisfying to just barely make it across a gap than it is to hop over it with three tiles to spare, and few things feel more impressive than scaling an irregular surface without being able to double-jump. But, please, don't overdo it. That elation quickly turns to frustration and exhaustion when the player finds out that they have to make the same jump three more times in order to get to the next save point. (Timecraft, I'm looking at you.)
<_< Trying to out-The Machine The Machine.
This is, by far, one of the lamest approaches to level design that I've seen - and, sadly, it's also one of the most common. You have the same environments, only less atmospheric, the same backtracking, only less fulfilling, the same contrived premise, only less distinctive. Heck, a lot of these levels even end their opening narration with "This is what happened next:" or a similar phrase. What happens next, though, usually comes across as more of a Chinese knockoff cheap imitation of Nifflas's style than as something worthy of consideration in its own right. If you're merely going to rehash a four-year-old approach to level design that was executed perfectly well the first time around, why are you even bothering with your own level in the first place?
Also of note are flaws in execution that, while not exactly pertaining to design, are sloppy enough to make a level far less than what it could be:
:shocked: Solid scenery.
Self-explanatory. While mostly confined (thank God) to those near-clueless first-time efforts that inexplicably make it to the archive (Why do people upload those things, anyway? Do they really think that someone is going to download a level with a name like "destory the robots"? Or that anyone who would is going to make it past the first screen without immediately thinking about uninstalling it?), I did see it in the otherwise excellent Caverns (and intentionally, at that - never before had I seen a tree silhouette used as a platform, and I dearly hope that I don't see one again) so I thought that it warranted inclusion here.
:sick: "Blocking" the player's path with obstacles that the player can overcome.
The only jumping test more irritating than the fourth one in a row is one that leads to a void. Sometimes, a level author, thinking that their inability to traverse an obstacle marks it as an absolute boundary, will use it at the edge of a level in order to keep the player from merrily running off into a purple oblivion. What they don't count on, though, is the player, convinced that it hides some necessary item or area, trying over and over again to get past it, realizing only after this arduous challenge that it was all a waste of time. I actually discovered wallswims by somehow making it to the edge of an "impassable" lava flow and climbing the wall, only to find myself stuck inside a wall in a completely different part of the level. Needless to say, I was less than thrilled about this.
:S Lack of atmosphere or variation in structure.
OK, so this doesn't really affect gameplay in any way, but it's a very noticeable detriment. Long, flat stretches of ground (or floor, as the case may be), unadorned by such needless indulgences as "elevation changes" and "scenery", may be easy to create, but they commit a cardinal sin of level design in being really, really boring. (To Travel So Far is a near-perfect example of what I'm talking about here.) You don't have to go overboard and make everything an overwrought mass of ledges and flowers, but atmosphere is a big part of Knytt Stories, and it's a bad idea to neglect it.
All right; I'm done. Reply as you see fit.
-
I agree with all of the above, and want to add a classic:
:moody: Not making it obivous which tiles are collidable foreground and which are background.
Please, try to have some sort of consistent design that makes it obvious which tiles you can walk/climb on and which are in the background. A favourite of mine is having all collision tiles have a solid black outline, but that's not necessary so long as you can tell at a glance which tiles are for walking on.
-
It's funny how I could relate to pretty much all of those points. I think this topic deserves a sticky. :)
-
I suppose there are valid points being made, but it's a pity that there's a lot of very negative language used. Especially about "why people even upload their levels to the archive". Well, it's just that the archive is a place for all leves, and it's simply somewhat/more or less unfortunate that it does not provide an easy way to distinguish generally favoured levels from those that are less successful, so far at least. anyways, that's how I see it. meaning to say, I don't like how it sounds like levels which a certain person doesn't like shouldn't "deserve" to be hosted. that distinguishment is just not part of the archive's intentional purpose. :)
-
<_< Trying to out-The Machine The Machine.
...
What happens next, though, usually comes across as more of a Chinese knockoff of Nifflas's style than as something worthy of consideration in its own right.
What's wrong with being Chinese? Besides that, I like your list :\ (I'm pretty sure you're not TRYING to be racist, but still. And yes, I am Chinese.)
-
Good list of advice. I would suggest...
<_< Don't start with a 400+ screen level. Make your first level a small one.
After reading this forum for a while, I've seen a lot of level previews from first-time developers that quickly turn into monstrous projects. And then turn into nothing because they get abandoned. Start small. In my experience, level development requires more work than expected. My first level was supposed to be 4 screens and ended up with 50+ after adding all the shifts, etc.
-
What's wrong with being Chinese? Besides that, I like your list :\ (I'm pretty sure you're not TRYING to be racist, but still. And yes, I am Chinese.)
Oh, sorry. I was referring to the well-known Chinese gray market for fake Rolexes and things like that. Nothing to do with being Chinese at all.
Original post edited for your benefit.
-
Check out this mega-thread on the same subject. The Level Designer's Trap (http://nifflas.lpchip.nl/index.php?topic=1636.0).
Juni's a very capable girl, and blocking her way is a difficult task. In an open landscape the only options left are huge overhangs and long stretches of water, but even that has been complained about.
My personal gripe is hidden areas that are hidden too well. If the only way to find the keys that unlock the good ending is to ram Juni into every accessible surface on the map, you're doing it wrong. Even Nifflas does this, but in his defense he uses the Detect Target objects and after you find a few you get a sense of what places are suspicious. So, look to his levels if you want to drive me crazy using proper methods.
By the way, I'm totally guilty of some of the stuff above. Did I remake the machine? Yes. Did I hide Chompers ("Eater" in the source but most people call it "Chomper" or "Sand Croc" --an allusion to Cave Story) in the grass? Yes. Do I make you work for that Run power-up? You bet I do. Mwahahaa!
-
Check out this mega-thread on the same subject. The Level Designer's Trap (http://nifflas.lpchip.nl/index.php?topic=1636.0).
You know what's really annoying? I read that topic a few years ago. Somehow, I'd forgotten that it had already been done.
(Although, to be fair, it was only when I got to the Jazz Jackrabbit post that I recognized it.)
-
<_< Don't start with a 400+ screen level. Make your first level a small one.
I sooooo agree with this a million times! man, yeah.
actually I remember Nifflas saying that he had some similar opinion/experience with his own game projects. weeeeee
-
I would have said this earlier, but I had to run a few errands:
By the way, I'm totally guilty of some of the stuff above. Did I remake the machine? Yes. Did I hide Chompers ("Eater" in the source but most people call it "Chomper" or "Sand Croc" --an allusion to Cave Story) in the grass? Yes. Do I make you work for that Run power-up? You bet I do. Mwahahaa!
Are you talking about A Knytt in Time? Aside from the fact that there's a machine in it, I'd hardly consider it an attempt to ape Nifflas's level, and it was rewarding to "work for that Run power-up", because you designed that part of the level to take advantage of Juni's restricted movement. When I said that I'd seen levels that made that kind of thing work, yours was one of them.
Were the Eaters hidden in that level? I remember them being rather easy to see.
-
I may have exaggerated my fallacies. The whole point of A Knytt in Time was to merge The Machine and many other reoccurring themes from Knytt Stories levels into a Zelda-like adventure. It definitely failed one of the the complaints here, it was a 700+ screen first level. Ugh, I feel like I'm high-jacking this thread. I just wanted to show that the best of us make these mistakes, in case anyone was feeling discouraged.
To get things back on track, I thought of the worst design flaw. If I need a certain power up to get past a certain point, don't let me travel past several screens of death-defying obstacles before I discover I've gone the wrong way. Then, if there were save points, I have to make my way back across the same obstacles again. Also, don't let me get trapped in a place I can't get out of. If I'm suppose to have the climb power by the time I encounter a pit, make sure I can't get to that pit without it. Better yet, make sure the best players can't get there.
I want to add that almost all bad design elements can be eliminated through testing. In addition to beta testing on the forum here, play it yourself, play it yourself pretending to be a newbie, and make someone else play it while you watch.
-
Hmm... I don't really agree with the run thing. Sure, it might be a bit annoying if you're lazy or have no patience, but it makes other people slow down and actually take a look at what is actually supposed to be the interesting part, the design itself. Sure, there are some levels that combine design with difficulty and do it well, but if you're making an Enviromental level, make it interesting to look at! If it's not interesting to look at, and it isn't in any way challenging either, then what exactly is left of the level?
-
I suppose there's one complaint I can think of when reading this:
Don't make the user back-track a lot of places when you don't have the run powerup. Because then, a room can become boring, unless by shifts, the rooms are actually different.
-
Hmm... I don't really agree with the run thing. Sure, it might be a bit annoying if you're lazy or have no patience, but it makes other people slow down and actually take a look at what is actually supposed to be the interesting part, the design itself.
Someone else said this once, but I forgot who.
If you have to do that to make people look, you're doing something wrong.
Or something like that.
-
Well, making them backtrack is a whole 'nother thing. I meant actually looking at 'new' screens. Of course backtracking without running would be annoying :^^:
-
Hmm... I don't really agree with the run thing. Sure, it might be a bit annoying if you're lazy or have no patience, but it makes other people slow down and actually take a look at what is actually supposed to be the interesting part, the design itself.
If your level has a genuinely good visual aesthetic or layout, people will look at it, and they will appreciate it. If you have to artificially hobble them in order to get them to notice, there was nothing worth noticing in the first place.
Besides, what's the point in sacrificing enjoyability and playability for the sake of driving home how awesome your tilesets are? Isn't that just a teensy bit conceited? How is it that you'd rather make sure that the player appreciates your technical efforts than make sure that they have fun? Knytt Stories is a game, you know. The "interesting part" is supposed to be playing it, not looking at it.
-
well, I think "A walk at night" only let you walk, fitting the title, and it was more of one of those levels in the middle between art and game, so yeah, that "rather play than looking" doesn't always apply without exception. I am not saying that forcing walk should be liberally applied everywhere, but I do believe that there can be instances where there's a really fitting use for it.
as usual, if you do it well, you can get away with "controversial" practices sometimes. ;)
-
well, I think "A walk at night" only let you walk
Nope, lets you run from the very beginning.
-
hm, then it was capitalism. :P
-
I am not saying that forcing walk should be liberally applied everywhere, but I do believe that there can be instances where there's a really fitting use for it.
Agreed, but using it to enforce appreciation of the scenery is hardly "really fitting".
hm, then it was capitalism. :P
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't being dull the entire point of that level? Kind of an extreme example, really.
-
Interesting debate. The walk/run question seems to have led into the "game as play/game as art" issue.
I would compare it to a slow scene in a book/movie. Though the viewer may want to rush through the slow bit to get to the action, the build-up of walking makes getting the run power all the better. I even like the idea of taking away run halfway through the game, then giving it back again.
Recently, I showed Knytt Stories to a 12 year old Taiwanese student. I watched her replay the "Tutorial" level for the first time in ages. Very interesting. The first few screens use walk and it makes the game feel very "real," like Juni is a little girl walking in the rain. I recommend checking out the first few screens of the tutorial again. Very nice.
-
now i know what i shouldn't do xd
-
I would compare it to a slow scene in a book/movie. Though the viewer may want to rush through the slow bit to get to the action, the build-up of walking makes getting the run power all the better.
A bit of a "hitting yourself with a hammer because it feels good when you stop" kind of thing, wouldn't you say? And there's a difference between slow and boring; I don't mind slow scenes or slow gameplay if they work on their own merits.
Recently, I showed Knytt Stories to a 12 year old Taiwanese student. I watched her replay the "Tutorial" level for the first time in ages. Very interesting. The first few screens use walk and it makes the game feel very "real," like Juni is a little girl walking in the rain. I recommend checking out the first few screens of the tutorial again. Very nice.
I never noticed it in the tutorial, but I got that feeling when I was playing Shipwrecked; I really liked the transition between the initial leisurely exploration of the island and the urgent return to the shore after the appearance of the plane. And everyone cites It Waits as a good use of enforced walking; it does a good job of magnifying the level's menacing tone, even if it does get somewhat old on repeated playthroughs.
///
I guess that I should clarify my position here. If slow movement enhances a level or a section of a level, either by allowing for a different approach to challenges or by contributing to its overall tone, I'm all for it. But I have little patience for authors who use it because they want to make me focus on the environment itself (Skyfalls, presumably), or because they think that it would be good as a "buildup" to getting the run powerup (Infestation, which puts the run just out of reach in the first room, ostensibly as a stronger incentive to get the climb as quickly as possible).
-
C)p I'm that bastard that starts the level without run. I don't think i have created a level where you could run... oh wait , no i did.
Although Empty Corridor has no run it is simply to create an "effect" if you wish. It's not me saying Oh! look at this scenery and i make you walk so you can see it, its to add some sort of ambiance... i guess, the little pitta patta of feet on a hard cold ground.
Anyway the "Don't start a level with 400+ screens first go" is an extremely important lesson XD
-
I am guilty of the 'starting the level without the Run power-up'. If I were to make a level, I would set Juni off with no power-ups. (I like the idea of just leting Juni collect her stuff naturally.) However, I would plan on making it very easy to obtain and would make it either on the starting screen or one screen next to the starting screen.
I agree with the pateince testing as I tend to get iffy if I'm being spoiled by how fast I can go in games (I used to even roll everywhere in Zelda games just because it was faster to get around). In video games if I can go drive in a car with quick speed one moment to where travel is quick, then go back to the Hub World and go about 1/4 of the speed I was driving before, I tend to get agitated. That being said, it would test my patience if I had to wait at least 5 screens without running. Maybe its just me and I'm being weird and I even admit I don't like this about myself and I am glad I at least stopped rolling around everywhere in Zelda.
-
I am making a level where you don't have the run powerup most of the time, but it isn't a huge environmental level or an epic journey or anything like that, that specific level would suck with the run power up all the time. So that one depends a lot on the level.
-
I remembered reading about solid scenery on this thread and just remembered playing a level where the author was new to making levels and everything was scenery. So there was no floor or anything. You just fell. This took a while to fix in Level Editor.