The Level Designer's Trap

Quote from: yohji on April 29, 2010, 22:38:23

what pumpkin described ("a large amount of water with no more than one tile of warning") is perfectly fine, especially if there's a savepoint.

No, it's not fine.

Notice that I didn't provide any reason for it not being fine.  Notice also that you provided no reason for it being fine.

Of course I did. You seem to be continually misreading my posts. I'll say it again: surprise traps, when used correctly and without going overboard, contribute to a type of gameplay that encourages caution in a player, making the game/level into a genuinely (as far as video games go) dangerous experience. It feels more real: instead of just progressing from one obvious challenge to another, in a level obviously constructed to guide the player through it, you get a real environment that has a life of its own. Also, like PYP said, once the player realizes the level can have surprise traps, they'll be more careful and will stop and look rather than run trhough, heightening the immersion.

Please provide a reason for such a trap being better than the absence of the trap, rather than the trap being better than an even more unfair trap.

What? I never made such ridiculous statements, why should I provide reasons for something I never said? Whether something is better than something else in a level depends entirely on the level in question and the particular screens.

After all, what does the trap do?  It kills the player with very little warning.  There is no skill involved in avoiding it; all it does is encourage the player to pause after walking into a new screen.  How can that be perceived as good?

See above.

Finally, perhaps you would like to cite a few of your "countless examples."  More specifically, I want you to give an example of someone who played a level with such a trap, liked it, and posted about that.

Yeah, right. Couldn't reply better than PYP did. Still, here's a classic example, Prince of Persia 2, which was heavily criticized for how difficult it was, surprise traps and all. Observe how people give it a 5/5 rating and still play it:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/prince-of-persia-2-the-shadow-the-flame
Or the original, which was a bit less difficult, but still had its share of surprise traps and other nasty stuff:
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/prince-of-persia
The reviews all mention the difficulty and the unfairness, but quite a few people enjoy the game.

Also, I was thinking to maybe find some reactions to La Mulana on the forum, and was astonished to find that you created the topic about it. If you hate surprise traps and game-breaking unfair traps, and so on, how come you can enjoy La Mulana, which has all of that stuff in great abundance?

There is, by the way, an implicit "I think" before everything here.

Making the player pause and actually look at the screen. Most players will simply run through a screen without bothering to pay attention to the scenery; if they fall into a surprise trap, they're that much more likely to pause and take a look at their surroundings rather than simply rushing through them.

If the player isn't paying attention to the scenery it's because (s)he doesn't want to - why force them?

Give us an example of someone who played a level without a trap and posted that they liked it because it didn't have a trap.

Ignoring the logical fallacy: yohji mentioned "countless examples," and that statement was a clarification of what I would consider an example.  If they're countless, surely there's at least one positive reaction?

People don't post about something they like if it's been done several times before; they'll only post that they liked the level. Surprise traps can be surprisingly frequent, depending on how wide your definition of them is, so most people have already seen them. Most people don't post things like "I didn't like it because on the 43rd screen you can fall in water right away;" rather, they'll simply post a generic comment saying they disliked the level.

Is this actually relevant?  It seems to provide no support for either side of this argument.

stuff about The Machine

And the ghost spike bars were, to me, the most annoying and pointless part of The Machine - one of the only annoying parts, in fact.  Imagine that.

Finally, all in all, there's a limited number of surprise traps in the whole level, and a limited variety: after the first death, any player would know what to expect, and where s/he can let her/his guard down. There's also no 'warning' Save Point before them, if I remember correctly, because there's no need, as the nearest one is a couple of screens before the trap, with no hard challenges in-between (no frustration, yet no 'surprise spoiler').

You say "no frustration."  I don't get how a surprise trap isn't frustrating.  It is, by our presumably agreed-upon definition, something that serves only to make the player slow down (either by having to be cautious or by dying).

My problem isn't really with surprise traps in general, by the way.  It's surprise traps in Knytt Stories, a game which feels totally unsuited to them.  Let's take Spelunky as an example, one that a good number of you have probably played.  In Spelunky, 1. death is permanent and 2. time is a factor.  Now, Spelunky doesn't have any "hard" surprise traps (traps that you just couldn't have seen coming) - that would be stupid and unfair and stupid.  Indeed, all of Spelunky's traps are easily visible, and serve mainly to punish reckless players: arrow traps, spikes, and so on.
Here, however, making the player slow down actually has a purpose.  It adds another layer of challenge to the game by making them balance their exploration speed: too fast and they risk falling prey to one of the traps, too slow and they won't be able to get through the whole level without the ghost appearing.  (For that matter, how much of the level you choose to explore in the first place is another layer of challenge.)
Certainly, they still have disadvantages: they can be frustrating, and on occasion they feel a bit cheap.  But they also have the considerable (hopefully) good effect on gameplay that I mentioned above.

In Knytt Stories, I don't really see anything good coming out of surprise traps.  Time spent is not a factor at all, you have infinite lives, and unless the level designer is clueless, you have plenty of save points.  So having to slow down to avoid traps is not only annoying but uninteresting - it feels like something you just shouldn't have to do.

Oh, one other key difference between surprise traps in Spelunky and surprise traps in Knytt Stories: Spelunky levels are semi-randomly generated - you can't die and then replay the level knowing where the traps are.  KS levels are the same every time, as are the surprise traps.

I'll say it again: surprise traps, when used correctly and without going overboard, contribute to a type of gameplay that encourages caution in a player, making the game/level into a genuinely (as far as video games go) dangerous experience.

KS isn't a game that normally feels like a "genuinely dangerous experience."  Even so, when "caution" means "go through every screen really slowly because something might kill you otherwise," it's not any fun, at least not for me.

It feels more real: instead of just progressing from one obvious challenge to another, in a level obviously constructed to guide the player through it, you get a real environment that has a life of its own. Also, like PYP said, once the player realizes the level can have surprise traps, they'll be more careful and will stop and look rather than run trhough, heightening the immersion.

Hmm.  I've always had the opposite reaction: surprise traps feel like something obviously constructed to artificially extend the time spent on a level, thus breaking immersion.  But we're hardly about to alter each other's personal experiences, so I'll leave this one be.

Quote from: minmay on April 30, 2010, 01:40:31

Please provide a reason for such a trap being better than the absence of the trap, rather than the trap being better than an even more unfair trap.

What? I never made such ridiculous statements, why should I provide reasons for something I never said? Whether something is better than something else in a level depends entirely on the level in question and the particular screens.

Okay, provide a reason for such a trap being no worse than the absence of the trap (which you definitely implied VERY heavily - "I really don't understand what's so bad about surprise traps," "I think it's safe to assume most players have no problem with surprise traps in general."  But you already did and I responded, probably not to your satisfaction, so yeah.

games that aren't Knytt Stories

I guess I wasn't specific enough.  I was talking about surprise traps in Knytt Stories.  See my explanation of why they work in Spelunky, and why they don't in KS.  Also keep in mind that "this game has a flaw" doesn't mean "this game is a bad game."  I agree that many of the traps and some of the puzzles in La Mulana were stupid, but those are far outnumbered by the puzzles that are fair and fun to figure out, not to mention all the other, more tangentially related things that make the game fun.

37 posts about IWS. :overwhelmed:

If the player isn't paying attention to the scenery it's because (s)he doesn't want to - why force them?

If the player absolutely refuses to pay attention to the scenery, then a surprise trap won't force them to do so, sure. But if the player has forgotten that there's actually scenery around them and is simply rushing through the level (something that has often happened to me), then a surprise trap can serve as a reminder that, "Hey! There's more going on here than flat surfaces to run on!" I build levels with scenery for a reason, and as the level's designer, I'm perfectly allowed to try and get the players to play my level the way it's intended. If that requires forcing them to slow down to at least see if they like it better, then so be it. However, I would never put a surprise trap on every screen simply to force the players to look out for them all the time; that would defeat the purpose, as they would then be focused on that instead. After one or two consecutive screens without any traps, the player will probably feel relaxed enough to stop looking for them intently, but will still go a bit slower and notice the screens themselves.

Ignoring the logical fallacy: yohji mentioned "countless examples," and that statement was a clarification of what I would consider an example.  If they're countless, surely there's at least one positive reaction?

First, please explain what the "logical fallacy" there was. Second, yohji's "countless examples" referred to the many video games that have featured surprise traps but have scored highly. Not simply Knytt Stories levels. (yohji, correct me if I'm wrong here.

Is this actually relevant?  It seems to provide no support for either side of this argument.

That was support for an argument I made just before it that people won't post about surprise traps in comments because they're not that rare.

You say "no frustration."  I don't get how a surprise trap isn't frustrating.  It is, by our presumably agreed-upon definition, something that serves only to make the player slow down (either by having to be cautious or by dying).

The difference between "surprising" and "frustrating" occurs when dying causes you to lose a lot of work, have to redo a particularly difficult/annoying part of a level, or simply have to trek around for a long time. Those kinds of traps are worse, because they result in "cheap" deaths, or deaths where what you gain is less than what you lose. If a death you can't have expected makes you lose the next twenty minutes trying to get past a really hard room again, it's a "cheap" death; however, if it makes you lose the moment it takes to respawn in the previous screen, it can hardly be considered to have devastated you.

My problem isn't really with surprise traps in general, by the way.  It's surprise traps in Knytt Stories, a game which feels totally unsuited to them.

Funny, I've always liked Knytt Stories levels without any enemies at all to be the better ones. But we all work with the given medium as best as we see fit.

[In Spelunky], however, making the player slow down actually has a purpose.

I believe I've already made the point and backed it up that there is a purpose for making the player slow down in a Knytt Stories level. Several times.

Certainly, they still have disadvantages: they can be frustrating, and on occasion they feel a bit cheap.  But they also have the considerable (hopefully) good effect on gameplay that I mentioned above.

Note what I mentioned about cheap deaths above. If every time you died in Spelunky, you could simply wait a moment and restart the room, your deaths wouldn't feel nearly as cheap (although some still might). In fact, in some cases you might enjoy certain things more than before, because then you can continue down with the knowledge that that arrow trap is waiting for you, so in order to survive you should duck.

In Knytt Stories, I don't really see anything good coming out of surprise traps.  Time spent is not a factor at all, you have infinite lives, and unless the level designer is clueless, you have plenty of save points.  So having to slow down to avoid traps is not only annoying but uninteresting - it feels like something you just shouldn't have to do.

Sometimes players need to slow down for their own good; you can't enjoy an environmental level if you're focused on running through it as fast as possible. Walking through the entire level is a bit extreme, and can limit environments greatly, but a small pool of water near the beginning of a screen will cause the player to take it slowly for a little bit. During that time, they may become interested in all the visuals they've been missing, and will take it more slowly of their own accord from that point on. That's why you should never put several surprise traps in a row; that amounts to teaching the player that there really are hoardes of surprise traps waiting for them, and they'll become so focused on avoiding those that they miss the entire point of the first one.

Oh, one other key difference between surprise traps in Spelunky and surprise traps in Knytt Stories: Spelunky levels are semi-randomly generated - you can't die and then replay the level knowing where the traps are.  KS levels are the same every time, as are the surprise traps.

Exactly; this means it's much less of a pain when you die from a surprise trap in Knytt Stories, because you can learn from your experience and avoid dying from it again.

KS isn't a game that normally feels like a "genuinely dangerous experience."  Even so, when "caution" means "go through every screen really slowly because something might kill you otherwise," it's not any fun, at least not for me.

If you're going through every screen that slowly, there's something wrong with the level. A surprise trap of the sort I'm describing shouldn't be intended to inspire such a paranoia that you hold the A key all the time and take baby steps to try and trip any further traps. This is exactly the kind of result that could occur if several surprise traps are placed one after another, or if the first one is made of "pop-up" objects, like hidden spikes or spiked ghost walls. A pool of water is an excellent surprise trap for slowing down the player without ruining the game, because it's something that's always easily visible from any distance (barring poor color schemes and those concealing objects that vanished when you get near them).

Also keep in mind that "this game has a flaw" doesn't mean "this game is a bad game."

I've got a question for you: What's the fatal flaw about surprise traps that means that you should never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, use them, because it ruins the level they're in? That's the position you seem to be coming from. I'm not asking this question because I think you don't have an answer, by the way; rather, I'm asking because I'd like to see what your primary reason for this is. You've only mentioned one or two small things so far (at least, I consider them small).

37 posts about IWS. :overwhelmed:

What?

However, I would never put a surprise trap on every screen simply to force the players to look out for them all the time; that would defeat the purpose, as they would then be focused on that instead.

Which is what yohji was (seemingly, anyway) referring to.  I don't have a big problem with using a "weak" surprise trap to get the player to look at the scenery.  I still think it'd be better left out, but this is a complete divergence into personal opinion, so never mind that.

The logical fallacy in question is actually a combination of the negative proof fallacy (there is no evidence against X, thus X) and an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the default side, the skeptical, rather than the credulous.  I believe this is actually another specific fallacy, but I am too lazy to look it up.
Also, I can recall a specific example of people being upset about a surprise trap - one of a kind similar to the one you mention, in fact.  In an "environmental" (messy slathering of tilesets, things that kill you) level by Drakkan posted on the old forum (which means no retrieving it, and yes, I forgot the name), the first few screens have no save points and are just walking.  Then the next screen has a run powerup on the first tile and a puddle of lethal water on the next.  You have literally about a fifth of a second to react to this, and if you don't you have to spend about 20 seconds just walking back to the same screens.  Numerous people complained.

Of course, this is a particularly egregious example of terrible design, and it's not the sort of trap you're referring to anyway.

I've got a question for you: What's the fatal flaw about surprise traps that means that you should never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, use them, because it ruins the level they're in?

There isn't one, and of course that's not the position I'm taking, but you seem to be aware of that.  It's a case of almost always rather than always.  My primary reason is, of course, that some people don't like surprise traps and very few people would prefer surprise traps to the absence of surprise traps - that is, in the typical KS level.  And isn't the primary goal of level design to make something that people like and enjoy?
Of course, if you have a situation in which you feel a surprise trap would actually improve the level, by all means put it in; it's not going to ruin the level, even if it has a good chance of making it very slightly less enjoyable.

edit: removed inadvertent smiley

Quote from: minmay on April 30, 2010, 22:20:40

If the player isn't paying attention to the scenery it's because (s)he doesn't want to - why force them?

If the player absolutely refuses to pay attention to the scenery, then a surprise trap won't force them to do so, sure. But if the player has forgotten that there's actually scenery around them and is simply rushing through the level (something that has often happened to me), then a surprise trap can serve as a reminder that, "Hey! There's more going on here than flat surfaces to run on!"

I don't think it would. If a player is simply rushing through a level without regard for the scenery, then how is killing them without warning going to make them look more at the environment? They would just be a little more focused on looking for surprise traps, and slightly annoyed.

I build levels with scenery for a reason, and as the level's designer, I'm perfectly allowed to try and get the players to play my level the way it's intended. If that requires forcing them to slow down to at least see if they like it better, then so be it.

You shouldn't have to force players to slow down in the first place.
I'd say that if the player doesn't want to play your level the way you intended, then you've already kind of failed designing it.
I'm not saying that scenery is bad or anything, but if you want players to look at it, you should make the scenery more interesting instead of punishing them for not being interested.

Besides, if someone is absorbed in the scenery, he or she probably wouldn't notice a surprise trap springing up in front of Juni.

The logical fallacy in question is actually a combination of the negative proof fallacy (there is no evidence against X, thus and an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the default side, the skeptical, rather than the credulous.

That was aimed more at proving that it's next to impossible to find examples of levels where people have specifically posted that they didn't like a surprise trap in it by turning into something that I thought you might find easier to understand.

I don't think it would. If a player is simply rushing through a level without regard for the scenery, then how is killing them without warning going to make them look more at the environment? They would just be a little more focused on looking for surprise traps, and slightly annoyed.

That's an example of the kind of person who is more intent on moving quickly through the level than paying attention to it. In that case, a surprise trap doesn't really do anything to make them slow down and pay attention; really, at that point, I don't think much can.

You shouldn't have to force players to slow down in the first place.

You shouldn't have to, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes you do.

I'd say that if the player doesn't want to play your level the way you intended, then you've already kind of failed designing it.

How is that my failure? I can only build the level; the player chooses how to play it. I can't prevent the wrong kinds of people from playing my level; the best I can do is try to guide them as to how it should be played. For example, let's say in one of your challenge levels, someone decides to use the KS cheat to get past everything. That's certainly not how you intended for it to be played, and thus, by what you've said, you failed to design the level correctly.

I'm not saying that scenery is bad or anything, but if you want players to look at it, you should make the scenery more interesting instead of punishing them for not being interested.

If someone isn't interested in a level I've made, then why are they playing it? If they're not going to bother to pay attention they might as well get something to pay attention to. If they dislike the level enough that a momentary respawn puts them off it, then they're not missing anything they would've liked.

Besides, if someone is absorbed in the scenery, he or she probably wouldn't notice a surprise trap springing up in front of Juni.

No system is perfect; this is the reason for the savespot right before the trap. If the player is absorbed in the scenery that much, then falling into a puddle of water, respawning, jumping over it, and continuing on their way won't interrupt their enjoyment of the level to a large degree. However, as stated above, if the player is put out enough that they lose any desire to see the rest of the level, then they weren't sufficiently interested in it anyway.

EDIT: Removed an extra [/quote] tag.

The worst instance of a surprise trap I've found so far has to be in "A Knytt in Time"

I'll be running along inside the pipes, not paying much attention, and I'll run right into the spikes at the end of the pipes. Needless to say, I have to walk back through the pipe a second time. Kind of annoying.

For PickYerPoison:

Regarding your response to the first quotation: Next to impossible? Easier to understand?!?!?! So like are you generalizing your sample of level responses or what?

Regarding the rest: My point is that it's pretty invalid to argue that the presence of surprise traps supports looking at the scenery; rather, it supports moving in short bursts and looking right in front of Juni for surprise traps.  Furthermore, the fact that sometimes you do doesn't make it any better design.  If you want an example of something people might like to pay attention to, I'll give you one: good, fair challenge.
Also, if people are even playing your level, they must have some degree of interest in it, and if people actually are interested, throwing in an extra thing to pay attention to doesn't really bolster that at all; rather, it can very well detract from it, as may be a distraction from the interesting bits.  In the case of environmental levels and surprise traps, players come in with a liking for environment, and the surprise traps don't really help them pay attention, since they already want to do so.  In the case of a environment/challenge level with surprise traps added, there could be people only interested in the challenge, in which case you shouldn't force them to pay attention to the environment, regardless of if your method works.


For Artix:

Of course, the surprise trap fellows would say the fault in the level design there would be lacking a save point right before the trap, rather than the trap itself.

Ouch! I got singled out in this thread. I have to agree though. I think the main problem with the pipes in A Knytt in Time was the length. Those pipe, were crucial to the story and the flow of the game. I wanted the machine at the heart to be ominous. The pipe couldn't just end at the machine. If I let Juni enter the machine then that would undermine its mysterious nature.

Gameplay wise however, they are a disaster. What was intended to be a shortcut to any part of the world, ended up becoming a boring, time-eating trek. OK the first time (they're like little environmental levels, a break from the action.) But, if you're lost as to what to do next and you've gone through them more than twice, then not OK. I thought, "People might run into the spikes once, but then they'd know better." However, the pipes can lull you into a since of security. Your mind starts to wander. You get spiked. (They The spikes were removed from the LoCP edition.)

So, I'll go ahead and add that to the list. If you're going to make a large safe area, don't put any dangers before the first save point no matter how easily they can be avoided.

You shouldn't have to, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes you do.

No you don't. The player chooses how they want to play a level, not the designer. All you can do as a designer, is making your way of playing more enjoyable.
If the player doesn't want to play the level as the designer intended, then that is because the player doesn't enjoy playing as intended.

For example, let's say in one of your challenge levels, someone decides to use the KS cheat to get past everything. That's certainly not how you intended for it to be played, and thus, by what you've said, you failed to design the level correctly.

Yes. They obviously didn't feel that my challenges were worth playing through.

If someone isn't interested in a level I've made, then why are they playing it? If they're not going to bother to pay attention they might as well get something to pay attention to. If they dislike the level enough that a momentary respawn puts them off it, then they're not missing anything they would've liked.

That's kind of my point. Why design a level to slow down people who wouldn't have liked it anyways?
Design for the audience you want to enjoy your level, and disregard everyone else.
If you are making an environmental level, you shouldn't think about slowing down people who aren't into environmental levels.

Alright, you guys have made fair points. I concede.

Ouch! I got singled out in this thread. I have to agree though. I think the main problem with the pipes in A Knytt in Time was the length. Those pipe, were crucial to the story and the flow of the game. I wanted the machine at the heart to be ominous. The pipe couldn't just end at the machine. If I let Juni enter the machine then that would undermine its mysterious nature.

Gameplay wise however, they are a disaster. What was intended to be a shortcut to any part of the world, ended up becoming a boring, time-eating trek. OK the first time (they're like little environmental levels, a break from the action.) But, if you're lost as to what to do next and you've gone through them more than twice, then not OK. I thought, "People might run into the spikes once, but then they'd know better." However, the pipes can lull you into a since of security. Your mind starts to wander. You get spiked. (They The spikes were removed from the LoCP edition.)

So, I'll go ahead and add that to the list. If you're going to make a large safe area, don't put any dangers before the first save point no matter how easily they can be avoided.

There are lots of different ways to prevent a player from entering the machine. One example of such would be to put a grate in the way. (I'm not starting an argument, I'm saying a good alternate.)

It wouldn't even have to be deathless, maybe one of the shocky guys would've made more sense... I also am posting an alternative, not an argument starter.