What's good stage design?

[Zeta]

Just curious, what do you consider good stage design in a 3-D videogame? I highly dislike linearity, but how do you make a game challenging/fun if it's too open-ended?

[G.Silver]

Guh. Are we doing this again?


Options. I like to be able to go everywhere, I want to be able to explore all over and be rewarded for my exploration, but I don't want to be required to do it. A reward doesn't have to be anything special, just something unique to make that area stand out. I like linearity, but I don't want it to be the only option. I hate being told to go out and explore and search for stupid items, but if the game is fun, I'll do it anyway.

I'm always thinking of it as GG!'s example, but Twinkle Park in Sonic Adventure really is the best 3D level I can think of (off hand, anyway). It is an entirely linear course, but there are diversions along the way to toy around with if you like, and exploration and determination can get you into interesting places, like the moving boats or the roof of the merry-go-round. You can also find shortcuts that will let you blow through huge chunks of the level. Fully exploring the level also gives you a feel for how every bit of it fits together, and it feels like a real place. Most stages in Sly Cooper are also like that to an extent (they are better the more you play them) but they are also extremely linear.

For me I'm more interested in open-ended gameplay to achieve a linear objective--Sonic's speed and control allows him to do all kinds of things and get into places that are completely unnecessary to complete the game, whereas Sly Cooper's diverse set of moves only work on exactly what is in front of him.

[Double-S-]

I dislike context-sensitive actions in getting around a level. It just makes the areas feel even more limited, to only precisely what the developer can think of and feels like implementing. Example: Resident Evil 4.

[Zeta]

I only brought it up because I subjected myself to more of Billy Hatcher, followed by a round of Sonic Heroes. I had the most fun when my goals were exploration oriented, as opposed to "Go from Point A to Point B - FAST".

[Neo Yi]

I only brought it up because I subjected myself to more of Billy Hatcher, followed by a round of Sonic Heroes. I had the most fun when my goals were exploration oriented, as opposed to "Go from Point A to Point B - FAST".

I think that was probably the main problem I had with Sonic Heroes. I don't care if Sonic is fast, if I can't see half the things while I'm running, then the game is too damn fast for me or the level designs just plain suck.
When it comes to fast games, I hope they reduce the damn giant gaps that you only see after your characters fall to their horrid deaths.

With that said, I agree with G. Silver in pretty much everything he said.
~Neo

[Crazy Penguin]

A reward doesn't have to be anything special, just something unique to make that area stand out.

That's very important to me. A huge sprawling stage isn't meeting its potential if every single part of it looks the same. Little details, like the goddess/Eggman state in Sonic CD's Tidal Tempest and all of the wacky stuff hidden high at the top of Sonic Adventure's Casinopolis when playing as Knuckles.

[Omni Hunter]

I suppose the special stages in Sonic games are under the same category, especially Sonic 2. You could go straight through the game but I prefer to explore and find Starposts and get the emeralds because of the Supersonic reward. Careful exploration of Emerald Hill allows you to find 7 starposts and get all the emeralds before Chemical Plant.

[Brazillian Cara]

As if someone could actually manage to do this...anyway, just because a stage is linear, it doesn't mean it's not fun. Take City Escape, for example.

[Cypher]

You can also find shortcuts that will let you blow through huge chunks of the level.

I'd should look for them then. I'm still having trouble getting the "complete level in 'X' amount of time" emblem.

[Dunjohn]

Red Mountain as Knuckles in Sonic Adventure is still the level I rekin shows 3D potential best. It's absolute freedom to do what you like, there'll be cool stuff no matter where you go, and there's a real sense of discovery when you circle around behind some boring pointless lump of rock and find a 10-Ring monitor.

[chriscaffee]

I disagree there. Sonic Adventure 2 did the Knuckles stages much better, since they were actually optimized for his playing style rather then just re-worked Sonic stages.

I agree options are the key. And options aren't just in which path to take, but in how to take that path. That's why I find Halo to be so fun because literally any weapon you pick up can be used in an effective manner so just by your choice of arms you can literally be playing a new game every time you try a new level. Throw in the vehicles and you really have a lot of freedom, despite the fact that there is pretty much only one path to the exist (assuming you aren't taking advantage of all those cool tricks with grenades and whatnot).

[Green Gibbon!]

I think Silv was the one who mentioned it a while back, and I think it's a really important and highly overlooked point: a sense of progression within a stage is vital. You need to feel like you're getting somewhere or doing something. If your game is very linear, this can be achieved by a gradual visual or structural change within the stage. Again, Twinkle Park is an excellent example - where you start and where you finish are drastically different because the whole time you're working your way upward to the roof of the castle. If you lack the sense of progression, it just feels like you're running around.

Stage-to-stage gimmicks are also extremely important. The structural elements (not just the graphics) need to change from level to level, otherwise... y'know, why play beyond level 1?

The linear/nonlinear argument is open-ended. Even in a nonlinear 3D game like Mario, you still have (and need) specific goals, so one way or the other, it ultimately boils down to "get from A to B". Freedom to explore can be essential, but I don't think it's always necessary... in Mario Sunshine, for instance, I enjoyed the very linear "warp" stages more than any other part of the game. Games like Klonoa and Sly, two of the best platformers of recent years, also offer very little in the way of exploration. In fact, Sly 2 tries to address this, and the mechanics utterly fall apart as a result. A similar thing happens with Donkey Kong 64, which is wide, but bland - it's all just roaming and collecting, there isn't much actual "platforming" to speak of.

I would argue that the best open-ended 3D platformer to date is still Banjo-Kazooie (the original). It had an excellent balance of freedom to explore (with plenty to find) and also enough structure within each goal to keep things from ever getting dull. It took the Mario 64 structure and just about perfected it, really. I would also cite Jet Set Radio Future as coming very close to being a full-blown platformer, and an excellent one at that... it had the sort of appeal where you look at a point somewhere in the stage, think "Let's see if I can get over there", and then you do it, and that's what platformers are about.

They don't seem to make platformers anymore, though. Which is a tragedy, because I would say that the genre can benefit from new technology quite possibly more than any other type of game. I want big, fat stages where I can see far into the distance and then get there. I want to run, hop, climb, kick, collect, and explore. If I can start a stage then still be frolicking my way through that same stage forty-five minutes later, it is what I consider excellent design. It's a separate rant, but the introduction of weaponry and psuedo "edginess" to recent platformers, I think, utterly betrays everything the genre is about.

[Crazy Penguin]

I think Silv was the one who mentioned it a while back, and I think it's a really important and highly overlooked point: a sense of progression within a stage is vital. You need to feel like you're getting somewhere or doing something. If your game is very linear, this can be achieved by a gradual visual or structural change within the stage. Again, Twinkle Park is an excellent example - where you start and where you finish are drastically different because the whole time you're working your way upward to the roof of the castle. If you lack the sense of progression, it just feels like you're running around.

Stage-to-stage gimmicks are also extremely important. The structural elements (not just the graphics) need to change from level to level, otherwise... y'know, why play beyond level 1?

This reminds me of how utterly betrayed I felt by Sonic Advance. The first level had some effort put into that visual sense of progression, you went from the coast, to the fields, through a treetop/forest area and ended up on a bridge. My natural assumption was that the next level would continue from this bridge, but that was not the case. Each following level lacked the visual progression and variation seen within Neo Green Hill Zone.

Worse still it failed at giving levels many distinguishing gameplay features. The only one that I found particularly noticable was the spinning bowl from the "casino" level (which in actual fact had nothing to do with casinos and more resembled a carnival), it fit well with the carnival theme and was a decent obstacle. A few levels later and Angel Island Zone is reusing the obstacle, the same damn thing recoloured to fit Angel Island Zone's colour scheme - it made absolutely zero sense in the context of the stage.

It was offensively lazy and amateurish. I'd played bad platform games before, but at least they tried to give new experiences with each stage of the game.

[Omni Hunter]

Sonic Advance 2 was the worst, all the levels were jumps, runways and grinds. Even Hot Crater didn't have the standard lava hazards and there was hardly ever any water in the game at all.
The result was shoddy, at least in Advance 3 actual physical gimmicks in the levels began to reappear and there was a feeling of change or progression within areas.

[Green Gibbon!]

Speaking of generic platformers, do you guys remember Ocean? They made like, one game, and then used the exact same mechanics for every cheap license they could get.

[Locit]

Perhaps that's why I don't remember them. What game(s) did they make?

[Kishi]

I do remember Ocean, but all I remember about their games is that they were all licensed crap. Actually, one specific title does come to mind--a game based on that Dennis the Menace movie. If you had no other meter by which to judge whether you should try a game out or not, the presence of the Ocean logo certainly cleared things up.

[Cuckooguy]

So, I just looked at Ocean's <a href="http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/compan ... html">game list</a>, and I remember playing the game Pushover when I was a wee little kid. That wasn't really a platformer, though, more of a puzzle game.

[Cypher]

I agree options are the key. And options aren't just in which path to take, but in how to take that path. That's why I find Halo to be so fun because literally any weapon you pick up can be used in an effective manner so just by your choice of arms you can literally be playing a new game every time you try a new level. Throw in the vehicles and you really have a lot of freedom, despite the fact that there is pretty much only one path to the exist

Which is why Shadow the Hedgehog is gonna be fantastic!

[Neo Yi]

Which is why Shadow the Hedgehog is gonna be fantastic!

I don't have a clue if you're joking or not, but the many weapons in the Shadow game won't be worth a damn if the level design sucks, the control sucks, and the camera sucks (which is a serious problem in 3D Sonic games). That's my opinion.
~Neo

[Frieza2000]

To say nothing of the fact that the mechanics of every weapon will probably be exactly the same, save the sword.

[Professor Machenstein]

It seems to me that Shadow the Hedgehog's level design possesses a mixture of some sort, with some parts just plain linear, and other parts being somewhat wide (Which is good, since you don't have to worry about bottomless-pits as much). As for the weapons, I reckon some guns might be more powerful than others.

[SealElement]

Good level design? Exploring and getting rewarded for it. A level based on
where you are, like Quicksand in a desert zone and enemies with drills or
spikes in an underground level. Puzzles and obstacles unique to where you
are, and not just in the casino level to make it look different, without taking
out the core mechanics of the gameplay.

That's why Shadow will suck anyways: SEGA only listens to Teenage fangirls
who looooove one of their characters personally.

[VGJustice]

Um... what?

[Professor Machenstein]

Good level design? Exploring and getting rewarded for it. A level based on where you are, like Quicksand in a desert zone and enemies with drills or spikes in an underground level. Puzzles and obstacles unique to where you are, and not just in the casino level to make it look different, without taking out the core mechanics of the gameplay.

That's why Shadow will suck anyways: SEGA only listens to Teenage fangirls who looooove one of their characters personally.

Question is, do you want the game to suck? I'm hoping it will at least be better than Heroes.

Nonetheless, I do like your idea of good level design. You seemed to have summed-up our idea on exploration pretty good. Yes, theme may matter, but the only difference should be the obsticles in the levels, like you said.