Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Patrol1985

Was exploration based level design really that much cooler?

Recommended Posts

I recently completed both "System Shock" games for the first time, which gave me some thoughts I'd like to share.

Many "old-school" FPS fans often complain about today's games being "rail shooters" meaning that little room is left for exploration and you're generally being guided by hand towards your goal. However, exploration based level design can cause frustration and I think that especially the second System Shock (though the first part also had a fragment like that) is guilty of the sin... and it was made on purpose.

Granted, those aren't really FPS games, more like "first person adventure game" (SS1) or a "first person RPG" (SS2), but they resemble FPS games closely enough for my argument to be valid. There is a mission in SS2 where you have to input a code to progress further. The code is hidden within interactive pictures which you have to search for throughout the map. There are no hints about their locations, they're just "somewhere". At first I was like "screw it" and wanted to read the code from a walkthrough to skip this section, but I decided to go half-way with the idea, namely, I just checked the locations of those pictures and decided to go there and note down fragments of the code myself. Right now I can say I'm glad I did that, because knowing the locations I would have looked for them for AGES were it not for the guide! Seriously, what's the purpose of this? What's so cool in roaming the same corridors over and over again (the map is big, trust me) with a hope to finally notice something that you may have passed by a number of times?

Another such moment happened later. One mission requires you to destroy 16 alien eggs, hidden somewhere on the map. All their locations are more or less on your way towards the goal, but ONE egg is viciously hidden. There is a moment where steam goes out of a pipe and I decided to touch it for shits and giggles thinking it would kill me. So after saving the game I enter the steam and... surprise surprise, an EGG is there! I managed to find them all without problems, but I instantly checked the Internet to see that this particular egg caused LOTS of frustration, especially because it's quite far away from level exit, so once you realize you missed something on your way, you have to backtrack a significant portion of the level just because the level designer decided to hide a critical objective in a place which would qualify as a "secret" by then standards of such games.

Therefore I conclude - I like exploration but ONLY when the design is good (meaning that I don't have to check behind EVERY flower pot and knock on EVERY wall to complete a level), but I'll gladly take a "rail shooter" over a poorly designed "exploration" level any day.

edit: don't get me wrong, both "System Shocks" were AWESOME and I really enjoyed them, but the fragments I mentioned were really unnecessarily tedious in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess, like any argument with polarised viewpoints, for most people the extremes are not ideal but somewhere in the middle is. A game where you have to wander, apparently aimlessly, all over the place checking everything that might be useful, and plenty things that almost certainly aren't can get pretty dull and frustrating - especially if the game uses underhand tactics like hiding stuff in illogical or unfairly difficult to discover places. Equally, starting a game and being forced along a particular route with pre-determined tasks and encounters and no leeway for choice or exploration can be just as dull.

A bit of exploration, a few puzzles to solve and some alternative ways to approach things but with a clear direction and the ability to work out what to do next due to fair clues works for me.

SS2 is an amazing game BTW but it did suffer from what you said. The codes thing was certainly one problem. The first time that I played, I simply hadn't made the link that the information I was getting might be important so I just started ignoring the information. How glad was I to discover that I should have been noting it all down. :/ I also remember, near the end, having to back-track almost to the start of the game at one point (I think this was actually part of the built-in logic of the game rather than my mistake). I mean, it's kind of cool that it was possible to do that but the game is massive so it was an unnecessarily big task IMO. And don't get me started on the bug where a vending machine, the one and only vending machine in the whole game that supplies this essential part, can fail and refuse to give the item that you need! However, there is just so much cool about SS2 that it still manages to be an absolutely stand-out classic despite these significant flaws.

Share this post


Link to post

I recently completed both Duke 3D and Duke Forever. In the past I've completed Half Life 1 and Half Life 2. They both follow the same formula. The original games felt good to explore, but the sequels felt good in different ways. The thing that sucks is I bet the sequels took so much longer to make.

Share this post


Link to post

Ideally a shooter will feature different approaches for different segments, depending on whatever is needed to convey story and setting etc. For instance. Let's say the player has to escape a facility because it'll blow up in XX time. It would be really bad for pacing if you created a complex series of puzzles, rooms, hallways and obstacles where you'd have to spend an hour running around looking for clues. It would strip all sense of urgency from the scene. Equally, if you want to convey distance from A to B, you'll be much better off with a stretch of rail rather than intricate overlapping rooms and hallways.

If instead the player has to break into a fortress, a more open sandboxy approach where you have a clearly defined objective, but a loosely defined path invokes the appropriate feeling.

To sum up, I think either setting out to create a rail shooter or a puzzle/hub/sandbox shooter is a big mistake from the get go. Let the action, story and setting dictate that instead through pacing and tone.

Share this post


Link to post
Enjay said:

I guess, like any argument with polarised viewpoints, for most people the extremes are not ideal but somewhere in the middle is.


I agree with this entirely, but if a game is going to err too far in one direction, I would much rather it be towards exploration and having problems to solve than a rail shooter that holds your hand. Subjective preference of course.

I feel like that games that make you search and puzzle over what you're supposed to do, even when badly designed, at least seems like they trust that the player is smart or persistent enough to figure it out on their own. A game with too many limited choices or on-rails direction can feel condescending, and like it's more important for you to follow the game's pace and narrative than set your own. But again, games that strike a balance are best.

Also, in this age of instantly-available walkthroughs, I'm surprised exploration/puzzle elements of games aren't more tolerated and prevalent, since if you do get stuck you've always got the option of looking up what you're supposed to do, rather than choosing between solving some bullshit design or stopping the game.

Share this post


Link to post

I also agree that moderation is the key. I've played user-made Doom maps where there is just too much exploring to do; I would end up going around in circles and getting frustrated. I've also played some rather linear maps that were surprisingly fun because they had a lot of atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Enjay said:

And don't get me started on the bug where a vending machine, the one and only vending machine in the whole game that supplies this essential part, can fail and refuse to give the item that you need!


I remember that part (the machine produces a mcguffin that is needed to blow up a shuttle). I never knew the machine could break via a bug. That would have made me MAJORLY pissed :D

Enjay said:

However, there is just so much cool about SS2 that it still manages to be an absolutely stand-out classic despite these significant flaws.


Absolutely. The game is awesome even 15 years after its original release.

plums said:

Also, in this age of instantly-available walkthroughs, I'm surprised exploration/puzzle elements of games aren't more tolerated and prevalent, since if you do get stuck you've always got the option of looking up what you're supposed to do, rather than choosing between solving some bullshit design or stopping the game.


Yeah, thank Internet for walkthroughs. I remember I had to stop Doom II completely because I couldn't beat map19 (The Citadel) and I had no Internet access to seek help. To this day I shiver whenever I start the level.

By the way, The Citadel in Doom II is unfairly difficult in terms of design and the first System Shock also takes place on a space station called "Citadel" (and has equally unfair moments). Coincidence? I THINK NOT! :D

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone else here remember the first video games you ever played? You sucked at them. Hard. But you also couldn't put them down. Tolerance of obscure secrets and obtuse puzzles seems to decline with age. Maybe this is just a matter of gaining perspective with maturity; eventually you learn to blame the game designer instead of yourself when you get stuck. Still, there's something to be said about games with solid, well-mortared brick walls for you to bang your head against. Worlds feel more real when they're not built like a tour bus ride - when they're content to leave you struggling aimlessly, just like the real world! You see that rotting corpse over there? Top half in the iron maiden, bottom half presently unaccounted for? You're going to suffer twice as much by the time we're through.

If I was going to make and sell a game I'd probably tweak it until about 50% of my players could get through it without a guide. The other half needs to man up and try harder.

The sad thing: as much as I'll praise this school of design, I can't deal with it as a player. My sense of direction is so bad I need built-in maps or at least a compass or I'm screwed. I get lost in rail shooters.

Share this post


Link to post

The alternative to exploration-based design is this and frankly I think a little frustration is better than excessive hand-holding. If nothing else, it makes the eventual success that much more rewarding. Instead, modern games disguise the emptiness of their rewards by showering you with "achievements" which are an insult to dictionaries everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post

I was in a Best Buy yesterday looking for a new mouse (they didn't have what I was looking for), but as I was browsing I saw a strategy guide for Thief 2014, so I read the back of it. I scoffed when it said stuff like 'get every upgrade and find every secret because we spoiled it for you, and get those very coveted achievements and gamer points!'. I understand that I'm hardly the target audience, but I'd hate to meet someone who actually thinks that way.

I play games for their intrinsic reward, not a medal to show off. If a game can't entertain me as is, it's not a rewarding game. It disturbs me to think that this is what designers are designing for. No wonder they've given up on trying to make a game actually fun, they're trying to appease retards who just have to get that gamer score and "achievements."

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, it really was cool to have the freedom of exploring the layout of the territory using my own routes and my own pace.
The only time when I need to use a damned GPS is when I'm away from my computer and sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle where I need to be doing work instead of relaxing and having fun.
I don't need no wise-ass Obiwan Kenobi pointing me the way when I'm trying to relax, unless I'm faced with a complex logical puzzle inside the map.

Everything about modern FPS games sucks! Don't even get me started.

Share this post


Link to post
Creaphis said:

Tolerance of obscure secrets and obtuse puzzles seems to decline with age. Maybe this is just a matter of gaining perspective with maturity; eventually you learn to blame the game designer instead of yourself when you get stuck.


That's because with age you learn to value your time more. What's exactly "entertaining" in running around the same 3 rooms for 60 minutes? If the game designer creats a puzzle which stops me from progressing for that long then I blame him by all means.

MegaTurtleRex said:

I think you chose two examples of badly designed objectives rather than examples of broad exploration. Basic as they can be, Doom levels are examples of exploration and are pretty pleasant and fun (unless made by sadists!).


I'm not sure I understand. Those objectives require exploration, so where is the flaw in my logic?

Share this post


Link to post

If we're talking about frustrating exploration in FPS games, Colony Ship for Sale, Cheap! of Marathon 1 takes the cake. Of all of the deliberate design changes M1A1 made, fixing that level was the only justified change.

Although map distance was rather limited in the Marathon engine (roughly 5632x5632 Doom map units max), the portal based nature of the engine more than made up for it, allowing for more complex exploration than Doom. Still, the automap could become a bit messy when exploring overlapping areas. It'd be nice if it automatically sorted showing the most relevant sectors by your current position, perhaps making the irrelevant ones partially transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Patrol1985 said:

edit: don't get me wrong, both "System Shocks" were AWESOME and I really enjoyed them, but the fragments I mentioned were really unnecessarily tedious in my opinion.

So what is the point of this thread then? You're not really arguing against 'exploration based level design' but rather poorly thought out aggravating quests.

I'm not sure I understand. Those objectives require exploration, so where is the flaw in my logic?

You didn't complain about having to trek around back and forth to various chemical storerooms, which can be tedious, or having to find specific audio disks to progress. Rather the two specific quests you mention could easily have been made less frustrating without completely revamping the way the game flows (ie: 'exploration based level design') or even how players are anticipated to play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Patrol1985 said:

I'm not sure I understand. Those objectives require exploration, so where is the flaw in my logic?


No, there's a flaw in the design of those two objectives. Think of a series like Shenmue, it throws you into a city like Hong Kong with very vague directions (a hand written note with the name of an apartment). However it gives you the tools to make finding the apartments possible, by asking people and searching for maps, here exploration becomes fun.

There is nothing inherently boring or fun about exploration, it's the execution behind it that matters.

Share this post


Link to post

Really, most developers just make a single player campaign quickly with a stupid plot about angry rednecks who stole your beer or some shit and then the add in boring multiplayer as the games main feature then they will add ridiculous achievements such as "killed 1 enemies, "killed 2 enemies", "press the start button". After that they sell it.

Share this post


Link to post

I prefer when exploration is encouraged but not relied upon, like the System Shock examples in the OP. Forcing you to scour the map for a thing is tedious, but having slightly hidden passages and branching maps that reward you for exploring is always fun. Much like Doom it's possible to have rewarding exploration and linearity at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

I hate gameplay. Just get me to the next cutscene, damn it.


But that is like porn without masturbation, how do you people function.

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

I hate gameplay. Just get me to the next cutscene, damn it.

Honestly, this was how I felt when I was playing Dark Forces 1 as a 12 year-old child.
Those maps seemed too large for me at the time. And I really just wanted to see the General and Darth Vader having their discussions about military strategy and deploying the troops.

Nowadays, I actually crave long maps without any guiders. WADs like ZPack are my seventh heaven. They give me boners, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Quast said:

You didn't complain about having to trek around back and forth to various chemical storerooms, which can be tedious, or having to find specific audio disks to progress. Rather the two specific quests you mention could easily have been made less frustrating without completely revamping the way the game flows (ie: 'exploration based level design') or even how players are anticipated to play the game.


You mean if I noticed those pictures the first time I passed them? Sure, it's possible, but unlikely. I assume many people had it like Enjay where it became apparent later that you actually had to write those numbers down. System Shock 2 warns you beforehand, but System Shock 1 tells you near the end of the game that it needs numbers scattered around 6 different floors. This WILL require backtracking, unless you're able to discern between "yet another random wall texture" and "a texture that actually contains valuable information". To me it's the same as searching for particular audio logs.

Technician said:

I hate gameplay. Just get me to the next cutscene, damn it.


I love gameplay and I hate cutscenes, but gameplay has to "make sense". To me, wandering around corridors after I have used all logical solutions by the game's design is equivalent to dragging an icon on a desktop back and forth. Both are interactive and equally entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Patrol1985 said:

I love gameplay and I hate cutscenes, but gameplay has to "make sense". To me, wandering around corridors after I have used all logical solutions by the game's design is equivalent to dragging an icon on a desktop back and forth.


Yes but that is bad design and not inherent to exploration.

Share this post


Link to post
MegaTurtleRex said:

Yes but that is bad design and not inherent to exploration.


Absolutely! That's why in my very first post I wrote that I like exploration based design when it's done WELL, but the same can be said about rail shooters. I REALLY liked Rage and it's considered a rail shooter by the majority. My point is, rail shooters seem to be "fool proof". At worst, the game will be boring. If exploration is done badly, the game will be frustrating. So it's everybody's individual choice when it comes to "which negative feeling would you prefer to experience".

Obviously, the best solution is not to play badly designed games, but I'm simply trying to argue that rail shooters are not by definition "worse" than exploration shooters (as many make them to be). Both can be done right and wrong.

If any of you have played mission packs to Spear of Destiny ("Return to Danger" and "The Ultimate Challenge") you will know what I mean. Those were ABYSMAL as a vast majority of levels required you to push some random wall, not even indicated by a differing texture, to progress further so if you ever decide to play those get familiar with extensive wall hugging and mashing the "use" key.

Share this post


Link to post

I do agree that there's nothing inherently bad about rail shooters. RAGE is one of the few rail shooters that avoids strangling the player with endless scripted sequences and cutscenes for example.

The problem with modern shooters covers a number of issues: lack of player driven pace, reliance on hit-scan weapons, over-abundance of scripted sequences and cutscenes, uninteresting or unrewarding environments, and steps backwards in feedback (lack of gore, goofy physics).

Generally speaking, the shooters that had exploration were created prior to the problematic trends I listed above, so people will look back on them favourably and, I assume, attribute their nostalgia to one or two easily identifiable qualities, such as exploration.

FPS isn't the only genre struggling with past glories: RPGs, Strategy Games (4X, TBS, RTS), platformers, MMORPGs; all seem to have a dissatisfied older playerbase who have an ideal prototype (like Master of Magic for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Patrol1985 said:

Obviously, the best solution is not to play badly designed games, but I'm simply trying to argue that rail shooters are not by definition "worse" than exploration shooters (as many make them to be). Both can be done right and wrong.

Sure, but there's nothing to disagree with in that argument. The elitist stance you may or may not disagree with goes more along the lines of:

Exploration FPSs inherently possess more complex gameplay, which more often than not leads to harder difficulty, greater challenge and more fun for True Gamers (*raised fists in the audience*). Rail shooters can be done well, but they tend to be dumbed to the lowest common denominator so even my dog could play them.

Share this post


Link to post
MegaTurtleRex said:

Generally speaking, the shooters that had exploration were created prior to the problematic trends I listed above, so people will look back on them favourably and, I assume, attribute their nostalgia to one or two easily identifiable qualities, such as exploration.


Good observation. Extremely linear level design is not the only culprit in a number of today's FPSes being boring.

dew said:

Exploration FPSs inherently possess more complex gameplay, which more often than not leads to harder difficulty, greater challenge and more fun for True Gamers (*raised fists in the audience*). Rail shooters can be done well, but they tend to be dumbed to the lowest common denominator so even my dog could play them.


That's exactly the attitude I see quite often, even on this forum, and that's why I wanted to talk about it in this thread. I'm glad we're on the same page here.

And yeah, modern shooters are more likely than not to be dumbed down. For a recent experience of mine, consider "Metro 2033". The game had been a hit and its setting is post-apoc so I figured I'd enjoy it as much as I did Rage. So the first mission loaded and I exited some sort of a bunker. Aliens attacked so I started shooting but soon got hit on the back of my head and fell down.... and it was a scripted sequence meant to happen. "Fine" I thought "it was a prologue so it can sort of be justified.... but why not simply go with an intro?"

Later I had to defend in some cramped space with a number of other soldiers, but they did all the work! I didn't even have to pull the trigger once, the mission "completed itself".

Another level, I entered some trolley which moved only in one direction and on rails (oh the irony...). The trolley got attacked by monsters, I got ONE killed and got pushed off it (scripted sequence). At this point I thought "Ok! Finally the game starts! I'll have to move through those caverns, fighting monsters to safely get to a train station", but after I killed another monster or two I was already safe. The scene switched to a bar where I got called a hero for my impressive fighting skills....

... and that's when I quit the game.

I measured time, FORTY minutes of "gameplay" and only about 3 monsters killed. All of them were so weak that a single imp from DOOM would rip them to shreds. And I got called a "hero" for this performance.

I will complete the game sometime in the future, but the first impression was terrible.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it's not about exploration, really. Badly designed exploration game is difficult, badly designed modern rail shooter is still easy. So it's more about difficulty.

We're all adults, so we value our time. We need games that can be played during lunch breaks. I'd say, even rail shooters are not entirely good for our adult lifestyles anymore, because they're still hard to play with a sandwich in one hand.

(:

Share this post


Link to post
Da Werecat said:

We're all adults, so we value our time. We need games that can be played during lunch breaks. I'd say, even rail shooters are not entirely good for our adult lifestyles anymore, because they're still hard to play with a sandwich in one hand.

(:


Where's a Virtua Cop remake when you need one? :P

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×