Common aspects of mapping throughout first-person shooters

[wallabra]

Good evening.

 

I've recently revisited Quake. It is a very nice game, with a gritty aspect (in Episode 1), it's really fun, and it features a quite good mapping design that you don't see in other games of the time. I feel like it is intentional, since while the engine might make tricks and cool things available to maps and other features of the game, the level design in a game is what will use these features (enemies, map objects, triggers, etc) at the very end. Level design is what makes use of almost everything else in the game (save the user interface).

 

Then I've realized that level design shares many concepts across first person shooters (or shooters in general)  – be it how certain areas might require other areas to be reached (a la locked doors and switches), or the flow of the map can be influenced by ledges, monster arrangements, availability of items in the area (in terms of both distance and relative skill required to achieve), etc. Complex levels can be achieved, by linking together simple concepts with relatively simple logic, and by always thinking about how a player would act in a given scenario in a map.

 

This made me really want to write a better map generator, most likely for a simple game, like Doom. What common concepts of first-person shooter mapping do you think there are? How do you think they can be abstracted into paper, or better yet, represented by code?

[Xyz]

It is called non-linear level design . You don't go from start to end in a straight path like in those modern CoD games & copycats. 

I'd personally think good level design consits of non-linearity for level progression and also for secrets , I'm also a fan of jump-pads but that' going towards gameplay more.

[wallabra]

Level design and gameplay are concepts that hold hands. They have similar premises, and share the same objective (making the game and its levels fun to play) and rule of thumb (think like a player).

[Xyz]

I believe you'd need to choose a gameplay type . If it's Quake/Doom -ish then there are plenty of good level designed maps and wads , I'm not even going to name them since the modding is full of them now . 

But changing the gameplay would requiring changing the level design accordingly wouldn't it ? Look at Eternal with it's platforming level design, they added jumping abilities alongside mantling dashing and monkey bar. 

 

Then again, there's games with hitscanner enemies that have adapted cover + regen health, OR in a good case, slow-motion (F.E.A.R) . The engine capabilities I also think have a pretty big role in this too. Particle  effects, sounds also have  role in this, it's all tied together actually . 

 

Gladly if you want to go for classic Doom , modern sourceports have updated their engine quite a lot

[wallabra]

Sounds are specially important in immersive sims like Thief. But I guess they're pretty useless in Doom, apart from "fake sounds" (i.e. shooting certain weapons waking enemies up, which is unrelated to actual sound output from the game) and deathmatch. Or maybe spotting the vicinity of some enemies.

[F_SKY Fitzgerald]

3 hours ago, Gustavo6046 said:

But I guess they're pretty useless in Doom, apart from "fake sounds" (i.e. shooting certain weapons waking enemies up, which is unrelated to actual sound output from the game) and deathmatch.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but I would have to disagree. A good atmosphere can be set with the right music as well as whatever ambient noises (screams, etc) can be used to accompany it. Although I'm still not sure how to use ambient triggers in Doom mapping (I'll figure it out eventually) I'm pretty sure that can be used quite effectively. I know most people might see Doom as mostly action-oriented, but to me it can be a terrifying game with the right mood. 

 

I have been wondering about this topic as well. Today I've come a long way with my very first Doom map. As someone who has always wanted to map out a video game level, it can be pretty fun. I don't think it necessarily has to be linear either, but you're right that player foresight is something to keep in mind when creating a map (that is, keeping in mind how the player will react in any given circumstance). Things like seeing if they can run past and bypass a room that you want them to fight in (perhaps if you want to heat things up for speedrunners as well).

Edited October 20, 2019 by F_Sky FItzgerald

[wallabra]

What I mean is, sounds don't affect the gameplay directly as much. They still do influence the player, and, again, the main concept behind level design is thinking like the player, about how it would behave in every particular scenario.

[Xyz]

What comes to mind directly regarding the sounds and old Doom is Beautiful Doom, which has sounds for footstep materials, sounds for various surfaces too and so on.

 

Doom 3 by default you walk on sand it sounds like metal, you  shoot sand it sparks and sounds like metal, this is what I was meaning. Sounds regarding the gameplay so it does not feel artificial at all.

[wallabra]

Well, the thing is, I am aiming specifically at concepts that influence the quality of gameplay in a level, so that these concepts can be abstracted and programmed. Sound would be very difficult to abstract into a set of rules and use cases (how would a computer learn to strategically arrange enemies making sounds to alert players of danger? Especially since sound setup varies from player to player), and the reward would be small.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Gustavo6046

[RonnieJamesDiner]

[I apologize for the following wall of text]

 

I’d have to agree with what Paul said, and how gameplay directly affects the kind of level design you’re going to find in a given FPS (along with engine limitations). This is true even just within the Doom franchise.

 

With the limitations of the original Doom engine, they didn’t really have much of a choice other than to find ways of making a fairly flat world interesting – i.e. damaging floors, light/dark contrast, key/switch hunting, exploration leading to secrets, monster closets to help eliminate the tedium of backtracking, abstract and unpredictable layouts, all riding on the focus of a player arsenal and enemy roster that could be mixed and matched in all kinds of ways to almost turn combat into a mini puzzle game, or a math problem. Where, weapon(x) + movement(y) + monsters(z) = the solution to this room. Of course, x, y, and z can be so many different things, that you’re pretty well guaranteed to never run out of ideas for an interesting Doom map – not to mention the wonderful sprite animations, sound fx, music, etc. which all made for a wonderful experience.

 

Now, if we look at something like Doom 3, not only did they remove the vast majority of their prior limitations with the engine, but they clearly aimed to bring atmospheric horror and suspense to the forefront of gameplay. The level design became far more claustrophobic, with intentionally broken or obscured lines of sight. It utilized linearity in a very big way to highlight environmental storytelling (a lot of rooms/corridors tried to make sure the player would see the fantastic and creepy animations of an Imp crawling around up ahead, or body parts tumbling down from a vent). Massive chunks of levels steeped in darkness forced the player to put their gun away and bring out the flashlight – forcing a stark vulnerability upon the player, in direct contrast to the Invulnerability Sphere gameplay of the original. Spring-loaded, Jack-in-the-Box monster closets which gave you virtually zero reaction time, and made you tense up at every door or ammo pickup. All of these things generated a more unnerving and guarded experience, coupled very well with the incredible sound design and unified lighting/shadowing.

 

Then, you have something like DOOM 2016. Thanks to double jump, ledge grabbing, and jump pads, verticality became the centre stage for most of the level design. While this didn’t always apply to combat, it was aggressively apparent everywhere else. More importantly, the game also seemed to sway in its focus between different kinds of level design. While it played around with narrative-driven design ideas in maps 01 and 02, non-linearity in maps 03 and 04, and platforming in map 05, the overall level design for the rest of the campaign seemed to descend wantonly into a linear series of arenas. I think the intention with gameplay here was more casual and frenetic (in an attempt to be closer to the original, even if it lacked some of the depth), and much the level design reflects this.    

 

Almost all of the major combat areas took heavy cues from the design of multiplayer maps – a distinct flow of inter-connectivity designed to eliminate dead ends, a careful balance between short and long range areas within the space, (and even sometimes) a large degree of symmetry.

 

Spoiler

Interestingly, I always thought the enemies in D2016 were the main reason the game started to feel repetitive and stagnant towards the end, despite the level design receiving the bulk of the criticism. The issue I had was that there are basically two types of enemies: ones which hardly budge an inch, and ones which close the distance to the player at lightning speed. The level design could be as interesting or creative as all hell, but as soon as a wave of demons was dropped into the room, you got the same basic gameplay out of them every single time, no matter the arrangement. The problem with the campaign devolving into a series of arenas was that this lack of variety in the enemy behaviour during combat became frustratingly obvious. The only enemy I felt actually added a breath of fresh air to combat was the Summoner.

 

At the end of the day, I considered Foundry to be the best level of the game, by sheer design. What is essentially a single, large space teeming with exploration and verticality, with plenty of secrets and the non-linear objective of seeking out 4 Gore Nests (3 of which you can do in any order). As an added bonus, 2 roaming Hellknight’s which may or may not seek you out at random after retrieving the yellow and blue keycards. Bloody good fun... but unfortunately, not common level design in the scope of the campaign.

 

=============================================

=============================================

 

If there are common level design ideas shared by all 3 games, I guess the ones which stick out to me include:

 

Locked doors requiring keys/switches.

 

Backtracking.

 

Secrets throughout the levels which offer supplies up to, and including, gaining new/better weapons early.

 

Damaging floors (though the bulk of these in Doom 3 and 2016 were insta-kills, rather than incremental).

 

Explosive barrels.

 

Using light contrasts to guide the player.

 

Using items/enemies to guide the player.

 

A clear distinction between realistic (UAC) and abstract (Hell) level geometry and overall layout.

 

Environmental storytelling (as you progress, the influence of Hell is shown (rather than told) to the player via use of increasingly satanic imagery and disturbing prop gore).

 

=============================================

=============================================

 

A few fairly common ideas in level design I can think of in the first-person shooter genre in general, include:

 

Locked doors.

 

Backtracking.

 

Damaging floors/obstacles.

 

Explosive barrels.

 

Turrets.

 

Boss fights.

 

Scripted (trigger) events.

 

Fetch quests.

 

Light contrast to guide the player.

 

Using items/enemies to guide the player.

 

Environmental references (i.e. the Citadel in early HL2 levels, or the Argent Tower in early D2016 levels)

 

The concept of following up a new weapon with a combat scenario where that new weapon is very effective, as a form of tutorial (i.e. the first time you get the Sniper Rifle in Halo:CE, you find yourself atop a cliff face overlooking a pack of sleeping Grunts and passive Jackals; or when you get the Antlion Bug Bait in HL2, you are immediately thrown onto a beach littered with pillbox turret nests which are incredibly dangerous to approach by yourself).

 

Puzzles (even if that simply means having to figure out the order & method in which to dispatch a particular arrangement of enemies).

 

A fair share of FPS's utilize vents and ladders, as well (though this is far from ubiquitous).

 

=============================================

=============================================

 

I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this thought exercise, but that said, I’m really not sure what you’re actually trying to achieve. Are you hoping to create some kind of OBLIGE type program for generating levels?

 

If you’re specifically looking for level design concepts/ideas for classic Doom, there are at least two threads discussing mapping tropes found here and here, which might provide some useful data.

Edited October 21, 2019 by RonnieJamesDiner

[wallabra]

Wow. I must applause you for the effort you've put into compiling such an impressive amount of concepts! Thank you very much! I will definitely use as many as I can to make this map generator aware of several player scenarios. I'm impressed :)

 

Yes, I am looking toward making a program similar to OBLIGE, which tackles maps as a graph of concepts (which begins with a start and a goal) whose links are either resolved (a) or must be expanded into more nodes (b). Links will always be randomly expanded if there aren't at least N nodes in the graph other than the start or the goal (N is a quota and N is an positive or zero integer number), and links will try S random samples that can actually be traversed by players (as random ways to connect node A and node B with other nodes) before picking the link with the best score.

 

Instead of a mere graph of presets, like OBLIGE does.

[RonnieJamesDiner]

Sounds like a very ambitious project, but really interesting! It makes me wonder if Wraith777's Level Progress Diagrams may be of some use to you, as well. Though, I'm fairly uninitiated when it comes to programming and technical shenanigans (I'd be lying if I said I understood what you just explained, lol).

 

[wallabra]

No, I don't believe so. I'm not exploring the concept of how maps progress in terms of linearity, but rather regarding reachability in general (i.e. how reaching certain areas affects the reachability of others). Usually, there is an initial set of reachable areas (from start), which is implied, but what matters is a dependency graph that roots at the goal and recursively describes which areas are required to access it.

[Xyz]

11 hours ago, Gustavo6046 said:

 

Ronnie was pretty specific about all things that make a FPS a good FPS.

Instead of this thread only I'd personally just get a few good FPS games on my PC and play them to see what makes them tick. 

 

Again about the sound, since Ronnie did not mention it, it is not part of the gameplay (not part of what a level maker should work) since it's enviromental or weapon sound I'm talking, but I hope you get the idea, sounds of ricocheting bullets and decals on walls after shooting with nice sounds for a surface would make you immersed to a degree.

 

But also, is it possible for a level maker to accomplish all this you have planned?  Backtracking, arenas, keys, switches, enemy placement, sound & damageable floor placement, correct texture placement, proper architecture placement (and not just flat walls). ?

[RonnieJamesDiner]

Yeah, I think there's something worth saying about sound, for sure. For instance, the global sound of a Cyberdemon waking up is just good sound design, but then there's an aspect of (for example) using Block Sound linedefs to control the propagation of sound, thus controlling the flow of gameplay during a level or encounter, which I think is absolutely a part of level design. Not to mention, something like using the sound of a door or lift to indicate a nearby secret area, is again good sound design but also shrewd level design (and I'd say a fairly common level design trope at that). I'm sure there's a lot to explore in the relationship between sound and level design honestly (especially in modern FPS's).

 

2 hours ago, Gustavo6046 said:

I'm not exploring the concept of how maps progress in terms of linearity

 

What I considered (potentially) pertinent about Wraith's approach to looking at linearity/non-linearity was actually the breakdown of the various, broad forms of level design. I got into a lot of specific things like damaging floors and explosive barrels, but I think it's worth considering the larger scope of beginning to design a level, in which case the layouts/definitions which Wraith explored become really important:

 

Linear, and Generally Linear

 

Non-Linear: Fork, Key Optional, Key Interdependent, Collector, Grid, and Sandbox

 

This still might not be of any help from the programming end of things, I just think it's a crucial part of the "level design" discussion for Doom (or any FPS), given how much these basic layouts can influence the way the level plays and feels, and the influence they can have on almost all other aspects of design within the level. 

 

 

[EDIT] On second thought, if the general layout (linearity/non-linearity) of the map will be dictated by the "random generation" nature of the program, then I suppose this wouldn't matter so much.

Edited October 21, 2019 by RonnieJamesDiner

[wallabra]

The program will generate a random graph. It works by classifying edges between nodes as either resolved (players can traverse without dying) or unresolved (players can't), and splitting unresolved edges by generating more nodes (until all edges are resolved).

 

Player health shall be a range - it begins at 100% to 100%, and the minimum decreases with monsters, the maximum decreases with area damage, and both increase with health pickups and ammo.

 

I think the factor that should decide the score of an edge, or at least one of the factors, is how close the health is to 0 without being negative. That is, if S is the health-based score of the edge, A is the lesser (most negative) health change (for a player that traverses this edge, i.e. enters the target area from the source area) and B the largest change, and n is the negative-health-to-positive-health penalty ratio, alpha is the health scarcity factor:

 

 

 

The larger S is, the worse the edge.

 

This equation in particular basically means it will favor health values that approximate 0 over positive health, and positive health over negative health. Alpha's role is to avoid giving the player too much max health. For example, if n is 3 and alpha 1.5:

 

 

The white areas are larger (worse) score values. The red areas are better. Notice the white lines, representing zero, and how this score is bested out there.

 

We can also prefer health approximating another value instead of zero, like a variable H.

 

 

If n is 3 and alpha 0.5, but H is 5, the contour plot now looks like this:

 

^{(The apparent distortion is because of the different horizontal and vertical scales. Notice how horizontally the numbers change much slower than vertically.)}

 

See the values minimizing at 5.0?

Edited October 21, 2019 by Gustavo6046

[wallabra]

The graphs generated so far are all completely linear, just a sequence of areas from Start to Goal. I am not surprised, since we only expand edges, we never fork them.  I'm not sure what to do now.