How you define "non-linearity"

[Chrispaks]

Many people would say that "this is too linear", or "way too non-linear" for certain maps that try too hard. Some common examples that may spring to mind of non-linearity are E3M3. Very fun to play, and even after all these years I sometimes still am surprised by what I find!


Question: What do you define as non linear?

For reference, let us say this is linear:




A] General path but with some side stuff, keeps you flowing in one direction though



B] Completely random, no one will ever have the same path due to your genius intertwining




C] Other: The above don't suit me, and this would be my definition (+ post)





I'm thinking of making a wad. I want to make it enjoyable for most people, and one thing my previous wads I've made have suffered from is that they are quite linear as defined above. Luckily I've never quite released them ;) though I really want to make my magnum opus.
Based on the images I've provided (or your own input), what would be the best for a doom wad? B would take a lot of work to do compared to A, and A can flow as well. The problem is, someone who doesn't want to mess around in the wad forever could get pretty overwhelmed with type B because you could wander many many paths before finding the "exit".

I keep looking back to the doom levels that today are still revered for their gameplay. I know that this is just one element of what we experience, but lets pretend for a second that everything else is satisfied: Perfect health amounts, ammo amounts, monster placement...etc. What would you enjoy the most?
Another problem this thread's question could face is how it's aimed at personal preference. Some people like to blow the shit out of things and finish a game in less than 15-20 minutes. Others like to sink their teeth into a series and would prefer long maps.


Lastly, is there a point where non-linearity is a hindrance? Where it can become too much? Can there be a line that we cross? Remember that lets assume for the sake of argument that everything else in the wad is perfect in your eyes as stated previously.



This further brings up that some Doom/Doom 2 levels are linear but just have good gameplay. Can good gameplay nullify the linearity factor?

[EarthQuake]

What most maps boil down to is that you start at one point and work your way towards another point. That in itself is linear. Now, along the way you have two options to improve on this aspect: 1) add additional routes like in your B example to make the map truely less linear, or 2) make the map appear less linear, as in your A example.

If you chose to go with option 1, you have more work to do, as you already understand. The design implies that there are multiple routes accessible that lead to the same (or other) parts of the map. What you get is sort of a web of routes that connect the entire map together. In your B example, this is taking it bit to the extreme, and you have to realize that a layout like this is going to confuse players. People tend to have a hard time remembering where doors and such are, and if you happen to stumble upon a key well before you make it to the corresponding door, it starts to look like bad map design to the player. This also goes the same way for switches that open doors you haven't even seen yet. The player needs to make connections with what does what in the map, or else they're going to get confused and frustrated. Another thing with example B is that most maps that try to do this end up with a lot of monsters active at once (because of excessive line-of-sight or lack of sound-blocking linedefs), which can be somewhat tedious to the player when they're already obsessed about
figuring out what to do in order to progress.

Going with option 2, there is definitely less work involved, and it reinforces the feeling of progress being made. The player works through one area, and once that's done, they move to another area. Often you have some dead-end areas or short loops that serve as sidequests, as you've put it. Sometimes you find a locked door that you might have to return to. The appearance of linearity is subdued by revisiting areas like this, or even sneaking a peek into later areas. This is how most maps are structured. Very few are non-linear.

So what can be done to make a map truely non-linear? Well, unless you want to spend a lot of time mapping out different alternate areas and scenarios to go with them (half of which may never even be seen), there isn't really much you can do.

Here's some things you can try though:

1. Provide some sort of goal that relies on triggering several things in a non-sequential order. Once the player has triggered them all, in whatever order they like, a new path is revealed allowing them to progress. It could be anything: switches, keys, monsters (albeit limited), etc.

2. Try a layout like example A, but have inconspicuous triggers in each alternate area that does something non-crucial in the upcoming "bottleneck". Depending on which route the player goes, the entire map can "change"; not necessarily in terms of it's layout, but in terms of which monsters or weapons or items become available. Note if monsters are used, this becomes a problem for runners who might not be able to get 100% kills (unless they are crushed or teleported or something).

3. Revisit areas without backtracking. This is a more obvious one, and it can do a lot for the map, especially if it doesn't disrupt the flow of the gameplay. You don't, however, want an area to loop back around to a former section of the map, simply dropping the player back in without any idea what to do. Open up some nearby areas, reintroduce some more monsters, and so on. One thing to achieve is making the player go "ahh, that's what was behind that conspicuous-looking oddly-textured door". :)

So really, there is nothing damning about linear map layouts. It's just how you go about it. All maps are inherently linear to some degree, but the perception of such completely depends on how many choices you give the player. Just try not to give too many choices, though. :p

If you want a great example of a map that feels non-linear, try BlastEm2. This is a great map that involves some of the things I ranted about.

So to answer some of your questions...

Chrispaks said:

Question: What do you define as non linear?

A map that presents multiple choices that alter the gameplay.

Chrispaks said:

Based on the images I've provided (or your own input), what would be the best for a doom wad?

Example A with a little bit of B.

Chrispaks said:

What would you enjoy the most?

Since I'm a little untraditional than most people, I'd probably prefer something along the lines of B.

Chrispaks said:

Lastly, is there a point where non-linearity is a hindrance? Where it can become too much? Can there be a line that we cross?

It becomes a nuisance when the player is overwhelmed with choices, and/or has no idea how to progress.

Chrispaks said:

Can good gameplay nullify the linearity factor?

Yes. Randomization, uncertainty, and difficulty can make up for this, as well as the usual fun factors.

[lupinx-Kassman]

Since someone else probably will anyway, I am going to link this wad. It boasts that it is non-linear, and it is pretty much right.

Polygon base

[Varis Alpha]

I second Polygon Base also. It's a prime example of how a non-linear level should be. It's a very good map with nice use of custom textures. Change the track to D_STALKS, though.

[Phobus]

Simply put, Doom is always a case of go from the start to the exit. The most non-linear you can get in terms of objective is in maps with a secret exit, as that then gives you two options.

However, the route between start and end doesn't need to be linear. I'd say your example A] is how a lot of non-linearity is achieved in your average Doom map, where there's side areas and optional deviations from the path.

B] is considerably more non-linear, but gets a huge amount of variation in experience, as some people may end up getting lost and thinking they're in some sort of maze, whilst others may luck out and get to the end almost straight away.

A third option would be to have it be painfully apparant that there is only one real goal, but then give the player a number of tasks that can be done in any order (say, collect all three keys) and will require exploring the map. Chuck in some side-rooms and a few split pathways and you end up with a very non-linear experience in a map where you are simply heading from A to B via a few objectives.

A fourth option would be to make the map feel non-linear by having the path cross over itself and have areas be revisited. Whilst this is still clearly a simple line from A to B, the fact that you end up in the same place more than once makes it feel a lot more like you're exploring.

[Graf Zahl]

I think the best way to make a non-linear map is to have certain objectives in a map that need to be done to advance.

A good example for this is Nimrod MAP07. You got this huge map where you have to destroy 15 or so crates. Only once you manage to do that a certain door opens. Of course the crates are spread out across a huge and mostly open level - so you have the clear objective but still an extremely non-linear experience.

On the other hand, maps where you just have to find some random keys in random positions without any guidance can quickly become frustrating.

[Gez]

Phobus said:

Simply put, Doom is always a case of go from the start to the exit. The most non-linear you can get in terms of objective is in maps with a secret exit, as that then gives you two options.

Who says you have to have only one single exit, or one single normal exit and one single secret exit?

You could have ten different exits, all leaving to the same next level. It wouldn't really matter after all.

Even better, you could have different start points by using a starting area with a few one-way teleporters.

Let's say you have three areas, each with a start point teleport destination, an exit, and a key. Call them A, B and C. A could have a yellow key and a red-locked exit door; B could have a red key and a blue-locked exit door; and C could have a blue key and a yellow-locked exit door. There are normal connections between all three areas of course -- it's a single level and you could even make it so that it's possible to switch open a doorway to the starting room with the three teleporters. But you'd have to visit at least 2/3 of the level to complete it, and it could be any two thirds in any order.

Complete that by having different weapons available and different enemy placement in the areas. Like maybe you've got a chaingun in A that'd be useful against the cacos in B, so you'd have an incentive to go A->B instead of B->A.

[kristus]

I usually do it by giving very distinct clues on how to progress. Like section the map up in progressive stages. For instance have one section locked off at first until you reach the key or whatever which will open one or more doors that lets you progress onwards into the next part. Then have the next piece of progression lie inside that area. (actually, come to think of it two of the three maps I am currently working on are using this scheme, maybe time to reevaluate and explore new methods)

Though my (nonlinear) maps are generally made for people who enjoys exploration. But also for those who wants to be able to evaluate a battle situation and take it on from different avenues.

[Phobus]

I am aware that multiple exits are possible - I just didn't mention them because its such a rarely used idea. I'll concede that the quoted sentence would suggest otherwise though.

With all the maps I've made, I'm certainly yet to have more than one normal exit and one secret exit, simply because it takes a lot of thinking about and planning to make a map fully playable and properly non-linear.

TNT MAP03, I think (the power station one), has a multiplayer-only version of multiple start points, where there's a load of one-time teleports in front of the usual teleport, which put the players in various locations round the map. Makes it a lot more interesting to play in co-op.

[Marcaek]

I have a feeling you mean MAP04 Phobus, unless MAP03 also features seperate MP starts.

[Phobus]

Nope, MAP03 is the one I meant. The players all start in the same place, but get teleported to different areas when they first try to enter the main area of the map.

MAP04 (Wormhole) has all the players start together.

[dew]

gusta's plutonia 2 maps (specifically map05, map09, map17 and map18) are extremely non-linear within the single exit per level bounds and without getting all sandbox-style like bigger exploration/city maps. keys, weapons and obligatory buttons are thrown around, you can usually pick the order in which you want to complete the "objectives" and you can pick from more than one path, depending on your stack, willingness to risk, etc atc.

this actually resembles the way how deathmatch maps are built - avoid chokepoints, camp nests and scripted fights, even if it is just a timed bar that traps you in an arena for a key fight. if a room gets horribly frustrating without a RL, but you keep that in another part of the map, you're already sacrificing a bit of non-linearity. the same can apply to monsters. if you put 4 revenant snipers in small cages around the yellow key, their role is dumbed down. scripted fights can be more challenging, because they can be precisely designed to be tough, but they will always be the same. put the monsters in a generally advantageous position, but allow them to roam once woken up... and they will chase you, ambush you, create surprising infight/cooperation situations, all because of their wonderfully stupid generalist ai.

[Xaser]

Hmm... a map with multiple standard exits? Somehow that's a brilliant idea if done right -- not many have. :)

Anyhow, there are plenty of ways to achieve non-linearity successfully. The A+B mix, Graf's Nimrod07 example, and Wormhole-style are all viable options, but the real thing it boils down to is to balance it to where it's neither too linear nor too maze-y and confusing. It's an art, not a science.

The good ol' IWAD maps are always good ones to study in this regard, I think. Plenty of maps have clear objectives (generally, "get keys, find exit") but lots of open layouts, multiple paths, and optional places you can visit without ever being too terribly confusing (for the most part). Even most of TNT (the underdog IWAD) did good at achieving this.

[elic]

Well I think TNT is probably has most linear maps of the IWADS, but I agree that there are many maps that feel less linear than they actually are, because areas are revisited in a lot of them.

I usually like maps from the A example, but you leave out one way in which a map can be nonlinear, and that's when there are "dead ends" which spur off the main map and don't lead to the exit, keys, or required switches. TNT MAP04 is a good example of this; really only like 1/10 of the level is part of the main path. Sections like these can help alot even though they aren't part of the main route if they contain health, ammo, etc. I think that these only work well for secret because it can seem like a waste of time going through many of these. A lot of 1994 abuse them by having a bunch of identical rooms just for the sake of nonlinearality.

[Hellbent]

in order of preference I like levels like the middle screenshot the most, then linear, then the third one (excessively non-linear to the point that there is no path). ideally, in my mind, you'd want a map that is a little more non-linear than your 2nd image, but not too much.

[phobosdeimos1]

All Knee-deep maps are perfect examples of how to make a level seem non-linear but only give one ultimate goal. (apart from the secret exit)

I always use this concept when mapping, I draw out a map first from the player start, number different corresponding areas and make sure nearly everything is joined together through windows etc,

I guess that's the standard type of map, Romero is king of doing that, i always look to his maps for reassurance

like you said though, some doom 2 maps are seemingly pretty linear, but have lots of fun battles that stop you caring.

I'd say the ultimate aim in making a map seem non-linear is to make you re-visit already beaten areas that have changed in some way, also stops it from getting too big

[Reisal]

See: E1M4 and E1M7

Probably the best examples of non-linearity in episode 1.

In Doom 2, probably MAP05, MAP10, MAP15, MAP16, MAP19 and likely a few others.

[Snakes]

MM2 MAP22 is, to me, one of the perfect non-linear maps out there. There's no defined path, but it's very easy to tell what direction you're going in. It's a skill I try and replicate... Well, kind of. I think the closest thing to that style I've got so far is either UR05 or UR10.

Most of my other maps are more like Requiem MAP06.

Needless to say, my main influence is Thomas Moeller.

[b0rsuk]

My definition is: a map which allows me to choose my path through it. In a meaningful way.

I think that - for player - the only possible danger of a non-linear map is that player may get lost. This can be fixed with creating landmarks, so that it's easy to recognize places you haven't been too and remember your path through the level. That way, when you find a dead end you have an idea where to try next.

Some of my favorite non-linear maps:

DooM 2:
map 10 (Refueling Base). This map is quite fun, you can even use stealth to steal a keycard without waking arachnotrons. Some areas are completely optional.

map 16 - distinctive and non-linear.
map 18


Map13, 12, 08 - I don't really like these, I get lost easily.

---------
Hexen:

Hexen has a lot of very linear maps. You start branching out after Guardian of Ice, but both other Guardians are quite linear. (Steel technically isn't at first, but it's symmetric so it doesn't matter).

This brings me to an important point: If a map is technically non-linear, but choices are symmetric, I wouldn't call it non-linear.

(So Dead Simple, 06?, the spaceport in Doom2, is technically non-linear but it hardly matters since it's symmetric)

Wastelands is a non-linear level, but it lacks landmarks, has very similar rooms and all corridors are alike. Ugly.

Caves of Circe is not strictly linear, but due to Hexen's obsession with hiding progress from you, you'll likely to be stuck for a while.

In general, in Hexen the only really non-linear levels seem to be hub start ones.

[Enjay]

Chrispaks said:

How you define "non-linearity"

Confusing. :P

Seriously, unless it is done well so-called non-linearity rarely is but, rather, ends up as a confusing randomised level.

Personally, I like maps like the second picture: a predominately linear path but with a few alternative route/approaches and possibly some optional areas.

On the whole, unlike something like a GTA sandbox, true non-linearity isn't particularly workable or (IMO) even particularly desirable in Doom.

[StoneFrog]

I too have wondered about this for a long time. In my earlier WADs I had the issue of making a relatively linear path from start to finish. Additional rooms and paths were there, but were generally of little interest and didn't actually contribute much to the flow of the map. A completely open map acquires a sort of sandbox vibe, which isn't any better. Exploration is good, but generally one should design their maps so that players will naturally pass through and interact with unimportant areas: as opposed to the "yeah well I reward exploration everybody else can go to hell if they don't like my map" cliché.

Generally, I think most mappers think of that open, "overlapping" feel when they describe non-linearity in the context of Doom.

What I've been doing, before establishing any of the actual layout, is the order in which the player must acquire certain keys/hit switches. You come up with a rough approximation of how they should be placed (i.e. "player starts in Area A and must go outside to get a key which will let them open the base back in Area A and get them to Area B overlooking the outdoors") and then place them as you please.

[Xeros612]

Non-linearity seems more like it would apply to a designated start - no designated end scenario. For Doom, (or hell, pretty much any game that isn't like minecraft, considering pretty much everything has a designated ending)"semi-non-linear" or "open linearity" would make more sense as labels.

You could call it quadratic, though.

[b0rsuk]

So, which map is more linear ? Why ?





Assume the smaller room has nothing interesting in it. Just some windows which can be used to look into the bigger room.

[esselfortium]

The first one is full of bullshit backtracking and terrible connectivity, so I'll go with the second one.

edit: Er, I mean the second one is more nonlinear. The first one is more linear; even though it's in several chunks that you can access in any order, there's no connection between them, so it's like three long, annoying linear maps stuck together.

[b0rsuk]

esselfortium said:

The first one is full of bullshit backtracking and terrible connectivity, so I'll go with the second one.

True - but come on, that's just a diagram ! Imagine each key is placed in front of a teleporter that leads to the start. As for the connectivity - why do you want connectivity ?

I'm more interested about your perception of linearity.

(I shouldn't have used a raster graphics program for a diagram, but it's too late now)

[esselfortium]

Connectivity is important because without it, you're playing several different maps instead of being immersed in a single continuous one.

In any case, the second one is less linear because it leaves more up to the player's choice. The first map, even if the three paths were interconnected, has a sort of forced nonlinearity. You have to go down all three paths no matter what. In the second map, you aren't required to explore the other path first, or even at all.

[b0rsuk]

esselfortium said:
In any case, the second one is less linear because it leaves more up to the player's choice. The first map, even if the three paths were interconnected, has a sort of forced nonlinearity. You have to go down all three paths no matter what. In the second map, you aren't required to explore the other path first, or even at all.

And here we come to the question: why some people value non-linear maps ? Why make a map non-linear ?

My answer is: variety. Done right, a non-linear map allows more choice, various playstyle approaches. This is true as long as the choices made by player matter.

In the first map, it's ultimately almost meaningless how I choose, even if technically I have more choices. The only thing that might be different when I go back to the start is my health and ammo levels. I may have collected some different weapons, but if a map does that (has weapons that can be missed) then I don't feel I have any choice except to explore everything.

In the second map, the big room with monsters can be approached differently. A player preferring an adrenaline rush may want to jump right in. A more cautious player may want to shoot some monsters from a safer place before walking in.

----

So I wouldn't bother with just putting obligatory map sections in a random order. That's not the kind of non-linearity that I like. Instead, I would try to optimize the map for interesting player choice. Only introduce non-linear paths if it adds something interesting to the map flow.

There is a problem with the second map, though. Typical player won't expect the second map to be non-linear. Most maps aren't built that way. He will assume the side room can have some valuables - maybe even permanent upgrades like weapons. So the map is only truly non-linear on the second playthrough. There's also the kill count.

Can a mapper communicate the non-linearity of a map to a fresh player ? I think it could work in a single WAD, if you establish clear conventions. An old game called Gauntlet would occasionally list powerups before the level started - that could be interesting too (and doable in Vavoom, but that's going into modding territory).


Hexen maps are usually connected like example1, more rarely like example2. Sometimes you have completely separate maps which you can complete in different order. Sometimes maps that connect with each other, notably hub2 maps. Your path through Wastelands, Darkmere, Caves of Circe may be change depending on which keys you get first.

[BlueEagle]

Basically I like the non-linear gameplay a lot better over the linear, because it gives the player at least the illusion of doing it "his way". But while some players appreciate the freedom, it also leads to a lot of confusion for many other players. That's why you find so many rollercoaster shooters out there. Making a game linear is a win-win because players don't get confused and designers have less to think about while developing.

With Unloved I've tried a middle way. At first it's linear, then it opens up and gives the player a choice of where to go next, but in the end it becomes linear again. Even though I knew about the problems with non-linearity and I tried my best to keep the player aware of what to do next, I still couldn't get it right and I got a lot of player complains that they got lost and confused.

Overall I would say just stick to linear gameplay and make the best out of it.

[Megamur]

BlueEagle said:

Even though I knew about the problems with non-linearity and I tried my best to keep the player aware of what to do next, I still couldn't get it right and I got a lot of player complains that they got lost and confused.

I only got lost because it was too dark and I couldn't find a door I'd missed. :)

(For Unloved II, you might want to say in the text file what specific GL light settings you suggest the player should use. More than once, I've missed important doors/switches in GL maps because I used light settings different than the author intended.)

[40oz]

I'll throw in some input as far as linearity goes as I've been playing a lot more wads lately and at one point I was very confused what to do in order to make my maps less linear.

Linearity has a very loose definition and often times people will refer you to playing Knee Deep In The Dead for ideas for nonlinearity, but if you've played those maps as much as I have, you know the most linear way to get the keys and to the required doors and to the exit in the most linear way possible, which kinda defeats the learning experience.

What I've found as I've continued mapping, is that maps described as linear are probably better described as simply having boring gameplay. It's not always determined by how the level is mapped, but the thing placement is also heavily influential of its linear design. Boring gameplay usually goes as follows:

Start > Get shotgun and shells > open door > kill monsters > open door > kill monsters > get key > open door > kill monsters > get better weapon > kill bigger monsters > exit.

However, in my attempts to create gameplay that is more lively, ala Doom 2 or TNT Evilution, I've found that being more unfriendly to the player as far thing placement goes can make the gameplay much more lively. Lately I've been doing things as follows:

Start > run past monsters > get shotgun > kill few monsters > retreat > press switch > run past more monsters > get shotgun shells > kill kill kill kill kill > backtrack for secrets > activate traps > retreat > find key > kill monsters > find secret > get better weapon > open door > kill monsters > exit

This type of gameplay forces the player to have to become familiar with the map before he can win it right away. He has to learn where the ammo and health are stored and create the quickest route to getting the weapons he needs to kill the monsters, unlike what most linear maps do, they provide you the resources you need to kill the monsters and get to the exit before you need them.

Usually i keep these things in mind when trying to make levels that aren't linear:

1. Rooms should be big which allow a lot of room to move when large monster encounters occur but also fun to explore

2. Rooms should have 2-4 ways in and out of them

3. Player should rarely be provided with anything in the starting room. Maybe a chainsaw or some bullets but nothing else. Don't reward the player for being in the starting room. It's like giving a dog treats for being bad.

4. Ammo for weapons should be in different places than where the weapon is found. Getting to the weapon one task, but getting the ammo to use the weapon is another task which makes gameplay a little more lively, also the player has to decide whats more important, getting the ammo and then the weapon, or weapon then ammo. (nonlinearity)

5. Keep other helpful resources far apart from each other, even at different poles of the map. Then for the player to get suited up for combat, he has to decide what he needs most, then come up with a route to get to these things