Wednesday 1 August 2018

Explorations in Level Design Part 2

Level designers are creating both image and spatial compositions in their worlds, but in games where the player can move, especially 3D games, these compositions can never be perfect because you cannot fully control where the player is guiding the camera.

Image and spatial compositions communicate information to the player, it suggests to the player the narrative and gameplay goals. It presents to the player the world they are in via world-building and environmental storytelling. It also allows the player to orientate themselves in the world, finding certain focal points to help them pivot in your game world. As level designers, we are not striving to create perfect compositions, imperfect compositions also have its place, it depends on what kind type of emotional tone you want to strike to the player at that given point in the game. Is it clarity or is it confusion you want to express to the player in this part of the level?

What is a good visual composition? Rudolf Arnheim proposed a Gestalt theory of visual composition. Informed by psychology, Armheim employed scientific methods to analyze visual art. "In his later book Visual Thinking, Arnheim challenged the difference between thinking versus perceiving and intellect versus intuition. In it Arnheim critiqued the assumption that language goes before perception and that words are the stepping stones to thinking. Sensory knowledge, for Arnheim, allows for the possibility of language, since the only access to reality we have is through our senses. Visual perception is what allows us to have a true understanding of experience." (Wikipedia)

Arnheim developed the theory of a structural skeleton which (and I apologize I might butcher this a bit) conceptualized how composition achieves balance through the idea of where visual weight is placed within a frame.

When elements are placed outside of the structural skeleton, it creates a sense of ambiguity, vagueness, discomfort, obscurity and a sense of tension.

Factors that create the most visual weight

- Size
- Perceived mass
- Spatial Depth
- Detail
- Colour
- Familiarity 
- Utility
- Orientation
- Contrast

Although the structural skeleton is mostly used for composing images, the structural skeleton could also be extended to spatial composition, both individual spaces or the combination of multiple spaces joined together that make a bigger space. One could create top-down spatial layouts using the principals of structural skeleton. Spaces that adhere to the structural skeleton create easier to understand and navigable spaces while the opposite create spaces that might confuse (which isn't necessarily a negative thing, it just depends on the tone you want to strike with the player in that space). Just like in image composition, there are also "visual weight" in spatial compositions:

- Size
- Positivity (positive and negative space)
- Circulation
- Utility
- Identity (this comes down to the visual weight in its image composition)

When spatial composition is random, it lacks hierarchy but creates whimsical spaces, while orderedness also lacks hierarchy but creates equal spaces. To strike a spatial balance in your spatial compositions, one would try to design spaces that have clear dominance than others.

In games, we understand spatial composition rules yet we try to break the rules to create sense of mystery, surprise and interest. For example, while symmetry is impressive in architecture such as religious buildings, in game worlds they mostly create boring spaces that don't lead to exploration. Once you know one side, you know the other side. Moreover, symmetry also creates confusion in the player as they might not know exactly where they are since all sides have the same geometry. 

How do players understand game spaces? We can extend for a moment to Kevin Lynch's study on how people understand cities in his book "The Image of the City". Lynch asked participants in cities that are notoriously hard to understand to draw maps of their cities without consulting a map. In his conclusion, he formulated several elements that are the most important for people when it comes to understanding a city. Lynch ordered them from the most important to the least important. 

- Paths, how to go from A to B such as roads, trails, streets, hallways, etc.
- Edges, linear elements that break continuity from one space to another such as walls, fences, dividers, etc.
- Districts, areas of identity such as Chinatown, shopping areas, central business districts, etc.
- Nodes, a specific location in a space, usually where one makes a decision such as which direction to go next. 
- Landmarks, a reference point that you can only understand from the outside (once you're inside, it isn't a landmark anymore) such as mountains or a tall tower. It generally something you can see from many different angles, but landmarks are not always in some far off position; landmarks are everywhere.


Disneyland calls these landmarks "weenies" (reference to when they would use sausages as incentives to get the dog to run across the camera to a specific location). 

In order to further understand this relationships between game designers and the players through the levels we design, we can further break down what the shapes in the game environment are communicating through risks and rewards and affordances and denials. 

Level design, beyond telling stories through its shapes, can also communicate risks and rewards to its players. Shapes can show risks through obstruct paths, arduous roads, dead ends, locked doors, occlude visibility but it could also express rewards through stunning vistas, progression in narrative, spatial mastery, collectibles..etc. Risks and rewards do not exist independently without the other either; players expect to overcome risks and hardship to gain rewards. Level design also communicates affordances and denials through its shapes. In James Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, he described "the affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. To put in other terms, affordances are the possible transactions between an individual and their environment. For example the affordance of a door handle is to be able to pull/push it to open/close a door. Affordances are closely tied to a verb, what type of action you are able to perform with that object/noun. In our physical world, the affordances in our environment are plentiful, and we do not have the time or resources to explore all its possibilities. Moreover it might be illegal to explore certain affordances such as breaking into someone's private dwelling or climbing up a city tower. In games, affordances are a lot more simplified, and due to historic precedence, players have an established set of expected affordances to objects such as being able to walk on stairs or climb ladders. Denials are the opposite of affordances, it denies the possibility of an afforded interaction. 

In game design, it is generally an unwritten contract that our goal is not to design easy to understand spaces that are navigable at first glance. Game spaces become harder to navigate as the player progress through play. Many players with some sort of game literacy, even those without, understand this concept, and nor do they expect everything to be hand fed to them either. Architectural concepts and other design theories are important in order to understand what games do and are, but level designers are not architects. Many players want to feel lost and to earn their way to their goal. As level designers we want to create a balance to encourage play that strikes at different emotional tones. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Explorations in Level Design Part 4

Final Level Design Walkthrough In my final level design exploration, I designed a level that was inspired by the the Last of Us with so...