next »

[seagaia]

Wondering if anyone knows some good links. Or perhaps we could discuss via looking at some maps -

http://vgmaps.com/Atlas/GB-GBC/index.htm#LegendOfZeldaLinksAwakening

etc, etc.



Here is a picture from something I'm working on atm. I have a question on it at the end of this post.




What are things to avoid with dungeon design? Examples of it in Zelda?

Any advice, or external links, for designing a dungeon from scratch? Of course this will depend on our specific elements. Maybe a matrix of sorts in terms of what kinds of puzzle/action we want going on?

And a question on the screenshot. I feel like pushy-block puzzles might be sort of stupid, but in any case would you consider it "obvious" that the displaced block would draw a player to well, push it in the right direction? Or should that vein of puzzles be scrapped, perhaps it should be presented in a different manner...

Okay, okay, enough for now.

[dishmoth]

And a question on the screenshot. I feel like pushy-block puzzles might be sort of stupid, but in any case would you consider it "obvious" that the displaced block would draw a player to well, push it in the right direction?

I'd argue that a lot of Zelda puzzles are based around the player recognizing a pattern (such as symmetry, or lack of it) to the room.  So, yes, a displaced block is begging to be pushed into place.  (You probably don't even need the mark on the floor shown in the screenshot.)

That said, block-pushing puzzles have been done to death over the years.  But if that's one of the player's skills then I guess you've got to use it.

[Azure Lazuline]

Are you asking about individual rooms (how to make a good block puzzle, for example) or about the dungeon layout as a whole? They're two completely separate things.

[Fallsburg]

I did a brief analysis here.

There was an ok analysis at gamastura.


And, yeah, seconding Azure. Are you discussing dungeon design or room design? Both? 

[seagaia]

I did a brief analysis here.

There was an ok analysis at gamastura.


And, yeah, seconding Azure. Are you discussing dungeon design or room design? Both?  

Thanks for bringing this up, I hadn't thought of it that way. Probably dungeon design first, I think room design would be too heavily based upon the game at hand and the specific mechanics it has. Your graph-based analysis is interesting, perhaps I'll try that with a few of the GBC zeldas - and then use ideas from the gamasutra article as well. I'm really interested in what can make a good tutorial or first dungeon. If I get the time, I will try and post analyses of tail cave/gnarled root/spirit's grave (or maybe the tutorial dungeons from the oracles?)

So from a dungeon-standpoint, for a few points, it would be good to

- Give players breathers, don't just keep them in action
- (Most of the time) don't make a large dungeon with multiple cycles in it, this can be confusing/frustrating (and I suppose possibly introduce edge cases with keys and doors)

Anything else? I think I have a better idea for good dungeon flow.

Now, what are sorts of rooms to avoid?

I can think of an example of bad room design, but it relates to bad dungeon design I guess - putting a very hard room of enemies in the middle of what is intended to be a simple dungeon. Or, obscure-to-the-point-of-impossible puzzles.

But those two seem a little too obvious - can anyone think of other bad room design examples?

[JoGribbs]

Joe's thoughts on Zelda dungeons:

Dungeons themselves are a kind of meta-puzzle that you complete by solving a succession of smaller self-contained puzzles. In older Zelda games the puzzle was something like 'how do I get up there?' and then you'd systematically explore rooms until you got up there. Later Zelda games have sometimes made this meta-puzzle a genuine actual puzzle that you can only solve once you've explored every part of the dungeon and figured out how this central puzzle works. Examples include the water dungeon in Twilight Princess and the final dungeon of Skyward Sword which, though I think that game is a festering pile of shit, was actually a high point.

When I say there's a meta-puzzle, what I mean is that every moment the player is in the dungeon they feel like they are working towards a goal.

I just want to introduce the concept of direction. In side-scrollers there's this omnipresent goal of 'move left', and the skill is in how you do that. In Zelda dungeons there is an omnipresent goal of taking the dungeon itself from a state of incompleteness to a state of completeness. The skill is in moving in the direction of this goal. The player should feel at all times like each of their actions is working towards this end. Even though the dungeons in Zelda are sprawling and open, there is a single path to their conclusion that the player should be compelled to follow; this path is omnidirectional, the player constantly readjusting their literal direction but always moving towards this state of completeness.

In later Zelda games after every action there is usually some sort of visual or audio cue that is supposed to remind you of an area you've already been to so it's very easy to follow the chain of actions. In Skyward Sword, and to an extent Twilight Princess, there's never really a moment where you have to struggle to figure out where to go next (and oftentimes they come up with some contrivance that will 'zap' the player to where they need to be e.g. player gets bow, player opens door with bow that leads them to an earlier point in the dungeon right next to where they need the bow). This is what people mean when they call the games 'linear' even tho you zip about rooms just as much as previous games.

Things to avoid:
Remember that the direction from incompleteness to completeness is metaphorical. The player goes from a state of exploration and discovery to a state of familiarity and almost ownership. Omnidirectional movement makes the player feel that they are not simply pressing forward but coming to understand and control a distinct space ('Joe isn't this illusory?' fuck you). What I'm saying is don't make your dungeons too linear, as in a succession of puzzle rooms that just lead to the next one.

Besides that just avoid things that make bad games in general: too much superfluous visual detail, repetitive tasks etc.

[Azure Lazuline]

For general dungeon design, it's nice to have some sort of "hub" near the beginning, somewhere you backtrack to. The Deku Tree does that - the very first room is a big cylinder with about 5 exits, and you go to each one in order, then return to the big room. After you finish those, you can break the web and enter the second hub, which has multiple exits as well. But you always return to that room after solving a few puzzles and getting a key. This goes along with the article saying that the boss room is always close to the entrance. By extension, EVERY room is close to the entrance, because you open up shortcuts as you go along. That's very good.

For medium or hard dungeons, you also have to think about macro-puzzles in addition to the mini-puzzles in most rooms. There was one dungeon in the Oracle games where the center room of each floor had a turnstile and the entire progression of the dungeon was based around interacting with it (I'd give more details, but I wouldn't be able to explain it properly. I wish I remembered what dungeon number it was). Another macro-puzzle is the orb and pillars in Eagle's Tower (Link's Awakening), where you collapse the dungeon and remove a floor entirely, replacing it with a new one. Each dungeon should have a "turning point" like that.

[dishmoth]

What I'm saying is don't make your dungeons too linear, as in a succession of puzzle rooms that just lead to the next one.

Probably just repeating what you've said, but my take on it:  Dungeons feel 'too linear' if you always know which puzzle you're supposed to be tackling.  In a good dungeon you get stuck and don't know where you're stuck.  (Should you be trying to unlock one of the doors you passed earlier?  Is there something you should be doing to that mysterious statue near the entrance?  Was that really a dead-end you came to before?)  You're forced to re-explore the dungeon over again, which leads (as you say) to a sense of ownership.

This goes along with the article saying that the boss room is always close to the entrance.

It's interesting to realise that that layouts of dungeons are often constrained in that way.  But it's a constraint that compensates for the player always respawning at the dungeon entrance, and not a universal rule.  (In Phantom Hourglass/Spirit Tracks teleports provide the shortcut from the dungeon entrance to the boss room.  In Skyward Sword there are explicit save points inside the dungeon, so dying doesn't usually set you back very far.)

[baconman]

Dungeons in the shape of items/objects? I'd say scrapping puzzle-solving in favor of more bold action (maybe have one puzzle per dungeon, max) is not only the quick-and-simple approach, but likely will end up being the funnest one overall.

But I guess that depends on whether you're using the "item is the key to the proverbial lock" approach, in which case... create new uses for items, maybe?

[Ishi]

There was one dungeon in the Oracle games where the center room of each floor had a turnstile and the entire progression of the dungeon was based around interacting with it (I'd give more details, but I wouldn't be able to explain it properly.

I had this same puzzle in my head whilst reading through the thread. I had a look on VG Maps, looks like there were a few dungeons in Oracle of Seasons that used it.

http://vgmaps.com/Atlas/GB-GBC/LegendOfZelda-OracleOfSeasons-Snake'sRemains.png

(If the top left room is 1,1, the turnstile room is at 5,3)

If I remember rightly, the turnstile would rotate clockwise, then anticlockwise. So if you went through it, because it would rotate in the opposite direction when you went back through it, you'd just end up back where you were. You had to loop around and approach it from a new direction to reach one of the other exits in the room. Quite a nice puzzle that alters navigation of the dungeon as a whole.

I can't see anywhere were they combined two turnstiles, maybe that would have been too complicated to navigation, or too much of a chore with all the walking involved.

I also liked the Eagle's Tower dungeon in Link's Awakening that you mentioned. The metal ball item was persistent (stayed where it was even when you switched rooms) which created a couple of nice puzzles where you could throw it over some spikes or something, then make your way to the other side to collect it later.

I loved in the DS Zeldas (think it was in both?) where the boss key was a massive item that you had to carry around. I felt they didn't make the most of that though. I don't remember actually getting the key to the door ever being much of a challenge, puzzle-wise. Imagine if you couldn't throw the key across a large gap, and you had to pay attention to the dungeon layout and throw the key down a hole on the floor above.

[seagaia]

I had this same puzzle in my head whilst reading through the thread. I had a look on VG Maps, looks like there were a few dungeons in Oracle of Seasons that used it.

http://vgmaps.com/Atlas/GB-GBC/LegendOfZelda-OracleOfSeasons-Snake'sRemains.png

(If the top left room is 1,1, the turnstile room is at 5,3)

If I remember rightly, the turnstile would rotate clockwise, then anticlockwise. So if you went through it, because it would rotate in the opposite direction when you went back through it, you'd just end up back where you were. You had to loop around and approach it from a new direction to reach one of the other exits in the room. Quite a nice puzzle that alters navigation of the dungeon as a whole.

I can't see anywhere were they combined two turnstiles, maybe that would have been too complicated to navigation, or too much of a chore with all the walking involved.

http://vgmaps.com/Atlas/GB-GBC/LegendOfZelda-OracleOfSeasons-AncientRuins.png

Ancient Ruins also uses a turnstile, and there are probably others. It's a mechanic that forces you to make a better rough mental map of the dungeon.

The ball in LA's Eagle's Tower was a very cool idea - talk about "conquering" the dungeon! IIRC, Time Temple in Twilight Princess uses a 3D equivalent of carrying the boss key. Although it wasn't particularly challenging, it did have takeaways that could be built upon in 2D (Same with Skyward Sword and likely all zeldas)

In later Zelda games after every action there is usually some sort of visual or audio cue that is supposed to remind you of an area you've already been to so it's very easy to follow the chain of actions. In Skyward Sword, and to an extent Twilight Princess, there's never really a moment where you have to struggle to figure out where to go next (and oftentimes they come up with some contrivance that will 'zap' the player to where they need to be e.g. player gets bow, player opens door with bow that leads them to an earlier point in the dungeon right next to where they need the bow). This is what people mean when they call the games 'linear' even tho you zip about rooms just as much as previous games.

Things to avoid:
Remember that the direction from incompleteness to completeness is metaphorical. The player goes from a state of exploration and discovery to a state of familiarity and almost ownership. Omnidirectional movement makes the player feel that they are not simply pressing forward but coming to understand and control a distinct space ('Joe isn't this illusory?' fuck you). What I'm saying is don't make your dungeons too linear, as in a succession of puzzle rooms that just lead to the next one.

These are good points. I feel like designing a dungeon wouldn't even be as fun if I made it so hand-holdy and linear, and the feeling of imcompleteness to completeness makes sense, a lot of times it's sort of like figuring out a large body of code, you're absolutely confused at first, but if it's good code, then eventually all the pieces sort of come together. I'm sure that metaphor works elsewhere. This very much explains why Skyward Sword's dungeons were often so...unsatisfactory, as much as they looked impressive.

Dungeons in the shape of items/objects? I'd say scrapping puzzle-solving in favor of more bold action (maybe have one puzzle per dungeon, max) is not only the quick-and-simple approach, but likely will end up being the funnest one overall.

But I guess that depends on whether you're using the "item is the key to the proverbial lock" approach, in which case... create new uses for items, maybe?

This brings up item design too, I suppose. I think it's best to keep the number of items low, but increase what they can do. And perhaps create a matrix of sorts where you combine what is used (item A and B are used in some sort of puzzle, with difficulty levels x, y, z, etc.). Maybe that helps the player feel like they are learning (well, I guess because they are!)



-----


In terms of boss room placement, I think anywhere is fine, but it is a tough question whether you give the player a teleport to the entrance of the boss room in case they die. I think this is respecting their time more as a player, instead of making them repeatedly trudge through the dungeon. Then again, it isn't as challenging.

[Ishi]

The boss teleport feels quite arbitrary, too. I think in most situations, it's preferable to achieve something using existing game mechanics (e.g. once you get there, you open up an actual shortcut from the boss room back to near the entrance) rather than a one-off mechanic (here's a magic portal that I coded to get you to the boss, and can't be used in conjunction with any other mechanic).

[JoGribbs]

Snake's Remains is a seriously excellent dungeon design. The reason I didn't use it as an example is because the turnstile puzzle is towards the end of the dungeon and, while it does require the kind of skill I was talking about to complete, it only includes a few rooms. It's like the 'final boss puzzle' of the dungeon, whereas something like the Water Temple from Twilight Princess is based around a water redirection puzzle that involves almost every single room in the dungeon (this is a bit of a muddy distinction, but just bear in mind that even the water puzzle is not actually the 'meta-puzzle', it's just a rather illustrative example of what I'm trying to talk about).

You brought up the example of the Temple of Time from Twilight Princess, and I just wanna say that that is a god-damn fantastic dungeon design. I know I said 'don't make the dungeons too linear', but I only meant that if you wanted to recreate the feel of the Oracle games. Basically what I'm saying is that the way you design a dungeon will have an effect on the way the player feels about that space, so design appropriately.

Temple of Time is basically a single path of rooms all the way until the mini-boss room, at which point you're given the statue and have to work your way back to the first room with it. It must have been an absolute bitch to design each room with this in mind, but the pay-off is great. That familiarity and ownership is there because you have to go back on yourself and visit previous rooms one by one, but there's also this new understanding of the physical space when you have the statue. There are new challenges, like the scale puzzle (which importantly establishes that you and the statue are physically comparable), and there are some things that are now no challenge at all (the stone walls that the statue can just smash through). It's a super clever dungeon design and it makes my brain happy.

It's not excellent mind you, though a lot of that is down to Twilight Princess itself. I mean problem number one is that there's not really any tension because the game is way too easy. There's no sense that this place is a genuine threat to your life so there's no weight to the player's decision to explore (this is my problem with everything post-Majora but I understand this is kind of controversial). The second problem is that it doesn't telegraph the central puzzle very well. It asks you to go into wolf form and sniff the alcove and then Midna just tells you that there's gotta be a statue somewhere. I think there are many less blunt ways to do this. Last problem is that it's full of enemies that are only really a challenge for your patience: the baby spiders? The armoured lizards? The latter made exponentially moreso by Twilight Princess' honestly sucky combat.

As regards boss rooms:
It's just my personal opinion but I don't like the player to do anything they've already done again, but I think Ishi's right and it's better to have some kind of route to the boss room open after you've got to the door.

I too thought the key carrying thing from the DS games was cool but it wasn't really interesting in the way the Statue puzzle from Temple of Time is. You just put the key down do your business and then pick it up again which is... not really that big a deal.

[Tumetsu]

Moonlit grotto from OoA had turnstile too and is pretty much the main puzzle of the dungeon:


Other than that I liked 2d dungeon designs most from Zelda series. I suggest making situations where there is many unlockable doors while you still have just one key. Of course it is irrelevant which door you open, but it is still far more interesting design than one without it.

[baconman]

Link's Awakening again hit another sweet spot with warp zones, using them with midpoint miniboss rooms, so you only had to retrudge half the dungeon at a time. With some decent feedback loops in design however, this is something you could achieve without warping at all. Not that everything has to loop to/from the start of the dungeon, mind you...

Generally speaking, the main branches/loops would be:

-Boss/Main Objective
-Item Room
-Miniboss
-Hint toward something (next dungeon? item? boss?)

From there, you just insert a map and compass (you could be a dick and put a boss/item "big key," but I find that more a design limitation than a "feature" at this point), and maybe a hidden treasure room somewhere (many dungeons still have them!).

The contents of the rooms are more flexible, depending on the era(s) of Zelda you're most wanting to reflect. Some one-way doors, locks and keys, and pushblock switches can flesh things out a number of ways regardless of your approach. But then you'll want to look at:

-Enemy selection
-How items interact with enemies
-How items interact with other gameplay elements
-What a puzzle in Zelda is/could be, and if you really want to implement them; and then if so, how to engineer them
-Boss/Miniboss design, how they fight and what makes them fun to fight


Zelda I was a lot more combat-focused, and most of what you needed items for was usually just finding the later levels. Only a few bosses required item use (like Dodongo/Digdogger/Gohma) at all.

Link's Awakening was all about keys. It's the only one I know of where you even needed specific keys just to ENTER the dungeons. And there was a lot of item play in it, but ultimately those were just construed as key/lock mechanisms as well (Mirror Shield blocks the Flamethrower, etc.).

Oracle of Ages was just puzzles of puzzles, and plenty of reading. If you're really in an item-combination puzzle mood, here's where you find your inspiration for that.

Seasons was more classic action/style, but still had some forced sequenciality about it - the Gacha Nuts/Trees are really what made that game, though! It's basically a secret area you could rediscover (and then milk for goodies), although eventually you had to start buying the nuts, and the goodies (aside of rings) were rather marginal in value compared to them.