next »

[gimymblert]

My take is that modern developer who are mire into easing progression for the player, they forget that while the critical path must be indeed clear, you can layer situation to provide discovery, and those don't have to be as clear. They only make one way to play the game.

Nintendo game always have a well define critical path, but the situation is layered so you can try different approach when you are more confident or find new way to do it by experimenting or goofing with the context.

edit:
In smb1 it's very subtle, you can either jump onto some series of block and avoid the enemy that goes under but miss the ? block with reward and power up, or you may be big and break the block to handle enemy or try to go under the block while tiny but the low ceiling make it risk as the enemy is a turtle, if you don't pace correctly the jump you may also have to deal with a dangerous bouncing shell but maybe it was your goal because you want to kill those gomba under the 1 wide small passage that doesn't allow you to kill them, or you need the shell to bounce higher up and reach that platform as an improvised shortcut.

That's much more than hold right to win.

[Core Xii]

While I do like the Portal series and I usually enjoy Valve Games, I think sometimes they playtest it so much that the final product looks cold, without taking any risks.

...wait what? Valve doesn't take risks? They don't have a single game that doesn't do something completely different. Portal was a 100% unique game unlike any other before it. How can you say it didn't take any risks??

i do, and additionally i think portal is a terrible game and holding it up as something to aspire to is terrible, it's an exact example of *what to avoid* (by the book level design, overly playtested and polished to death, and way too short);

How can a completely new and unique game be "by the book"? Please point me to all the other games that have written this 'book' on spatial puzzle design prior to Portal. Also, how is polish and playtesting a bad thing? I'm perplexed.

with portal i felt that the levels were my enemy, things to overcome and conquer and beat, i was confrontational with my surroundings and scared of it, there was danger everywhere

Considering that was the design goal I'd say they did a pretty good job, then. If you don't like this type of game as a personal preference, I think it's unfair to use it as a negative example of level design; Portal has excellent level design.


I do get your point on the playground mentality though. Super Mario levels are like bonsai gardens, especially in Super Mario 64. Little miniature pocket worlds with lots of interactions between entities - Whereas in Portal every interaction is predefined and part of the solution to the puzzle. There's no room for... well, playing, as you put it.

Can you imagine a Company like Valve developing Zelda: Wind Waker? Every kid I know (me included) bitched about the cartoony graphics (after we watched that tech demo of adult-link vs Ganon), but Nintendo took the risk and Ironically, many friends of mine like this game more than Twilight Princess, and TP was basically the game we all wanted, when we watched that Tech-Demo.

Umm... Team Fortress 2, anyone? Cartoony, stylized art direction?

Portal isn't a bad game, it's just a In-Between game, its the kind of game you play while you wait for more solid titles to be released.

I find your use of the term 'solid' rather ironic in this context.

[BattleBeard]

Nintendo is probably the best at holding her ground,
Can you imagine a Company like Valve developing Zelda: Wind Waker? Every kid I know (me included) bitched about the cartoony graphics (after we watched that tech demo of adult-link vs Ganon), but Nintendo took the risk and Ironically, many friends of mine like this game more than Twilight Princess, and TP was basically the game we all wanted, when we watched that Tech-Demo.


 TF2, anyone? Same story there, people complained when they saw the change from realism to cartoony and now look!

Portal isn't a bad game, it's just a In-Between game, its the kind of game you play while you wait for more solid titles to be released. Its a short, somewhat fun game, with a interesting storyline. You play a little, have fun with the meme's it has generated, but some time later you can't really recall many of it.

 Yeah, solid titles like "Mega Super UltraCall of Duty: Black Skies 6 X Z Alpha Omega Ultimate Champion Edition"

[rivon]

...

I agree with everything. Portal is great in every way.

[Nix]

I think appreciation of level design is somewhat subjective, and I absolutely loved everything about Portal. I think the length was fine. It was a good, tight "unit", and I believe that's what you really want to shoot for when determining how many levels you want to include. No more, no less (and I don't think Portal needed more levels). As for suggesting that Portal has no replay value, I disagree with that. I've replayed it several times, giving myself time in between, and I enjoyed each playthrough almost as much as the first (not quite as much because the story wasn't so much of a pleasant surprise. It didn't cease to be pleasant, though)

[Sankar]

Tëam Fortress 2 "Cartoony" graphics were developed because play-testers found easier to recognize the classes because of the exaggerated silhouette
This has nothing to do with holding your ground, valve stuck to this idea because playtesters reacted positively to it. If they didn't, they would throw it out.  

And I don't think there is anything wrong with calling a game a In-Betweener, Portal is a short game, and people enjoy it this way. You get to the end of it in some hours, maybe play again for a better score or something. And for most people, that's it. Its a fun, short, nice game. That holds its grounds while people wait for other games.
Its a night snack, you know. 1AM you're not in the mood for some rice,meat,potato,salad and beans. So you get a pizza and it makes you happy.

I can't see how someone find this offensive in any way.

You're not always in the mood for some 15 hour/60% completion Game. Thats why Portal 2 was released in April, a very slow month.

[gimymblert]

No it's not, TF2 art was to recreate a certain kind of illustration "In the work of the early 20th century commercial illustrators J. C. Leyendecker, Dean Cornwell and Norman Rockwell", they did the shape thingy too in left 4 dead and it's nowhere as stylized.

http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/NPAR07_IllustrativeRenderingInTeamFortress2.pdf

[Sankar]

No it's not, TF2 art was to recreate a certain kind of illustration "In the work of the early 20th century commercial illustrators J. C. Leyendecker, Dean Cornwell and Norman Rockwell", they did the shape thingy too in left 4 dead and it's nowhere as stylized.

http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/NPAR07_IllustrativeRenderingInTeamFortress2.pdf

They first found out that they needed a "exaggerated" and "cartoony" look, then they researched artists that were considered masters in such field.
Valve said they needed a game that: Stands out from the rest, doesn't look too hardcore/and can easily transmit its visual information.

here you go:  http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4338&page=2

Left 4 Dead is less cartoony but uses very exaggerated shapes in "special" infected, like the Boomer and the Witch. And the allies stand out easily from the Zombies. So, its less cartoony, because it has less information to transmit.

[gimymblert]

clear silouhetting with realistic proportion and character

Obviously you also didn't read their paper on left 4 dead design, they use the exact same technics, and it work for more than cartoony character, it work for everythings.


Actually you define identity with that.

I had already read that too and:

Art reDirection
Because of this issue with the medic beam and a number of other similar challenges, the team decided to rethink the game’s art direction. The team enumerated all of the gameplay problems that more deliberate art direction could solve, right down to the specific details of the most outlying weapons, characters and objects.

From this list, the ''Team Fortress 2'' team was able to extract high level goals for a new art direction. First off, the new art direction needed to be exaggerated, to match the over-the-top combat style of the game. It also needed to focus on incredibly unique characters, yet still ensure that the classes looked like a cohesive team when shown together. Additionally, the art direction needed to support a variety of unrealistic weaponry and a variety of player goals, from collecting objects to holding territory.

Unfortunately nintendo use the same reason to justify wind waker and skyward sword. It's not much "holding to some ground" rather than solving gameplay problem. You may had pick killer 7 for a better stylistic argument.

But this is really how you make breakthrough in style that is meaningful and not a gimmick. That's how art use to evolve, by solving problem, whether it's a pragmatic problem or an ideological stance, everything in the art should be the statement that answer to that initial problem.

however:

Valve said they needed a game that: Stands out from the rest, doesn't look too hardcore/and can easily transmit its visual information.

That's pretty much "holding to some ground"

it was never the playtester, it was a conscious decision.

[s0]

Thank you Sankar for verbalizing my thoughts on Portal.

Also what Gil calls the "challenge mentality" (even though my definition of  challenge is a different one but w/e) is sort of my problem with a lot of modern "retro" games. They copy the difficulty of older games but forget why these games were difficult in the first place and try to use it as an end in itself which is why the games often end up feeling shallow. The ultimate example of this is I Wanna Be The Guy which is actually a parody of the sort of design mentality.

[Nix]

Thank you Sankar for verbalizing my thoughts on Portal.

Also what Gil calls the "challenge mentality" (even though my definition of  challenge is a different one but w/e) is sort of my problem with a lot of modern "retro" games. They copy the difficulty of older games but forget why these games were difficult in the first place and try to use it as an end in itself which is why the games often end up feeling shallow. The ultimate example of this is I Wanna Be The Guy which is actually a parody of the sort of design mentality.

What did you think of Super Meat Boy?

[s0]

havent played it.