mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster
Rank Points: 5058
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged
|
Dungeon persistence design decisions (+2)
So, academically... (correct me if I'm wrong, and excuse me for butting in and if the following seems banal) there are several layers of "dungeon persistence" in practice:
* randomly generated levels that change each time they're entered (Rogue).
* randomly generated levels that persist for the course of the game (NetHack).
- to do this, each saved game ends up being roughly the size of the dungeon spec itself, although certain optimizations can be implemented, like: only save the parts of the dungeon your player has actually explored in the saved game file; other areas will be loaded fresh the first time they are entered.
* hand-crafted levels with quasi-persistent state (RPGs/adventures like Zelda, Final Fantasy, Metroid, DROD). Hand-crafted dungeon areas that reset each time you (re)enter them, but some effects are retained (e.g. opened chests stay opened, main power-ups are only collected once, conquered rooms remain conquered, bosses stay beaten). Memory for a saved game is only for the set of global flags that track these states, and possibly for the room in progress.
* hand-crafted levels with fully persistant state for the entire game (hmm...I'm guessing certain D&D-based games, like the Baldur's Gate series) keep track of this much state). Saved game size issues are equivalent to those of randomly-generated persistent dungeons.
* hybrids: Randomly generated levels are interspersed with some hand-made levels (Diablo, Kroz, Dark Cloud).
Observe the persistence issue largely requires allowing multiple reentry into each area and is independent of how dungeon areas are generated, per se. That is, with linear games, state usually doesn't persist in exited areas because you can't go back to them.
Now, the issue of which of these level design models makes for good game play is, imo, more subtle than it seems at first. Some believe that playing a game with random dungeons means increased game play, i.e., you always have "new areas" to explore, as opposed to a static set of hand-crafted levels that will hold no surprises once you've explored them thoroughly the first time. However, I contend that the former gives no more "exploration play time" than the latter. Once you've seen the type of levels that are possible, then you will always expect that type and are not hoping for anything new, regardless of how extremely the rooms are shifted around each time. I argue that, in fact, it's not the randomly-generated rooms that get people interested in this type of level design, but the wide range of seemingly random events that can occur in each room. On exiting a level, no one ever says, "Wow, the way those rooms went together was just amazing!" Instead, the player remarks, "The monster zoo was quite a challenge!" or "I really liked that potion I found!"
I think the most successful games have found a way to combine the strengths of hand-crafted levels with random events. Levels made by people (usually) have stronger and more elegant game play. Imagine a reverse case -- randomly-generated DROD rooms, with some roaches and walls in this room, and some wraithwings and pits in the next room, and some puddles of tar in the third room. It would devolve into pure hack-and-slash, with some unsolvable rooms, not being fun at all. A seemingly limitless range of possible encounters and item/treasure types retains a player's interest. As new event types are encountered, with the sequence with which the player experiences them being different each time, the player feels they are still discovering the game. Providing the player the option of selecting from different player behaviors (i.e. character classes) expands gameplay still more.
____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.
|
