Let's Level Design! UE4 DM-Temple: Paper Map Part 2

Pre-Production

DM-Temple - Team Deathmatch Multiplayer Map built using UnrealEd 4

Hello and welcome to our new Let's Level Design tutorial series. In this episode we cover the critical thinking behind creating a paper map, review key Photoshop tools, and how to use them to create a paper map.

My Professional Portfolio - http://tinyurl.com/kmsztl4
Follow me on Twitter - http://tinyurl.com/o3n5l2g

Follow Press Select Interactive on Twitter - http://tinyurl.com/pgfbvk8

Derek holds a Bachelor's Degree in Game Design and has two and a half years of game development experience. To view his other work please visit www.dereksinex.com or his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JDKevlar

Let's Level Design! UE4 DM-Temple: Paper Map Part 1

Pre-Production

DM-Temple - Team Deathmatch Multiplayer Map built using UnrealEd 4

Hello and welcome to our new Let's Level Design tutorial series. In this episode we cover the critical thinking behind creating a paper map, key Photoshop tools, and how to use them to create a paper map.

Links referenced during the video:

Matthew Marquit's Level Design Tutorial Series - http://tinyurl.com/kxtlel5

Unreal's Channel (includes several tutorials) - http://tinyurl.com/pdoxqvb

Kerrigan's Campaign full paper map creation - http://tinyurl.com/l35mgpz

My Professional Portfolio - http://tinyurl.com/kmsztl4

Derek holds a Bachelor's Degree in Game Design and has two and a half years of game development experience. To view his other work please visit www.dereksinex.com or his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JDKevlar

Genre Discussion - First Person Shooter

First Person Shooter

            The First Person Shooter (FPS) genre and all of its sub/co-genres are my absolute favorite genre. As a youth, I played FPS games for hours upon hours and as an adult with very limited time I still play FPS games because this genre is the most time-flexible genre. At its core, FPS games give goals and rewards in short bursts whether it's in singleplayer or multiplayer and the gameplay is extremely addicting. Due to this infrastructure, consumers can play for multiple hours without getting fatigued and those of us with limited free time to play video games can play in short sessions with the same sense of reward; a unique selling point which no other genre can deliver. Unfortunately, this principle often turns into not giving the player a reason to invest emotionally into the game; other than functional gameplay and gameplay rewards. This unfortunate side-effect has led to massive criticism of FPS games because they severely lack good story-telling. Despite this, the First Person Shooter genre is arguably the most profitable video game genre which proves that gameplay matters more than story, regardless of what critics and consumers say.

            There are a lot of criteria that must be met for a game to be considered a "good" FPS. To start, the game must be a first-person game; a-la "First Person Shooter". However, since the game is in first-person, a large part of the experience boils down to player immersion since the game is played out essentially through the player's eyes as if they were actually in the game. Thus, player agency is a primary component to take a FPS game from "good" to "great". As the genre has evolved, the best practices of designing a good FPS game centralize around player agency and giving the player more control over their character. For instance, as the technology and industry grew, every video game included a story of some sort. In the early days every game included cut scenes or forced dialog to convey the story to the player, but this method strips control away from the player and destroys the immersive experience. Then in 1998, Half-Life revolutionized how story-telling was done in First Person Shooter games by getting rid of cut scenes. Of course, scripted events were still included and the designers cleverly crafted faux-cut scenes by putting the player in small areas where they couldn't get too far away from NPCs that progressed the plot. Even when the player did have the opportunity to miss vital information, the level design was so masterful that eventually any player could figure out what to do. Half-Life was responsible for giving agency back to the player inside of the FPS world and by giving player as much control as possible, immersion is streamed seamlessly through game sections with different pacing.

            The case of Half-Life and pacing also bring another aspect of what defines a good FPS; level design. Since First Person Shooter games are known and loved for their high octane combat, having great levels is a key for making a good FPS game. Levels need to portray a high level of interest and vary in goals while still holding key gameplay elements at heart. FPS games give developers a huge opportunity to experiment and do something great with their level design; a pillar which should be taken advantage of.

            Lastly, functionality and addicting gameplay are musts for a good FPS game. Tight controls and fun weapons keep players coming back hour after hour, level after level, and match after match. This final aspect of what defines a good First Person Shooter is why players remember GoldenEye 007 and Half-Life so fondly and why most players play the campaign for Call of Duty once, or not at all, and then just play multiplayer. In both GoldenEye and Half-Life the controls were simple to understand, there was a wide variety and functionality of weapons, levels/locations were unique from one another (more so for GoldenEye), and despite having essentially simple gameplay, levels allowed for unique objectives to be given to the player. In modern singleplayer campaigns the player just repeats the same objective over and over again which makes for a tedious experience. However, the simple, fun, and hard to master gameplay along with cool levels and a plethora of weapons is what makes modern FPS games worth playing in the multiplayer scene.

            I obviously believe that Half-Life  is one of the best examples of a First Person Shooter game, I have loved every single FPS game I have ever played. The beauty of the genre is every game has essentially the same gameplay, but every game is slightly different to make each one unique from each other. Likewise, in the 90's during a boom of FPS games (e.g. Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Duke Nukem, Serious Sam, Shadow Warrior, Half-Life, GoldenEye, Perfect Dark) every single FPS had the same mechanics, a large library of weapons, and the addictive gameplay of shooting guys in the face often. However, the art and level design was what really set them apart from each other.

            So in the modern age, consumers see a far less variety of quality FPS titles, but they are never-the-less money making juggernauts. Plus they're still massively fun. Unfortunately, with more complex technology and overall more complexly constructed games comes more bugs and glitches. This would not be such a bad problem if it weren't for release dates in order to actually make a return on investment; which has also skyrocketed. The increasing number of released games requiring patches after launch and the continuation of lackluster singleplayer stories make modern FPS games seem like a shell of their 90's brethren. These are surface problems though, and I still have the upmost faith in current and future FPS titles. As I stated earlier, I have never played an FPS game that I haven't loved and since this analysis is strictly about FPS titles I must remove games with sub and co-grenres like Fallout 3 (FPS/RPG), Team Fortress 2 (FPS/Co-op/Versus) and Payday 2 (FPS/Co-op) from the running and select a modern FPS game's singleplayer campaign. Which leaves us with Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare.

            I chose CoD:AW because it's the most recent pure FPS major title at the time of writing this analysis and it's a best example of the FPS genre. As common with all FPS games it features the same kind of mechanics players are all familiar with. The game is easy to play/understand, but hard to master and it features a new story; both of which makes it extremely inviting to new players. It also evolves old standards of FPS games by introducing new mechanics and customizations like grappling hooks, on-the-fly riot shields, and boosts. While these additions are new for the franchise, they are not new bits of gameplay for the genre. However, they are relatively new (within the last three years) and I believe we will continue to see these being the trend (as seen in upcoming games like Overwatch and Evolve). What makes Advanced Warfare really stand out from contemporaries are the little things that define a good FPS game. The graphics are phenomenal, they hired a superstar actor to voice and model the main antagonist, the story is compelling and does a great job of foreshadowing (albeit obvious for older/more mature players), and each level is unique both functionally and with the goals given to the player. For instance, the tutorial actually makes sense within the game world and isn't too patronizing which is a perfect balance for old and new players. One level has the player stealthily following an enemy target through a busy city, into small alley ways, then turns into a covert silent take-down of an enemy hideout, but the level ends in a massive chase straight out of a big-budget action movie. Then there are levels where the player pilots a drone which they use to clear a path for their A.I. teammates so they can capture a target. In short, Advanced Warfare takes advantage of what makes FPS games great and uses those limited tools to give the player a varied play experience through each level. This is a great change compared to the wave after wave of army lines the player had to fight through in earlier Call of Duty games where each level blurred together.

            To be perfectly honest, I cannot label any FPS game as a "worst example". It's almost as if FPS games are the easiest to get right. While I would refute any complaints about FPS games being buggy or having a terrible story, I do have a critique of games in this genre. Every First Person Shooter game does not hold up well over time. Most of the time it's because the graphic quality or the smoothness of the controls are just lackluster years later, but again, this is a testament to how great FPS games are because each new iteration makes improvements that make their amazing predecessors look and feel like garbage. However, I can still go back and play almost any old FPS game, even the original Wolfenstein and still have a blast. The only game I went back and played 10 years later that I thought "This is so terrible and unplayable." was GoldenEye 007. The thing to keep in mind though, was that I was playing it on my original N64 from 1998 on the original GoldenEye cartridge from 1998 on probably the worst controller ever designed. Having only one analog stick made the slow movement and combat infuriating because I was bogged down by ancient technology while the enemy A.I. was not. I can only blame myself and becoming so comfortable with having keyboard + mouse and dual analog sticks in order to move and aim in any direction at the same time.

Derek holds a Bachelor's Degree in Game Design and has two and a half years of game development experience. To view his other work please visit www.dereksinex.com or his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JDKevlar

Genre Discussion - Survival Horror

Survival Horror

            Survival Horror is an absolutely amazing genre. It is definitely a niche genre; much like their horror movie genre older brother, but survival horror games do garner some of the best praise and cult followings of any genre. However, the things that make a great survival horror game can also be a game's downfall (e.g. punishing the player too harshly for not playing the game as designed, not being scary enough, and overly convoluted objectives which leads to players not playing the game as designed) and why I have an immense love-hate relationship with survival horror games.

            For example, I love the Resident Evil franchise and I've played every iteration. Resident Evil 4 was the first game that set me on a long path of following online walkthroughs because, while the game is undeniably great, the gameplay objectives were extremely convoluted. In order to beat the game there were specific hidden collectables the player needed to find in order to unlock a specific pistol which then served as the gateway to successfully beating the game without wanting to throw your console out a window. Unfortunately, the first time I played the game I played it as I normally would, buying upgrades and new weapons which turned out to be a waste of time, money, and ammo as I couldn't get passed the first boss in the game. Again, the game gave no extrinsic effort to guide the player to obtaining the Blacktail pistol (the aforementioned pistol needed to beat the game) and put the player in situations where they had to fight huge hordes of enemies. In previous Resident Evil games, and essentially every survival horror game before RE4, the player had the choice in most cases of whether or not to engage in combat which made it easier/more intuitive for conserving your resources (a la survival horror). With the introduction of forcing the player to fight tons of enemies with the same limited resources, most players will deplete everything and be in a terrible position moving forward; often having to re-do sections or start the game completely over. This kind of practice is extremely frustrating and off-putting and only really devoted players will stick around, or look up how, to learn advanced techniques for completing these sections while still conserving resources. In the case of Resident Evil 4 and many subsequent games of a similar nature, this meant shooting enemies in the legs to either get them to stagger or fall over and then running up to do a quick time kick which also hits all enemies around the PC, or for the latter -- knife the enemy until they die. The player would then run away from enemies to get them into a bottle neck and repeat the process.

            Balancing resources available to the player, the difficulty of each player objective, and creating a scary environment which players want to continue to come back to, but also makes them terrified makes up a good survival horror game. Players need to feel overall impeded, but given enough hope that they can win. To accomplish this feat, good survival horror games have creepy looking enemies and obstacles which are stronger than the player and usually enemies that have grapple attacks rendering the player helpless for a few sections and requires panicked quick-time actions to set themselves free. To balance this, most enemies are either slightly slower or less maneuverable than the player so that the player can react, run, and counter-attack. If the player has the resources, they can eventually defeat any enemy/obstacle the game throws at them.

            Another big part of making a good survival horror game is the atmosphere. Lighting plays a huge part in setting a scary atmosphere, as does the sound, so concentrating on these two aspects is a must when designing the overall game; as well as, each level of the game. For instance, the original Silent Hill had some really simple opening level designs as it took place in the flat downtown center of a town. However, the lighting was really low, a fog covered almost all of the screen so the player could barely see in front of them, and eerie sounds played the entire time. Additionally, triggers were set to release enemies from off screen which surprises the player every time they play. As the player progresses, the level design starts to get more complex as they explore buildings in the town and the designers re-used many set pieces, but changed the lighting and textures to create kind of a "hell world" which added a lot of interest and variety to the game while optimizing resources on the development end.

            In the end, making a good survival horror game is like emulating the best horror films and placing the player into the main character's shoes.

            There are a ton of great examples of survival horror games from Sweet Home (which can be argued is more of an RPG), Alan Wake, to recent hits like Alien: Isolation and The Evil Within. In my experience, the studios that make survival horror games always do it well. So for the sake of argument let's discuss The Evil Within. The Evil Within does a perfect job of balancing the difficulty of the game with the amount of resources the player receives, it allows for multiple play types, and it delivers a unique horror atmosphere.

            Since Shinji Mikami (Resident Evil series, Dino Crisis series, Ace Attorney series, etc.) was at the helm, The Evil Within inherited everything that made Resident Evil 4 so amazing and improved the areas that were lacking. The objectives in the game are just vague enough to make it challenging and excited, while still giving the player enough to know what to do. There are also several sequences of the game which are red herrings -- e.g. the first time the player interacts with the main antagonist they are never harmed, but driven to run away; the next time the player encounters the antagonist he is an invincible force that will kill the player in one hit unless the player runs to a different section of the level. Furthermore, a special tip gets added to The Evil Within for it's cinematic sepia-like screen filter, which added to the extremely in-depth levels, creates an amazing horror feel and sense of progressing madness. Lastly, each mission objective is cleverly built into the level design. During one area of the game, the player is in a mansion reminiscent of Resident Evil 1 and the player starts by facing a large door with three locks which are connected to hoses which then run off into three different areas of the mansion. In order to unlock the door the player must complete a kind of brain dissection mini-game in each area. The mini-game itself is really clever because the solution to each puzzle is given to the player in the combinational form of an audio log and cross-section drawing of the brain. The player must drill into the correct section of the brain in order to complete the puzzle. Failure results in the player taking damage, but not killing them instantly; which is again, a perfect example of gameplay balance. While the player is running around completing these mini-games, they collect a plethora of items, finally gain a ton of knowledge of the story of the game, and must fend off enemies, traps, and the aforementioned invincible antagonist that will kill the player in one (melee) hit.   

            It's really difficult to find a "worst example" survival horror game, but I generally find a lot of indie/hobbyist, or student made survival horror games to be really lack-luster. Games like Slenderman and Five Nights at Freddy's come to mind if a specific game needs to be named. Both of these games are indeed scary and accomplish their intended goals. However, they lose their entertainment value very quickly because they are one dimensional games where the player has only one goal and the game is over within a few minutes. Slenderman and Five Nights both feature a single kill screen, limited gameplay, and rely entirely on jump scares to create a horror atmosphere because the player is in a single location the entire game.

Derek holds a Bachelor's Degree in Game Design and has two and a half years of game development experience. To view his other work please visit www.dereksinex.com or his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JDKevlar

Past, Present, and Future: Call of Duty

Past, Present, and Future: Call of Duty

In honor of the reveal trailer for Call of Duty: Black Ops III, I'd like to make some suggestions for the future of CoD and how to realistically improve the franchise. Most fans of the Call of Duty games have very loudly voiced their desire for the series to ditch the futuristic combat and Exo suits for a return to a World War II setting -- the backdrop of CoD 1, 2, 3, and World at War (5).

When Infinity Ward started making Call of Duty Games the property became so popular that Activision eventually split the license between two companies: Treyarch and Infinity Ward. The stipulations set on the companies were that Treyarch would create games set in the past, relative to their release date, and Infinity Ward would develop entries taking place in the present or future, relative to their release date. The formula worked as consumers raved about how amazing Modern Warfare 1/2 (Infinity Ward), World at War (Treyarch), and Black Ops were (Treyarch). Unfortunately, Infinity Ward and Activision had a sort of falling out and as of the writing of this article, Infinity Ward essentially no longer exists and their half of the development cycle is in the hands of Sledgehammer Games (who helped co-develop Modern Warfare 3 with Infinity Ward). The last released title for Call of Duty was Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare which is set in the future and introduced an Exo suit mechanic which turned CoD gameplay from horizontal to quicky, vertical, combat. For all intensive purposes, Advanced Warfare is a welcome evolution in the CoD universe. However, from what the Black Ops III trailer showed us, Treyarch is delivering another future-set game with Exo suits. Naturally, people complained citing how they want another WWII game and "no more Exo".

The problem with returning to WWII is if we take a look at the games developed by Treyarch, they've created a nice story arch which has branched across all of their games, usually in the form of recurring characters. To be frank, Treyarch does a much better job of story-telling than their sister-development house because they take the time to add in character development in an over-arching story line; they even created an over-arching Zombies story line in order to justify having the greatest horde mode ever made in each game. Following this overarching story though, it stands to reason Black Ops III is going to continue the story line farther into the future from where they left off in Black Ops II. Unfortunately, this means that Treyarch has to continue pushing their games into the future due to the story they've dedicated themselves to. Technically Treyarch could set a game in the past after Black Ops III, but at this point a traditional return to WWII would be a step backwards in gameplay without a hook like the Exo aerial movement. Furthermore, there has already been four games set during World War II and every possible Allied story line has essentially been done to death. In order to feasibly go back to World War II, there are a few fun options Treyarch, Sledgehammer Games, or Infinity Ward has for returning Call of Duty to the past without sacrificing the improvements the series has accomplished over the years.

1) Treyarch could use a similar method from Black Ops II where they transition from past and future to bridge the story. Treyarch could accomplish this by basically copy/pasting the story of Black Ops II where the player plays a special forces member of either the British, America, or French Resistance in the past and the Player Character's decedent in the future who has to deal with a threat that stems from their ancestor's actions in the past.

2) Again, going with the past/future flip-flopping, Treyarch could introduce a time traveling element where Axis remnants in the far future send technology into the past to assist the Axis. However, from a surface perspective this option is more or less a Wolfenstein rip-off. Treyarch could get away with a mash-up of Wolfenstein and Time Splitters which could be really great.

3) Since the game would be set during WWII, give players three "campaigns" again; French Resistance, British Special Forces, and a Nazi campaign. Players never play as an Axis soldier in CoD and being able to could create a unique perspective in the Call of Duty universe. Of course, Activision tends to only want the player to be on the side of "good" so during the Nazi campaign, the player could effectively take down the Third Reich from within similar to Operation Valkyrie.

4) Don't go back to WWII. Instead, make a game set during the Vietnam war. There is so much Treyarch could do with story, character development, and keep the SpecOps/Back Ops feel of their recent games by putting the player in the shoes of a Green Beret deep in the Saigon jungle. They could even put an additional Predator mode into the game to accompany Zombies. WWII has been played out by this point in the series and having a game set during Vietnam opens up a lot of room for sequels that could expand into the Korean War; prolonging the life of the Call of Duty series.

Personally, I love that Activision is proceeding with allowing its development houses push CoD further into the future because we, as players get to experience better and more diverse gameplay. EDIT**Now that the Call of Duty Black Ops III beta is now live the Exo mechanics have evolved from air dashing around to include power sliding and wall running. Furthermore, the much better loot drop system from Advanced Warfare gets an expansion as players select a "specialist" to play as who has their own unique power ability which is like a character specific added kill streak.

So what do the consumer complaints boil down to? "The story sucks". Well I've already given four examples for improvements for the setting which would effectively improve the story, but in short, avoiding cliches and/or varying the missions structure so that the story has more meat than "just shoot bots for eight hours" (i.e. add in more extraction missions, intel gathering, stealth assassinations, bomb planting or defusing sabotage missions, etc. - essentially making the bonus modes like "Light 'Em Up" part of the main campaign story) would go a long way in "correcting" this "issue".

Derek is an avid Call of Duty player, having played ever entry since Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Additionally, he holds a Bachelor's Degree in Game Design. To view his other work please visit www.dereksinex.com or his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JDKevlar