Does level design not matter anymore...

does level design not matter anymore? the easiest way to make a game is to make 200 missions that are all the same and go to this place kill that area and come back. yet some how its like it doesnt even matter and its so awesome because its non linear. the comparison picture is not related but after playing farcry 2 i was already burnt out on these types of games. now i see mgs5 getting praised for having the best gameplay in the series and some how 1,2,3 are memed into having crap gameplay? this is just wrong man

Level design is not gameplay.

yes it is

No it's not. You could put Doom in a straight corridor, the gameplay is the same. You put CoD in a Doom map, the game play is the same.

...

fine then but in my mind its gameplay

Stupid people are worming their way into all tech fields, including video games, and shitting everything up with their inability to think in more than two dimensions. Anyone who complains about their incompetence gets a trip to HR, or a high heeled bootprint on their ass.
The thing that ALWAYS bothered me about map design in 3D games was that real-world locations, or places that could be realistic, were designed in a retarded fashion. Labyrinthine corridors in office buildings or factories? What the fuck?

which games are you talking about here? ive never played a game with a maze like office building

Dumb masses just get lost in the mazes so they make linear paths instead. It's not that it doesn't matter but rather you're just not the target audience of AAA big budget games so don't waste your time with them.

I'd say level design somewhat constitutes as gameplay and I'll give an example.
I was playing Thief 1 earlier, specifically Bonehoard. When you get to the Halls of Echoing Repose, you're met with these thin corridors and pathways and many undead. The level design forced me to have to kite these enemies to open up my options for movement. I'd say it affected my gameplay without explicitly being gameplay, if that makes sense.

But yeah, for singleplayer games, literally nothing has led to them being worse more than the art of level design being lost to time. It's the hardest part of making a good game.

I think all the MGS games have stellar gameplay, but I do believe that the level design restriction of MGS2's setting with the Big Shell did kind of hurt the game. MGSV has some great moment to moment gameplay but the lack of substantial level design can get tired. However, Ground Zeroes' map might be the best piece of level design in the entire franchise, it's so thought for each of the scenarios.

Because graphics takes up the budget.

What do you think the average gamer wants? Good level design or a mocapped Hollywood actress?

That's cause level design is about creating a vehicle for gameplay. Kiting enemies and learning when and where to move is part of gameplay, that corridor forced you to use said aspect.

First and foremost you're a retard. If one thing is the best, how the fuck does that make everything else bad?

Second, level design isn't gameplay no matter how fucking stupid you are.

Third, MGSV has excellent level design, there just isn't enough of it. And if you include GZ as part of MGSV (which you should) then it has the best level design in the series.

You could not be dumber if you tried.

See, you'd be right, if it weren't for the fact that in MGSV you have a completely silent roll that's faster than most guard's walk speed.

You can have good linear level design and bad open world design here's an example of both, during the 6th gen "nonlinear" was rebranded as a positive feature exclusively because of how much more space could be allocated to map data. When the reality of the situation is that it's just two different design philosophies.

The only thing I can really say is it's easier to make an acceptable "nonlinear" level just because the vastness can substitute density of features.

Iron and Copper.

That's retarded comparion. Thief 2 1st level isn't nearly as complicated as Shipping and receiving.

Even the smallest Thief 1 or 2 level is bigger than anything in Thi4f. That game had, what, the mansion as its only decent level? Even 3 had The Cradle.

For a variety of reasons (e.g. increasing development costs in AAA) the current meme forced down new developer's throats is 'any content not seen by the majority of players is wasted'. Maps that are just a link with maybe 1-2 branches prevent players missing shit.
This is also why games nowadays come front-loaded with the best content because most players (hell most journalists) don't finish the games they start and it's seen as a waste to put good content towards the end. You can even see this in action on Holla Forums where faggots will write off a classic game as a meme after only ~3-4 hours because they're so used to new games; games from pre-2005 used to back-load the best stuff and make you work for it (also they were significantly longer games).

If your game is simple and good like Tetris this is fine. However, a major reason people enjoy the original Deus Ex is because it's a game that surprises you when you do something different. I only just learned of the "complete jackass" approach to the first mission for example.

I agree but sadly I'm not the one in charge of educating new developers frankly a degree in game development is fucking worthless anyway, as is working in the industry in general, I was warned off it by a family friend and that was lucky as shit.

There's a weird sense of irony with this thread being posted a day after sonic mania was released.

Type like you're not a retarded fuck.

They just want to run around and shoot at shit, bro. The huge success of GTA, Minecraft, and Bethesda games should tell you something.

Our autistic obsession with graphics, level design, cutscenes, difficulty and storytelling have made us forget the main reason why people play video games. They just want to have fun, they just want some little competition, they just want to experience a freedom of expression that real life can't afford fully. It's good for a video game to have a little bit of everything with the right composition.

The problem is that games now have their priorities fucked up and don't have that right composition. For instance, Overwatch has abysmal level design, yet Blizzard still tries to have a competitive scene going. And when their pro players decide not to play certain maps because they're that bad, Blizzard forces them to anyway.

A good game has a lot of stuff going on under the hood that most people don't have to be aware of to enjoy it. That doesn't make it pointless to include. Most people probably can't formulate a single sentence on why, as an example, Resident Evil 4 is a well designed game. But that's the reason why it sold well, nearly every aspect of the game is done well.

Yeah, I know. But thinking about it again, I think composition shouldn't really matter that much either. Morrowind didn't have a very well thought composition, yet it worked wonderfully. It's the freedom of expression that makes a game really shines.

Unrelated reply, but lol no, it isn't. The design only worked for a few early levels, and even then the controls are still awkward. I agree that those few levels are great though.

A game can still be memorable if one aspect is weaker but another makes up for it. Freedom of expression is definitely one.
I still think RE4 is an all around well designed game, but it was just an example. Take any game that's considered a classic, if they stand the test of time they have to be doing something right. The problem with modern AAA games is that they're painfully average to bad in every aspect, which is why most of them won't be remembered a year after release.

Yeah, modern games are cookie cutters, no doubt about it. Technically bad games that aren't cookie cutters and give you a lot of freedom are actually fun, though. Modern games have sufficient resource, yet the devs chose to be cookie cutters, that's what's wrong with them.

...

So you want an office level to be flat, square, indistinguishable corridors, have every room look exactly the same and have nothing but a bunch of identical looking cubicles everywhere. Sounds super fun. Devs create the level first, make sure it is fun to navigate and play in, then apply the textures and fancy looking visual fluff.

We've went from designing areas that feel like video game levels to designing areas that feel like real places. Realism detracts from a game. That's why Open World games are such utter fucking trash, they're designed like real continents.

The Thief 2 layout looks more realistic to me.
And don't equate open world with realistic locations, that happens because devs are fags with zero imagination.

But it still feels like a real world, no matter how many fantastical things you toss in. This isn't fun. Take for example Doom, if the levels were realistic, the game wouldn't be fun.

It matters, it just doesn't get used much in the modern era.

Level design isn't the same as gameplay, but the two are related. Your mechanics dictate what kind of environments are most suitable to play in.

But that's wrong. On the contrary, the three keys system of Doom is one of the worst parts of the game.

What sort of drugs are you using?

No, it really isn't. Without keys, all the levels would be straight forward and boring. Keys provide even more incentive for exploration than secrets do.

Wrong