What exactly constitutes "good level design?"

What exactly constitutes "good level design?"

It differs depending on the genre, there's no universal answer.

All a level has to be is themselves, y'know?

>tfw anime isn't real

Heavily depends on the game. I know with stealth games having a non linear level with multiple routes and many ways to approach your objective is a pretty good start.

It's the same exact thing as architecture

Aesthetic, functionality, efficiency

Show (OP's pic)? She seems familiar for some reason.

>she

Post proof, pham. I ain't believing until sauce/name drops.

a girl wouldn't say that to another girl

Oh wait, that's Flip Flappers. I knew that it looked familiar.
Thanks anyway.

Hard to give an all encompassing standard for good level design. In some games, mostly niche dungeon crawlers, the player wants the map to be so full of intricacies that it requires them to draw out the map themselves. Most people would rather the map be simple enough that they can keep it straight in their head with slight help at best, see the 2D zelda dungeons. In high octane shooters, generally you just want the level to be straight forward and guide the player through the action and set pieces, see CoD.

Already we have 3 different standards for level design and this is just in how terms of how open they are.

good = I like it
bad = I don't like it
this applies to everything in existence

>poppycock

replayability, atmosphere. pretty much it

atmosphere of course including music/ambient sounds + layout + enemy/hazard placement

you spend too much time on Sup Forums, it has rotted your brain, brainlet

Depends on what the level is trying to go for.

I would try to give this for an answer: a level should need to try to introduce something that gives it is own mechanical identity. For example, enemies that you have to attack from behind. Or floors that crumble if you stand on them for too long. Or something chasing the player. Or something the player chases after. This mechanic would need to be introduced in a rather safe environment so the player gets to experiment with it and find out how it works.
Then the level would need to introduce different, let me call them, "pieces" that interact with this core mechanical identity. For the crumbling floor it could be an enemy that is most optimal to fight when standing still, so you will always need to balance between standing still and being on the move.
Then the level will need to find many different combinations of those pieces interacting with the central mechanic to give the player some sense of escalation (but it would also need some breathers in between for a better flow).
On top of that, there should need to be optional challenges or secrets to find with the mechanical identity of the level that lead to pickups, items or even secret passages. These would then only be accesible to the player who became familiar enough with the main mechanic to the point of mastery (though it is also okay if they are just well hidden, I suppose?)

This is a rough draft that cannot apply to any game ever, and certainly some aspects of it can be tuned down for it. I think it is also important that it all flows well into one another, and not have it all feel like sectioned off challenge rooms.
But yeah, I think that is my general idea of good level design.

FPBP as usual, but I can provide some general rules:
>Gives player varied and reasonably balanced choices-- in almost every type of game, a single path is not as interesting as a branching one
>aesthetically pleasant
>consistent with the game world without breaking player immersion; for example, no invisible walls unless there's a lore-friendly explanation
>doesn't have needless clutter that detracts from framerate in return for nothing
>doesn't waste space unless it's to add to the feel of the game world in some way; areas are fleshed out
>minimal bugs and broken bits

All of these tenets apply to most games, but obviously it varies heavily based on genre, and even if a map fulfills all these tenets it may be shit for some other game-specific reason, such as not enough powerups in a kart racer, or not enough health packs in a first person shooter.

cockonuts

A lot of what you said here doesn't really have a whole lot to do with level design, even if you are not wrong that games should generally have these.

Aesthetics are just that, aesthetics. They are important, but they are not level design.
Lore is not level design, even if it feels jarring if the two are at odds with one another.
Framerates and bugs are technical aspects. Level design obviously needs to be compatible with the technical limitations of a game, but level design itself is a whole different beast entirely.

I feel like a lot of people don't really know what "level design" actually means.

Their final transformation morphed both their clothes into battle wedding dresses, not a suit in sight. It looks like girls can love girls.

dogs can pet dogs

>aesthetics are not level design
Why not? It's part of the level
If you are strictly talking about the layout and functions of the level then aesthetics is still a factor, an environment can have an ugly design while still having good graphics

Yes, it's part of the level. Just like level design is part of a level. Doesn't mean aesthetics are level design.
The term design is a bit confusing, since most people associate it with something visual, but generally "design" just means that something is made in a certain way and put in a certain place to fulfill a certain purpose.
And yes, level design is what you're saying here, the layout, the mechanics, the systems of a level, and how they interact with one another.
I suppose aesthetics can be an aspect of them in the sense that they make certain elements more visible compared to others (platforming design 101 is that the player character clearly pops out from his environment), but the overall aesthetics of a stage are not the same as level design.

other user has basically said what I wanted to say; the word "design" pertains to visual aspects as well as practical aspects of something, that's why design classes in schools and universities are often artistic-focused rather than engineering-focused. there is a major overlap between the two.

Level design means, in absolute shortest, making a level that makes the game as fun as possible. Immersion adds to a game's fun, and good aesthetics/lore consistency in the structure of the level mean more fun.
I would call an ugly level or a level full of invisible walls a poorly designed level.

>technical aspects
Well, if you design something and it doesn't work, it's a bad design. By that meter I would say if the level designer implements a feature which is broken on release, he's a bad level designer.
Not to be a dick but what would you define "level design" as?

girls can't love girls

>Not to be a dick but what would you define "level design" as?
It's a tough thing to pin down, but to me it is the composition of the gameplay related elements. This is a really vague and general definition, but I think if we talk about level design being good or bad we generally talk about stuff that is important to the gameplay and the decision-making during the gameplay.

I rambled a bit up here about what I think good level design mostly should be, but generally good level design can only be talked about on a case by case basis. Execution is key.

>Level design means, in absolute shortest, making a level that makes the game as fun as possible. Immersion adds to a game's fun, and good aesthetics/lore consistency in the structure of the level mean more fun.
Let me devil's advocate for a moment here. You equate level design to "making a level as fun as possible". So if a level is just a hallway with a bunch of really good jokes written on the wall, you would certainly have a lot of fun walking through there, but would you call that good level design? Because it would fit your definition of making a level fun.

> You equate level design to "making a level as fun as possible". So if a level is just a hallway with a bunch of really good jokes written on the wall, you would certainly have a lot of fun walking through there, but would you call that good level design?
No, you're right, that definition is too vague. I need a better one.
But I still maintain that aesthetics are part of a good level design.
If a level played nicely but looked like total dog shit, with janky angles all over the place, clipping geometry, invisible walls that help gameplay but damage immersion, bloated textures and excessive prop spam, would you, in all honesty, call it a well designed level on its gameplay merits alone?

A level designer is responsible for more than just gameplay elements of a level, in practice they're also very, very often responsible for aesthetic elements too. And that is why I believe aesthetics and atmosphere and other shit can come under "level design", seeing as it's usually the job of a level designer.

>A level designer is responsible for more than just gameplay elements of a level, in practice they're also very, very often responsible for aesthetic elements too. And that is why I believe aesthetics and atmosphere and other shit can come under "level design", seeing as it's usually the job of a level designer.
That's actually a compelling argument, since it is rooted in the praxis of actual game design.
But I do think that if a game is riddled down to its bare minimum of playability (minimal polygon graphics, flat textures, no sound beyong audio cues etc,) and the game is still fun to play, then that is a quality of good level design. I guess that is a very theoretical approach to it all, but then again, we ARE just arguing semantics here, so there is that,

>But I do think that if a game is riddled down to its bare minimum of playability (minimal polygon graphics, flat textures, no sound beyong audio cues etc,) and the game is still fun to play, then that is a quality of good level design.
The reason that even minimalist games still attempt to add backgrounds and other aesthetic features is that it directly makes the game more immersive and fun if it looks good. You could take away all the visuals to a bare minimum and still have a fun game, but other than extreme optimization purposes (devil daggers) or extreme recognition purposes (high speed tetris) or massive technological/budget constraints, why would you?

A good looking level with good gameplay is, I'd say this pretty universal, a better designed level than a level with solely good gameplay.
You CAN riddle the game down to its bare minimum and still keep it fun, but it'll be lesser for it unless you're trying for a very specific type of game.

Enlightening discussion which made me think and redefine my thoughts user, I gotta sleep but you're patrician tier

>You CAN riddle the game down to its bare minimum and still keep it fun, but it'll be lesser for it unless you're trying for a very specific type of game.
I'm not saying that a game reduced to its minimum would be the same, I'm saying good level design shows when the game is riddled down to just that and still fun.

Good night anyway, user. Was fun talking to you, which is a sign of good discussion design.

>Was fun talking to you, which is a sign of good discussion design.
Had a giggle there m8.

Good level design perfectly shows off the game's mechanics, and if needed provides an interesting space to become immersed.