Jonesy Vision

My comparison and analyzation is based on the core elements of which makes the journey so fulfilling, the level design structure and how the puzzles structured within the levels establishing both player challenge and motivation. Before I continue, here is link of level design article I would like you to read (Only page 3 of the article I’m directly referencing to but you should read the whole article at some point as its very revealing and interesting) written by “Toby Gard” – the original Tomb Raider designer. Note: Bear in mind, he is talking about level flow, not level design but referring to make analyzation process easier to communicate

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4326/action_adventure_level_design_.php?page=3

Tomb Raider level layout

Tomb raider uses the conventional and traditional 3D level design approach (Mario 64 and Resident Evil) where they have an hub central area within the level. This area is used to introduce a main situation/set piece of the level referred as “Level Stimulus” (referring to Toby Gard’s article). This area would also be used to signpost alternative rooms/routes (“Player Response” areas) which often returns the player back to this hub area again from different perspective usually in high up position to leading to possibility reach another area via some plaforming. It’s very clever level design structure/dynamic as the player always feels rewarded solving small parts (referred as “Keys”) working towards that overall bigger picture. Every key event goes towards revealing something new in the environment rewarding the player with further exploration and mystery (this new opening is called the “Lock” – which has just became unlocked).

The epitome of a Tomb Raider game scenario/level layout would be “Level stimulus” area (central hub) introducing the main “lock” requiring three keys with their own route/area each connected from central room (Player Response areas). The response areas contain either game pillars of puzzle, plaforming and combination of both (time based) to complete to reach the key which then triggers either alternative route back to central area or one of the other routes for the keys. This game has very particular game pillars/game actions (run, jump, push and shoot) which ensures the player will always know what to do but figuring how to is the challenge.

Metroid Level layout

Such design ethos is the opposite with “Metroid Prime 3” as each area has particular set of game pillars linked with the context of the planet and the player has certain items/weapons to solve such problem. During progression of the game, new game pillars are continuously introduced with new meta games to embrace the new functionality adding another ability/key to solve the particular locks. So this causes the notion of player response area with “What to do?” as there is many possibilities making each scenario fresh and varied. This also introduces RPG backtracking aspect where said new item allows the player unlock said style of door, the player has either remember where these “locks” are or check the map (many locks scattered around the maps with different keys). Its interesting how different Key and Lock layout structure and their emphasis are from each other, but yet achieve the same notion of reward for exploration towards a bigger picture/reveal.

Metroid and Tomb Raider’s beats and rewards

Metroid achieves this with smaller revelations with repeat re-visits of said area, each visit the access of the area grows (as your equipment) larger making the game feel more progressive and gradual than Tomb raider but then again beats are more regular and potent with introduction of new mechanics, keeping possibilities open for exploration of secret areas, etc. The beats (rewards) aren’t as consistent due to metroid’s non-linear progression structure and this structure lacks player assurance/pathing to return to “Level Stimulus” areas to clearly pathfind next key/goal. Therefore this game is about the reaching the destination to unlock more abilities to allow more freedom/possibilities. With Tomb Raider, its seems to be about the journey and progression to the destination as the level structure is far more contained and linear making the game more expressive and enjoyable for it – in a way quite insular.

Another factor to consider towards metroid’s structure is how each scenario (puzzle for an example) is per room basis never affects other rooms/areas – just preventing that one route which waters down the revelation of a new area compared Tomb Raider with level structure of one big puzzle (major revelation). You could argue that if the player stayed on story path in metroid (no side quests), the progress path would be more linear than Tomb Raider. Both games disguise their progress routes (as the level design is just boxes in reality) very well with the player navigating varied obstacles/terrains but with Tomb raider’s level design seems more elegance requiring more skill and precision to navigate (using the full trajectory of 3D space – a lot of routes are high up) but what ever if this suggests more complex level design/progress path is another thing altogether.

As I’ve analysed both of these games now I’ve realised how actually how similar they are in regards of the core dynamics. They both heavily depend on player motivation/stimulus introduced by revelations of goals, locks and keys paced through out the level, repetition of the journey from A, B to C – Lock, Key and Goal (new area/item unlocked) but the difference is simply how the player invests in the level revelations and the scope of the world (the bigger picture). They both rely on concept of the world growing larger (unlocking) as you progress via repetition of re-visits of familiar environment seeing the change of the environment giving it a different feel and meaning. Although I often wonder if there was no locks and keys, would you develop that familiar and bond with the environment? Is repetition the key for fulfilling journey?

Jonesy