Talk:Loops (level design)

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to: navigation, search

While I see a lot of technical documentation floating around the community, I don't see much theory going on - Gameplay theory, level-design theory, whatever you want to call it. So I decided that I was going to write some myself. This one about loops is based off of a 2 sentence tip in "Single Player Mapping Tips," and I felt it deserved some elaboration. I'm not really sure where to put this page yet, so I'm just keeping it here for now... Maybe some kind of "Level Design Theory" category? --Campaignjunkie (talk) 14:12, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)

Interesting idea. What other articles might there be? Maybe that will suggest a category. —Maven (talk) 13:41, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)

I was actually writing an "epic" Architecture + Design article for VERC, but that never really came together as I hoped. Right now I'm going to focus on specific stuff, like this loops article, instead of something comprehensive. Oh yes, and I think I'm almost done with this one - where do you think I should put it? :) --Campaignjunkie (talk) 14:12, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)
Category:Level Design, to begin. If other articles of this nature show up, then maybe a Theory subcategory. —Maven (talk) 14:56, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)
If you mean article name, maybe Loops (level design)? —Maven (talk) 14:58, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)
Sounds good. The moving is imminent. --Campaignjunkie (talk) 23:39, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)
Bounce (level design) would be the same category but it isn't developed very much. These topics definately deserve their own category. Reaper47 09:49, 7 Dec 2005 (PST)
Yeah, I started it, but kind of forgot to go back to it. Thanks for the reminder. As for the category: maybe "Level Design Theory," perhaps? Or "Map Theory"? Some kind of theory. --Campaignjunkie (talk) 13:26, 7 Dec 2005 (PST)
Level Styles or something to that effect—ts2do (Talk | @) 17:31, 7 Dec 2005 (PST)
I like "Level Design Theory" Reaper47 12:10, 23 Dec 2005 (PST)

Oooh! My map's an example! :D


I've been somewhat busy with Metastasis 2, so haven't been doing much (if anything) on this 'ere Wiki lately, but don't be surprised if you get some edits and other contributions to this series. I rather like the idea! --Cargo Cult (info, talk) 14:50, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)

Well like I said in the article, Metastasis 1 is a great example. I couldn't not use it!... If that makes any sense. --Campaignjunkie (talk) 23:39, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)
I've just remembered (possibly) the Biggest Loop in Gaming History - the Combine Citadel in Half-Life 2. See it at the beginning, and you know you'll return... --Cargo Cult (info, talk) 01:49, 8 Nov 2005 (PST)

I almost feel like I'm writing an academic paper on these levels at times, it reminds me a lot of literary analysis in my English classes: guessing at the author's intentions and providing proof to support conjectures. --Campaignjunkie (talk) 23:39, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)

For questionable ethics, there is a particular direction the player has to go....y'all should trace it out with that neato gradient thing—ts2do (Talk | ›) 05:59, 8 Nov 2005 (PST)

Maybe later, I was feeling too lazy to play through the whole chapter again. :\ --Campaignjunkie (talk) 13:43, 8 Nov 2005 (PST)

I'm too lazy to write it in, but Lost Cost has another loop: the stairs that are destroyed just as the player gets to them, forcing the player to find another path to the top of the stairs. And this page is definitely ready to be put into the main namespace. —Maven (talk) 09:57, 8 Nov 2005 (PST)

I'm not sure about that one though; the stairs were never intended to be walked upon, and the loop would be 1-2 minutes long. The article mainly discusses much larger loops on a grander scale. --Campaignjunkie (talk) 13:43, 8 Nov 2005 (PST)
That's more of an obstacle than a loop, since you don't have to return to the bridge in order to continue the level. You can also save the bridge, if you use the gravity gun to catch the stringball the Combine shoot at it. The combine will use it to chase you if you leave the bridge intact. --Demented 16:42, 9 Nov 2005 (PST)
Wow, catching it with the gravity gun - I have to admit, I never thought of that. But chances are that the player won't catch that on the first playthrough either! --Campaignjunkie (talk) 18:29, 9 Nov 2005 (PST)

So what are we shooting for on these examples, a good variety of maps that had loops, or just a few to show what they are? having a variety could show exactly how a loop can be made—ts2do (Talk | ›) 16:06, 9 Nov 2005 (PST)

I'd prefer to feature maps that had large, map-wide loops with clear effects on gameplay. I kind of think 3 examples is enough, though. --Campaignjunkie (talk) 18:29, 9 Nov 2005 (PST)

I edited the "guidance" section as the original version felt kind of incongruent. However there's something else I'm wondering about:

"However, for the mapper, it is important to remember that harder loops like these should not be too hard, or it might spoil the game experience totally or lure the player into noclipping through locked doors. In this case, there are both a number metrocops and a hunter against the player but fire is constantly kept on one front."

This paragraph confuses me, firstly because that loop wasn't particularly complicated anyway (if anything, the earlier examples are more complex) and, two, because I'm not really sure why this would "spoil" things or compel players to cheat. Exploring is part of gameplay, so, in the context of a well designed level, I don't see at all how someone would noclip the moment they see a locked door. Unless EVERY locked door required a convoluted twenty minute detour completely devoid of interesting gameplay, but then it wouldn't be a well designed level. MMAN