In the interests of pacing it’s not uncommon for action games, and first person shooters in particular, to vary the style of gameplay over the course of the game as a whole, and over the course of individual levels. This variation of gameplay style leads to a variation in the aesthetic experience of play, and because of which it can be used as a narrative tool.
While playing Resistance: Fall of Man, I found I was able to break each level down into a combination of seven distinct styles of gameplay. With one notable exception all of these different gameplay styles used the same control scheme. In order to provide this degree of variety without changes to the core mechanics, changes were made to the layout of the levels, the placement of enemies and other objects (Nouns), and the range of tools (Verbs) available to the player. This form of level design is common throughout action games.
The seven distinct gameplay styles in Resistance, should be familiar to anybody who’s played an action game in the last decade:
- [A] Combat in a corridor or along another form of restricted path.
- [B] Combat in an open area.
- [C] Boss Battles.
- [D] Mini-Boss Battles.
- [E] Navigation past mines, and other traps.
- [F] Combat against Turrets or other fixed emplacements.
- [G] Vehicle Combat. (The sole exception where a new control scheme is used).
While each level in Resistanceis united by an overriding narrative goal and aesthetic (Visual, aural) theme, the gameplay is made up of a combination of these seven different gameplay styles. It’s possible to examine each level and break it down into a string of characters describing the gameplay, for example BEFAB, or ABDAG.
Each of these gameplay styles changes the experience of play, eliciting a different psychological reaction from the player. Therefore it’s possible to ascribe certain emotional responses to each gameplay style. Often in areas that are focused on gameplay style B (Combat in open areas) the player is provided with support from allied non-player characters, the aesthetic experience is one of cooperation and teamwork. Areas that are focused on gameplay style E (Navigation past mines, and other traps) keep the player alone and lead to slow and careful progress, the aesthetic experience being one of tension and deliberate action.
A level built from the structure BE evokes an aesthetic experience of teamwork followed by tension and isolation, an implied narrative of having to “go it alone”. This is a different emotional reaction to a level structured as EB, which contains an implied narrative escaping isolation and “pushing through to your teammates”. In the former case the narrative arc of the level moves from a position of camaraderie and power to one of tension and isolation, a downward arc. In the latter the arc is reversed and the player ends the level with a with a sensation of power and comfort that they did not possess at the start, an upward arc.
In this way it’s possible for a level designer to indirectly influence the emotional experience of a player, altering their personal narrative, through changes in the gameplay style of a level.
2 replies on “Narrative through level design variation.”
I guess there is a reason why designers usually don’t cram a lot of NPCs into small corridors… well, except for the obvious 300-strategy-thing. And SWAT 2. There are also walkie talkies and headseats!
I’m tired.
Your observations are fine though the topic would probably need a somewhat deeper analysis. This kind of pacing control requires a great amount of sense for style on designer’s part to make it seem natural within the game world and context. Even Valve’s games, although being amongst the progenitors of this design philosophy, sometimes feel as sequences of varied idea showcases and theme park attractions.