Level Design Books

[Steppenwolf]

For instance, I'd like books that focus on the composition involved like teaching you all about colors, lighting and shapes and how you can assemble them to give a level a soul, or all about scripting and how to pace a level, etc. rather than have all these themes only briefly mentioned in a single volume.

That would indeed a bit more interesting. Maybe something for Hourences to look into for his next book.

You can learn a lot about composition from specific art books but it still would be nice to have a book in the context of game development that covers these things.

I would also read a book where i could learn more about the methodes and workflows different people/companys use to create their levels. But it had to be a bit more in depth and detailed then your average game design book to be seriously helpfull.

[Serenius]

I highly recommend the level design book by Hourences - he's a member here on the forums

http://www.hourences.com/book/index.htm

This book was most excellent. I'm hoping to get Ed Byrne's book and Hourences other book for Xmas as well.

There's a ton of great info on this forum. I like to go digging through old threads in the 3d levels and work release forums and read through the commentary on various maps submitted and the feedback given.

There are also some good articles on the web you can read. Lots of information that seems really obvious, but is also really easy to forget when you're just starting out, or very subtle techniques that you sometimes don't even know are being done intentionally. Less technical tutorial, more theory type stuff.

http://www.hourences.com/book/bookexamples.htm (examples from his book)

http://agamesdesignblog.com/2009/03/01/ ... el-design/

http://www.cliffyb.com/art-sci-ld.html

This is largely UT-focused, but there are some good universal tips in here too.

http://www.cliffyb.com/ut-ld-tips.htm

You can also peruse Gamasutra and World of Level Design. Lots of rough to wade through, but there are some good gems on those sites too.

[2d-chris]

Why would anyone buy level design books anyway Basics can and should be learned yourself, the advanced stuff is project/tool dependant Design is all about practically learning frome experiences, not reading. I'm not suggesting books are useless, for some specific skills it's very useful but don't assume reading your way to being a good designer is the best path.

Drawing can be self-taught, level design as well. However... you can get schooled in both subjects and that will probably bring you up to speed much more quickly (at least for drawing it is).

Also... What I'm trying to find in those books is things not to do, I can probably learn it the hard way. But I guess seeing examples and stuff will help me not to make such beginner mistakes.

Offcourse a book alone will not make you a great level designer But I guess it will avert me from makeing some mistakes and will aid me in adding that something extra to a level.

So... I don't expect to read my way to being a good designer, I just wanna 'fill in the holes' that I might have missed from own experiences

Can it really be that bad to read some advice from an experienced level designer? Don't tell me there's nothing in those books that's gonna help me along the way?

If I'm really wrong about this, feel free to say so But I'm eager to find out what I've been missing out and could better me in general (or most common tackled problems) about level design.

And that's why I'd want to read a book about level design

Nah you're right, I'm just trying to say you don't need to read books to end up being a professional :] What you end up getting in-game matters the most.

[Skjalg]

Some people have to read books to get to the place they want to go, others dont. Telling people that reading books is not something you have to do because it can be self taught and that other people have managed to land decent jobs without reading books is.. well.. short sighted. The moment you start thinking you cant learn anything more, or that everything left to learn can be found out by yourself then you are starting on a slippery slope.

Theres ALWAYS someone smarter than you. And most of those people write books to teach you just how much smarter they are.

I learned so much from Hourences book, much much more than I'd expect. Especially the lighting chapter is very good!

[2d-chris]

Designers arent smart, programmers are Anyway level design is mostly about understanding "fun" not being smart.

I never said that you can't learn from books, I said you don't have to which is absolutely true.

[mjens]

Designers arent smart, programmers are Anyway level design is mostly about understanding "fun" not being smart.

I never said that you can't learn from books, I said you don't have to which is absolutely true.

Books of that kind are good for begginers. It's true that being good Level Designer is to know what is fun, how to scare/make laugh player, how to reduce frustration for players with different skills etc. Actually I didn't find any book for advanced Designers about psychology in games, some case studies about player's behaviors and reactions or some advanced art and architecture "tricks" and methods...

[Sentura]

Designers arent smart, programmers are Anyway level design is mostly about understanding "fun" not being smart.

I never said that you can't learn from books, I said you don't have to which is absolutely true.

how exactly would a level designer go about understanding "fun"? fun is such a subjective wording that is impossible to define as just one thing. one person's fun isn't necessarily another person's fun; and because of this, i disagree with your statement.

i think immersion plays a larger role in any digital game than any trace of fun has ever done. sure, fun still exists in games. i mean, you play a game of cards or a board game for fun. you may even want to play something digital, such as solitaire or bejeweled for fun.

however, as soon as you step into a video game, you add an entire world to your repertoire. the player's link to the virtual world, the avatar, becomes the point of interest; because it is this link from which you stimulate the player through his actions in the game world. the second a player has fully realized him or herself as his or her avatar is the point where the player is immersed in the game. from this point on, a number of psychological features will have effect; the main of these being that you feel in tune with your character. you essentially "get" the game; you understand it, and it starts mattering to you.

i think many designers fail to create environments and characters that work towards the goal in the above statement. they choose to let immersion go in favor of adhering to the fleeting notion of "fun", or other intangible values. this is why their game becomes a virtual solitaire: something that you have so little involvement in that you practically don't care what happens next. whether you die, your teammates or anyone else. whether the world is destroyed or not. you, as a player, will sit there thinking to yourself, "it's just a game". this is not what virtual game design is about.

this leads me to a couple of questions:

let's take a look at a few examples: half-life 2, portal, killzone 1, resistance 1.

would you compare these 4 games to each other in the same category?

would you think that you got the same experience out of them?

feel free to answer them (i speak to everyone on the board).

[2d-chris]

Don't over think Books tend to make you do that for sure.

Fun can come from many things, personally I design something that I consider fun, then I convince others to invest time to make it “practically” fun ... you can turn a relevantly boring design into something fun given enough time to iterate with solid focus. From my experience designs can and do get clouded with ideas that simply don't merge, it's down to the level designer to understand this and carefully think things through and find a compromise.

Some level designers use other games as leverage to help them, there is nothing wrong with this and it’s common practice but you don’t need to analyze all the in's and out's of the level/game, because the truth is they didn’t really know an till everything came together at the end. You can have all the vision in the world but you're never going to know what the final outcome will be, too many variables.

Be the vision holder of your mission/level, for SP it's the most important thing.

[Rick_D]

lol at some of the shit in this thread.

you guys are crazy.

[Sentura]

lol at some of the shit in this thread.

you guys are crazy.

actually you're the crazy one

[mjens]

For me "Fun" is the sum of all the factors that affect on game receiving by player. It's 100% ture that everyone have different definition and theory of "Fun". Just look at the game scores. If game have score "96/100" it means that I can like it if this is my genre and type of the game that I like. If game receive "75/100" it means that 1 on 4 players didn't like it (didn't get this type of "Fun") and it can be me. Immersion, casuality, genre and all the factors are just factors and sum of it is the final "Fun" from playing. For me...

[Sentura]

For me "Fun" is the sum of all the factors that affect on game receiving by player. It's 100% ture that everyone have different definition and theory of "Fun". Just look at the game scores. If game have score "96/100" it means that I can like it if this is my genre and type of the game that I like. If game receive "75/100" it means that 1 on 4 players didn't like it (didn't get this type of "Fun") and it can be me. Immersion, casuality, genre and all the factors are just factors and sum of it is the final "Fun" from playing. For me...

my point is that immersion is measurable and attainable by forcing a player's involvement in a game, whereas "fun" isn't. they're two different dimensions. i would bet that after having been immersed in a game, you wouldn't think, "man that was fun"; you'd think, "man that was a good game" or "man that was good". they aren't related, because it's two different kinds of stimuli.

[2d-chris]

eh? fun = good = great = awesome = enjoying your time more than watching paint dry on a wall ... no need to get all shrinky about it. Entertainment is meant to be fun, what ever entertains you is fun

[FrieChamp]

my point is that immersion is measurable and attainable by forcing a player's involvement in a game, whereas "fun" isn't. they're two different dimensions.

That's deep bro...

Have you read "A theory of fun" by Raph Koster? I'm sure you'd get a kick out of it! Seriously though, no design team on earth would waste a minute of production time in a meeting discussing these things, nor is it going to help the OP find a good book about level-design...

[Duff-e]

Quick question: I know this probably varies from company to company but what does the level design process look like? Do editors get handed a piece of paper and told to "make that" with very little creative interpretation or are editors and designers the same people?

I have this picture in my head of level designers sort of being the programmers of the game development world where people just throw shit at you and expect you to work miracles in the shortest time frame possible. (yes I am aware many level designers are to some extent programmers)