A long time...Title update and deliverables update.

I am aware that it has been a very long time since I have posted. This has been to multiple reasons, including but not limited to my dislike for blogging as a means of reporting my progress. So far the project has evolved well with little problems.
However I wish to clarify some things that was bought up to me during my last meeting with Rob which is..the title of my Dissertation..the overall goal of the project which we discussed was not the proper wording for what I attempted to create. After much deliberation over the past few months while the project has evolved I have come up with an appropriate title for my Dissertation:

"Designing a 'dungeon' type level for a RPG-FPS genre hybrid using the G.E.C.K development kit with multiple pathways suitable for different character builds."

Simply put this meant that over the past few months I have been designing the level as I originally intended adding in multiple paths, so far two of them, that are suitable for different character types. A more technical character with expertise in lockpicking can quickly get to the end of the 'dungeon', and the gunner, a character who relies on their sidearm and brute force to get them through the 'dungeon'.

I am in the process of updating the level from the user feedback I have recieved. I will be submitting the feedback along with the following deliverables:

• A basic paper layout of the level.
• Multiple iterations and design.
• A rationale for picking a particular layout.
• A level that consists of at least 4 rooms connected by corridors.
• Multiple iterations of the level.
• A journal detailing the production of the level written over the year.
• A blog detailing the research period of the project and breakdown of said research articles.
• A timeline break down with actual.
• A paper outlining issues raised in the project.
• A report about how I believe the project went.

My mark will be graded on the basis of how well the project met its title and how the project went with particular reference to the journal and project report taking into account the various factors of the project and the time spent on the project and how well the project was on track according to the timeline break down.

I will say that a lot of my lack of updates on this blog has been caused by lack of preference for submitting my reports this way and due to very important issues that occured over the period of the project which I do not wish to go into detail about here. Needless to say this has not been a good year for me. I will provide a detailed rationale in the report I will be submitting along with my project.

Update - Navmesh complications

I've been continuing to work on assembling my level together. Just thought I'd report on how its going, I am currently putting it together in its form to be displayed at the progress report in the future.

One problem I did not consider is the pipeline for getting it done. The process for making the level requires more than just placing pieces down within the G.E.C.K you have to define collisions or a 'navmesh' as it is refered to. A navmesh is invisible geomerty placed on the floor that basically defines where the player can walk within  an environment in the game. Its also used as a means of defining where 'cover' can be used during gunfights.

Applying this navmesh to the level is time consuming, it doesn't take a very long time, however its still time wasted if I spend alot of time on then navmesh and import it into New Vegas only to come to the conclusion that the design level itself is flawed.

Currently the only method of getting around this is simply to do a very simple and quick navmesh without considering the objects in the level. However that nullifies the point of even testing it because you don't get a feel for how level actually is completed. Thus making the level is taking a bit longer than anticipated however it should not impact things too greatly.

Update after a long time

Its been awhile since I posted a blog entry here. Mainly that is due to problems of a personal nature that I have had to deal with. A person very near and dear to me has been diagnosed with a very serious condition and recently required surgery. While her survival is still unsure, she had convinced me that I must press on with this despite the problems my personal life is throwing at me.

I have been looking more into different level design techniques over the past month as well as going into the GECK and experimenting with the techniques. I have also took to looking at a few other mods out there found on sites such as the New Vegas Nexus: http://www.newvegasnexus.com/ for inspiration.

I plan on using this comming week as a chance to further expand the project.

My short term goal for the review of the Project coming up in the middle of January is to have a revised schedual ready as well as a piece of the level (if not all of it) to show. I have had to surpass a few levels in the current plan such as greyboxing due to the hitches I have come across. I look forward to working more on the project in the future.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gtv62NnHrOcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Casual+Game+Design:Designing+Play+For+The+Gamer+In+All+Of+Us&hl=en&ei=OuDETufsF4ik8gPpr-GCCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 41 talks about level design, I hadn't seen this before but thought it best to save the link for use later.

RPG level research

The concept drawing of my design is taking a little longer than anticipated, it should not be a problem since I still have till Monday next week to finish it. The problem I am finding is designing a 3D level on a 2D piece of paper. Top down view is all well and good however it is proving difficult to draw more 'organic' shapes for the level which represent the cave pieces.

I will continue on with it for now and see where it is on Monday.

On with the main body of this post however. This blog post talks about some practical research that I have undertaken over the past week on and off.
The level I am designing for Fallout: New Vegas is what is commonly referred to in RPG terms as a 'dungeon'. Dungeons are contained levels in an interior location that has two very common elements: Monsters (or enemies) and Loot (or prizes). Unlike FPS games and more liniar games, the levels/dungeons in RPG games are a more free roaming experience allowing the player to take whatever path they may choose, as long as they navigate said dungeon to get to the end and get the loot.

While navigating the dungeon the player may come accross a variety of obstacles that they must pass. Whether it be a puzzle, a monster/enemy or a trap. While designing my level it is important to note that I must allow for one of these possibilities to properly call it a 'dungeon'.

Over the week i have player Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Dungeon Siege II, Borderlands, Dragon Age and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.

All these games share one common trait: They are RPG games although they may reside within different subcategories of the RPG genre. All these games have a dungeon of some kind located within them. However the approach to how dungeons are designed can be very different. One thing I definately noticed, the games distributed by Bethesda Softworks: Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, all have a very specific feature to a majority if not all of their dungeons.

The dungeons in said games have a design niché that the others do not. At the end of the dungeon there is an exit which brings the player out of the dungeon more or less instantly, or reveals a shortcut which brings the player back to the start of the dungeon quickly. I feel the reason for this is as followed.

In a game when you complete a level, it ends. That is a very simple observation, however in these games the game continues even once the quest is over, they stay within the game world and go on to their next quest. Because of the lack of an 'end' to the level. A substitute is given, a 'placebo' ending which creates the feeling that the level is at and end and provides the player with a means of getting out of the dungeon to the 'overworld' quickly without having to retrace their steps through a very lengthy dungeon.

As such this is one design feature I will attempt to include in the level if it is needed.

Research: G.E.C.K

http://geck.bethsoft.com/index.php/Bethsoft_Tutorial_Navmesh
This past weekend I have been looking through the G.E.C.K to get to grips with it while comming up with concept for the level.

During my investigation of the G.E.C.K I discovered the whole process of 'Navmesh"-ing a level. The point of Navmesh is to place plane on the worldspace that you create, this is represented by a semi-transparent red floor. This tells the NPCs in the environment that this is the place in the game that you can walk. Going by the description on the GECK wiki it seems that it is only necessary if you intend to include NPC's in a level.

However my project is that of level design, more specifically the design of the worldspace, not NPC and quest design. The question I am asking myself is as followed:

"Should I Navmesh my level or not?"

If I were to Navmesh said level it would mean that should I wanted to expand my project to include a quest with NPCs and enemies I would be all set from the get go to start scripting and placing down AI characters.
However, Navmeshing the level would take time, time that could be considered wasted if the project is not then expanded upon.

I personally believe it is worth the extra time to Navmesh the level, it is worth attempting to get it in the level. Furthermore it would mean it is all prepared for NPCs and AI characters to be placed in the environment should they need to. If I am pushed for time or resources I can easily miss out the process if I need to.

References 10 and 11

my final references are two very short reference pieces. The first is "Unlocking the Gameworld: The Rewards of Space and Time in Videogames"
http://gamestudies.org/1101/articles/gazzard_alison
by Alison Gazzard
The article mainly focuses on how the player is 'rewarded' through the game either by their time on the game increasing (with reference to arcade gaming) or space, or the world being unlocked for them to explore.
According to the article the game rewards the player by allowing them access to a new location. This has a rather simple effect of producing short term feelings of acomplishment for the player, this makes them invest more time in the game and continue exploring the environment. This is called giving the player an 'illusion reward' there is no goal or reward set..however the player believes they have acomplished something.

The article calls this the "Cycle of Reward + Exploration".

This is useful to me because it offers an example of how I can design my level to further entice players to keep on playing by offering new locations and areas in the map that are unlocked as you literally find a key or complete an objective.

--

This is linked loosely with reference article 11: "Balancing Risk and Reward to develop an optimal hot-handed game."
http://gamestudies.org/1101/articles/williams_nesbitt_eidels_elliott
by Paul Williams, Keith V. Nesbitt, Ami Eidels and David Elliott.


The article starts by discussing the Risk VS Reward mechanic that most video games use. Players constantly think about the risks attributed to performing a gruling action and decide if the risk is worth taking for the supposed reward. Sometimes this reward is not overtly displayed to the player and sometimes this can lead them to be disappointed as the reward is not in proportion to the risk involved. The reward should match the risk. Why is this linked to the previous article? Well the previous article talks about enticing the player to explore by unlocking and discovering new locations. The non essential parts of the map that the player can explore could lead to possible rewards, such as a new weapon which is guarded by a powerful beast that must be overcome. The risk vs reward here is backed by the players being influenced to explore.

Furthermore the article also offers a chance for alternate solutions. "Give the player the chance to play it safe for a low reward or take a risk for a big reward. Again this is a good way to make the game interesting and exciting. In RPG games characters construct characters with both strengths and weaknesses meaning that alternative paths, while not necessary, are encouraged due to how different types of players approach different problems.

Say you are a character with a high lockpicking skill. You may be able to pick the lock on the door in order to get into the reactor chamber beyond. However if you do not have the lockpick skill level needed you may have to go into the irradiated water and swim around into the chamber while encountering some adversaries along the way. Both have different elements of risk and different kinds of rewards.
The player who picked the door gets some XP and gets into the room quicker without the risk of being hurt..only breaking bobby pins. However, if the player is dependant on those bobby pins due to their limited number they may wish to forgo this incase a more important door comes up later.

The player who took the long way around is rewarded with more XP and as such may be able to level up sooner. However there is an increased risk of dying while taking the path or dying in the long run from radiation sickness. I believe it is important for me to balance the risk vs reward element in games while enticing players to explore through the environment.