3D Sonic Level Design

Palas · Sep 4, 2013

What a great read. In fact, I'm kind of dumbfounded. I posted a text about 3D on the exact same day this thread was created (except it's in Portuguese), but then I'm now finding out about a much better and more complete text. That's funny to see. Well, I guess I'll just give my two cents (most of it will be redundant).

No matter how different Sonic Adventure and Sonic Triple Trouble are form one another, they have the very same premise for the gameplay, which is:

GET "THERE"

"There" being an undefined place with a vague direction which you must reach by facing a series of challenges on the screen. Each and every major Sonic game in the 2D era, much like each and every 2D platformer, is based on this very simple premise. Well, not only platformers, really. Shoot 'em ups, beat 'em ups etc. were games taht told you "go there" and you did.

However simple this may be, this is a major problem in a 3D perspective. See, the screen has four sides and you may designate any of them as a general direction for your player, which he will try to follow even if the obstacles on screen don't allow him to. Once you've established the general direction, you can do whatever you want with level design. 3D perspective doesn't allow that becausse there isn't a physical front or horizon for us to follow. We can't know where we are going or supposed to go unless there is graphical or sound information telling us about it.

Mazes are perfectly possible in a 2D environment, because we will always be able to tell where we are in relation to the space even if the game deprives us of any information of where we actually are. Do you remember those early RPG games that would use those terrible mazes with invisible walls? They are boring, but we can't handle them. Now, what is a 3D maze like?

...There's that Windows 98 screensaver. Not very exciting.

Also notice how completely 2D racing games hardly ever tell if you are going the wrong way. There is no need at all, whereas in 3D racing games they often make sure we have not only a WRONG WAY warning, but also a map and a compass. And, not only that, they'll sometimes block the way if it abslutely has nothing to do with the course we're supposed to run - virtual guard-rails are very common in the Need for Speed franchise.

We, more often than not, don't need a compass to navigate 2D worlds.

So how do you make a 2D platformer game become 3D? Isn't that a more complicated matter than it would seem? Well, we do have lots of ways to handle objectives in a 3D environment. A concept that begins to exist and that allows redefining of orientation at will is the camera. There isn't a camera in 2D, really - what we have is a frame. We will know what's "ahead" and "backwards" precisely even if we move the character out of the frame. With a "camera", these notions change constantly - a consequence of this is that we may change the direction we're pressing on the joystick exactly in order to keep going "forward".

Think of a game that never made you wonder where the hell you were going. Or, at least, methods in a game that did so. Am I thinking the same as you? Did I hear "Mario 64"? Oh, but I did! But why does Mario 8² handle objectives so well? It's certainly a change from what we had seen before in his 2D installments - I'm sure Miyamoto noticed the problems with 3D perspective on a 2D frame, so he invested in two tactics:

Corridors

Diversifying goals

We, Sonic fans, know corridors all too well. What is it about corridors that work in Mario 64 and that don't work in Sonic (that is, if we are specifically looking for a gameplay that is based on dynamic platforming, with emphasis on momentum etc etc etc)? Certainly there are some questions about Mario's gameplay that differ from Sonic's, such as the fact that Mario doesn't really use the level design as part of his movement. His interaction with a level's structure is mostly limited to the objects and their specific functionalities, whereas Sonic and level design are basically one in that you absolutely need it to build speed and momentum (ironically, in order to overcome the obstacles that the level design itself imposes). Corridors, branching as they may be, don't allow the player to draw his own way across an ambient because the paths are already given. This is detrimental to this unique relationship between a character and his levels.

However, there is one more factor that made Mario 64 work so well: it wasn't (all) about getting somewhere. It was about getting to a lot of arbitrary places where there were stars. Restricting the goal to a single "thing" whose location the player is unaware of might make him confused - that's what the developers probably thought. So they made the game more open by having lots of "things" in the same ambient. This ot only helps alleviating the pressure of always having to go forward, but also makes each task shorter. You can see the star on the top of the castle, so you can try to find a way to get it. It's basically a set piece that you don't perceive as a set piece (also because you may come from different places).

I've already mentioned how racing games handle this issue of orientation with multiple instances, indicating with objects where you are going or where you should be going. Those are not the only games that do that, though! We have Shadow of the Colossus as a prime of example of how to give directions by, well, giving directions. In a fast-paced game like Sonic, there is the simple problem of rhythm. Can you imagine yourself having to look back and forth at Sonic and some map or object on screen in order to know where to go?
Click to expand...

EDIT: Just one comment.

The harsh truth is that loops and corkscrews aren't really interesting or important. They were cool back then because they made the level less boring, instead of having a straight path, you placed a loop there and done, you broke the flow. They are still in the series because they are part of what made Sonic being what it is. It's like the Goombas in Super Mario, they're the least interesting and unimportant characters in the whole franchise, but they're the only enemies that keep reappearing in Mario games because they're part of what made the franchise whole and kept the levels back then from being uninteresting.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more. Loops and corkscrews are two of the most interesting level design elements in Sonic. They are not there just for flavour, they have actual uses. Loops not only can tease a player with itms on top of them, they also make sure you have a certain speed at the beginning and at the end. That's why they can, under certain circumstances, be obstacles.

Corkscrews are the only instance of phasing ground Sonic probaly has. If you stop or don't have enough speed, you fall to the lower ground. If you are coming from the direct path behind it, you continue at it, but if you come from above, you fall. Sure, these functions may not be easily replicated in a 3D environment, but don't ever disconsider them.

I would also like to disagree with this:

But that doesn't mean that the player should only have one path to get to point B and extra paths for hidden goodies. Overall, the main Sonic rule to level design applies here: Having at least 3 paths: The obvious and normal difficulty one, a faster and challenging one and a slower but not too punitive one.
Click to expand...

This is not a rule. "Difficulty" and "rythym" are concepts that belong more to the player than to level design because they are a matter of perception. Moreover, if the path the level tries to drag you to (at least with gravity) is the least punitive one, you are not stimulating the player to develop his skills. The actual rule, if there is one, is that there should be enough room (not paths. Paths are also something the player draws within a level) for a player to have his will challenged, be it by positive factors, such as items, or negative, such as spikes - so that the player is forced to develop skills in order to continue. The player must fight the environment and danger can't depend simply on the player's desires.

Nearly every Sonic level does this, but the most notable examples are in Sonic CD. Collision Chaos' bottom routes (for instance) are the most dangerous ones, but the ones that require the least effort to reach. Spring Yard in Sonic 1 follows the same principle.

That said... could it be orientation is harder to give in 3D because the controls, specifically the analog stick, no longer describes your movement towards the screen edges? If the camera was fixed towards the goal and all the movement revolved said goal, the analog stick wouldn't describe the direction of your movement anymore, but would indeed say how you are moving in relation with the objective.

Sonic Lost World doesn't do MUCH different from that, it seems. But I'd like to see stages being built within a frame of a flat cone. The controls might be awkward, but we'd have our orientation.

Log in or Sign up

3D Sonic Level Design

Palas

Useful Searches