Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Do Games Still Have Levels?

Posted by Zonk on from the good-question dept.

a.d.venturer writes "Elite, the Metroid series, Dungeon Siege, God of War I and II, Half-Life (but not Half-Life 2), Shadow of the Colossus, the Grand Theft Auto series; some of the best games ever (and Dungeon Siege) have done away with the level mechanic and created uninterrupted game spaces devoid of loading screens and artificial breaks between periods of play. Much like cut scenes, level loads are anathema to enjoyment of game play, and a throwback to the era of the Vic-20 and Commodore 64 - when games were stored on cassette tapes, and memory was measured in kilobytes. So in this era of multi-megabyte and gigabyte memory and fast access storage devices why do we continue to have games that are dominated by the level structure, be they commercial (Portal), independent (Darwinia) and amateur (Angband)? Why do games still have levels?"

13 of 512 comments (clear)

  1. HL2 Has Levels? by Svet-Am · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since when? HL2 is set up exactly the same as HL1.

    --
    [move .sig! for great justice, take off every .sig!]
    1. Re:HL2 Has Levels? by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The game just has to be smart about what parts to keep in memory. If you won't be getting to a certain point for hours, there's no point in having it in memory. The game knows you can't go from the place you are now to a place 100 rooms away in 10 seconds. Same with flight simulator games. You could technically fly around the whole world, but it only loads stuff in the vicinity of where you are. Games like Metroid although they don't have distinct levels still do little tricks to avoid loading. Between some areas where the entire scenery changes, and they have to load a lot of content, they put an elevator. What you're riding in the elevator it's loading the content. It looks likes it's not loading so the user isn't bothered. Personally I find it much more acceptable to wait 15 seconds in an elevator, than to wait 3 seconds while the game pauses with some big loading message on the screen.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  2. Because they are useful by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Games that have levels usually have them as way to indicate that the game just got harder. For example, games such as tetris increase speed each time a certain number of blocks are cleared and arkanoid after a screen is cleared. Games that can't be broken down into such simplified logic rarely ever have the notion of levels and instead make it so that you can't get into a certain area, or fail in it, if you haven't got the necessary equipment, XP, etc.

    In short the existence, or lack of, all depends on the type of game in play.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Because they are useful by Libertarian001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For as insightful as that comment was (and I've no gripes with it being modded as such), you do realize that the examples you gave are for 20+ year old games that were memory limited...just like in the original question.

      I understand why Doom has levels, since you're literally descending to a new location. So the name basically fits.

      But what about the host WWII games? Ooohhh, Normandy was easy, wait 'til you get to Bastogne... Don't think the troops saw it that way.

    2. Re:Because they are useful by Erioll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well putting aside the fact that the game DESIGN is around the idea of a level (arkanoid especially would be a COMPLETELY different game with some kind of continual level), let's give a modern example: The Halo series. In more than one case you get on/off a ship, a planet, or wherever. Teleported, or any other method of "fast travel" then gets you "between levels" of the game. But as the "quip" in the tag for this article said, why do books have chapters? The answer is the same as for games: to segment the story. Either for something as simple as a new art look, or for story reasons, breaking up the game isn't necessarily a bad thing. Go back to one of the earliest methods of storytelling, theatre, and you see acts in the play that are NOT there just to change the set on-stage, but also help segment the story.

      Overall, I wouldn't put "seamless" above story in ANY case, in any medium. Sometimes seamless works (HL2 is nearly-seamless, though there is the "slow teleport" which definitely qualifies as a break in the continuity), and sometimes you need the break-up to move around the story (Halo). And some games just work better with discrete campaigns, such as RTS games. And even the FPS example you gave, any WWII game. Well as veterans can tell you, the fighting DOES stop at some points. You make discrete attacks, push forward, and hold. It's not anything like the games of course, but it's not 24/7/365 from the start to the end of any war.

      Levels work as both a story tool, and a gameplay tool. If they're eliminated, you need a reason for that too, which is OK, but they shouldn't be eliminated "just because."

  3. Why do games have levels? by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because sometimes, it's nice to do themed, episodic content that's broken apart by firm delineations. If anything, I think that Mario 64 did the best mix of levels and "seamless" play that's been done (haven't tried SM Galaxy yet, it's on my list). Any other silly questions?

    --
    My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
  4. Simple by Doomstalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason is memory. There's only so much you can load into RAM at once, and levels allow you to more easily control what assets get used and when. You can also do this with streaming and clever tricks, a-la Metroid Prime, but that requires a lot of planning at the initial design phase. It can lead to crash issues if the player gets too far before you've finished loading everything. Again Metroid Prime is a good example of this.

  5. Why? by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it's fun to have intermediate progress goals.

    Or was this a trick question?

  6. slow news day by nuzak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, Angband, really brand new game there.

    Portal had individual puzzles in individual rooms. Duh.

    Next questions: Why do books still have chapters? Why do plays still have acts? Why do movies still have scenes?

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  7. Changes in pace? by Ynot_82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    games have levels for the same reason books have chapters
    any substantial storyline has natural breaks and scenery changes contained within it

    what's the problem?

  8. Angband? Get T-O-M-E instead by Lord+Satri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    amateur (Angband)? Instead of Angband, try Tales/Troubles of Middle Earth instead (on wikipedia). Angband has been mostly frozen for years, while TOME, amongst the numerous Moria/Angband spinoffs, is the most advanced and active.
    --
    Animoog.org
  9. Simple reason by rossz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Levels give those of us who can't play 24x7 some short term goals. Reaching the next level is a basic goal you can use as a time marker when you have other things to do, but need a little down time.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  10. Because they're GAMES by Sciros · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sheesh what a douchebag. Games do not have to reflect the structure of the real world to be enjoyable. That's why there's board games, puzzles, sports, etc. If a design is fun then it's fun. It works. End of story. Games might have levels in order to provide the player with a series of challenges that aren't intertwined. If there isn't a reason for seamless transition from one "chunk" of gameplay to another then why expect one? A boatload of games have "levels" and they make perfect sense even if the game mirrors real life. Do you want to go on James Bond missions one after another or do you want to also play through his day-to-day dilly-dallying in Britain when he's off duty in the meantime? For sure the latter is more 'realistic' and may be more 'seamless' but there's no sense in saying it will for sure be more fun.

    Basically this guy decided to criticize a gameplay setup without giving any thought to why it's there in the first place. Some games don't need it, sure -- take Oblivion for instance. But to say that games "shouldn't have levels" is to say every game should be like this other game (or games) and to hell with all other designs regardless of how they affect the actual play.

    That bit where he claims cutscenes are anathema to gameplay is also rich. They work wonderfully in some games and not in others. To say that in every game ever released from here on out the interaction should be constant with no exposition or story progression told through non-interactive segments is assinine and privileges any pressing of buttons over simply enjoying visual media, which is nonsense. In other words, sometimes it's a better idea to tell something through film than it is through "gameplay." It simply takes a good game designer to know when that time is.

    Seriously, all of this cutscene and "levels" criticism is ridiculous. Is Metroid Prime hands-down the best fucking game ever made or something? Is it the design we all want for every game? Hell no! We want it for *some* games.

    It would be just as retarded, BUT NO MORE SO, to say that EVERY game should have cutscenes or should have its gameplay divided into "levels."

    --
    I like basketball!!1!