What actually matters in a map. For those who asked. My process of level design. [Source]

Preface.

Hello, I am a Source Engine mapper with an experience of 5 years, on and off, with a short catalog of respected levels published to this day on the Garry’s Mod Workshop, and a bigger back catalog of failed and unfinished ones. I was hardly learning — more like falling down a set of stairs while trying not to open actual documentation. I am not saying “don’t listen to me.” Just do what works for you and take from my experience whatever you like. This isn’t a tutorial — it’s a record of what kept me finishing maps.

Describing a creative process is tricky, especially when it’s the real thing and I won’t try to color it. It’s highly for personal use, created organically through the years of trying what sticks. The real process is among the choices that keep you making something every day, to get the endorphins necessary to keep making. The best and the worst things I made I poured the same amount of heart into. The first one is just full of compromises.
    “For those who asked” — I published only my most compromise-full maps. I never called them good in any way other than that they gave the player what was described. One thing they were called is detailed, so below I will post my process when making them. I wouldn’t call it perfect. There are holes in my perspective that I am going to also acknowledge. The first of them is that I am not a professional, anything and I'm still learning a lot with every project.

The purpose driven design.

If I had a religion, it would be starting from a purpose. It’s either the most obvious thing you’ve ever heard or the most contrived. Sincerely looking at the purpose you had set allows you to be aware of the audience you can expect, the features you need to build, and the thematic niche the map is going to fill. If you’re reading this, please, the last thing you want to make is a worse rendition of a warehouse from Half-Life. If I cared to save my old maps, I would have a drawer full of unappreciated "warehouses" that weren’t for anyone but me. These are fond memories, but I would like for them to not fade into obscurity. Know for who you are making your map. You, a hundred people, or a thousand long time fans.
    I say, if you are going to publish anything, anywhere, you want people to see it. Nobody will reach into your mind and try to understand what you are showing them on a Thursday night, searching through the workshop, bored. It’s like screaming on the street, “I am here!” I say — just tell a joke. People are going to notice you. Everybody loves to revisit jokes, but only if they are short. I make content like it’s going to be ingested by someone who hardly cares. That alone has allowed me to come back to one project until it’s the best it can be, thinking of every possibility someone might have a use for it. If it’s special enough, someone will save it to ingest again.

This is an unreleased map. I agreed, help for help, to finish someone's highschool map. The idea was focused on realism and I instantly knew nobody but people attending it would appreciate this aspect. At the half-point of development the other designer ended burned-out and now I have to repurpose all of our work for an actual gameplay (purpose). Presumably its going to be a Trouble in Terrorist Town, immersive map.

The best way for me personally to learn what features* are available to set my map around to make the room I'm making fun to play. 

*Features (here) are what we manage to do with the features we already have been provided by the engine and Valve. That means backed in lighting, physics and ropes, dynamic shadows, project textures (how many you can fit), animated props that you have stumbled upon which can give your map some movement. Make a part of your map around a feature, let the player engage with it effortlessly and market the thing furiously on the workshop page like the whole satisfaction from your work depended on it. I think it does.

As a Garry’s Mod mapper, I have never made a Valve-style linear level. I didn't need to. When was the last time you ran around in a Half-Life 2 level instead of the generic gm_construct? Campaign maps are beautiful, but their purpose is very different from the way most Garry’s Mod players engage with content. 
    Instead of hopeing the player plays it right, I pack my levels not only with detail but with small ways to play in any given direction. Because previously I was surprised of the ways people said they engaged with maps I made. I make a shooter arena and someone builds a house there. I make a neighborhood to live in and someone roleplays a war there, then asks, “Where are the AI nodes?”
    It seems like the ways someone plays cannot be expected in a sandbox game, but that’s not necessarily true. A map can have its intended niche — like being made with a lot of optimization in mind or not — but there are some ways everyone engages with every map. It’s through something I’m going to call “loops.” It’s a theory that if the player, going in any direction, meets a wall and not at least an enterable building with a curb to another part of the map leading to another and another, then their gameplay will be interrupted and your effort will be missed. If you make something you expect the player to enjoy — a nice view, physics objects, or a feature — then put it in their way.

rp_foreign_desert is my first map and a good example. Made for roleplay servers, it had huge constraints on the allowed file size and optimization that is required on an addon heavy roleplay server. You can see how every detail needed to be  deliberate. Every wall has something to engage with, and the busiest spots are the most visible corners. They are taking the players attention as he is walking the looping path. The detailed market stand is catching the eyes of those who didn’t see the sign that they can find the market there — an important area.

How to know it works?

Walk the path yourself a thousand times. Make a coherent picture with an ease of use. If you have the freedom to make a building that can’t be looked at from above, use it. Real-life logic doesn’t matter for more than two seconds. For the player goes through a tunnel, it matters more what’s new than what they expected from the previous room.

    Fun doesn’t care about logic. This is a game, and everyone playing knows it. They intuitively give you the space to set the best, most efficient, and most deliberate stage — like in theater — before them. And then you would  sacrifice some fun to convince them again that this is real life. Don't do that. Look at the Half-Life 2 maps again. Notice how the most fun gameplay arenas don’t make much real-life sense, and see that you had never noticed it while engaging with their fun. 

(On the map) Look at the red tunnels and the looping pathways everywhere. Bigger and smaller loops change the speed of gameplay. The bigger they are, the fewer useful buildings they have. This also shows my Counter-Strike inspirations. It doesn’t mean many buildings aren’t accessible, but it creates ease of engagement with the level. (Not visible here.) Street names are also simple and easy to remember, like places in CS jargon.

Once I understand the purpose and the features, I have “scope.” It’s a thing development teams set for projects to know how much resources they have to spend on it. For them it's often money but our currency is only effort and time. I can’t say how many open big maps I’ve attempted to make and couldn’t finish. There is a place for this kind of a map, but its unoptimized and not very detailed. Be sure you want to attempt it and understand the real scale of the challenge. The same goes for something like a detailed building with every window see-through. This is an old engine, and so is its optimization technology. 
    Again, look at how Half-Life 2 was made. Its maps are beautiful and optimized. Today, this engine is as wide and useful as Valve needed it to be back then. Of course, the maps could be more detailed on today’s hardware, but not by much. That is why don’t recommend playing the most detailed mods that look almost triple-A unless you’re looking at them directly in the editor. They’re made with many custom models and aren’t popular on the Workshop for a reason. They’re only worth downloading when packed into a mod with hours of engaging gameplay — not for a player who already has 30 GB of their favorite addons. At first, try to make a nice-looking, small map from the available assets.

I always parkour around and shoot stuff every time I add a room to a level, engaging with it when I’m bored. I look at it from every angle and play with it like I’m stuck in a doctor’s waiting room (I live in Europe). If I don’t have a better map from the Workshop to run around in, then I know I have something detailed.

Not a corner unfilled.

Map setting and theme.

This map was also made for readability during street fights and with a theme that was always in reach of mappers, but for some reason was unexplored. Good opportunity for me. Most of the assets used are from CSS, which players already had mounted. There were also occasional new models and Half-Life 2 ones, but they blend in nicely because of the same lighting and color palette. It’s detailed enough for what it represents. An Arab-world city to roleplay in.

You don’t need new models to make a great new setting. There are still many CSS, Half-Life 2, or L4D2 assets that together can tell a different story. Is your setting rust-filled? Cheap and messy? Or clean and tended to every day? To detail is to make a busy picture every step of designing. It can be less busy or more, but if the quality varies too much, the part of the map feels unfinished. 
    Models are awesome, but they need to fade away; pretty brushwork detail also needs to disappear behind a corner. On the other hand, the solid wall they hide behind can be split into many brushes, each one with a different texture, with no impact on performance. Many materials that are available in Garry’s Mod and its mounted games are all done professionally so in standardized sizes. It’s pretty hard to make your own textures, and nobody should really do it unless you’re making a bigger mod or occasionally. I learned repurposing an existing texture, usually by clever placement pretending to be something else or even modifying its “.vmt” to give it a different property or blend it with another. These are very light sized when into your map. They even indirectly make use of the mounted assets that you don’t own without directly packing them. 

See how the rock lining texture on the flat wall around the elevator makes it look detailed. It actually doesn't have any brushes or models sticking out. Often textures are intended to be placed together but the one on the rock lining is from a different game than the others and you wouldn't notice.

Fully abstract map layouts are fun but feel endless while played. It’s like a movie where you can only guess the runtime. If its scenes don’t connect intuitively or you can’t grasp the bigger picture, the runtime feels eternal.
    To illustrate, imagine watching a movie in a cinema with no way to check its runtime. Until now it was an action movie, and suddenly no action is happening — characters are talking. You expect a fight to break out. If they fight every time, it gets boring. If they don’t, the director has your attention.
    The same applies to maps. If you go through a cafeteria door, you expect a hallway or kitchen. If you end up in someone’s apartment bedroom, it kills your interest. If you can predict any outcome, even unpredictability, it gets boring fast. There is no story that's being told. There is no engagement with what’s on the screen.
    If you struggle with balance, I recommend this method: when I walk through an area and look at it from every angle the player might see, I squint my eyes. I look at it like I’m seeing it for the first time. It’s now a painting with very thick strokes. What do you see? A sunset highlighting a light wall with small shadows scattered around, or a picture you can’t look at any longer because you don’t know where to go or what to look at first?

gm_destruction_defend — how does this picture strike you when you squint your eyes? Do you see a clear path? The available choices for the player? Where does the playable area end? Now open your eyes. It’s realistic but readable.

You can make a new and believable map this way. Its a tight line where one thing moved can change a beautiful map into a dated one. Lets remember again how old of an engine we are working with. A little light change or a complicated shadow on a complicated surface can look bad after compiling in a moments notice. It's a curse but also half of the fun.
~You can't reproduce 1:1 a real life picture in this engine and that's okay.

Color and lighting is all that you need. 

Guiding the player through your gorgeous map.

You might have noticed that the same principles apply to all of the things discussed: the level flow, themes, their flow, and the flow of features when the player is freely engaging with your level. As you're designing the player experience, you are painting a picture that will point out the choices and the features in the player's reach in a way that's readable. At the forefront of this communication is definitely color and light — which I saved for last, as it's the most subjective.

My way is to know my sun direction and color when making the brushwork it's going to fall onto. Be aware of how the shadows of the buildings and telephone poles will paint onto the repetitive texture of ground and walls; this is where you need shadows the most. I am again describing shadows as being painted on a surface, because if you don't look at them as an opportunity to add detail, then you are wasting one of the best-looking tools at your disposal.
Think about the best-looking areas in Half-Life 2 and you'll see the best use of a simple technology, where half of it is skilled staging of detail and the other is contrasting shadows. The lighting (the common baked-in lighting) always looks best in contrasting conditions.

Half-Life 2 — Nova Prospekt. See how the lack of lighting in dark areas, blending into the very bright artificial spotlights, created not only mood but also highlighted details of models and bump textures to bring out lots of detail in an otherwise dated-looking frame.

That is why you want to know the sun direction before making other things, like the windows it's going to peek through. The sun is a good opportunity because your (and your players’) mind is actually so habit-oriented that it reacts like it's real. It's giving you the endorphins just looking at the screen. There wouldn't be the gloom of Nova Prospekt without its artificial blue lighting; if the orange sun of the canal levels was here, it would paint an entirely different picture. Without it, designers resorted to spotlights and rarely working prison lights. Think about the many backrooms and dead ends there are in the Nova Prospekt levels. The lighting contrasts well with their dark interiors, highlighting where the player could go to explore and where to progress.

From an upcoming horror map. To make the area look impressive, I highlighted the single shadow of the shelf. This detail detracts from the dated lighting of the models on the right.

When you see an area that looks square and not lively, it's instinctual to paint on some mess. You're going to do it with trash models, graffiti, or displacements if you're cool, but the best-looking way is to light it like brightness is fighting the darkness. A lamp is highlighting the pillar and being suffocated by it. This is the simplest recipe for a space that looks real.
    It's actually a good habit to not go overboard with different colors, just like Valve did: just two or three modes of lighting create a cohesive mood and make it really easy to guide the player. As in: The moonlight, combine lamps, prison lamps. Also, when you start introducing some ambiguity with shadows, you can then afford to sacrifice some more demanding things. Good (backed in) lighting is a lot cheaper on a pc and your time than any other type of detail. If you look at any Half-Life 2 room, you'll see how simple they would be without the lighting. Finally, just setting your map in an entirely dark or light space looks flat. 

Final wish.

Some of my conclusions are products of what I personally liked to do during the making of my maps. They imply little planning and regular procrastination, as well as giving it a place in play-testing. If a different way of mapping motivates you regularly, that way might as well be superior.
    Levels made by game companies, in the worst case, are made by two differently oriented people. As mappers, we're supposed to fit in many roles when we were born with only a few strengths. Creating with the tools we have, trying to get a cohesive experience that feels useful enough on some level. 
    A huge amount of effort can be put into a level without making it cohesive. Make something that you are able to finish and put it in the player's way. Players want to appreciate it. Just put it in a place that makes it easy to be found, and give the player a "feature-box" they would like to come back to.
    My wish to the reader is this: Please don't waste your effort on things that will be standing in a corner on a unpublished map, only appreciated by you.

Bugonia. Don't get put down, grabbing onto insanity for your life.

These "online people" seem crazier than ever.

This essay about the themes of the movie "Bugonia" Its not a review or does it contain spoilers.

Bugonia is the same old story, but for our times. Tales of class division, its consequences, and those most inspiring stories about kings learning to be the little people. Those are not new issues. They are older than capitalism and as old as human nature, the need to partition and focus on what’s in front of you. Once we hear a fact a third time, the thousandth doesn’t make a difference. It gets quieter, like a defense mechanism from hearing the same alarm for centuries. We already know our nature and that it’s an unimaginable amount of work to think about it. To listen to the person in front of us and challenge the views that made us. What else are we going to grab onto, spinning on this fragile planet of ours?

Set photo from the Bugonia movie.

One side is seemingly out of his mind. Years of pain and denial grew into his tangled trauma. But he isn’t without hope, not from the beginning. His every step further is a conscious decision. You can see his face change. Will he think and judge? Or go further in the direction that he was launched into a long time ago? He’s got his echo bubble, he is agreeing with himself already. He was certainly once wronged by this woman and is justified, even if he comes out wrong. And he won’t, because he decided to lose himself already.
    She, on the other side, is in the right. A victim of losers who grabbed onto her highness out of jealousy. Because she earned her place and is too big to lose. She is certainly smarter and more educated, doesn’t forget to mention that, but she wouldn’t use it on him because that would require some kindness. She is able to do it, as she spoke personally with every victim of her company’s actions with a curated smile. Now she would need to get out of her skin for a much longer time.
    But she is bound to a chair and isn’t speaking to somebody in need that is at the other side of a boot. You can see how she tries, because it’s a matter of survival for her. Once the violence starts, she is brought down to her wits and out of her ego.
    Both sides of this divide are forced to listen to one another. They try to get as little from each other as possible. To win, they need to quit their own realities, which are as similar to each other as they are hostile. She had theoretical degrees and he has his YouTube degree. In a cloud of confusion in the information age, the truth will come out of necessity. 

Back to square one. 

You can see him losing his mind and her regaining it. It’s shown by the way the Earth becomes more flat than round with every act break, and how little things begin to make too much convenient sense for the man that is losing his grip on reality. With every regrettable decision, he gets easier to manipulate. He doesn’t want to think about so many things that he will grab onto anything now set in front of him, and she is the one setting the stage.
    By the force of nature, she is more resilient and conniving. It doesn’t matter that we don’t recognize her anymore and that she might not be so fun at parties at home. She is not a hero, and he set up his failure by not acknowledging reality — the same thing that she just began to do. To survive, she needed to escape, and he shouldn’t have done what he did: kidnapping her. Then everybody would be at square one, on the same Earth again. 

In Bugonia, as nobody is able to acknowledge any truth, the woman does resemble an alien, and the humans are shown to be like bees that, once they become hard to manage, are put down with their owner’s choice.

At the end, the movie itself is going crazy. Every rule is sacrificed for the message. Every little person or king on Earth is now reduced and being put down. It’s by a god-like power that some might have been aware of, but it still wouldn’t have mattered. There is no plan or spaceship that would save the humans in this reality. No laser beam to wither your existential fears away. We are members of the same bee colony, and all that seems to matter is what’s good for the hive.

 

ARC Raiders and Sadists. Allowing human nature to show itself.

The game's formula works the same on everybody.

Many people loved ARC Raiders as much as me. The sound design, beautiful and intriguing technicalities, and tight movement. All of the above are why so many initially picked up the game but not everybody is as much in love anymore after those few months. Why is that? They tell the developers to restrict PvP, people are shooting others, they say, with no care about their in-universe life or someone told me they are friendly to then shoot you in the back. Theories are many. The mechanics are bad to allow for it, people are bad or uncaring. It’s not real life so it’s normal to not have remorse about taking the opportunities that the developers had allowed.
    But the reason why many don't like the state of the game is certain, the gameplay is one thing and it’s mostly freedom to do all you would do in real life but without consequences, like a prison sentence or someone vengeful that caught up to you long after your selfish action.

I loved the game, but my love is still standing. I saw what the developers achieved underneath all the pretty visuals and I liked it. Some call it a social experiment. Then what does it show?
Is it that people are wrong and bad today? No. The world is still less wrong than in the Dark Ages for instance.

The Walking Dead, zombie series showed viewers the relatable heroes kill many humans out of fear or self-righteousness in a world where they couldn't take chances. Same people became functioning members of society once they united. This showed the tight moral line but also the human denial about its realities. Violence against people wasn't always necessary but many (not only sadists) used it for many reasons. God or the government didn't strike them with lightning for having human nature.

In real life there are people that can't rely on empathy. They either got born this way or are violent by their circumstances. If there was a button to get rid of them, once pressed, you would get rid of only half of the world's violence but also you would get rid of your best soldiers, company executives and emotionless political advisors. You may not like those but every bit of the human palette is a working part if it works for its survival and growth. They are functioning members of society and the other half of violence is self-righteous in denial or in good nature in a violent world. Being a good-natured person is hard work but everyone can choose it or denial.

Dexter Series. It’s ridiculous how if an evil person is shown in a one-sided way with an almost superhuman ability to avoid actual moral dilemmas most people don't see anything wrong with that. The show excuses mutilation and taking pleasure in violence, being the judge and executioner in denial that one person can be always right. The show only showed the unintended victims as a reason for the audience member to not start self-righteous killing.

World without rules is merely a playground for human nature. In original survival games the mechanic-induced boredom covered the truth. The best acting people were the bored ones who because of that felt unengaged with the game's mechanics. You either were grinding for nothing or at the end you crafted a bomb to go blow up some other player's wall to steal his items. There weren't many incentives to have any other experience. There were some actually bad actors but they were mostly excused in the sea of violence invited by the gameplay that was intended.
    ARC Raiders has the same kind of violence. Its genre, extraction shooter, is a multiplayer survival game's child. Like Rust, DayZ. Its one part of their proven gameplay emphasized and made approachable by having your items always safe at your base and allowing you to choose when you are actually in danger by spawning on the surface only with the chosen items. Rounds end, spawns and extractions are balanced. Its the same feeling of survival made approachable in an essence.

The conclusion. 

Be certain you like what the developers tried doing before you call them to fix it. But that is obvious. The game is what it is and through its freedoms it only showed you and your behavior in a similar situation. What does it mean? There are always excuses to be bad. In present day or in a rule-less world, or in a game that has any other intended gameplay than killing. Your choices show who you choose to be now. It’s not that human nature is bad or is wrong. Circumstances force you to choose but it’s always your choice and ARC Raiders only allows that to be seen.

Interesting article proving this post's assumptions about correlation between in video game choices and real life choices:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6590152/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAOraVpjbGNrA6to02V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHq_mGOh2ovX3U3BpfAUyBuo7GT4aZuSl1BqkK_FC_DPfHO-CgHH5DiLEWLvi_aem_sCwVBghIa5Vta63Kj5N0Kg

 

 

Expressing yourself takes an amazing game. Not a good one. Cyberpunk 2077

Cyberpunk 2077 is a great role-playing game. I heard great things about its world and all of them are true. In its core it's an ideal world for role-playing, for my first play-through was a bouquet of expression. I definitely felt I could show my own self in my character while not being judged and whatever I made was fitting in the universes immense lore. It's hard not to role-play when the game's world has such depth in different styles.
Its cars, although not very polished in gameplay, follow different schools of design, their choice by the player is to express his aspirations. Choice of clothes is the same.
    Game's many factions don't just express the ways of thinking about the world. They are different in ethnicities, ancestry and occupation. While doing missions for them or against them, you will be forced to know, with whom do you sympathize.
It's not like in the modern fallout where It's either a choice between tyranny or the whiny government. Here you will fight every one of them because along with the player, every member of these factions are terrible homicidal people. But this expression is a matter of your personal feeling not gameplay mechanics, and I think It's why my first experience spoke to me on a personal level.

This is an actual in-game screenshot.

To visualize this let me analyze my style choices thru-out the game. What I picked was what I liked at the time. Back then I would think this was messy. But few years after I understood that my choices were the fullest expression of myself.

Actual Freedom of choice. My leanage speaks only about me.

In this Cyberpunk excelled. By making so every single style choice and lineage in the game doesn't matter for the amount of content you get, they allowed the player to express himself. This was untouched by the choices that had actually impact on the narrative.
In the game you can choose one of three backstories, and they give you different dialogue options and so, your characters automatic knowledge of some topics. Like a character with a corp backstory will know about the corporations inter-workings. But your character's knowledge doesn't mean he has automatic leanage towards something. That what kind of a corporation employee your character will be in the wind, so in this big frame of a backstory player can insert his own characteristics.
My character could have used the tyrannical frames of a corporation to express her need for a higher "law-abiding" personal freedom. This stubborn character of mine was then numerously challenged by the story choices in this game's immense well written campaign.
Let's now analyze this characters style choices to visually know my personal inner workings inserted into role-playing as an ex-corporation employee.

Clothes: I slowly went into an expensive suit but Cowboy style.

This expressed how I was really focused on making money, but still claimed to follow my personal freedom. From this style I was leaning into a cop-like signifying my lineage towards law enforcement. And like them, I was expressing moral symbolism while still being as despicable as the thugs I was judging.
At the time I was thinking that I was the only one with the moral choice of who lives and who dies. I would gain lots of money just to spent it on some beggar to enforce how more moral I was than this world. In this I was showy and leaned into an exaggerated symbolism.
This hypocrisy was in accordance with the game's message and was even expressed later in my variant of the ending in a very natural conclusion. I got the worst one, which I won't spoil.

Vehicles: In this I was also leaning towards showy and powerful, conservative choice. Muscle Cars.

Aren't muscle cars a perfect example of exaggerated expression of personal freedom. They are dangerous and bulky and still loved for the exact reasons. They are showy but my own was gray. It was a show of freedom while claiming restraint, which, at least back then, could have been my second name.

I remember I couldn't get enough of this car.

Faction: Seeing my choices it isn't a surprise I leaned towards the faction of 5-th Street.

They were as terrible as any other faction, but they were veterans, and claimed moral superiority in fighting towards a better America. They weren't really doing that and were just criminals. But that didn't stop me from having some sympathy towards them and trying not to kill them in missions.

Look at this cheesy cowboy-cop.

Weapons: Conservatism and moral superiority were the deciding factors in all of my choices. Expression of that is definitely a Japanese katana, and a shotgun.

My weapons of choice were as not modern as its possible. This could be odd in a game about a future setting, but the game and lore allows that approach.
They were as loud, as simple. Allowed me to carefully choose my targets to focus my judgment and kill them as loudly as possible. And it wasn't a conscious choice. Every one of them was picked from a pile of other choices, and every one of them was viable. This game really has like three main technologies and approaches to weapons, which in themselves have their own classes to express your play style.
So, you could express yourself in gameplay, by choosing a loud approach or a quiet one. But your choice of technology doesn't force any of them. You can put a suppressor on a mechanical shotgun as well as on a highly technological smart SMG. In short, personal expression is entirely separate to a gameplay choice.

This definitely worked for Cyberpunk. Because its gameplay choices, not in story, but in boots on the ground gameplay are disappointing. By being separate from personal expression It's still allowed to be a good game. Without gameplay reinforcing players choices its really up to the player to experience role-playing. Most of the players will do that automatically, as an effect of the interesting world that is difficult not to be sucked in. This made so, many people will consider it a good RPG, only if they got sucked in, but the 10% of us that wanted gameplay that actually forces expression will be left disappointed.
This is it. Cyberpunk allows you to express yourself well, but its gameplay mechanics are too broad and indeph in wrong places to feel like a proper role-playing action. Take for an example the original Deus EX which gameplay in itself was designed with meaningful choices in mind. There you will be noticed walking into the women's bathroom and this choice will be expressed in dialogue. But in cyberpunks gameplay the choices are so bare-bones and unnecessary, in contrast to dialogue choices that actually make a great difference, that if you play like the game allows you to play. You will dismember thousands of enemies just to have a pacifistic character in a cutscene.

I like role-playing, but not role-playing games.

This genre is in itself broad, and many games let you role-play but aren't considered to be role-playing games. The second one is called in short an RPG. Its origins are the table-top RPGs which, from what I understand have lots of choices, because their mechanics are heavy in concepts. It's not my thing, and cyberpunks gameplay definitely tried to imitate that tabletop RPG gameplay. I wouldn't say if it did it well. It definitely means that while learning cyberpunks progression you will be reading a lot of text and seeing arbitrary number values. For me this is not immersive, but I know some people like it.
We need to separate actual role-playing in video games from the conservative table-top notions which although have place in the modern games, are definitely for niche liking of some people and I don't think they fit into larger use in games. Can't be just inserted into any game because of its tight rules. Like nothing will be an Italian Western anymore except if something is Italian Western Style. Maybe we should start calling Cyberpunk a Tabletop-like RPG not just an RPG I wouldn't have to compare its mechanics to these in a game with more at the moment gameplay like Deus EX.

DYNAMIC Shootout with rigged AI (Half-life 2's)

How does it feel to play with F.E.A.R's historic AI?

Playing the F.E.A.R games. Which are famous for their very believable "life-like" AI can be a treat. But until you look under the hood, it's hard to see exactly how much of it is elevated by game design and detailed enemy communication. In fact, the famous complicated AI wasn't very much new. It was just put to good use.

Player feels outsmarted by coordination of AI opponents. (Drowsy TOTO, Youtube) 

F.E.A.R AI is very dynamic and aware of their surroundings. But the sad truth is, even players replaying the same levels multiple times, unless they are looking for it, they won't notice the difference. The game's rectangular and flank route heavy levels played as much of a difference as everything else. Also, a large part of its success was the fact it was a new game and very detailed for one simple reason. Developers focused on making the AI seem as smart as possible.

Inspired by its success in dynamic feeling shootouts, I tried to design one myself. Below is the result.

Enter Soviet Hospital setting.

The setting helps.

Not only because I like it, but it also comes with many benefits which I should underline. For one, the visibility. I wanted to make it as fun as possible. The flat whites are in line with the ground on which the enemy will be stomping on. Lighting is safe, always flat and highlighting from where the enemy is coming. And the ceilings are high to encourage the planned use of grenades.

Another important thing from the F.E.A.R playbook will be the versatile square rooms.

Following a readable three-lane design. This is the middle.

Angles are close together on purpose. To force quicker decisions from players and AI alike.

Here's a demonstration how it plays. I'm had fun with the result, it proved engaging and feels dynamic. Later I write about the process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SngAqXcUHE

The Process - How do I force choices?

Half-life's combine can be relatively coordinated. For this, they apply an interesting slot system. In long story short, they are seemingly taking turns in action. For example, if an NPC sees a squad member is suppressing the enemy (which has already started under other conditions), they choose to go to a flank. 

This helps them not walk into each other, don't throw grenades or attack simultaneously. However, this also ensures that every attack of theirs looks similar. Furthermore, they tend to always take the shortest routes to a target and often stand in the open looking at the player, because if two of their squad mates are already attacking the player, they can't join or are slow to do anything. This, in addition to Half-life's fast gameplay, makes it seem like they lack self-preservation.

 

(purple brush is only blocking npc navigation)

Here you can see I blocked an obvious suicidal route to ensure they flanked through either the left or right entrance. They will still shoot the player while flanking because with this brush the line of sight is still unobscured. Their decision looks smart from the outside because, like I said before, they always choose the shortest route. Therefore, they choose entrances depending on the player's position in the level.

Self-preservation. And how to squeeze an NPC.

If the level maker doesn't ensure intelligent behavior by containing their decisions, they will die in an idiotic rush. This often happened in half-life 2 when fights in city 17 levels felt great until gameplay was taken to the streets, where lack of cover and alternative routes, meant enemies were acting almost suicidal. 

This is for sure a bigger subject. So on the variety of quality in Half-life 2's shootouts I will blog another time.

Here's how I taught them to move and to seem like they are considerate of advantages in the environment. At almost every step they have a decision, an orange hint node (cover), or an alternative route that is also chosen depending on proximity to the player.

You might think this will make them feel linear, but it's the contrary. This squeezes the existing slot system to show more in gameplay, by ensuring it's the main variable in how NPC's behave towards the player. Because many available decisions require more indeph knowledge of the surroundings, and we now know that this AI is lacking in this regard.

That's all. Now lets take it into a new context.

A good working layout might work well in other cases. I already included everything a simple arena would need. A Hunter NPC from Half-life 2 episode 2 is an interesting enemy, and a direct variation on the combine soldier, possessing same rushing AI but is made more directly for this purpose.

(not mine) Its a funny gif where one gets brutal LOD threatment.

Its more visible, has more health and uses a powerful attack with timed explosion to keep the player moving. Forces movement every time it attacks. Its suicidal rushing, like with the combine soldiers, also proved annoying, although here it's probably a matter of preference. The fixed layout of this arena was already made to squeeze rushing enemies, and it worked the same for a hunter.

Although I did some little adjustments to its size and timed attacks. For one, I opened further angles, therefore making this fight more interesting. Because of its timed attacks, it wasn't necessary to give player more cover, and even helped a little to avoid attacks.

Doors between both left and right lanes are opened.
Effectively rising the stakes.

With the hunter comes a couple of combine soldiers with a SMG weapons. I had a problem with this weapon in the previous variation of this area. For once, the SMG has lower damage values and is less accurate, and the NPC's don't bother to compensate for that in any way. Therefore, enemies possessing SMG's are just easier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqyPopTX1g0

Its fitting to drop them in a more open area. Normally, it would end up letting the player fight them without cover, ending in them feeling unthreatening, but by dropping them with a powerful hunter, and looping an "avoid player" schedule, I made them feel like a diversion. Making this compilation an interesting choice of who to fight first, and making it harder for the player to focus his attacks on the hunter. Which didn't prove annoying because of how its attacks can be quickly avoided.

It ended up as a very fun and a fast-paced fight. Same but different, and more challenging. Therefore, a good iteration of the previous arena. 

The Realistic Approach. 28 Days Later.

I shrugged it off. "28 Days Later," a 2002 zombie classic. Years later, I watched it again, and it has shed some light on why it's considered such a classic. After all, it's not the first movie about a zombie apocalypse. It may be one of the first of its kind, but it reveals what we have lost in survival stories today. The REALISM dripping from the edges of your screen, VIOLENCE seen in a glimpse of an eye, HUMANITY within and the real questions that we ask during wars and societal collapse alike. 

"Just people killing people", the Major said.

Spoilers for 28 days later only.

Walking Corpse.

To highlight these points, I'll briefly mention another classic. The first season of The Walking Dead TV show also captures these themes well. Fans of the two stories can dispute their favorites, but the fact is: the comic book adapted series got more money and fame. Regardless of how that matters.
        I will mention the peculiar thing that happened as the story went along. Whatever it was. Changes in direction or lack of them where needed, the story stretched to eleven seasons. Along the way, characters and realism became bloated beyond belief. For instance, the main character, initially a skinny deputy, developed into a muscular superhero. In contrast to makeshift approaches in combat, we got exposed edible necks and edgy trench coats. Human psychology got thrown out for a girl with a katana, the avenger of fathers. Of course, I'm skipping over a whole 11 seasons of development and changing fan taste, but it's clear that the series ultimately lost what made it popular in the first place. The survival aspect, realism, violence, and humanity are what separates a survival story from a superhero one. I even skipped the zombie element, which is secondary to the point of this post.

             AMC figuratively beating a dead horse. Trying to make the most money out of a dying fanbase.

        What this series lost is not forgotten. The viewers have spoken; while a few watched the last seasons, even fewer are interested in the many promised spinoffs. From what I've seen of them, the bloat is all they are about. Show runners are bringing back beloved "immortal" characters in a new setting and even reverting a chunk of character development from a beloved villain. Just to force the old stuff back on its tired feet.

Violence.

There are many such cases these days. Executives are getting drunk on idealism and marketable power figures. Destroying the sense of realism in a dramatic setting. That's why the "28 Days Later" movie was for me a breath of fresh air. Let me illustrate a moment I find key in explaining this.

As we meet the character of Selena, she seems like a now tired trope. Short-haired, dark skinned, mean and tough. Like an alter ego of some hipster writer from California. But its is not a new Hollywood movie. It's the reality.
        Her existence revolves around survival alone. The collapsing civilization tortured her emotionally, yet she stands strong. As if running through fire, she's fast, and never looks back. For both the main character, and the viewer, she becomes a guide through this bleak world. We as the viewers tend to resist that reality. However, she doesn't care. Doesn't matter if you're coming with or without her, she is surviving, focused and crafty. But ultimately she is deprived of all humanity and of all that she dares weak. Existing aimlessly for a point of living the next day.
        Selena pities our main hero, who has just woken up, shaken by the harsh reality. When later, her own squad mate gets infected; she doesn't wait. Unburdened, she lifts a machete and swings. Won't let him utter a word or confirm his infection. Amid his screams, she chops him into pieces. Of course, it's not shown entirely, yet it's graphic. They left violence for the viewer's imagination.

Gruesome special effects in the TV show were one of its strong points at its peak, but not for long. As with most aspects, both the material and viewers grew tired. Because however far The Walking Dead pushed the bar on violence, there is always a limited amount of ways you can destroy a body on television.
       Viewer's imagination however always stays strong. But then it's more held accountable by the story it is a part of. You can't keep showing a corpse and always get the same message. The emotion behind it is irreplaceable. Well, further into the series, the focus shifted onto politics and drama among superhero characters. To stay relevant, they kept showing the same corpse to then wonder why the material got tired.

       Humanity behind the violence was actually an important part of the success of this show. It disappeared along with the stakes. No more beloved characters would meet a gruesome death. At least no end that the viewers along with the characters
wouldn't have seen before a thousand times.

Humanity.

Selena's dissociation and the stark simplicity of the killing. The fact that, we, as the viewers, understand her choices, is very human. Comes through quick yet leaves lots of conflicting emotions.
       Our main character is shocked along with the audience, but the actual impact it leaves will be revealed during ending scenes. It was just a cold-blooded killing after all. It serves as an introduction to the barbaric part of the setting. This is emphasized by its status as one of the most gruesome deaths in the movie. Even in the Walking Dead, there were many more earned and interesting character killings. In the early parts, of course, which I won't spoil.
      A TV show has more time to earn these moments than a movie. As well as time to spoil them. The whole structure of the subject movie is heading towards the bombastic ending. During which, human and animalistic parts of the characters get put to the test. This is when Selena's toughness and the main character's apparent altruism will show its true nature, in a realistic way. 

 

The Military will be the first working part of the remaining civilization, our characters see. At their lowest point yet, they are rescued by actually organized crisis response.
      These soldiers were always the same. Once stationed in secluded bases, awaiting inevitable war, which now is in place. They show no restraint in dealing with the apocalypse. Using the resources gathered during peace, they fortified a local castle, making it impregnable for zombies.

      Astounded with luck, our characters let themselves be taken inside. Along with them, the viewers, witness the nature of such concepts as the military play out.
      It's the government hand that separates, organizes. As a civilized society, will strive to frame such concepts as war and peace, violence and humanity, into morally digestible packages. It's the packaged goods that rarely rot. It's the societal roles that organize us.
      And this is the society that collapsed. Now, when every person is for themselves, the everyday people, like our heroes, had to take the burden of their safety off the government's shoulders. But now the handlers are back and want their role back. They have guns and plenty of ammunition. They will rebuild their intended purpose whatever the cost.
      The military role is shown to be simple. Their Major says that their purpose is greater, but the laws that bounded their power and purpose that focused it disappeared along with the government. They say that they need humanity, the weaker, to protect. But as it turns out, they already met most of their needs, and now lack the simpler aspects of the fallen society. It's emphasized by the fact that none of the soldiers can actually cook. They have food, but no structure to prepare it. They seem to need society and women to rebuild it with. 

      But it's a delusion, and it's 'sewn with thick threads'. They say that the whole humanity has fallen, yet they don't see there are still planes flying overhead. They don't want to. They were once organized barbarians, and since there are no rules anymore, their good demeanor is slipping.
      Their Major seems to be still civilized, but he holds onto his power whatever the cost. He subconsciously wants his military rank to hold the same significance. While the whole structure lost its engine and now the soldiers it created are pushed by the gravity of their numbers. They only desire women, and their boss will hide this fact, just to keep them from tumbling. It's the purpose, they say, as they imprison, and kill their moral selves. They are not bandits but the saviors, and they will exploit the weaker people. As they swore to themselves that it's to help humanity. 

The Realistic Approach.

As our characters rebel, they get beaten into the ground. But it's not just the zombies threatening them anymore. The new danger is human, and is a lot more personal.
      Like the "rage virus" is for zombies, the soldiers are stripped to their animal form. As one of their own calls out their morality, so they take him down too.

      They take him, and our hero outside the castle, to the place where they put all of their dead bodies, presumably of the zombies. As the two men are going die there, they feel at one with the infected.

      The main character saves himself, but they said he's "as good as dead". He's alone, and stripped, far from the castle, where the rest of his group is imprisoned. And as he's no soldier, he lays flat on his back exhausted. Looks up at the sky, feeling dead already. But there, far away, he notices a civilian plane flying. A sign of the old civilisation.

Selena's tough demeanor gets crushed, and seems to be fading. It once was supposed to protect her from the dangers of the apocalypse. Because it's for it, that she, did not care of death, for where she loved life. She became inhuman, when before, she might have been an actually caring person.
      The layers of defence might have saved her from all the horrors outside. But no deminor can save her from the trained soldiers, and their weapons. They take her freedom, and want to do what they want.
      As a last effort, she shows that all of her cunning wasn't a front. When she successfully convinces soldiers to leave her alone with a child.
      It was a one of her group, which will soon meet the same turmoil as her. She drugs it with pills. For all she wanted at this point, is for the innocent, to not feel this horror. This way she manifested the point of all her lies, which is, to dull the pain of the hostile world she was experiencing.

The complexity of this portrayal of toughness, outshines most of other similar characters in media. Because, every one of us once wanted to become a super hero, one unshaken by dangers. Therefore, at least, subconsciously, we cannot connect without this layer of realism.
      It doesn't matter how much turmoil characters of the later seasons of the Walking Dead lived through.
      If the showrunners weren't ready to show the characters be weaker when a bigger danger appears. Therfore, being ready to kill every character at any point. They are telling an escapist fantasy in a worst genre possible, one where viewers should always believe it. Because, to show actual survival, you need a struggle of characters who are as fragile, and lying, as us.

Ending Remark.

In the latter scenes it seems like our characters have no fighting chance. With an unexpected turn of events, our main character, figuratevly joins the side of the infected.
      Recently it was unthinkable for him to attract zombies on purpose. But now, when he has nothing to lose, he turns on an abandoned alarm siren. The blaring sound attracts hordes of zombies toward the castle. Soldiers fight them, and in this confusion, he sneaks inside.
      His cold desperation, looks very much like that, which previously drove Selena. But she would avoid danger to survive. However, he isn't full of fear. His human attachment to his friends, mixed with the desire to survive, is motivating him to a seemingly inhuman level. He is reckless and sharp. Ready to do anything, no matter the moral implications, and fight to win.
      He is not only enabling zombies to kill the soldiers, but attacking them himself, when they are distracted. The recently safe harbor is now flooded with raging zombies. In this way he is enabling the degradation of civilization. But he has accepted this price. He is probably hopeful it doesn't matter that much, ever since he saw the plane—a sign of a distant civilisation. It's a ambiguous sign but that doesnt hold him. He looks to be betting on what he knows is right. 

      Driven by instincts he is very animal-like. When he reaches Selena she mistakes him for a zombie driving this point further. They lock eyes, and he smiles, showing he didn't lose his humanity.

 

The ending scenes show the survivors safe. They are using their creative, passive skills to get noticed by a passing plane. Those are the exact skills that the soldiers didn't think to even ask for. It will help our characters reunite with the surviving world, to really save the fallen civilization.

The Walking Dead today wouldn't dream of having this good of a ending. It had a lot more things happen, lots of story bits, points about politics, and morality. But in the years it was running it has lost its way and then found again, and then lost again. At the end it seemed impossible to wrap up in a satisfying ending. It has a lot of time to break the story, it should've been shorter. At least half of the finished runtime. It shows the dangers of longer story structures.

Inspired survival shooter mechanics.

Introduction.

There's this great moment in the 97' Russian Cult Film "Brat" that stuck to me the most. It has been the source of an idea about reinventing action planning in our shooter games. How the player needs to be fully engaged in more of a thoughtful confrontation with the enemy AI.

              Through the 90' inception of shooter games as we know them, we went from the admittingly good but very mechanical enemies of Doom to pushing the boundaries in terms of "lifelike" characters and enemies. There were games like "Halflife," in which NPC's were for the times impressively lively but also predictible. They played a thoughtful part in the presented gameplay. Finally being close to what would be shooter/strategy game perfection. What the devs made is an action game and an amazing one. That is in part because of how it was elevated by its fights.

             97' "Brat" Danila character purposes an old shotgun by cutting its stock and barrel. Then he modifies the buckshot to an improvised and unpredictable, but more deadly, flechette round.

              ~ Strategy? I dont even like strategy games... I thought you were talking about shooters.

              I am. As everything stops in an RTS (real time strategy) game, the player is supposed to make a decision. Like in a board game, he looks at what resources he has and makes a plan, executes it during his round, and then waits for his enemy to do the same. It is somewhat like real fighting. Replacing fast instincts with thoughtful decisions. I think this is the single thing that has been missing from modern shooters. It's not even the more detailed AI; it's the stiff predictability we lost coming from the 90's. In essence of strategy and thought, there is an implication the player would have time to think.

Half-a-life.

              To illustrate this point, let's come back to Halflife. Its 2004 Valve came up with the new installment. New things to get excited about, to put the genre on its head. Graphics, Physics, life like environments, and set pieces. Also less enemy variations. New adversaries don't even talk as much as in the first game, but it's all good. They just focused on new things, game is bigger, and the budget is also bigger. Halflife 2 is an amazing game.

               But as everybody that fought against both the Combine and Soldiers from the first game will say, the first game got it right, its more of replayable fun. This is the point I am aiming towards, budget can be bigger, enemies can be advanced and lifelike, but what's fun isn't necessarily expensive. Let's introduce strategy to fighting again.

              Courtesy of "RevivedHalfDead" (youtube). Notice how AI never moves and shoots. It fights in a simple pattern. Move/Attack/Hide and doesn't do a thing in between.            

              Above is one of the most memorable fights in the first Halflife game. As you can see, the arena is very simple. Developers actually made it so, which you can notice by the way they safety striped all pillars for readability. Enemies appear to be tactical and deadly all the while the player has time to hide, make a plan, and execute. 
              The difference lies in how restricted the AIs are. Enemies can be accurate and smart, defeated by using provided tools and smarts, but if players don't have time to make such decisions, it's not coming naturally and every time. Then gameplay is not replayable. If every second AI makes one decision, another second player can react.
              If we make the AI free (as in real life), they can come up to the player and kiss them, anytime they want, then we will need to nerf their ability to kill. This way we get the modern AI. One that doesn't seem to actually see or shoot.
              The fact that Halflife's soldier AI doesn't make realistic decisions won't come to players during the actual playthrough. You would think that it would look robotic, but actually all NPC's are always robotic, and what makes them seem alive rarely sits in gameplay. 

In essence.
              I think we need to make the fights more rythmic. AI's more deadly, in some cases and unable to do harm in others. This way, gameplay systems are readable. This leads to thought and how a player survives only by encouraged use of environments. 
              These things and more are at the core of my own actual shooter/strategy idea. For this, go to the Game Ideas (videogame) page, where I do my own thing, while throwing examples and comparisons.