Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
THE FIRST LEVEL
Posts
Pages:
1
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Red_Nova
View playlists
CloseShigeru Miyamoto has gone on record saying that, when he designed the original Mario Bros. game, he designed level 1-2 FIRST, then all the way to the end. Afterwards, and ONLY afterwards, he designed level 1-1. That's a really interesting philosophy. And that statement alone made me realize all the things I did wrong with my game's first dungeon.
A first level is supposed to be the level that hooks the player in. What makes it interesting to them. Starting the development of the first level when you don't have a clear design in mind for the entire game can certainly be disastrous for the entire project. It's supposed to give the player an idea of what the game is gonna be like.
So I ask you: What's your philosophy on the first level? Do you start developing at a demo stage? Or do you start from the beginning of the game and work your way forward? Is your first level there for story purposes and less about gameplay? Or vice versa? What are some examples of good first levels? Bad first levels? Do you like first levels that go right into the action, or do you like taking times to establish story and characters before the fighting heats up?
A first level is supposed to be the level that hooks the player in. What makes it interesting to them. Starting the development of the first level when you don't have a clear design in mind for the entire game can certainly be disastrous for the entire project. It's supposed to give the player an idea of what the game is gonna be like.
So I ask you: What's your philosophy on the first level? Do you start developing at a demo stage? Or do you start from the beginning of the game and work your way forward? Is your first level there for story purposes and less about gameplay? Or vice versa? What are some examples of good first levels? Bad first levels? Do you like first levels that go right into the action, or do you like taking times to establish story and characters before the fighting heats up?
Wow, I did not know that about Mario Bros. It's kind of genius, really. After everything else is done, you have all that experience on how to make a good level.
That tactic is a little harder to translate into RPGs, as you have gameplay and character progression to balance, but it can be done. Years into the development of an RPG Maker XP game I'm working on, I realized that the first dungeon was really weak from a design perspective. So I made a completely different first dungeon that serves to introduce the main character a bit before she is put into the rest of the story, and I took that old first level and made it an optional dungeon instead.
My only tips for a good first dungeon (as I'm still figuring it out myself XD) are: Take what you want the player to expect from later-in-the-game dungeons, but make it shorter, easier, and quicker. Hit them with the strong points but in the least frustrating way possible.
That tactic is a little harder to translate into RPGs, as you have gameplay and character progression to balance, but it can be done. Years into the development of an RPG Maker XP game I'm working on, I realized that the first dungeon was really weak from a design perspective. So I made a completely different first dungeon that serves to introduce the main character a bit before she is put into the rest of the story, and I took that old first level and made it an optional dungeon instead.
My only tips for a good first dungeon (as I'm still figuring it out myself XD) are: Take what you want the player to expect from later-in-the-game dungeons, but make it shorter, easier, and quicker. Hit them with the strong points but in the least frustrating way possible.
RyaReisender
200
I can agree that it's a good idea to not design the first level first. But it's not necessarily a must. I guess before I even develop dungeons in detail I have already design most of the ones in the game, so I already have an idea where to go later on and the risk to mess up the first dungeon is low.
Satoru Iwata
At the time the game was released, there were no strategy guides available. When the player started the game for the first time, they tended not to read the instruction manual, and there was no one who was going to tell them what to do. Everyone was a beginner when it came to Super Mario, so you designed the game with a particular awareness that this sort of player should become familiar with the way things worked in this world and become absorbed in it in a natural way.
This Iwata Asks Interview with Toshihiko Nakago and Takashi Tezuka has a bit on the original Mario Bros and some of Miyamoto's contributions too. I think it's an interesting read not only the linked part but the whole thing but lots of it is Nintendo history.
I think it matters a little less with modern game design. When the original Mario. Bros was made, it would have been a lot more trouble to go back and change a level when the game is already coded. Now, you can just load up that segment and redo everything in a few hours, if not faster. Especially with RPG Maker, you can insert or remove any text or events, and re-balance enemies pretty quickly. Back then everything was code and databases, and Pokemon Red & Blue are a pretty good example of what happens when you try adding and removing things halfway through production (MissingNo, Glitch City, etc.).
Loser
36
I think Backwards_Cowboy has a point. But even still, I never knew before that it was good to design the first level last. unity's insights are poignant, especially coming from a place of experience. I'm going to say that I will create my last level first, which is my first, and then my first level last, which would also be my first. I have one level in my game.
Haha. That said, I feel the first and last dungeons are the most important. The first to hook the player, and the last to provide a memorable conclusion to the game. It's your last chance to wow the player, so you might as well go all-out.
Yeah, you should employ the good old 'Shock and Awe' tactic ( first town, dungeon, forest, etc. ) should normally be the most visually appealing aspect of your game. Only problem is, you need to maintain that level of quality right through the game and not cut corners towards the end. ( I'm looking at you, FF12; freakin' amazing starting town and terrible last 'dungeon'. If you could even call Sky Fortress Bahamust a 'dungeon'. The Pharos was 1000 times more impressive XD ).
What convinced me to download Castlevania for the XBOX 360 Arcade was the start of the game (I mean you start the game with a bad ass character in a cool ass battle.) I mean if they put all that flying Medusa Head crap at the start no one would play it! I seriously think I could have finished that game if it wasn't for all the cheap crap in it.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Perhaps designing the first level last would make a bit more sense if you're making a commercial game, or working on a team. But I still think it's important to work on the game's first level after you've reached a point when you know EXACTLY what you want to do in the game. That way, you can set everything up the way you want it, and not have to go back and edit things you already put behind. Because you may have forgotten some small detail you included in the intro that editing will mess up. Since it's much easier to create it from scratch than it is to go back and edit something you've already done.
If sudden events come up in your life and time suddenly becomes a concern, I would think that cutting corners in the middle of the game would be preferable. If you cut corners in the beginning, the player would assume the rest of the game is just as bad and stop playing. If you cut corners at the end, it'll leave the player with a sour note. But in the middle, the player would already be hooked and would continue playing (as long as the corner cut isn't so deep it bleeds out to the rest of the game.)
If sudden events come up in your life and time suddenly becomes a concern, I would think that cutting corners in the middle of the game would be preferable. If you cut corners in the beginning, the player would assume the rest of the game is just as bad and stop playing. If you cut corners at the end, it'll leave the player with a sour note. But in the middle, the player would already be hooked and would continue playing (as long as the corner cut isn't so deep it bleeds out to the rest of the game.)
Pages:
1
