The blog post argues against the prevalent "architectural" approach to level design in games, where spaces are treated as interconnected rooms separated by walls. This approach, often dictated by level editors, limits creativity and leads to predictable, boxy environments. The author advocates for a more "sculptural" approach, emphasizing the continuous nature of 3D space and using tools that allow for more organic shaping of the environment. This shift would enable the creation of more immersive and surprising levels that move beyond the limitations of traditional room-based design.
The blog post "Space is not a wall: toward a less architectural level design" by Veit Heller elaborates on the author's perspective on a shift in the paradigm of level design, advocating for a move away from the conventional, architecturally driven approach. Heller argues that current level design methodologies often prioritize the creation of visually impressive spaces resembling elaborate architectural structures, treating the layout as a series of interconnected "walls" defining corridors and rooms. This approach, he contends, can lead to levels that, while aesthetically pleasing, may lack engaging gameplay and exploration possibilities. He posits that these spaces frequently become predictable and linear, akin to navigating a maze, thus limiting the player's freedom and diminishing the sense of discovery.
Instead, Heller proposes a design philosophy centered around the concept of space as a continuous and interconnected volume, rather than a collection of discrete, wall-defined areas. This involves thinking beyond the limitations of traditional architectural thinking and embracing a more organic and less rigidly structured approach to level creation. He suggests focusing on the interplay between negative space and the objects within it, allowing for emergent gameplay possibilities and encouraging exploration through environmental storytelling and strategically placed points of interest. The author uses the analogy of designing a playground, highlighting the importance of creating environments that encourage freeform interaction and playful exploration rather than prescribed paths and linear progression. This involves prioritizing the affordances of the environment – the inherent possibilities for action and interaction provided by the design – over a purely aesthetic or architectural approach.
Furthermore, Heller discusses the implications of this design philosophy for player agency and immersion. He argues that by moving away from the "wall" mentality, designers can create levels that feel more dynamic and less predictable, fostering a sense of wonder and discovery within the player. This shift in design thinking also necessitates a reconsideration of how narrative and gameplay elements are integrated into the level, moving away from contrived placements dictated by architectural constraints towards a more organic integration within the overall spatial design. The blog post emphasizes that this is not about abandoning aesthetics, but about finding a balance between visual appeal and functional gameplay space, where the environment itself contributes meaningfully to the player experience, promoting emergent behavior and a more profound sense of engagement. He concludes by suggesting that adopting this perspective on level design can lead to richer, more immersive, and ultimately more rewarding player experiences.
Summary of Comments ( 14 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44050295
Several Hacker News commenters agreed with the author's premise that over-architecting systems leads to rigidity and difficulty in adapting to change. Some discussed the challenges of balancing upfront design with emergent design, emphasizing the importance of iterative development and refactoring. One commenter highlighted the value of "Worse is Better" as a design philosophy, suggesting that a simpler, less perfect initial design that can be improved over time is often preferable to a complex, "perfect" design that is difficult to change. Another pointed out the connection to Conway's Law, noting how organizational structure influences system design, and how decentralization can lead to more organic, adaptable systems. The idea of "fitness functions" for system design also arose, with commenters suggesting that defining clear goals and metrics is crucial for effective evolution of a system. A few commenters offered practical examples of how they had encountered and addressed these issues in their own work.
The Hacker News post "Space is not a wall: toward a less architectural level design" generated a moderate discussion with several insightful comments revolving around the core themes of abstraction, complexity, and modularity in software design.
Several commenters agreed with the author's premise that over-abstraction can create unnecessary complexity. One commenter highlights the "false dichotomy" often presented between low-level and high-level design, suggesting a more nuanced approach is needed. They argue for a focus on "right-level" design, emphasizing that abstraction should serve a clear purpose and not be applied indiscriminately. Another commenter echoes this sentiment, using the analogy of building with prefabricated walls instead of individual bricks. While prefabrication offers some advantages, it can also limit flexibility and introduce unexpected complications when modifications are needed. This aligns with the original article's critique of architectural levels of abstraction that can obscure underlying details and make adaptations difficult.
The discussion also touched on the value of "boring technology." One commenter appreciates the author's pushback against the allure of complex solutions, suggesting that simple, well-understood tools are often preferable. They further argue that focusing on the core problem and using appropriate levels of abstraction can lead to more maintainable and adaptable systems.
Another commenter draws a parallel between the author's arguments and the concept of "Worse is Better" in software design. They suggest that embracing simplicity and focusing on core functionality can lead to more robust and adaptable systems in the long run, even if it means sacrificing some elegance or perceived sophistication initially.
A few commenters also explored the historical context of software design principles. One commenter mentioned the influence of Christopher Alexander's work on architecture and its relevance to software design. They point to Alexander's emphasis on patterns and organic order as a potential antidote to over-abstraction and rigid hierarchical structures in software.
Finally, some commenters offered practical advice related to the original article's themes. One commenter suggested that designers should focus on the "seams" of their systems, emphasizing the importance of well-defined interfaces and modularity. This approach aligns with the author's call for a less architectural, more nuanced approach to abstraction, where the connections between components are as carefully considered as the components themselves.
Overall, the comments on Hacker News provided a thoughtful and nuanced discussion of the article's core ideas, exploring the complexities of abstraction, modularity, and the importance of context-specific design decisions in software development.