The Importance of Nothing: Using Negative Space in Level Design
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 07. 2016
- This 2014 session from Epic's Jim Brown covers the role of negative space in design theory, and show its applications to both game and level design. The principles of negative space design can impact almost every aspect of a game's development and affect the way that players consume our games.
GDC talks cover a range of developmental topics including game design, programming, audio, visual arts, business management, production, online games, and much more. We post a fresh GDC video every weekday. Subscribe to the channel to stay on top of regular updates, and check out GDC Vault for thousands of more in-depth talks from our archives.
Follow us on Twitter
/ official_gdc
Checkout our Facebook page for GDC exclusives
/ gamedevelopersconference
www.gdconf.com/
This talk on negative space is leagues better than any such lecture I had in art school back in the day. The implications to art and design in general are incredible.
29:30 was really striking, the way the player blends into the newer and fancier map design.
agreed
10:59 is a great sound effect for drinking water. Makes me thirsty.
Wow. This was probably the best spent upskill hour in my entire career, and I don't even work in game design - and it happened by accident.
It put words and theory on phenomenoms I intuited but always struggled communicating to others.
Great talk and good choice of examples. I especially want to emphasize that "increasing the size without changing anything else" is an awful idea. Th game mechanics aren't independent from scaling so in a way, it changes quite a lot actually.
it's scary how hard it is to design a good level, even when the level you're making is literally already designed xd
especially when tackling the most popular map. Call of duty has dealt with this time and time again. Even zombies modes where the actual game play is going through the same challenges.
Honestly. Level design is the hardest thing for me
great talk, this has been something I've had trouble communicating with my team and is exactly why i grey-box in tones which then helps to aid art implementation without destroying deliberate design considerations
a great talk with many good points brought up , simple negative colour contrast can make something a whole more attractive than maps with lots of detail and different textures to look "varied" , and is a problem with modern games they try to make their maps as packed as detailed as possible instead of focusing on what simply looks nice and attractive to play in
Battlefield 3 and onwards suffered a lot from that over-detailing. 3 was still kind of okay but later games have insane details everywherecombined with so many lines of sight and pathways that you simply can't process everything that's going on. Enemies get drowned in the clutter on the screen. Not very fun to cope with.
What a great presentation.
This Helped so much. Im starting an animated web series soon, and by thinking about the points made here I believe my environment design will be more readable. I think this applies to film as well as games considering you only have a split second to catch visuals over a few frames.
Thank you, Jim Brown!
It's one of the best GDC talks for me.
this is the biggest issue i have with bloodborne, theres just so much detailed clutter all over the environment that i find it hard to see whats going on or where to go next
git gud
Could be intentional (probably is). You could create a sense of claustrophobia and panic via oversaturated environments. BUT I actually think all of the souls game, Bloodborne included, have good use of negative space through usage of elevators. The elevators are lengthy, and allow the next area to be loaded in, but also creates some suspense or relaxation in the player.
I think it's very deliberate (and in tune with the game). The maps are twisty, confusing and convoluted; so you will get disoriented, lost and have to explore everywhere. One of the genius aspects of the souls games is that they never gave you (or required you to have) a map, since the level design was so meticulous. Very little dead space in Bloodborne maps, making them some of the best maps I can think of TBH (much more dead space in DS2 though and it feels so empty in comparison).
It is an issue in many AAA games. Visual pollution. Just because you can add two thousand details it doesn't necessarily mean you should. I am a subscriber of the believer that beauty lies in tiny details, and simplicity is a beautiful thing. More often than not, less is more (but of course, that also doesn't mean we as developers should be lazy and created poorly designed levels, both mechanically and visually). Yoshi's Island is a lesson of how to make simple, beautiful visuals and simple, fun level design, too. A masterpiece.
That being said, I think Bloodborne is hardly the biggest offender on this issue.
@@MrMadalien That is an interesting interpretation. It makes Bloodborne sound like a reverse Silent Hill, where the said series caused panic and stress by blocking your field of view with the fog (which was added to make running the game possible in the first place, but still).
Amazing, informational, and enlightening presentation! These are real findings, and Jim Brown did a fantastic job I feel explaining it all.
I think I finally found an explanation as to why a lot of people strongly disliked Halo Reach's forge world (Not all obviously. Chances are most people loved it) despite the technical improvements over Halo 3's forge. I don't think it was that all the objects were the same color, which caused everyone's maps to look the same. Honestly, if this was an issue then I'd say it was an issue in Halo 3's foundry also. Everything in foundry was either green or brown, and everything in forge world was either blue or grey. I'd say it's about even.
I think a much bigger problem was that the designers simply packed way too much detail into a single map. Granted, it was a huge map, but I'd say there's a chance that just made the problem worse in some respects, since the map was actually something like 5 maps stitched together. A lot of these maps are visible from one another, especially the higher areas, where I'm pretty sure you can see all 5 at once in certain places. That's 5 maps competing for your attention all at once, not to mention the skybox, waterfall, and patterns on the forerunner architecture. Simply put, the designers crammed so much detail into one map, there wasn't any room for the player to add any themselves without causing information overload.
Now, a much better forge map aesthetically is in my opinion the best and also one of the most underrated ones; Halo 3's Sandbox. Like foundry, it consists mostly of 2 colors. This time orange for the ground and building blocks, and black for the negative space, Which consists of the skybox and the outskirts of the map which is actually a death zone. What blows my mind to this day is that Sandbox's color choice is one of the most common complaints people have about the map. In my opinion it's the best out of any of the forge maps period. Oh and did I mention the map is huge? Not as huge as forge world granted. It's 3 separate maps compared to 5, but I'd say that's big enough. What's really nice though is that it manages to be that big without cramming too much detail. This is due to one of the maps doubling as the skybox, so when nothing's up there it's simply negative space, and another being a huge underground section completely cut off from the outside unless the player chooses to expose the tunnel connecting the two which is covered by a single block.
Please note, if somehow anyone actually made it this far, that I didn't say all this to make some point about how forge world is a terrible map and anyone who likes it should feel bad. I actually liked it too. They set out to create a map that was huge in scope and packed with detail, and they definitely succeeded. I'm just not sure that was the best call to make for a level editor, without giving the player the power to remove that detail to make room for their own.
Though obviously I think everyone agrees that Reach's forge had the vastly superior toolset compared to 3. I'm talking strictly about aesthetics here, not mechanics.
I loved Halo 3 Forge. It's one of the reasons I want to be a game designer. I would go up into the sandbox skybox and use the negative space intuitively, the ground was boring. So I would make platforms you can jump to, the gold holes. And just make little areas with weapons and I had hornets and banshees up there . People played my map and really like it. So ya, idk what forge world is though.
fantastic lecture. finally, i have explanation what makes Prey and Prey Mooncrash so different
I really like favela, I saw it as an opportunity to take advantage of the map being visually overloaded to sneak around better and sort of camouflage myself. I was able to quickly change buildings and lure people into a trapped location which I found to be most enjoyable. I do however agree that the Egyptian face was boring to look at and some great contrast options would have been placing the map in water so that you could bring out the blues as a sort of contrast to the walking space. The color options seemed really bland as well and with the asian version i noticed much more diverse color choices as well as the background contrast you pointed out.
Very great points and though a few I would question the authenticity of why a game succeeded (because personally people just get bored of linear gameplay and after call of duty when the bad manners started in people wanted to 1 vs 1 more frequent and a linear map provides the best opportunity for "skill" as it provides little choice and mostly focuses on who has the tightest reaction time vs. controller settings) ...and though i would question the pathing or graphics being that harsh an issue, they are very much things to consider in offering a cleaner more efficient and enjoyable game play as you mentioned.
Thank you for another great talk GDC!
Smash Bros. has this problem with a particular stage for me at least. Fountain of Dreams in Melee looks great, everything is clear and easy to see. In Smash Ultimate, they updated the graphics, and now the background is very cluttered with detail, and your characters can get lost in all the visual noise. The old school low polygon stage was much better.
This presentation is gold
I didn't see the dog...
Yeah, that's really bugging me too.
what an amazing channel i've stumbled upon
Outstanding!!
Beautiful talk 👏
so good. these are pro tips
Seriously an amazing talk. Definitely using this information to fine tune my map mods for games like CS and Insurgency.
this is why silhouetting is important when animating
As far as visuals go, I agree, but I have always hated the map layout of Face. I think the way the towers were designed was excellent, but I've always disliked the open paths with no cover where you can just get picked off by anyone and everyone.
so this talk is more about the silhouette and composition than negative space right?
I had an argument with a colleague artist about why I dont like pixel art in most games. And this guy pretty much perfectly explained why. Dont get me wrong, there are many good pixel art games, that look nice. But I feel like the style gets very noisy and unclear very quickly if youre not mindful of what youre creating, and I think many games fall into this pitfall, where your screen is just a noise. And same issue just as this person pointed out appears in AAA titles with flashy graphics, where everything looks great when you look at static picture, but in the actual game its just a visual mess. Thanks for this lecture, I will share it with my colleagues for sure
I understand his reasoning for using the Favela map in his examples but I have to disagree in that specific instance at least. He's right, over all, however the Favela map in my opinion does its job more than well enough. For one you have to understand you're not standing up on top of the map taking it in as a whole to play the game mode on the map within CoD. You're on the ground, you're running, you're scanning these positive spaces for enemy players, you're engaging yourself into those positive spaces. It's not meant to be straight forward, it's far more dynamic in that sense, in both pace and complexity of combat. If it were any more linear it would just be CS:GO with simple right angles; oh where are they at? The same gate they're always fucking at.
Again, just to clarify. I do understand though. The most popular maps are the small simple ones, because they're quick, rapid, and appeal to a broader range of audience. It's true in the example he shows, and it's also true for me personally, one of my favorite maps of all time is Nuketown CoD. Small simple to the point.
Again though, that's not to say that the other CoD maps in series were particularly bad.
18:52 That "figure ground reversal" image reminds me of the flash game SHIFT.
Good times.
Edit: Ooh, it also reminds me of Space is Key (which, I might add, has quite the fitting name given the subject of the talk).
From what I remember of Favela from Call of Duty was it's relatively poor and annoying layout. I would agree that it could be difficult to quickly read but it also had a maze like feel as well as some unbalanced gameplay with how it used verticality.
Yeah, as great as the talk was, he didn't give a great answer to the final question on way it was so popular in single player in contrast to it being so unpopular in the multiplayer, which i think you've nailed by pointing out it's maze like qualities. The problem with the maze like quality is that you have so many potential angles that you are exposed from at any given stage, but these angles are all corridors, meaning that if you are seen by the enemy from one of these angles (perhaps from an alley to your side), chances are that you are already completely in the enemy's line of sight, making his shot quicker and easier, meaning it's not your fault if you die and was certainly not down to his skill. This along with not being able to as easily read your surroundings, although the photo he used of favela didn't really show this tbh.
When playing favela in single player however, this maze like quality gives a narrative sense of disorientation and a claustrophobic atmosphere, that services theme in a way that's just not necessary or noticed in multiplayer of any maps. The fact that you're much stronger than the bots means that a shot from the side isn't fatal as it is in multiplayer, but is still nerve racking and is an issue that needs attending to. On top of this, bots act in a very different way to real people, so designing for them is different; they'll each feel better in different maps to each other. The cod bots are predictable, which means that their behaviour can be learnt and manipulated, so that the map can be mastered through trial and error. You figure out what order things come in from and where, you learn what is a good camping spot and for how long it's good, you learn how to flank the enemies and how to funnel them, and all this amounts to a satisfying journey of bringing order to its chaotic nature. You also need to execute your plan properly, as if you fuck up and some stage, the actions of the enemies become more chaotic and you're forced to improvise more. It's good shit! You just don't get this sort of thing in multiplayer though, so the map doesn't work for it.
I've personally always thought that different maps should be reserved for single and multiplayer (which it often is) and even for different game modes. Capture the flag just might not work in a map designed around death matches, and it just seems like lazy re-use of levels not to make your maps mode specific. Anyway, ramble over! Sorry about that
I agree that different game modes should have their own maps. COD biases a lot of it's mp maps off of single player levels and uses pretty much every map for every game mode which rarely works well.
MegapiemanPHD True. I think multiplayer cod really comes into its own on small maps with their more unique game modes like gun game and sticks and stones. These really accentuate its arcady feel
Can't tell if this a presentation on level design or photo composition.
But that's exactly what level design also encompasses: Guiding the player's eyes to look at important things whether it's a view/vista looking at a landmark in a singleplayer game or, in multiplayer, being able to tell where players are right in front of you.
sounds like I already knew that, except I've never called it negative space, but rather using contrasts and keeping things simple. it's a problem I remember seeing a lot when playing on far cry 2 custom maps, where you often had so much visual information (in addition to the maps being huge) that you had no idea where to go or where enemies are, and my favorite maps were those that were mostly made with basic grey / tan blocks with just a basic level of details to keep them from looking dull.
Still one of my favorite GDC talks of all time :]
About 20 minutes in I really started to understand this. Great talk
One criticism of this talk, Favela is a really poor choice to trash, it is beloved by a large Portion of the 50 million plus players of Modern Warfare 2. It is also a fairly obvious 3 lane map, with some scope in the middle to go between/over/under the lanes, facing worlds does not fit this standard template so is a poor point of comparison. There are some absolute stinkers in Modern Warfare 2, Favela is not one of them. There was a poor attempt at Halo 3's 'Narrows' in Halo 4, that might have been a good choice to contrast.
If I were to complain about this great video I would say the screenshot of favela is unfair. That map has a lot of nice buildings to go into that are lit well with clear entrances. You can have a heartbeat sensor, etc. It's playable but his point remains.
The issue is if you're looking at the heartbeat sensor/minimap you are not looking at your crosshairs, where the enemy should be.
This was certainly an outstanding talk!
Hey, Frank, can you change the colors in the ground material? Need to make gameplay area more clear. You just did it in one click? Sweet. Thanks, Frank. You environment artists, always trying to get away with it.
Frank, by the way, I loved UT 2003 Face. It's design was a mind-blowing revelation at the time. The next gen truly arrived. Architecture was 100 times more complicated and awesome. Boring-ass empty space was a thing of the past. Big open environments were now possible.
Finaly! The answer to why i hate remakes and newer games in general so much... this has far more wide reaching implications than i even imagined... fuck details.
you should specify - fuck detail for detail's sake that compromises visual design.
Combining objects into big readable chunks and then read the details on each chunk - that's basically how the state of art image recognition algorithm YOLO works.
Did the greeks have a concept for zero? I had understood it from some resource that the concept had originated out of arabs at an apex point in their empire?
I have to stop pausing to comment on videos. Seems to regularly be addressed.
My god this presentation seems pretentious. I agree with the methodology. But I can't consider facing worlds to be the penultimate example. It lacks game play depth present elsewhere. It lacks challenge for other mindsets other than high play skill honed in the environment of simplicity. That's pandering to a singular type.
The proportion is wrong @43:13 60.000 polys is a "461 x increase" not a "280 x increase"
Coders, go to the other side of game dev
Actually ... if you double the detail you roughly quadruple the tris defending on how you divide the model... So actually 280 x increase in detail is rather fitting term for 461 x increase in polygons. ;)
I love how with his voice and tonality he creates an atmosphere as if the fate of the world depends on the very words he is uttering :).
So how do u make an u make a urban multiplayer map without making it like favela
Maybe you could separate it by districts. Maybe each has a particular color scheme. Players would be able to tell where they are and where their enemies are intuitively while still being able to appreciate the detail INSIDE each district.
Hah goodness on the Face map, I remember loading into that more recent "Classic" version and just hard noticed how much bigger it was than I remembered from before.
I find it interesting that more games now are highlighting enemies with backglows in games now as a way to make them stand out.
It’s an ok talk, but there seems to be vast oversimplification of many topics and not a lot of rigor.
This is why I disable DOF, motion blur, volumetric fog/lighting, bloom, lens flare, chromatic aberration, and other such 'effects' in nearly every game.
Great video. Really wish the loud water swallowing noises were edited out.
Is this why those weird noise pattern camouflages exist?
If you're talking about digital camo, then no. Digital camo works because pixels actually look more blurred and less detailed from a distance than high-res blotches.
Nothing is darkness, and darkness is still something. In fact, darkness is the beginning of everything.
Idk examples seem kinda biased
Where was this guy when they made fortnite?
i don't understand the point about AI networks. one map is better because people didn't spam navigation points that only AI see?
I loved favela, facing worlds was garbage.
I wish the original devs behind CS:GO could have seen this talk.
NeonStorm5 Why can't they? Did they all die?
I dont' think "negative Space" is the right name for this way of design thinking.
Every thing that he said only apply to PvP maps, where simplicity is KING. Ppl even play on ultra low quality just to maximize FPS and be able to see more clearly the enemy.
Single play maps/level go in another completely different path.
Low Poly for Life
Who else did not see the dog !?
I wish there was a first or third person game with the same aesthetic as Monument Valley.
Wrong vid probably, but Journey, Flower and Abzu might be very similar to what u want.
17:53 what the fuck
Great presentation and a lot of good info about the design process, but a lot of what was said is pure bullshit.
Sorin Alexandru Cîrstea that was such a sucker punch of a sentence
Well, I kinda hate narrow-minded philosophies, and this guy seems to be full of them. All that talk about Facing Worlds being the pinnacle of level design makes me wanna puke.
Sorin Alexandru Cîrstea Definitely. I'm surprised more people haven't pointed this out. The speaker seems to have heard about a lot of important and interesting concepts, but not really understood them.
"Take a look at A, here's how bad it is. Now take a look at this same A, here's how great it is." Backing an analysis of a multiplayer ACTION game with STILL screenshots where too many times the "proof" exists purely in words written for a particular argument and not in the images themselves.
If anything, I always disliked such "popular" maps because of how dumbed down those felt: they basically turned you into an AI bot. For many overly competitive teenage gamers this, combined with low-poly textureless settings, might mean the pinnacle of level design; for me, this was an utterly boring, flat mechanical experience I avoided at all costs. Learning all the complexities of each level and working my way through sensory load was THE best part of shooters-and not at all moving my mouse to precisely land a headshot across a gray plane onto a bright blue dot.
It took *that* long to realize that face3 had issues? Face is probably my favorite UT map, face3 is probably my least favorite map, (Not just UT, but *period*. It was the reason I didn't buy UT2k4) and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that there were rumblings from the playtesters that should've clued them in
Map design isn't logo design.
Is the idea to always create a map that is an ideal for sporting? Not all games are going to be about shooting easy-to-see characters in a high contrast environment. You can take this guy's principles and reduce to far simpler situations than Facing Worlds.
A quick google search shows that more people liked favela than hated it.
11:03
5:04
I don`t get why anyone likes this talk. This seems to be a typical case of great words with very little substance behind them. You could swap out most of what he says for the complete opposite and it would make as much sense. At best, this is a highly debatable view on what the actual reasons are for the phenomena he describes. I doubt this talk will help anyone to make better games.
Imo he applies it to too much.
It's certainly a thing. When making an adventure game you want to point the player in the right direction through clear lines(the same rules that apply to say, pictures) and highlighting the things you want your player to notice.
The contrast between the ground and skybox is again, very important, know the play area. show a clear background.
None of this is wrong and is generally accepted game design.
Where imo he is wrong is that more choices and such in multiplayer maps is a bad thing.
Dust_2 from counter-strike isn't that easy of a map. It has many angles of attack and in each area several ways to set up.(minus short A).
The way he talks makes it seem that aim_ maps in counter-strike were some of the best PvP maps. Some have 2 blocks of space, some distance between said blocks and weapons. That's it.
The thing he's discussing isn't bad but he seems to want to apply it everywhere, including in things where it's less necessary or relevant and at a possible cost.
Everything he added above the standard accepted use of negative space I basically had problems with.
Why do you call empy space negative? It is wrong and therefore confusing.
Bruh acting like facing worlds is the holy grail of design. It's two bases. Looking at each other. The map sucks.