What makes a good level?

[MaxGamz]

I'm trying to design a level but I have been having problems thinking of ways to make it fun. I am not much of a gamer; however, I still love the idea of making games. What type of experiences do you guys have in playing platformers and what do you enjoy most about them? What makes a level interesting, engaging, and what makes you want to come back to the game in the future?

[zorg]

The level shouldn't be deliberately designed to frustrate people, for one, although it might be hard defining the difference between frustrating and challening in a generalized way that would apply to all types of players.

For the last part of the question, for me specifically, i went back to multiple games because either/or
- It looked good so i wanted to see more of it,
- It handled well so i didn't feel like it wasn't for me,
- It had compelling storytelling that made me invested in playing it through,
- It promised me some reward for doing things, be it whatever extra challenge levels might give you (exploration incentive, time attack incentive aka complete it in under some time limit, or more difficult ones like no death runs or even more complicated stuff like don't be on the ground for too long so you build up a chain of some collectible...)

Speaking of Celeste, i do recommend at least looking at some gameplay footage of that, as well as some other games like either Mario on the more casual end of the scale to stuff from Edmund McMillen et. al. like Super Meat Boy or The End is Nigh on the more unforgivable end of the scale.

By the way, lot of these criteria that i mentioned above aren't just for platformer games, of course.

There can also be many many other things that might capture a person's interest, whether it be the art style itself, or the sound design, or whatever else; for example, i never really noticed how intricate the sound design of Oddworld Abe's Oddysee and Abe's Exodus was, two of my favourite platformers, until i learned that a person without sight played through it only using sound cues... because the game had such detailed ones, they could tell just about everything about what was on the screen and where their character was at any given moment.

...mini-essay over.

[MaxGamz]

The level shouldn't be deliberately designed to frustrate people, for one, although it might be hard defining the difference between frustrating and challening in a generalized way that would apply to all types of players.

For the last part of the question, for me specifically, i went back to multiple games because either/or
- It looked good so i wanted to see more of it,
- It handled well so i didn't feel like it wasn't for me,
- It had compelling storytelling that made me invested in playing it through,
- It promised me some reward for doing things, be it whatever extra challenge levels might give you (exploration incentive, time attack incentive aka complete it in under some time limit, or more difficult ones like no death runs or even more complicated stuff like don't be on the ground for too long so you build up a chain of some collectible...)

Speaking of Celeste, i do recommend at least looking at some gameplay footage of that, as well as some other games like either Mario on the more casual end of the scale to stuff from Edmund McMillen et. al. like Super Meat Boy or The End is Nigh on the more unforgivable end of the scale.

By the way, lot of these criteria that i mentioned above aren't just for platformer games, of course.

There can also be many many other things that might capture a person's interest, whether it be the art style itself, or the sound design, or whatever else; for example, i never really noticed how intricate the sound design of Oddworld Abe's Oddysee and Abe's Exodus was, two of my favourite platformers, until i learned that a person without sight played through it only using sound cues... because the game had such detailed ones, they could tell just about everything about what was on the screen and where their character was at any given moment.

...mini-essay over.

I think having little secrets in the game to make every playthrough feel more unique might be helpful too. To help me in my research I started playing around with the original Super Mario Bros. To this day I can't get past world 3 but I was surprised by how many secret rewards there were in some of the levels. However I don't want to rip off of SMB

[Bobble68]

I think having little secrets in the game to make every playthrough feel more unique might be helpful too. To help me in my research I started playing around with the original Super Mario Bros. To this day I can't get past world 3 but I was surprised by how many secret rewards there were in some of the levels. However I don't want to rip off of SMB

There is a fine line between taking inspiration from something and ripping it off entirely - a lot of the best games borrow and remix mechanics and ideas from each other. For instance, pretty much all experience point systems can trace their lineage back to Dungeons and Dragons, which wasn't (at the time) even a video game. A lot of developers probably aren't even aware of this, and are just copying off of games who copied off of games who copied Dnd. However, there are also loads of ways levelling systems can work, from being just another collectable resource in Minecraft, to being tied to unlocking abilities as you progress, like in [insert triple-A game here].
I mean hell, even copying something directly can have value if you can do it better, or put it in an environment that compliments it better.

Pretty much all aspects of game design are like that, including level design - though I think it's a mistake to consider game mechanics and level design as separate disciplines. When trying to make a level, think about the mechanics you already have and how they can used or combined in new and interesting ways.

I think it goes without saying that there's no single answer and a lot more that goes into good level design (visuals, story etc.), though I think the most important thing to consider is not being too repetitive - even the most interesting designs can become boring if you do the exact same thing many times. If you can't think of anything new with the mechanics you have, it's probably either time to end your game or throw in something new.

Anyways, that was a long tangent, good luck with your game development!

[pgimeno]

I mean hell, even copying something directly can have value if you can do it better, or put it in an environment that compliments it better.

Or you can add some new mechanics to it - like mari0 by Stabyourself.

[RNavega]

I'm trying to design a level but I have been having problems thinking of ways to make it fun.

What is your game about, what mechanics do you have in there?

[Azzla]

Matthew Devander has an excellent video that goes into detail about "honest" level design (more particularly puzzle design). The word honesty here essentially reflects an idea that the level designer's job isn't working to inconvenience the player. The designer doesn't create puzzle solutions from contrivance, that is to say, your levels should not be arbitrary assemblages of obstacles to overcome. This is common in old-school point&click adventure games, where often the puzzles essentially boil down to "a series of keys to unlock a series of doors".

Here's another talk by Jonathan Blow that dives deeper into the role of a designer. I really like his concept of the designer as an explorer of sorts, or a captain of the vessel, rather than strictly the creator. Say for example, you have an interesting and unique idea for a platformer mechanic. There are surely some compelling level designs you could make from that mechanic, but you don't know what they are yet. Rather than trying to "force" a level into existence, you are trying to "discover" it by playing around, fiddling a bit, trying things out to see if you strike gold. Another useful tool is to remember "less is more" - remove extraneous clutter from your levels and try to really hone in on one specific idea. Obstacles that aren't core to the level concept serve only to decrease its clarity or increase that "arbitrary inconvenience" factor.

Great game design is quite the rabbit hole and a very difficult skill. Most discussions on these forums are programming or engineering related, which is certainly important, but I think we developers sometimes forget that every great game needs thoughtful and skillful design principles behind it. I've certainly been guilty of building a game that rested on very little foundation - just a compilation of systems and mechanics I thought were cool without any deliberate design goals or intentionality.

TLDR; Principles I try to keep in mind:
- The designer is an 'explorer' in the space of your game systems - discover what is compelling about it, rather than trying to force something compelling by artifice.
- What is the player supposed to feel while experiencing your game/level/story/mechanic? How can you incite that emotion?
- Don't expect the player to find the fun on their own, help them see where it is (without over-tutorializing).
- The simpler and more focused a game/level concept is, usually the better. Simpler does not necessarily mean less systems/mechanics (though it often does), but less concepts competing for the player's attention.