3D Level 2 Version 1 Feedback/Analysis

We each made another 3D level from the Unity 3D Lite Kit, and here's how it went. The objective was still to only block out a level, but it was still fun overall. I was challenged in the layout because of how to add stealth into the level. 

The playtests overall went alright with only a few issues. Everyone that played it said that it taught the mechanics to give the player a basic understanding of the mechanics of the level, but it wasn't a stealth level. Most people told me that they really liked my introduction to the level itself, and they also liked the first enemy introduction because it was taught right after you broke boxes, like in these examples.

What didn't work, for this playtest is the design of the level when I made this level I honestly didn't think to make side paths and really made my map feel super linear which is bad this time, so it makes a T this time which isn't as bad as a straight line. Really should have thought the right side through more.

My level's dislikes were mainly that it wasn't stealth and that it was very cramped. Players felt that I could have given the enemies more threat to them, also they always spot the player so that was the main complaint about lack of stealth. There was a game breaking bug where if you broke the breakable boxes at the start you could jump on top and jump out of the map.

One improvement I would want to make is about the length, My level has a good left side to teach mechanics, but the right side was rushed and didn't come out the way I wanted it too. I would love to improve the length of the right side and test the player's ability of movement and puzzle solving. 

My level has good progression, but not enough material to progress through. Like I made a great tutorial left side of the map but got rushed on the right side. I could have had more puzzle sections to make sure that the player knew the basis of movement and puzzles, I could have had a secret for the player to discover. 

I may have put too few enemies throughout the level, they weren't intimidating and they need to be placed more frequently to make the player avoid combat. 

When playing through the level, there was a pretty clear critical path that players went on. 

My overall flow of this level was with rooms that taught the player something when they progress through them like the first one was jumping, the second one was enemies, the third room moving platforms/switches, etc. 

My level was medium length and linear, but I tried to get the basic teaching mechanics in there. This could mean a very boring level, but it depends on how you present these linear levels, and it seemed like others liked it for what it was, even without most of it being stealth. 

For every person that played my level, a few of them asked me where to go at one part, because I didn't yell it at them when they pushed a switch, but other than that my playtesters knew exactly where to go. 

I then interviewed Sam, one of my playtesters and asked him what I discussed above. 

What went right? 

The level even though it wasn't really stealthy, did teach the player the fundamentals in a very approachable way. 

What went wrong? 

I was able to get out of your map, but I chose to continue and play it to the end, lack of stealth elements, and more pathways. 

Were the challenges presented appropriately to the skill level of the player? 

There was an even distribution of enemies throughout the level, but if the level was longer you could have presented more difficult situations for the player to navigate through rather than fight.

Was it obvious where you were supposed to go? 

It was obvious because of the signals throughout the level pointing to where to go next.

3D Level 1 Version 2 Feedback/Analysis

We each made a 3D level from the Unity 3D Lite Kit, and now we're making an update to what we changed and how it went. The objective was still to only block out a level, but it was still fun overall. I was challenged in the layout because of how the blocks act in a 3D space, I'm taking 180 but that's more for coding and not for level building. 

The playtests overall went pretty well with only a few issues. Everyone that played it said that it taught the mechanics to give the player a basic understanding of the mechanics of the level, but it was still short, but not as bad as last time and, I was still told that people would play more of the level if I had it. Most people told me that they really liked my introduction of the jump tutorial in the level itself, and they also liked the first enemy introduction because it was taught right after you broke boxes, like in this examples.

What didn't work, for this playtest is the design of the level when I made this level I honestly didn't think to make twists and turns, so it's just a straight line. Really should have thought that one through more.

My short level overall didn't really have dislikes, people liked what I had I just had to add more length.  

One improvement I would want to make is about the length, it's a linear hallway with a few rooms teaching the player the basic mechanics. When I introduced the spitter enemy I didn't introduce it alone which was a mistake, because the player doesn't know how to counter it.

My level has good progression, but not enough material to progress through. Like I could have had another jump section to make sure that the player knew the jump mechanic, I also could have had more objects like switches and moving platforms.

I may have put too many enemies as a first encounter even though they could be one hit, it could be intimidating and they need to be eased into the combat and not thrown in.

When playing through the level, there was a pretty clear critical path that players went on. 

My overall flow of this level was with rooms that taught the player something when they progress through them like the first one was jumping, the second one was health and enemies, the third room is poison. 

My level was short and linear, but I tried to get the basic teaching mechanics in there. This could mean a very boring level, but it depends on how you present these linear levels, and it seemed like others liked it for what it was. 

For every person that played my level, none of them asked me where to go, but they did get purposely out of my map, but other than that my playtesters knew exactly where to go. 

I then interviewed Sam, one of my playtesters and asked him what I discussed above. 

What went right? 

The level even though it was short, did teach the jump mechanic and the melee in a very approachable way. 

What went wrong? 

That wasn't a real tutorial to first introduce the player to the spitter. The jump part could have been too easy, but it also forces the player to jump so it does its purpose. 

Were the challenges presented appropriately to the skill level of the player? 

I may have put too many enemies towards the last encounter, my intention was to have them fight an enemy then have them fight the first encounter in my level, but that didn't happen. 

Was it obvious where you were supposed to go? 

It was very obvious because my level is a straight hallway that isn't that long in the first place. 

3D Level 1 Version 1 Feedback/Analysis

We each made a 3D level from the Unity 3D Lite Kit, it was only a block out level, but it was still fun overall. I was challenged in the layout because of how the blocks act in a 3D space, I'm taking 180 but that's more for coding and not for level building. 

The playtests overall went pretty well with only a few issues. From most of the people that played it said that it taught the mechanics of the level, but it was extremely short and that they would play more if I had it. Most people told me that they really liked my introduction of the jump tutorial in the level itself, like in this example.

I didn't teach the player how to break boxes, so they didn't know how to hit enemies which would cause new players some issues. 

What didn't work, for this playtest is the design of the level when I made this level I forgot about the player being able to break out of the map, so that's what happened when playtesters purposely broke out. Like right here as an example. 

My really short level overall didn't really have dislikes, people liked what I had I just had to add more length.  

One improvement I would want to make is about the length, it's a linear hallway with a few rooms teaching the player the basic mechanics. I wanted to teach the player about the breakable boxes so that they knew how to fight a little better than what I did on my map, I wanted to put more into the enemies.

My level has good progression, but not enough material to progress through. Like I could have had another jump section to make sure that the player knew the jump mechanic, I also could have had more objects like switches and moving platforms.

I may have put too many enemies as a first encounter even though they could be one hit, it could be intimidating and they need to be eased into the combat and not thrown in.

When playing through the level, there was a pretty clear critical path that players went on. 

My overall flow of this level was with rooms that taught the player something when they progress through them like the first one was jumping, the second one was health and enemies, the third room is poison. 

My level was very short and linear because I didn't manage my time well enough, but I tried to get the basic teaching mechanics in there. This could mean a very boring level, but it depends on how you present these linear levels, and it seemed like others liked it for what it was. 

For every person that played my level, none of them asked me where to go, but they did get purposely get out of my map, but other than that my playtesters knew exactly where to go. 

I then interviewed Sam, one of my playtesters and asked him what I discussed above. 

What went right? 

The level even though it was short, did teach the jump mechanic and the melee in a very approachable way. 

What went wrong? 

That wasn't a real tutorial to first introduce the player to melee like with the breakable boxes. The jump part could have been too easy, but it also forces the player to jump so it does its purpose. 

Were the challenges presented appropriately to the skill level of the player? 

I may have put too many enemies for the first encounter, my intention was to have them fight an enemy then have them fight the first encounter in my level, but that didn't happen. 

Was it obvious where you were supposed to go? 

It was very obvious because my level is a straight hallway that isn't that long in the first place. 

270 Mega Man Map 2 Analysis

We each made a Megaman intermediate level for someone who is slightly new to the series, my level was mostly that but I was blinded by my own gaming skill compared to a beginner and made a few sections confusing on the powerups because I didn't fully explain the extent of the powerup. 

The playtests overall went pretty well with only a few issues. From most of the people that played it said that it was fun and that they would play again. Most people told me that they really liked my use of the powerups in the level itself, like in this section.

 

They told me that the powerups worked well for the level, but there were points where I didn't fully teach something and in turn, players were confused.  

What didn't work, for this playtest we had to incorporate powerups, I tried really hard to wrap the level around these, and in turn, the enemy placements were few and far between. I had an issue where an enemy placement actually allowed players to skip a tutorial for a powerup due to immunity frames. It happened in this particular level.

This same room had the most dislikes out of them all. Peoples biggest reason for the hate is because I taught them how to climb with the plunger ability, but I never taught them how to cross spike gaps with it. But I did do a great job of introducing the dash powerup, by making most jumps require it, so I always gave energy to the player. 

One improvement I would want to make is about the length, it's only 8-9 rooms but each room takes a moment to get through. I wanted to teach the powerups a little better than what I did on my map, I wanted to put more into the enemies, but we were put on a forest theme. 

Most of the level was good progression, but I messed up on the ending sequence, the ending just felt a little empty, and if you didn't follow the subtle story throughout the map, then you wouldn't see that the forest burned down.

I made some enemies shoot at the player from the start, and on that second platform, they would get hit by shots instead of just avoiding them. 

When playing through the level, there was a pretty clear critical path that players went on. 

My overall flow of this level was with rooms that took time to go through, most of them had you going from top to bottom or bottom to top. 

My level was very linear with no real alternate paths to go on, this could mean a very boring level, but it depends on how you present these linear levels, and it seemed like others liked it as well. 

For every person that played my level, none of them asked me where to go, but they did get confused on the spike part that I said earlier, but other than that my playtesters knew exactly where to go. 

I then interviewed Sam, one of my playtesters and asked him what I discussed above. 

What went right? 

The level has a good beginning portion to ease the player in, I felt like I knew how to fight some of the enemies after their first encounter. 

What went wrong? 

That spike part was hard, wasn't much guidance. I also ran out of ammo and couldn't progress to the end of the level. 

Were the challenges presented appropriately to the skill level of the player? 

I would say that the pacing is good all the way to the end, but like I said that ending needs to be tuned a little. 

Was it obvious where you were supposed to go? 

The only part that was confusing was the spike pit, other than that the level was straight forward. 

270 Mega Man Map 1 Version 2 Analysis

We each made a Megaman tutorial level for someone new to the series, my level was mostly that but I was blinded by my own gaming skill compared to a beginner and made the few levels towards the end a little too difficult. 

The playtests overall went pretty well with only a few issues. From most of the people that played it said that it was fun and that they would play again. Most people told me that they really liked my idea of this part of the level. 

They told me this because it teaches you how to fight a certain type of enemy. I laid out those enemies like that for the rest of the level, it worked really well. 

What didn't work, for the previous playtest we had to create difficulty, this playtest we had to implement changes suggested by others. The only problem is that difficulty is very subjective and I consider myself better than average so I may have made some of the ending rooms a little too hard for the beginner type player. The room that had the most controversy is this one.

This room had the most mixed view of like to dislike out of them all. Peoples biggest reason for the hate is that the miner's attacks are hard to avoid and he starts to attack right away, but people loved the layout of the room because you can avoid the miner's attacks, but even then it can be hard. 

One improvement I would want to make is about the length, it's only 8-9 rooms but each room takes a moment to get through. I want to add a better story to this because plenty of people questioned why my level went from western to ruins? I would say that the story was you chasing a band of bandits into a mining expedition and instead of riches they found a ruins type area. 

Most of the level was good progression, but I messed up on the ending sequence, like with this room. 

I made some enemies shoot at the player from the start, and on that second platform, they would get hit by shots instead of just avoiding them. 

When playing through the level, there was a pretty clear critical path that players went on. 

My overall flow of this level was with rooms that took time to go through, most of them had you going from top to bottom or bottom to top. 

My level was very linear with no real alternate paths to go on, this could mean a very boring level, but it depends on how you present these linear levels, and it seemed like others liked it as well. 

For every person that played my level, none of them asked me where to go, or got confused on any part, so my playtesters knew exactly where to go. 

I then interviewed Sam, one of my playtesters and asked him what I discussed above. 

What went right? 

The level has a good beginning portion to ease the player in, I felt like I knew how to fight some of the enemies after their first encounter. 

What went wrong? 

That ending was pretty challenging, but with some tuning that could be fixed, it also doesn't feel fully western. 

Were the challenges presented appropriately to the skill level of the player? 

I would say that the pacing is good all the way to the end, but like I said that ending needs to be tuned a little. 

Was it obvious where you were supposed to go? 

The only part that could be confusing in any capacity would be the pitfall into the next part of the level because not everybody likes friendly pits. 

CAGD 270 SimpleDnDMap 2 Version 2 Feedback

Critical Error is the final map in a 3-map sequence. This was the level that challenges the players the most, and it tests what you've learned along the way. 

When my group played the map, they beat it and didn't have too much difficulty. The ranger almost died on 2 separate occasions which was a little cool to watch. Overall when progressing through the map, they weren't stopped on any one enemy for too long which helped smooth out the gameplay a little.

When going through the level the ranger was taking a beating, but every time I tried to fight the warrior it was no use, because of the insane defense stat. My map was still a little too long, so I had to cut an encounter short to make it in time for feedback. Because of my items being really good, the group absolutely murdered the boss without any challenge.

There were many things that I could improve with the map. One thing was the hallways, they were telling me to remove them entirely because they take away from the open rooms. I was told that the items I had were balanced in a good way, besides the x2 damage. I underestimated that powerup and thought that the boss could tank hits. I found out that they were hitting for around 50 damage, this was half the boss’s health which then set them up for a very short easy fight. Some rooms just felt a little longer than others and that hurt the pacing of the game a little. 

Enemies were properly balanced towards the player attack this whole time, so it was a, who rolled higher deal for the enemies. Nothing felt underpowered, besides the fact that the intermediate level buffed their defense and attack, which made the enemies that I had practically irrelevant.    

I didn't set up enemies properly to really test the items that I gave each class. I had plenty of other items that got used, but I gave each class an item, and they never went through with it. Because of the strength of the players off the bat, my enemies didn't stand a chance, and because of this the player never used their items until the boss room.

Again, to my knowledge, I believe I put appropriate challenges for the players, but with the stats from the previous level the enemies in my level were able to take a few hits, but couldn't return hits. 

When my players were playing through the level, they had a clear critical path. 

The overall flow of the level was a hallway to a big room and repeat, this didn't provide super smooth gameplay. Because of the uneven pacing, my players got a little bored, I think. 

Were there circulation elements? Yes, in the form of hallways, these cause conflict and I took advantage of them on multiple occasions throughout the map. 

In my map it was a straight line from one side to the other, with rooms along the way. It was very obvious where the players had to go. 

We had to work in teams of 3 for this project and trying to put a vision for a map you want in front of 2 other people is difficult without getting many changes to suit everyone's needs. The intermediate level and myself I guess had miscommunication, because of their players being op for my level.

This map taught me a little more about teamwork and how this work could have it’s downsides, I thought I made a decent map with decent items, but with the stat limits that were set, and me not giving the enemies a unique quality to them my level was not successful as a final area. 

CAGD 270 DnD Map 2 Feedback

My group tested a game called “Critical Error.” In this game, the players are boarded in their space ship and were forced down into the basement cell. Their objective is to escape from confinement and retake the ship from their hijackers.

My group when they played, seemed to like the concept and the gameplay. I set up camera’s that the crew would have used to watch that cell, but in this situation, it was used against them. They had to strategize their movement routes to avoid the camera's line of sight. They could also disable camera’s which they liked, they also liked having to strategize around the camera’s lines of sight, it gave them something to worry about along with the alien intruders. There were also chests in the map, these rewarded the players with one of 6 unique items you didn’t know what item you had until you rolled a die.

I had a few things that went wrong in this map when my group was traversing the map to escape, the cameras were an obstacle which you had to roll to disable…I made the number way too high for it to be fair. When they fail to disable a camera, a guard was alerted to their position, this caused frustration and a loss of time. One major problem was when my group made it to the start of my 2^nd map, I realized that the map was taking too much time so I had to skip them straight to the boss to save time. I tried to make these items as strong as possible, because I made the boss really difficult because I made the items really good to offset this. The items weren’t enough for the boss fight, and since they were random, some of the items that I hoped they would have they actually didn’t. So, my group didn’t beat the boss that I set up and it was purely because of the difficulty scale. It’s like I designed a boss for experienced veterans, but the people actually fighting it are rookies.  

I was given some great feedback from my group about what to improve for the next iteration. I was told to reduce the amount of camera’s, it just seemed a little too unrealistic and got repetitive over time. I was also told to lower the roll to disable the camera by a large margin because I made it way too high. I was also told to balance the boss better since it was very powerful. They almost killed it, but I made the attack really high with no real way to block it, besides one of the six items which negated the damage.

When my group fought the enemies in my level, they had a tough time but didn’t take damage so I believe that it was a stating problem on my end.

Players were taught the mechanics of the level before being thrown into it, like how to disable cameras and how to open chests among other actions.

I believe that I put appropriate challenges for the group as they progressed through the ship. The only thing that I will say again, is that I didn’t provide a really fair challenge for the final boss.

There were plenty of guards blocking the path to the next area so it made the flow of the game very slow paced and not enjoyable.

The critical path was very obvious to the players as they progressed through the map.

The map was mostly hallways and a few open rooms, so there was plenty of conflicts that happened in the tight corridors.

It was very obvious where my players were supposed to go because it was a linear spaceship. They went straight up to the elevator and then went back to the front of the ship to confront the big bad boss.

I wanted to balance the enemies in this map more, and that’s what I’m looking forward to doing with my group.