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.