作者：Christopher Totten
在過去幾年中，我發(fā)現(xiàn)游戲行業(yè)似乎樂于將建筑學作為輔助我們執(zhí)行設計的一個潛在領域。作為擁有兩個建筑學位的游戲開發(fā)者，我當然也看到了這兩個領域之間的聯(lián)系。我在還是一名建筑學本科生時就開始與朋友制作小型電子游戲——使用我在課堂上所用的設計軟件來繪制游戲的美術內(nèi)容。因我一些工作室伙伴的建議，我開始在自己的課堂在項目上運用我所學到的游戲設計知識。我認為建筑學與游戲一樣，與其用戶之間具有象征性的關系，并且設計精良的游戲關卡與建筑大師Frank Lloyd Wright、Le Corbusier、I.M. Pei等人的作品也有異曲同工之妙。我在這兩個領域的研究集中體現(xiàn)在一篇關于游戲與建筑學交集的畢業(yè)論文中。畢業(yè)之后我成了一名游戲開發(fā)者，并繼續(xù)研究建筑理論對關卡設計的運用。這項工作令我撰寫出了多篇論文，展開了多次大會演講，并且現(xiàn)在還出版了一本書。
Cover（from gamasutra)
《An Architectural Approach to Level Design》這本書由CRC Press于6月12日出版，整合了建筑學和關卡設計領域的空間設計理論。本書通過建筑學情境和歷史探索了關卡設計原則，為學者和游戲開發(fā)專業(yè)人士提供了有用的信息。
本文摘錄了這本書的一些片段，呈現(xiàn)了可運用于實際關卡設計的基本建筑學元素和一些我自己的游戲玩法和設計日志的插圖。這些章節(jié)便于讀者進一步探索視覺傳達的方法，創(chuàng)造玩家的情感反應，鼓勵社交互動以及其他對游戲世界來說的重要之事。
看待關卡設計的方法——第1章：建筑學與關卡設計簡史
為了全面理解關卡設計中的空間設計原則，我們有必要分析一下現(xiàn)實世界的建筑和電子游戲的慣例。Hal Box，F(xiàn)AIA，Emeritus教授及前德克薩斯州大學建筑學院院長曾主張基于研究和分析來看待建筑學這種教育形式。在這種情況下，“看待”不僅僅用于描述視覺的使用，還可用于處理令建筑與眾不同的空間、形式、情境化以及歷史元素。
對于關卡設計師來說，這種“看待”可能改變我們對之前游戲關卡的認識——有好也有壞。這樣做可能會破壞一些游戲玩家的普遍習慣。例如，在玩游戲過程中“玩家不會向上看”。作為設計師，游戲空間的垂直性可能成為確立一個壯觀場景，或者向玩家傳遞方面的一個重要元素。同理，作為玩家，我們會很本能地直接奔向下一個行動場景而不是暫停下來探索游戲環(huán)境。設計師應該以微妙的方法引導游戲環(huán)境節(jié)奏——在玩家路徑中布置敘事元素或者用獎勵來刺激探索行為。
Box在自己所著的《像建筑師那樣思考》一書中提出了探索和理解一橦建筑的十種方法：
1.了解建筑落成的原因，它的作用，以及它現(xiàn)在的情況。
2.在你四處走動時向上看——注意視覺元素，形式層次，以及建材。
3.通過大小、形狀以及它同光線、聲音和其他空間的交互來感受其建筑空間。
4.用你的眼睛理解建筑結構的能力，以及該結構如何托起建筑。
5.確定建材在壓縮或張馳上的表現(xiàn)，或者它們是重量型還是輕量型的。
6.確定建筑是以何種材料如何構造起來的。
7.檢查該建筑在歷史上的先例。
8.分析建筑元素的構圖、比例以及節(jié)奏。
9.觀察建筑與其背景是否和諧。
10.分析該建筑為何有別于其他建筑。
顯然，這些問題并不全都適用于游戲關卡。雖然關卡的場景藝術可以表示壓縮或張馳的結構，游戲藝術本身卻并非如此。同理，許多游戲關卡并非由游戲引擎中的剛體對象所決定，因此不會因為引擎的物理系統(tǒng)而崩潰。但是，許多此類觀察法在其當前形式下似乎也可運用于游戲關卡，或者可以稍微調(diào)整使之符合我們的用途。在這種情況下，我們可以說關卡設計師能夠用以下方法來改變自己的觀察方法：
1.確定空間所發(fā)生的玩法。游戲機制支持什么情況？
2.在四處走動時向上看——注意視覺元素，尤其是與周圍環(huán)境形成對比或者脫穎而出的美術元素。還要注意向下看——這個空間是否顛倒地運用垂直感從而令你產(chǎn)生危機感？
3.通過大小、形狀以及它與光線、聲音和其他空間的交互情況來感受游戲空間。體會一下該空間的照明或聲音條件讓你產(chǎn)生什么感覺？
4.分析關卡的節(jié)奏。關卡是否會快速地在你面前自動呈現(xiàn)，還是讓你進行探索？它們是必須關卡還是會為探索行為提供額外獎勵？
5.這個關卡是否反映了一種玩法風格，還是支持多種玩法？（游戲邦注：例如，死亡模式的地圖是否為狙擊手、進攻型玩家，防御型等玩家預留了位置？游戲關卡適用于野蠻人，但卻不適用于魔法師？）
6.空間如何表達游戲中的故事？其背景或者探索關卡能否讓你了解游戲世界？敘事事件是圍繞玩家而編寫，還是說只有過場動畫？
7.檢查之前是否存在類似的玩法先例？這些游戲采用了哪種空間體驗？
8.分析場景藝術元素的結構、比例和節(jié)奏。
9.關卡幾何結構與角色的行動能力相比起來情況如何？這一切均在角色可操縱的范圍內(nèi)，還是說關卡空間會對其形成挑戰(zhàn)？是否存在超出角色能力范圍的東西？如果是，游戲是否提供了能夠擴展這些能力的方法？
10.哪些場景藝術元素是重復的？它們是否具有交互性？如果是，它們是否會響應特定的玩法機制？
用這些方式來看待關卡設計，以及本章節(jié)中其余部分內(nèi)容中的建筑和游戲空間先例，這將有助于引導我們探索關卡設計中的空間設計原則。
關卡設計工作流——章節(jié)2：關卡設計的工具和技巧
美國建筑師Louis Sullivan常被譽為摩天大廈的創(chuàng)造者，他曾說過“形式要遵從功能”。Sullivan以這個格言確立了一個建筑學現(xiàn)代派的主導原則?，F(xiàn)代派是二十世紀早期強調(diào)創(chuàng)造形式源自功能的建筑這一主張所定義的建筑學運動。在現(xiàn)代建筑中，裝飾物通常是建筑本身或者具有某項用途的產(chǎn)品，而不只是純粹為了美學效果而存在。與Sullivan相同，Le Corbusier也曾說過，“房子是居住的機器?！彼脑S多建筑設計與Frank Lloyd Wright、Walter Gropius、Louis Sullivan等人的作品一樣，關注的是有目的地為居住者創(chuàng)造一種體驗。
關卡設計也同此理。在關卡設計中，開發(fā)者心中通常會有一個特定的體驗目標。在2008年的一次采訪中，Valve關卡設計師Dario Casali指出創(chuàng)造關卡設計理念時“體驗是關鍵”。在本章節(jié)早期部分，我們討論了與用戶如何使用游戲空間，以及設計師如何通過空間向用戶傳達信息有關的關卡設計目標。這些體驗式目標能夠決定我們關卡設計師如何構造空間：形式遵從功能。
在這個部分，我們將討論一些包含相同工具的工作流程，我們的切入點就是如何將“形式遵從功能”嵌入游戲設計。
形式遵從核心機制
游戲設計可以通過核心機制這個理念來表現(xiàn)形式遵從功能。核心機制通常被定義為玩家在整個游戲過程中所執(zhí)行的基本操作。游戲設計師Aki Jarvinen在自己的博士論文中曾創(chuàng)造了一個以核心機制為中心，即設計師從動詞入手的設計方法。如果你將核心機制視為玩家在游戲中的基本動作，就能夠理解構造每款游戲獨特體驗的基本元素了。例如，《超級馬里奧》就可以說是關于跳躍的游戲。而《塞爾達傳說》的主題就是探索，《Katamari Damacy》就是翻滾，《憤怒的小鳥》就是彈射。從這個核心開始，其他添加的動作定義了最終游戲產(chǎn)品的規(guī)則。
在設計關卡時，心中存在一個類似的核心機制是一個必要之舉。許多新設計師認為各個關卡都應該遵從游戲的核心機制，但我們也可以確定關卡核心機制從而令每個關卡都呈現(xiàn)獨特性。這方面的例子就是Valve的《軍團要塞2》國的Badwater Basin關卡（詳見下圖）。
fig 2-43(from gamasutra)
（這是來自《軍團要塞2》的Badwater Basin規(guī)劃圖表。地圖上標注了RED和BLU隊的基地，以及這兩個基地之間的主要循環(huán)區(qū)域和BLU檢查點。）
在這個關卡中，游戲的Builders League United（或稱BLU）隊必須通過一輛軌道上的礦車向?qū)κ諶eliable Excavation Demolition（或稱RED)隊的基地投擲一個炸彈。Payload模式的礦車機制采用了《軍團要塞2》基于團隊的第一人稱射擊機制的標準并進行了一些調(diào)整。這不但改變了玩法機制，還改變了關卡空間幾何條件。
Casali所舉的一個例子就是關卡中的隧道。在關卡的第一個原型中，設計師將礦道制作成他們運用于其他基本地圖的標準寬度。但是，在測試含礦車機制的關卡時，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)隧道必須加寬才能同時容納玩家和礦車。這看似一個小調(diào)整，但卻可以避免玩家因被礦車堵塞在隧道中而產(chǎn)生的憤怒情緒（詳見下圖）。
fig 2-44(from gamasutra)
（調(diào)整Badwater Basin中的隧道寬度可以讓玩家和礦車更好地通過關卡，并且比較不容易削弱攻擊方團隊的玩法。）
作為關卡設計師，我們的職責就是設計玩家角色與其他玩法元素如何通過關卡。當關卡空間可舒適地容納參數(shù)時，玩家就能夠比較輕松地穿越關卡。我們在之后的章節(jié)中還將探索當我們創(chuàng)造出將參數(shù)推向極致的空間時，就可以實現(xiàn)玩法的戲劇化發(fā)展。這些空間包括需要角色盡己所能跳到最遠的鴻溝（例如超級馬里奧中的world 8-1）或者恐怖游戲中限制玩家行動的走廊，例如《生化危機》（詳見下圖）。
fig 2-45(from gamasutra)
（《超級馬里奧》中的關卡8-1令馬里奧跳躍到極限。該鴻溝有10個街區(qū)那么寬，比馬里奧所能跳躍的9個街區(qū)還要多1個街區(qū)，所以有必要采用一個寬1個街區(qū)的中間島。多數(shù)穿過這種鴻溝的策略都需要玩家先跳到一個中間島，然后再快速跳到另一個島，這樣馬里奧的著陸慣性就不會導致玩家墜入深淵。
fig 2-46(from gamasutra)
（《生化危機》中許多過道的寬度僅能容納兩名玩家并肩而行。在這種情況下，一個僵尸就足以成為玩家穿過該走道的巨大威脅。這種空間條件還給游戲創(chuàng)造了一種幽閉恐懼癥的氛圍。）
針對玩法而設計關卡并不僅僅要考慮到尺寸大小的問題。它還意味著針對特定角色的能力（如特殊攻擊或行動模式）而設計。如《合金裝備》等潛行游戲就提供了一個關于如何根據(jù)不同角色行為來構造關卡的出色典例。在這款游戲中，玩家角色Solid Snake擁有一種隱藏在墻壁之后并查看角落的能力。與其他動作游戲相比，這極大改變了90度角落的的含義——它們變成了戰(zhàn)略性隱藏地點而不僅僅是關卡空間。為此，組成《合金裝備》場景的核武器廠就有許多這樣的角落，以便玩家從一個地方潛行到另一個地方，查看角落來尋找自己的下一個避難所。這并非基于尺寸大小或參數(shù)的設計，而是基于角色自身機制的布局，其玩法動作創(chuàng)造了角色如何行動或與環(huán)境交互的一系列可能。
關卡設計方法論
在本章節(jié)早前的內(nèi)容中，我們討論了建筑師的方法論，即建筑師用于確定自己想讓建筑呈現(xiàn)的形狀或方向的基本形式。對于關卡設計師來說，確定關卡的核心機制，方法論是另一個發(fā)展關卡空間布局的有用工具。
用方法論執(zhí)行設計與在紙上或電腦上展開設計極為不同。方法論必須有草圖，因此缺乏測量。草圖練習能夠讓設計師在花時間衡量自己的設計版本之前，快速形成想法。關卡設計師方法論的關鍵在于像繪制空間圖表一樣勾勒出玩法理念。例如，之前提到的Badwater Basin關卡中的設計方法如果是在兩者之間更狹小的區(qū)域中來呈現(xiàn)礦車軌道，以及BLU玩家可奪取的更小基地，那么它就會形成兩個龐大的混亂場面。
Edmund McMillan在《Indie Game:The Movie》關卡設計討論中指出，當設計師創(chuàng)造出環(huán)境機制時，即與玩法相關的關卡交互環(huán)節(jié)，它們就必須具有多種可用性。在e4 Software的手機游戲《SWARM》（玩家必須將敵人引進陷陸的平臺游戲），程序員/設計師Taro Omiya創(chuàng)造了電子柵欄陷陸的多張草圖來形象化它們的不同用途。此外，Omiya等人還在電腦和紙張上制作正式的方法論以便形象化關卡的空間方向（例如下坡、漂浮島以及平臺區(qū)域）。
fig 2-47(from gamasutra)
（《SWARM！》設計了電子柵欄陷阱后，他們就繪制了許多玩法草圖以形象化它們在不同關卡中的用途）
figure 2.48(from gamasutra)
（《SWARM！》的正式方法論形象化顯示了不同空間方向，如山坡、傾斜邊緣等）。
Whiteblocking數(shù)字原型
當開發(fā)者在電腦上開始制作數(shù)字形式的原型時，他們會通過一個所謂的Whiteblocking流程來創(chuàng)造一個測試關卡。Whiteblocking就是當關卡設計師用一些簡單的幾何體創(chuàng)造一個關卡，通常是白色或紋理簡單的模塊來測試關卡是否能夠完成他們所需要的玩法目標。在設計過程早期，當設計師試圖確定玩家角色的玩法參數(shù)和其他東西時，Whiteblocking就有助于確定玩法衡量的情況。同理，設計師也可以用一種類似方法論的做法繪制關卡空間特點的草圖，在向關卡添加特定場景美術元素之前，測試不同玩法體驗的特定場景的大小和形狀（見下圖）。
fig 2-51a(from gamasutra)
fig 2-51b(from gamasutra)
（《SWARM！》中的Whiteblocking顯示了關卡中一個引導玩家殺死敵人的重要環(huán)節(jié)如何在添加場景美術之前以簡單的幾何體進行測試）
Wbiteblock關卡空間所用的幾何體通常是最簡單，能夠模擬最終關卡設計所使用的碰撞物。碰撞物是游戲引擎中的一個對象組件，可模擬實體對象之間的交互。例如，與一個關卡幾何體相關的盒子碰撞物就會導致物體與其他物體之間的互動，就好像它是一個六面的盒子，無論其實際的場景美術外觀如何（見下圖）。碰撞物可以是簡單的幾何形狀，或者密切貼近有機形狀的東西。
fig 2-52(from gamasutra)
（這個植物有一個盒子碰撞物。雖然其3D模型中有一個有機形狀，但游戲中的玩家對象將像對待一個矩形固體一樣與之互動）
Valve在其關卡設計過程中廣泛使用Whiteblocking方法。他們的關卡編輯器Hammer中的引擎基元構造規(guī)則允許開發(fā)者通過簡單而準確的創(chuàng)建方法快速制作3D關卡原型。Hammer的基元被稱為“筆刷”，用于粗略定義關卡空間，之后會進行測試查看是否創(chuàng)造了既定的體驗。關卡設計師會看出哪種情況可行或不可行，之后再通過編輯筆刷來調(diào)整空間。當設計師發(fā)現(xiàn)自己較少編輯主要空間，而是關注更小的細節(jié)時，就意味著可以在關卡中添加場景美術內(nèi)容了。
這是一個迭代性的過程，Whiteblocking會從關卡的方法論式交互形式開始，并將設計師引向更為藝術性和裝飾性的設計決策。關卡幾何越是確定，標準的場景美術也會隨之確定，最科成為關卡建設模塊。
建筑空間布置——章節(jié)3：基本游戲空間
與之前的章節(jié)一樣，我們將從建筑學的課程入手。之前我們關注的可用于游戲引擎場景的工具和技巧，這次我們將討論可運用于游戲的空間布置。
游戲與建筑學的區(qū)別就在于現(xiàn)實世界的建筑必須遵從現(xiàn)實規(guī)則。例如，現(xiàn)實世界的建筑必須同時具有內(nèi)部和外部設計——其中一者必然影響另一者。同理，現(xiàn)實世界的建筑學必須考慮到氣候、地質(zhì)、分區(qū)管制以及構造現(xiàn)實狀況。而游戲領域卻沒有這些必須處理的情況。這可能意味著像Atelier Ten Architects和GMO Tea-cup Communications Inc.的地球博物館（一個漂浮在太空的大型橢圓建筑）或者巴西建筑師Oscar Niemeyer生活中的Hidenori Watanave的探索數(shù)據(jù)雕像——這兩者都是存在于虛擬世界《第二人生》中的建筑結構。這會產(chǎn)生基于玩家行動模式、敘事事件或游戲機制等更為自由的空間布局。的確，“內(nèi)部”和“外部”不過是基于運用于裝飾游戲空間的美術元素的描述。
fig 3-1(from gamasutra)
（這是Atelier Ten建筑和GMO Tea Cup Communication Inc的地球博物館的一張草圖。因為該建筑是在虛擬世界中創(chuàng)造，它并不需要任何構架來支撐組成其主體的成百上千個立方體。設計師是用微軟Excel表格設計該建筑形式，之后再用一個自動建模程序生成其幾何圖形）
fig 3-2(from gamaustra)
（關卡規(guī)劃的方法論圖表草圖。游戲關卡可以呈現(xiàn)不尋常的特點，因為它們并不需要像現(xiàn)實建筑那樣遵從內(nèi)部與外部對應的設計）
了解這些區(qū)別之后，游戲的空間設計師就可以在游戲設計的自由環(huán)境下利用建筑學知識進行設計。有些知識甚至與關卡如何在許多現(xiàn)代游戲引擎中構建具有概念上的聯(lián)系。
Figure-ground
我們將探索的第一種建筑空間布置就是Figure-ground，它是源自某個構造的積極和消極空間的美學理念，積極空間描述的是被某個對象所占領的區(qū)域，而消極空間描述的則是介于對象之間或處于對象之外的空間（見下圖）。
fig 3-3(from gamasutra)
（這個插圖就是所謂的Rubin花瓶，它呈現(xiàn)了積極和消極空間的概念以及兩者之間的互換。根據(jù)觀看者對黑白圖像的理解，這可以視為一個花瓶的形狀，或者兩張相互對視的臉。）
建筑學中的Figure-ground理論來自積極空間人物的布置。在規(guī)劃圖中查看時，設計師可以看到建筑的布置開始從地面塑造出空間。的確，F(xiàn)igure-ground圖像中的這些空間構造與figure本身的布局一樣重要。據(jù)建筑設計師Matthew Frederick所述，由已安排好的figure所塑造的空間本身就是一種積極空間，因為它們現(xiàn)在也像figure一樣具有形式。從城市設計角度來看，這種有框架的空間通常是廣場，院子、公園、節(jié)點以及其他人們可以“入駐”的會面區(qū)域，而其余消極空間則是讓人們穿梭的區(qū)域。
fig 3-4(from gamasutra)
（在籌劃figure-ground圖像的空間時，很有必要觀察積極空間中的建筑如何從消極空間地面創(chuàng)造出空間。這些空間擁有自己的形式，可以視為積極空間。）
Frederick還指出，在利用Figure-ground理論時，figure元素和空間都可以通過區(qū)分結構元素的空間，或者創(chuàng)造與附近figure相似的形式的消極空間進行暗示。這與理論神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)科學家Gerd Sommerhoff引述建筑師Grant Hildebrand所談的觀念相呼應：
“大腦會根據(jù)之前經(jīng)歷的事件所形成的畫面來預測未來的事件畫面。當無法重現(xiàn)之前的經(jīng)歷時，大腦就會準備重新體驗這種設定。如果已經(jīng)確立了預期，該模式就會用一種合成的愉悅感得到強化?！?/em>
這樣，我們就可以看出figure-ground為何會成為關卡設計師在許多游戲引擎中創(chuàng)造增加性或減少性空間的方法。許多引擎允許設計師在消極的2D或3D空間中創(chuàng)造具有增加性的圖像元素。游戲空間通常是使用積極元素，基于通過消極空間的移動機制而形成。在其他機制中，在固定形式中塑造空間可以創(chuàng)造出房間、走廊以及玩家可以奔跑、隱藏、追逐的其他空間。除此之外，設計師還可以通過暗示性的邊緣或強調(diào)性的空間來向玩家傳遞信息。
fig 3-5(from gamasutra)
（這個插圖顯示了figure-ground布局可用于暗示空間或元素）
fig 3-6(from gamasutra)
（這些插圖表明figure-ground關系可運用于多種游戲空間，暗示性的空間關系可能夠成為向玩家傳達空間信息的一個有效方法）
Form-Void
Form-Void在許多方面是figure-ground的3維進化版本。它是figure-ground在游戲中的自然運用，可以從一個非上下視角的方向查看游戲空間。在form-void理論中，從固定形式創(chuàng)造出來的空間擁有自己的形式。
fig 3-7(from gamasutra)
（這是一些形式之間存在form-void關系的例子）
正如figure-ground是用大量元素組成空間的空間布局一樣，form-void是通過添加堆塊或減除空間來進行的空間布局。這與我們在第二章：關卡設計的工具與技巧所描述的許多游戲引擎的操作方法一樣。與之相似，3D美術程序也允許形式之間通過精心建?；騐oolean操作實現(xiàn)交互，可用數(shù)學方程式以增加或減少的方式來結合3D模型。 Peter Zumthor的Therme Vals或Mario Botta的Casa Bianchi（兩者均位于瑞士）等建筑就能夠說明form-void關系可運用于塑造露臺、門廊、窗戶、臥室和其他用途的空間。在游戲中，這種增減方法可用于創(chuàng)造隱藏性的空地、秘密走廊、伏擊點甚至是關卡目標。
fig 3-8(from gamasutra)
（來自Peter Zumthor和Mario Botta的草圖表明形式和虛無可以用于確定空間。）
Arrivals
關卡設計是一種對比藝術。它還是光線、路徑以及關于你何去何從的歧義性的藝術。所有的這些元素構成了“arrival”（到達）體驗，即你首次進入某個空間的感覺。
我們主要通過到達某空間來向玩家傳遞信息。這也正是空間促使玩家走向下一個目的地或為玩家提供其路徑選擇的方式。你進入一個空間的體驗來自之前空間所提供的空間條件：如果你進入一個大型空間，那么引你進入其中的之前空間應該是狹窄的，這樣才能讓新空間顯得更大；同理，明亮的空間之前對應的應該是陰暗的空間。建筑師Donlyn Lindon和Charles W. Moore在其著作《Chambers For A Memory Palace》中稱John Portman & Associates的Hyatt Regency Atlanta酒店就是這種典型。它又被評論者稱為“Jesus Chris Spot”，該酒店落成后商人們從較低的天花板空間進入22層的中庭并向上看時，嘴里都在喃喃著“天哪！”類似的空間體驗還可見于基于探索的游戲，例如《塞爾達傳說》或《合金裝備》系列中進入重要敵人遭遇戰(zhàn)，道具獲取或故事事件的時候（見下圖）。
fig 3-9(from gamasutra)
（許多游戲使用對比鮮明的空間條件來突出進入boss房間或目標等重要玩法空間的路徑。這是來自《塞爾達：時之笛》中的Temple of Time圖表，玩家在此會收到重要的寶劍，這顯示了對比鮮明的空間，其拜占庭式的大廳布局則強調(diào)了寶劍房間的重要性。）
玩家如何到達空間的另一個重要元素就是他們始于到達點的視角。我們在之后的章節(jié)中可以看到，游戲中的攝像角度會對玩家如何理解空間產(chǎn)生重大影響。但是，無論選擇什么視角，都有可能產(chǎn)生戲劇化的啟示和到達感。在經(jīng)典建筑中，希臘雅典的帕臺農(nóng)神殿就顯示了居住者的視角如何被引向戲劇性啟示。在希臘衛(wèi)城拾階而上的游客會首先從下方看到帕臺農(nóng)神殿，之后進入衛(wèi)城前門時，他們就會從西北角看到四分之三的帕臺農(nóng)神殿，而不是以直接的2維視角看到神殿。該路徑之后會迫使游客迂回帕臺農(nóng)神殿本身的入口之前在建筑四處轉(zhuǎn)轉(zhuǎn)。游客通過這個路徑遠比直接走向入口更能獲得戲劇性的體驗。
fig 3-10(from gamasutra)
（進入帕臺農(nóng)神殿的入口示意圖。游客并不會從入口通道一邊進入，而是從角落進入。之后他們就必須繞著建筑走。因為該建筑所有的臺階都同樣復雜，所以游客走向入口時可以從所有角度欣賞建筑。）
Genius Loci
最后一個建筑學空間經(jīng)驗與布局的關系較小，但與設計空間的另一個目標關系更為密切。這個經(jīng)驗就是Spirit of Place。這個術語來自一個羅馬信仰，即靈魂會扮演城市精靈的角色，保護城鎮(zhèn)或其他有人口居住的地方。這個術語被20世紀末的建筑師所采納，并用于描述一個地方的標識或情感體驗。
在第二章節(jié)，我們討論了關卡任天堂力量方法，即設計師創(chuàng)造一個宏觀層面的方法或者其關卡的規(guī)劃，然后分配玩法的高潮時刻 ，就像為游戲雜志創(chuàng)造地圖一樣。每個玩法的高潮時刻，可以是敵人遭遇戰(zhàn)，行動謎題，或者有幫助的阻塞點，都有它們自己的Genius Loci。這些地方是用于休息還是戰(zhàn)斗？玩家在這些游戲空間是否該感到放松、緊張或思考？這些問題的答案取決于你所創(chuàng)造的游戲，但卻有助于確定你想為關卡創(chuàng)造的體驗類型。
除了每個玩法遭遇戰(zhàn)，關卡設計師還可以在其游戲空間中植入Genius Loci，并將其作為一種將玩家從一個點轉(zhuǎn)移到另一個點的工具。Genius Loci可以通過光線、陰影、空間布局以及空間大小的操控來創(chuàng)建。如果你為恐怖游戲創(chuàng)造關卡，你所創(chuàng)建的Genius Loci就應該是通過對場景藝術、光照、音效和其他資產(chǎn)的精不挑細選而創(chuàng)造出來的。同理，僅有一點或沒有Genius Loci的游戲空間就可能是一個流通空間，也就是玩家轉(zhuǎn)移到下一個目的地的空間。根據(jù)你所創(chuàng)造玩法的情況，流通空間可能是激烈遭遇戰(zhàn)之間的一次休息機會，或者玩家進入下一個難忘玩法時刻前創(chuàng)造懸念的工具。（本文為游戲邦/gamerboom.com編譯，拒絕任何不保留版權的轉(zhuǎn)載，如需轉(zhuǎn)載請聯(lián)系：游戲邦）
Excerpts from An Architectural Approach to Level Design
by Christopher Totten
In the past few years, I have noticed a fascination in the game industry with architecture as a field that could be potentially helpful to the way we design. As a game developer with two degrees in architecture I have likewise seen the connections between the two fields. As an undergraduate architecture student I began making small video games with friends – creating art with the design software I used for classes. On the suggestion of some of my studio-mates, I began utilizing what I learned about game design in my class projects. I felt that architecture, like games, had a symbiotic relationship with its users and that well designed game levels had much in common with the work of architects like Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, I.M. Pei, and others. Eventually, my work with both fields culminated in a graduate thesis on the intersections between games and architecture. After grad school, I became a game developer and continued my research into the ways architectural theory could be applied to level design. This work has allowed me to write several articles, give a few conference talks, and now publish a book.
Released on June 12th by CRC Press, An Architectural Approach to Level Design integrates architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book explores the principles of level design through the context and history of architecture, providing information useful to both academics and game development professionals.
Presenting architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work, practical elements of how designers construct space are addressed along with experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory.
This article contains several excerpts from the book showing basic architectural elements that can be applied to practical level design applications along with illustrations from the book taken from my own gameplay and design journals. These sections prepare the reader for further explorations of methods for visual communication, producing emotional responses in players, encouraging social interaction, and other things important to game worlds. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I have enjoyed researching and writing it. The book can be purchased at http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466585416
Ways of Seeing for Level Design – from Chapter 1: A Brief History of Architecture and Level Design
In order to fully understand spatial design principles for level design, it is necessary to analyze precedents from both real world architecture and video games. Hal Box, FAIA, Professor Emeritus and former Dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin argues for an educated form of seeing architecture based on study and analysis. In this case, “seeing” is not used to only describe using the visual senses, but also to process the spatial, formal, contextual, and historical elements that make a building unique.
For level designers, this type of “seeing” can be transformative for how we learn from the levels of previous games – both good and bad. Doing this may involve breaking some habits common to game players. For example, there is a saying that “gamers don’t look up” when playing games. As designers, the verticality of gamespaces can be an important element in establishing the grandiosity of a setting or for communicating direction with players. Likewise, as players, it is common to run directly to the next action scene rather than pause to explore game environments. Designers should look for ways to direct the pacing of a game environment in subtle ways – placing narrative elements in the way of player pathways or incentivizing exploration with rewards.
In his book, Think Like an Architect, Box proposes ten ways for exploring and understanding a building:
1. Learn why a building was built, what it was for, and what it is now.
2. Look up as you walk around – noticing visual elements, layering of forms, and materials.
3. Sense the space by its size, shape, and how it interacts with light, sound, and other spaces.
4. Train your eye to understand the structure of the building and how it holds the building up.
5. Determine how materials are working – in compression or tension – or if they feel heavy or light.
6. Determine how the building was constructed and from what materials.
7. Examine the historical precedents of the building.
8. Analyze the composition, proportions, and rhythms of building elements.
9. Observe the appropriateness of the building to its setting.
10. Analyze what makes the building special from others[i].
Obviously, not all of these apply to game levels. While the environment art of a level can represent structures that are in compression or tension, the game art itself will not be. Likewise, many game levels are held up by the fact that they are not defined as rigidbody objects in the game engine and thus, do not fall according to the engine’s physics system. However, many of these proposed ways of seeing are applicable to game levels in their current form, or may be modified slightly to fit our own purposes. In this way, we may say that level designers can modify their ways of seeing with these methods:
1. Identify what gameplay occurs in the space. What are the game mechanics supported?
2. Look up as you walk around – noticing visual elements, especially art that contrasts the rest of the environment or somehow calls attention to itself. Also look down – is the spaces’s verticality used in reverse to make you feel in danger?
3. Sense the space by its size, shape, and how it interacts with light, sound, and other spaces. How do the lighting or sound conditions make you feel?
4. Analyze the pacing of the level. Does the level usher you through itself quickly or are there opportunities to explore? Are these required or bonuses for extra curiosity?
5. Is there one gameplay style reflected in this level, or are multiple supported? (For example, does a deathmatch map have places for snipers, offensive players, defensive players, etc.? Does a game level play well for barbarians but poorly for mages?)
6. How does the space express the narrative of the game? Is it a backdrop or does exploring the level tell you about the game world in some way? Are narrative events scripted to occur around the player or are there cutscenes?
7. Examine any historical or gameplay precedents? What kinds of spatial experiences were in those games?
8. Analyze the composition, proportions, and rhythms of environment art elements.
9. How does level geometry compare with the movement abilities of your avatar? Is everything well within their capabilities or does the level space challenge these measurements? Is there anything that is outside of these capabilities? If so, does the game offer any way to expand these abilities?
10. What environment art elements are repeated? Are they interactive? If so, do they correspond to a specific gameplay mechanic?
These ways of seeing for level design, as well as the architectural and gamespace precedents found in the rest of this chapter, will guide our explorations of spatial design principles for level design.
Level Design Workflows – from Chapter 2: Tools and Techniques for Level Design
The American architect Louis Sullivan, often credited as the creator of the skyscraper, once famously said, “Form ever follows function.” This was shortened to the famous design idiom, “Form follows function.” With this phrase, Sullivan stated one of the driving principles of architectural modernism. Modernism was an architectural movement of the early twentieth century defined by an emphasis on creating buildings whose form was derived from their purpose. In modernist architecture, ornament was generally a product of the building itself or applied for a purpose, rather than simply for the sake of aesthetics. Similarly to Sullivan, Le Corbusier stated, “The house is a machine for living in.” Much of his architecture, as with the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, Walter Gropius, Louis Sullivan, and others was focused on purposefully creating an experience for the occupants.
As we have seen, the same can be said of level design. In level design, developers often design with a specific experiential goal in mind. In a 2008 interview, Valve level designer Dario Casali argued that “experience is key” when creating level design ideas[ii]. Earlier in this chapter, we discussed some goals of level design that related to how users use gamespace and how we as designers communicate to the user through the space. These experiential goals should dictate how we as level designers construct space: form follows function.
In this section, we will discuss some workflow processes that involve these same tools, beginning with how “form follows function” fits into game design.
Form Follows Core Mechanics
The tenants of form follows function thrive in game design through a concept known as the core mechanic. A core mechanic is often defined as the basic action that a player makes throughout the course of a game. In his doctoral dissertation, game designer Aki Jarvinen similarly created a core mechanic-centered design method where designers began from verbs[iii]. If one looks at core mechanics as the basic verb of what a player does in a game, they can understand the foundational elements of what builds each game’s unique experience. For example, Super Mario Bros[iv]. can be said to be about jumping, The Legend of Zelda[v] is about exploring, Katamari Damacy[vi] is about rolling, Angry Birds[vii] is about flinging, and so on. Beginning from this core, other actions are added that define the rules of the final game product.
When designing levels, having a similar core mechanic idea in mind is necessary. While many new designers assume that individual levels should simply follow the core mechanic of the game, it is possible to define level core mechanics to make each unique. An example is the Badwater Basin level (figure 2.43) of Valve’s Team Fortress 2 (TF2)[viii].
Figure 2.43 A plan diagram of Badwater Basin from Team Fortress 2. RED and BLU team bases are marked on the map, as are major circulation areas and BLU checkpoints between the two bases.
In this level, the game’s Builders League United (or BLU) team must push a bomb into their opponent’s, the Reliable Excavation Demolition (or RED) team’s, base via a mine cart on a track. The mine cart mechanic of Payload mode, which Badwater Basin is a map for, takes TF2’s standard team-based first person shooter mechanics and adds a twist. Not only does this change the mechanics of gameplay, but also the conditions of the levels spatial geometry.
One example cited by Casali, who helped design the level, was the level’s tunnel. In the first prototypes of the level, designers made the mine tunnels a standard width that they had used for other basic maps. However, upon playtesting the level with the mine cart-pushing mechanic in place, they realized that tunnels had to be widened to accommodate both players and cart. This seems like a small change, but it prevented a lot of aggrivation from players that had been getting blocked out of tunnels by the cart (figure 2.44.)
Figure 4.44 Modifying the width of the tunnel in Badwater Basin allowed for better circulation of both the player and mine cart through the level and made gameplay less aggravating for the offensive team.
As level designers, it is our job to design to the realities of how player avatars and other gameplay elements move through levels. Traversing levels is comfortable when level spaces comfortably accommodate metrics. As we will explore in later chapters, gameplay drama can be achieved when we create spaces that push metrics to the limit. Such spaces include gaps that require the farthest possible jump a character can do such as the one found in world 8-1 of Super Mario Bros. (figure 2.45) or tight corridors that restrict movement in horror games, such as Resident Evil[ix] (figure 2.46.)
Figure 2.45 This section of Super Mario Bros.’s level 8-1 pushes Mario’s jumping metrics to their limit. The gap is 10 blocks wide, 1 block longer than Mario’s running jump distance of 9 blocks, so using the 1-block-wide middle island is necessary. Most strategies for crossing this gap call for a running jump to the middle island, and then another quick one off the 1-block-wide island so Mario’s landing inertia doesn’t launch the player into the pit.
Figure 2.46: Many hallways in Resident Evil are barely wide enough for two characters standing shoulder to shoulder. In this way, a single zombie in these hallways can become a significant threat for players trying to get past. This spatial condition also gives the game a claustrophobic atmosphere.
Designing to gameplay does not solely have to involve measurements either. It can also mean designing to specific character abilities such as special attacks or movement modes. Stealth games, like Metal Gear Solid[x] provide a great example of how to construct levels based on different types of character movement. In Metal Gear Solid, the player character, Solid Snake, has the ability to hide behind walls and look around corners. This vastly changes the meaning of ninety-degree corners when compared with other action games – they are strategic hiding places rather than just level geometry. As such, the nuclear weapons facility that makes up Metal Gear Solid’s environments has lots of these corners so players can sneak from place to place, looking around corners to find their next refuge. While not measurement or metric based, these kinds of layouts are based on the character’s own mechanics, the gameplay actions that form the range of possibilities for how a character may act or interact with their environment.
Level Design Parti
Earlier in the chapter, we discussed the architect’s parti, basic formal explorations that architects utilize to determine what shape or orientation they want their building to take. For level designers coming off of determining the core mechanics of their level, a parti is another valuable tool for developing the spatial layout of your level.
Designing with parti is quite different than designing on graph paper or computer. Partis are meant to be sketches, and therefore will lack measurement. Sketching exercises allow designers to form ideas quickly before spending the time to plan measured versions of their designs. The key to a level designer’s parti is to sketch gameplay ideas as spatial diagrams. For example, a level design parti of the previously mentioned Badwater Basin level would be two large masses (representing the team’s base areas) with thinner zones of circulation in between the two to represent the mine cart track, and some smaller bases for BLU players to capture, similar to the diagram shown in 2.43.
In his discussions of level design from Indie Game: The Movie, Edmund McMillan argues that once a designer has created environmental mechanics, that is, interactive parts of a level that factor into gameplay, they should be usable in many different ways in order to be valuable. For the e4 Software’s mobile game, SWARM![xi], a ball-roller/platformer game where players had to lure enemies into traps, programmer/designer Taro Omiya created many sketches of the electric fence traps to visualize the different uses they could have (figure 2.47.) Likewise, Omiya and others working on the game made formal Partis on the computer and on paper to visualize spatial orientations of levels such as downhill slides, floating islands, and platforming areas (figure 2.48.)
Figure 2.47 Once designers for SWARM! created the electric fence traps, they sketched many gameplay partis of them to visualize how they could be utilized through different levels.
Figure 2.48 Formal partis for SWARM! show the visualization of different spatial orientations such as hills, tilted ledges, and others.
Digital Prototypes with Whiteblocking
When developers have moved from prototyping off the computer to prototyping in digital form, they create test levels through a process known as Whiteblocking. Whiteblocking is when a level designer creates a level out of simple geometry, most often white or simply-textured blocks (thus the name), to test whether levels accomplish the gameplay goals they want. Early on in the design process, when designers are trying to define gameplay metrics of player characters and other things, Whiteblocking can help determine what gameplay measurements should be. Likewise, designers can draft the spatial characteristics of their levels in a parti-like way, testing the sizes and shapes of certain environments for different gameplay experiences, before specific environmental art is added to a level (figure 2.51.)
Figure 2.51 Whiteblocking done for SWARM! shows how an important section of a level meant to teach players how to kill enemies was thoroughly tested in simple geometry before environment art was added.
The geometry used to Whiteblock level spaces is usually the simplest needed to simulate the colliders that will be used in the eventual final level design. Colliders are a component of objects in game engines that simulate the interaction between physical objects. A box collider attached to a piece of level geometry, for example, will cause that object to interact with other objects as though it is the shape of a six-sided box, regardless of the shape of the actual environmental art (figure 2.52.) Colliders can be simple geometric shapes or can be made to tightly fit organic shapes.
Figure 2.52: This plant has a box collider attached to it. Though its 3D model has an organic shape, player objects in a game will interact with it as though it were a rectangular solid.
Valve uses Whiteblocking extensively in its level design process. The construction rules for engine primitives in their level editor, Hammer, allows rapid 3D level prototyping through simple and precise building. Hammer’s primitives, called “brushes”, are used to roughly define level spaces, which are then playtested to see if the intended experience is created. Level designers see what worked properly and what did not, and then change the spaces by editing the brushes. When the designers find themselves editing little of major spaces and instead focusing on smaller details, the level is ready for environment art.
As an iterative process, Whiteblocking begins with almost parti-like interactive forms of levels and moves designers towards more art and ornament-centric design decisions that are not unlike interior design. As level geometries become better defined, standard pieces of environment art can be defined as well, eventually becoming the building blocks of levels.
Architectural Spatial Arrangements – from Chapter 3: Basic Gamespaces
As with the previous chapter, we will begin with lessons from Architecture. Where last time we focused on tools and techniques that were useful in game engine environments, this time we will discuss spatial arrangements that can be utilized in games.
Games and architecture differ in the fact that real-world Architecture must conform to real-world rules. For example, real-world buildings must both have an interior and exterior – with the shape of one influencing the other. Likewise, real-world architecture must take into consideration weather, geology, zoning regulations, and structural realities. Conversely, these are not things that gamespaces must deal with. To one extreme, this can mean experimental structures such as Atelier Ten Architects and GMO Tea-cup Communications Inc.’s Museum of the Globe[xii], a large elliptical structure formed from cubes floating in space (figure 3.1) or Hidenori Watanave’s explorable database sculpture on the life of Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer[xiii] – both former structures within the virtual world Second Life[xiv]. For more day-to-day level design, however, this means gamespaces that are free from interior/exterior requirements. This results in more freeform spatial layouts based on player movement patterns, narrative events, or game mechanics (figure 3.2.) Indeed, “interior” and “exterior” are little more than descriptions based on the art used to decorate the gamespace.
Figure 3.1 A sketch of Atelier Ten architects and GMO Tea Cup Communication, Inc’s Museum of the Globe. Since the building is built within a virtual world, it does not require any structure to hold up the hundreds of cubes making up its main body. The designers designed the buildings form in Microsoft Excel and then generated the geometry in an automatic modeling program.
Figure 3.2 Parti diagram sketches of level plans. Game levels can take on unusual forma characteristics because they do not have to conform to a corresponding interior and exterior as real buildings do.
With these differences in mind, spatial designers for games can take advantage of architectural lessons within the freedom of game design environments. Some of these lessons even have conceptual links to how levels are constructed in many modern game engines.
Figure-Ground
The first architectural spatial arrangement we will explore is that of figure-ground. Figure-ground is derived from artistic notions of the positive and negative space of a composition, where positive space describes the area inhabited by the subject of a piece and negative space describes space outside of or in-between subjects (figure 3.3.)
Figure 3.3 This illustration, known as Rubin’s vase, shows the concept of positive and negative space and how they can be reversed. Based on whether the viewer is interpreting the black or white portions of the image as the negative space, this is either an illustration of two faces looking at one another or of a vase.
Figure-ground theory in architecture comes from the arrangement of positive space figures, often poche’d building masses, within a negative space ground. When viewed in plan, the designer can see how the placement of building figures begins to form spaces out of the ground. Indeed, the formation of such spaces in figure-ground drawings is as important as the placement of the figures themselves (figure 3.4.) According to architectural designer Matthew Frederick, spaces formed by arranged figures become positive space in their own right, since they now have a form just as the figures do[xv]. From an urban design standpoint, these framed spaces are often squares, courtyards, parks, nodes, and other meeting areas where people can “dwell”, while remaining negative spaces are for people to move through[xvi].
Figure 3.4 When mapping out spaces with figure-ground drawing, it is important to observe how the positive space figures create spaces out of the negative space ground. These spaces, having forms of their own, are considered positive space.
Frederick also points out that when utilizing figure-ground, both figural elements and spaces can be implied[xvii], either by demarcating a space with structural elements or by creating negative spaces that resemble the form of nearby figures (figure 3.5.) This echoes theoretical neuroscientist Gerd Sommerhoff who, as quoted by architect Grant Hildebrand, said,
The brain expects future event-and-image sets to be event-and-image sets previously experienced. When repetition of previous experience seems likely, the brain readies itself to reexperience the set. If expectances are confirmed, the model is reinforced, with a resultant sensation of pleasure.[xviii]
In this way, we can see how figure-ground becomes a powerful tool for level designers to create additive and subtractive spaces within many game engines. Many engines allow for the creation of additive figure elements to be arranged within negative 2D or 3D space. Gamespaces are often based on mechanics of movement through negative space, using positive elements as ledges or supports for a player’s journey. Under other mechanics, forming spaces in-between solid forms allows for the creations of rooms, corridors, and other spaces that players can run, chase and hide in. Additionally, designers can communicate with players via implied boundaries or highlighted spaces that use figure-ground articulations like those described by Sommerhoff (figure 3.6.)
Figure 3.5 This illustration shows how figure-ground arrangements can be used to imply spaces or elements.
Figure 3.6 These illustrations show ways that figure-ground relationships can be utilized in many gamespaces, implying spatial relationships can be an effective way of relaying spatial messages to players.
Form-Void
Form-Void (also called solid-void) is in many ways a 3-dimensional evolution of figure-ground. Indeed, it is the natural application of figure-ground in games where the gamespace will be viewed from a non-top-down perspective (figure 3.7.) In form-void theory, spaces that are carved out of solid forms are implied to have a form of their own.
Figure 3.7 Some examples of form-void relationships between forms.
Just as figure-ground is spatial arrangement by marking off spaces with massive elements, form-void is spatial arrangement by adding masses or subtracting spaces from them. This further resembles the operation of many of the game engines described in Chapter 2: Tools and Techniques for Level Design, in how these engines allow for the placement of geometric forms or for their carving out of an endless mass. Similarly, 3D art programs allow for intersections between forms to be realized through either careful modeling or Boolean operations, where mathematical equations are used to combine 3D models in additive or subtractive ways. Buildings such as Peter Zumthor’s Therme Vals or Mario Botta’s Casa Bianchi, both in Switzerland, show how form-void relationships can be used to carve out spaces for balconies, doorways, windows, private rooms, and other functions (figure 3.8.) In games, such additions and subtractions can be used for hidden alcoves, secret passages, sniping spots, or even highlighted level goals.
Figure 3.8 Sketches from Therme Vals by Peter Zumthor and Casa Bianchi by Mario Botta show how forms and voids can be used to define space.
Arrivals
Level design is an art of contrasts. It is also an art of sight lines, pathways, dramatic lead-ups, and ambiguity about the nature of where you are going. All of these elements contribute to the experience of an arrival, the way in which you come into a space for the first time.
Much of how we will communicate with the player is through arrivals in space. It is also in how that space ushers the player towards their next destination or provides the means for players to choose their own path. Much of how you experience a space when you arrive in it comes from the spatial conditions of the spaces that preceded it: if you are arriving in a big space, spaces leading up to it should be enclosed so the new space seems even bigger, light spaces should be preceded by dark, etc. In their book, Chambers For A Memory Palace, architects Donlyn Lindon and Charles W. Moore highlight John Portman & Associates’ Hyatt Regency Atlanta Hotel as featuring such arrival in its atrium space. Dubbed the “Jesus Chris Spot” by critics, it was not uncommon soon after the hotel was built for businessmen to arrive in the twenty-two-story atrium from the much lower-ceilinged spaces preceding it and mutter “Jee-sus Christ!” as they looked upward[xix] Similar spatial experiences are common in exploration-based games such as those in the Legend of Zelda or Metroid series for leading up to important enemy encounters, item acquisitions, or story events (figure 3.9.)
Figure 3.9 Many games use contrasting spatial conditions to highlight the approaches to gameplay-important spaces such as boss rooms or goals. This diagram of the Temple of Time from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, where the player receives a narrative-important sword, shows how contrasted spaces and a Byzantine-esque basilica plan emphasize the importance of the sword chamber.
Another important element of how players arrive at spaces is their point of view from the arrival point. As we will see later in the chapter, camera angles in games have a great deal of influence with how a player understands space. However, dramatic reveals and arrivals are possible regardless of the chosen point-of-view. In classical architecture, the procession-like approach to the Parthenon in Athens, Greece shows how an occupant’s point of view is steered towards dramatic reveals. Visitors climbing up the steps of the Acropolis would first see the Parthenon from below. Then, passing through the Propylaea, the portico-like entrance building of the Acropolis, they would be greeted by a three-quarters view of the Parthenon from its Northwestern corner rather than a more 2-dimensional view from straight on. The path then forced visitors to walk around the building before they would wind back to the entrance of the Parthenon itself. From this forced path, visitors got a more theatric approach to the Parthenon than if they had walked straight up to its entrance (figure 3.10.)
Figure 3.10 Diagram of the entry procession to the Parthenon. Visitors did not approach from the entryway side, but from a corner. They then had to walk around the building. Since all elevations of the building were equally intricate, it could be enjoyed from all sides as visitors walked around to the entrance.
Genius Loci
A last architectural spatial lesson is less of an arrangement and more of another goal for designing your own spaces. This lesson is known as Genius Loci, also known as Spirit of Place. This term comes from a Roman belief that spirits would protect towns or other populated areas, acting as the town’s Genius. This term was adopted by late 20th century architects to describe the identifying qualities or emotional experience of a place. Some call designing to the concept of Genius Loci placemaking, that is, creating memorable or unique experiences in a designed space.
In Chapter 2, we discussed the Nintendo Power Method of level design, where the designer creates a macro-scaled parti or plan of their level, then distributes highlighted moments of gameplay as though developing a map for a game magazine. Each of these highlighted moments of gameplay; be they enemy encounters, movement puzzles, or helpful stopping points; have potential for their own Genius Loci. Are these places for rest or for battle? Should the player feel relaxed, tense, or meditative in these gamespaces? The answers to these questions depend highly on the game you are building, but can help you determine the kind of feel you want for your levels.
Beyond individual gameplay encounters, level designers can implant Genius Loci within the entirety of their gamespaces and use it as a tool for moving players from one point to another. Genius Loci can be built through manipulations in lighting, shadows, spatial organization, and the size of spaces – which will all be discussed in detail later in the book. If you are building a level for a horror game, for example, the Genius Loci you build should be one of dread, created through careful selection of environmental art, lighting, sound effects, and other assets. Likewise, spaces in a game with little or no Genius Loci can be circulation spaces, that is, spaces for the player to move through to get to their next destination. Depending on the gameplay you are creating, circulation spaces may be a chance to rest between intensive encounters or tools for building suspense before a player gets to the next memorable gameplay moment.（source：gamasutra）
聯(lián)系客服
