Game Mechanics Small-world Exploration in 2D

[Yal]

I've been toying around with the idea to create a 2D collectathon platformer game, as in, a level-based game where each level can be freely explored, and the goal is to collect all the minor and major objects in each level, needed to progress through the game; minor objects being e.g. currency that is relatively easy to find, while major objects often require you to complete some sort of more difficult objective such as defeating a boss or navigating a maze. Super Mario 64 and Banjo-Kazooie are two of the most famous examples of 3D collectathon platformers.

Now, the thing is, I want to do this in 2D instead because I more or less only make 2D games and I'm a lot better at it. But how well does the exploration aspect translate to 2D? Is it possible to have worlds that can be explored the same way as in 3D games, or does something get lost in the process? I'm having tons of small doubts about this, such as...

• How would you design a 2D level that is "open" to begin with when there's only two possible directions of traversal?
• Is working towards mission objectives / major collectibles in a 2D environment evoking the same feeling as in a 3D game where you can see them off in the distance? And if not, how could one try to alleviate that?
• How could you convey to the player that they've seen everything in the level and can move on to the next?
• Does this design lend itself better to large, expansive worlds with multiple objectives or smaller worlds with just a few?

 

[Moon Goat]

2D games can still have large, open worlds that have multiple objectives and can be just as engaging (or even more engaging) than if done in a 3D world. Look at Terraria or any Metroidvania game. And also, when working alone, it's best to build your game around what you know how to do.

 

[Greenfire]

• How would you design a 2D level that is "open" to begin with when there's only two possible directions of traversal?
• How could you convey to the player that they've seen everything in the level and can move on to the next?
• Does this design lend itself better to large, expansive worlds with multiple objectives or smaller worlds with just a few?

1. Never forget up and down.
2. Honestly, while not very immersive, a prompt would probably be best.
3. Either or. Look at Terraria for an example of big worlds, and to a flash game called "Last Legacy: Null Space" for a good example of collectables in a bunch of smaller worlds.

 

[Yal]

The problem with up and down in a platform game is gravity. There is a limit to how far upwards you may traverse, and traversing downwards is one-way. I don't really see these as directions you EXPLORE in as much as directions you STRUGGLE in; going upwards is a challenge rather than just mere transportation.

 

[2Create]

You could easily use features such as ladders to make going up easier. There's no reason it should be a challenge unless you want it to be.
On top of that, if you're concerned that people will fall down to an area they are not supposed to be, implement falling damage like Fez did; if you fall too far, you get reset to where you were before you jumped.

 

[Snail Man]

How would you design a 2D level that is "open" to begin with when there's only two possible directions of traversal?
It's certainly a challenge, but very possible. Look at An Untitled Story, or Seiklus. Both these games invoke feelings of a massive world in 2D by using branching pathways; Every room doesn't need a route to every area, you just need some route between areas, and it will feel effectively open.

Is working towards mission objectives / major collectibles in a 2D environment evoking the same feeling as in a 3D game where you can see them off in the distance? And if not, how could one try to alleviate that?
The effect of seeing an object in the distance is powerful in 3D games, but you can invoke a similar feeling by making the goal visible at the start, but separated by a wall or something. For example, you could have a challenge tower with puzzles. The goal is on the bottom floor of the tower where you enter, but the only way to actually get to it is to go all the way up and down the tower. Create many of these "peepholes": parts of the world where you can see another tantalizing area, but not reach it just yet.

How could you convey to the player that they've seen everything in the level and can move on to the next?
No real good ideas on this one; Maybe just have a completion % in the HUD, or a sort of checklist of all the things you've found, but with the ones you haven't found yet obscured?

Does this design lend itself better to large, expansive worlds with multiple objectives or smaller worlds with just a few?
I think the first one; Have a few different areas that have different and varied challenges and objectives; small worlds hinder the 'open world' feeling, making the game feel more level-based

 

[RekNepZ]

Another thing you could do to make it seem less level-based is repeat certain parts of certain areas, but in different levels. Eg: a level that ends in a town is followed by a level which starts in it or have another later level revisit it.

 

[Yal]

@2Create:
I don't think ladders is a perfect solution either, since it's an alteration of the game physics. Ladders is a way to connect two vertically disjoint places, but they don't really lend theirself well for gameplay, even if you allow things like attacking while hanging from one, jumping off them and such to make them feel less disjoint from the core mechanics. Same with elevators, really... they don't really allow exploration as much as they allow transportation. And going down holes is the same way.
But I guess I'm just nitpicking here, 2D games actually lend themselves better to verticality in some ways (like, you can see the platforms up and down a lot better in 2D due to the flat perspective).

@Snail Man:
I'm not quite after the feeling of a massive world either, more the feeling of a free world. I'm aiming for something with the same scope as SM64, where levels are relatively small and have around 6-10 major collectibles/missions.
I really like the idea with peepholes! :3
And I guess literally telling people about the progress is the only way after all.

And I'm actually intending to have the game be level-based, just that each level feels very open... again like SM64, where you just get a list of objectives in each level but can do them in any order you like, or maybe skip them altogether and just look for secrets.

 

[dadio]

I think this is perfectly possible. The best example of this that I can think of is Super Mario World (SNES) - which imho, is the pinnacle of 2D Platforming.

• How would you design a 2D level that is "open" to begin with when there's only two possible directions of traversal?

Not sure what you mean by only 2 directions of traversal. You have left/right/up/down (& "in"/Z if you get creative like Paper Mario) & you have the possibilty of having large sections or directions of any given level/map as being cut off until certain goals are met, secret rooms etc. So it can certainly be wide "open", tho likely it's better to be "restrictive" at first (in 2D) then blossoming outwards into more possiblities as you hit more goals.

• Is working towards mission objectives / major collectibles in a 2D environment evoking the same feeling as in a 3D game where you can see them off in the distance? And if not, how could one try to alleviate that?

You can place collectibles (Keys/Dragon Coins/Stars etc) behind certain level "blocks" (doors/walls that require a certain power/areas that are too high to reach without x/etc. that makes those items visible to the player - begging to be collected - but only actually possible to collect by coming back after a certain goal is met/having acquired a particular item. (Zelda LTTP was great at doing this also with it's tempting heart placements - but isn't a platformer).

• How could you convey to the player that they've seen everything in the level and can move on to the next?

You could have some color indicator on levels on a World Map that helps with this, ie: Mario World had yellow dots for 1 exit levels & red dots of multiple exit levels & it had a level "counter" at game start that indicated how many levels total you had unlocked (& added a star beside that number & changed most tiles/sprites in the game when you hit all levels/exits revealed). You could keep that simpler/cleaner maybe by changing the "dot" to a different color once it has been "fully completed", and by letting the player know at the very start of the game how many levels are left to fully complete (0/100).

• Does this design lend itself better to large, expansive worlds with multiple objectives or smaller worlds with just a few?

We're probably coming at this from different angles, but something like Mario64... how that is structured is based more around "recycling" each level to maximize the time spent in/value of the level - while minimizing the total actual amount of unique levels due to working within tight technical/spacial constraints. When you're working in 2D (especially if you're going low res & using fast to produce art & aren't really tied to any strict limitations) I would think you're better off following the Super Mario World approach, rather than the Mario 64 approach. 3D & 2D level designs are very different beasts. 2D levels that are "large/expansive" will typically just feel very sparse & empty - because you can only ever see so much of the level on the screen at any given time - & what is on the screen at any given time needs to have enough in it to keep the player entertained/busy.

I'll just add that I think if you try to "remake" a 3D game like Mario64 in 2D, you will lose a lot of what made Mario 64 good. I'm personally not a fan of the example 2 people above gave there of a good "2D expansive open world design" - I don't think Terraria really feels that way at all - it just feels less structured/less designed & more random/sparse/chaotic to me. Better to focus on what makes 2D games good (ie: use Super Mario World as your base). Also, I think whether the game is 3D or 2D, it's (usually) best to keep it only as large as it really needs to be - most games tend to feel better the tighter/more concentrated/compact they are, because you feel like you are doing & seeing more, more often.
Just my 2 cents, hope it helps!

 

[Sammi3]

There is this concept I wanted to try in a game that I never managed to that you could try. Using depth layers to have several layers of the game in which the player can go into. My demo had a sort of NPC village where buildings were separated by streets. Going "down" a street took you down a layer in depth to another road with buildings. You could try use that to add some level of complexity to your levels.

 

[Snail Man]

Or even simpler, you could just have an "in" layer and an "out" layer, where most of the world would be on the "out" layer, but have caves, buildings, etcetera on the "in" layer

 

[nvrogers]

How would you design a 2D level that is "open" to begin with when there's only two possible directions of traversal?
The open feeling you are after has more to do with structure and less to do with dimension. You need your levels to be non-linear on multiple levels. In addition to branching paths, you'll have to include non-linear objectives and sub-levels that can be completed in any order. In addition, you could start the game with many, if not all, of the areas already available. Then you can use metroidvania style upgrades to further open up those areas to exploration.

How could you convey to the player that they've seen everything in the level and can move on to the next?
If you don't want to break immersion, you could have the player gather the items at a shrine, which could give some signal when everything has been collected.

The problem with up and down in a platform game is gravity. There is a limit to how far upwards you may traverse, and traversing downwards is one-way. I don't really see these as directions you EXPLORE in as much as directions you STRUGGLE in; going upwards is a challenge rather than just mere transportation.

You could alleviate that with gravity switching mechanics, a grappling hook, layered levels (so exploration is not up and down), or even just levels that are designed to funnel the player up or down and have appropriate challenges along the way.

 

[Greenblizzard]

The issue you bring up is one I've been thinking about a lot earlier, though without any huge breakthroughs. I agree with what you say about vertical movement in 2d platformers being more about struggling than exploring; you either get a lot of jumping or careful falling. The most vertical levels then tend to either be very cave-like, or with a lot of floating platforms.

If the levels are meant to be freely explorable rather than linear, I'd say they shouldn't be too far across from one side to the other, because otherwise you might end up running back and forth over the same long stretch.
My solution to make up for this would be a layered world with doorways between the layers, increasing the space to explore, but without unnecessarily long linear stretches:

Then combine this with varied means of vertical travel; jump-through platforms, ladders, springs, cannons, grapplehook, temporary flying, elevators etc.

 

[Paolo Mazzon]

Lone Survivor, Environmental Station Alpha, Super Win The Game, Superbrothers (Kind of)
All of those games do it different, though

• Lone Survivor gives the feeling of a large world to explore in a platformer by utilizing doors/hallways/staircases to their full extent. The game is absolutely packed with doors. At no point in the game do you jump, but stairs (Which are basically just doors with a different animation) give the illusion of vertical movement.
• ESA uses a Metroid style world that is just huge.
• Super Win The Game is composed of a bunch of levels strung together by an overworld map; which is kind of generic, but it's the way the overworld map interacts with the platform levels that is special.
• Superbrothers is linear, but uses vertical design as well as doors.

Apparently Dex is open world, but I've never played it.

 

[Nujuat]

I think They Need to Be Fed 3 did a good job of being an open 2D game in "Adventure Mode" - might be worth checking out if you haven't played it (also like the first 2 mobile games and the original it's a really good GameMaker/mobile platform game so I'd reccomend it anyway).

Ive made a 2D collectathon type thing before but the levels were quite small (8 worlds with 10 small levels each). I just had a counter (like Coins: 6/23) in the HUD so you know that you still have more to find.

 

[Roa]

• How would you design a 2D level that is "open" to begin with when there's only two possible directions of traversal?
• Is working towards mission objectives / major collectibles in a 2D environment evoking the same feeling as in a 3D game where you can see them off in the distance? And if not, how could one try to alleviate that?
• How could you convey to the player that they've seen everything in the level and can move on to the next?
• Does this design lend itself better to large, expansive worlds with multiple objectives or smaller worlds with just a few?

1. What I would do is find a way to maybe shift into the background and have an animation follow to a new place, a bit like in some sonic games. You could also make doors that teleport you around as seen in crazy castles, or better still, go to another area but going into a door in the background like in blackthorne or clock tower that way you can have the expanse of space without invading another worlds area. If you make something akin to a metroidvania style, you could also bypass this stuff a bit.
2. Probably not, but you can always tease the player by making something out of reach from them and they have to go around and find a new path, but there is only so many times you can do that before it becomes annoying.
3. A simple collectable prompt should do that easily. Simply show how many are collected and silhouette for anything not collected.
4. Depends on your layout. You can make pretty expansive worlds if you follow designs of metroidvanias and things like clock tower that allowing moving in "3d space" but still work in 2d.

[edit]
Greenblizzard is on the right track.

 

[rui.rosario]

How would you design a 2D level that is "open" to begin with when there's only two possible directions of traversal?

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has already been suggested, but here is my idea on how to do this. I once saw a game (I think it was on Kickstarter) that was 3D albeit it worked on a 2D world. The way they got around this was by taking slices of the game. I'll try to draw it to make it clearer:

Imagine the following world (top down view):

+-+-+
|   |
+-+ +
|   |
+-+-+

As you can see there are four cells, connected as a backwards 'C'. You would only pick a slice of the world to show as a time (for instance, the ones marked with an 'x'):

+-+-+
|   |
+-+ +
|x x|
+-+-+

The player could then rotate the view and see another two cells in order to keep advancing in the level, like:

+-+-+
|  x|
+-+ +
|  x|
+-+-+

An so on.

Hope this was clear enough (making diagrams with letters doesn't work out well).

 

[NazGhuL]

How could you convey to the player that they've seen everything in the level and can move on to the next?

(Quick idea)
Each level start at night.(Let say 1am) Dark, gloomy with nocturne beasts, owls, bats...
Each item collected bring you closer to noon.(Let say 1PM), Sun is high, happy animals, butterfly, birds...

 

[squarebit]

Gonna pop in and suggest having portals on the levels which take you to other parts of the level or even different levels.
Parallax backgrounds gives a great sense of depth and scale, too.

Also how to make players know they're done in a zone could simply be done via a counter or progress bar for all or each of the collectibles / goals.

Sometimes simplicity is key.

 

[Snail Man]

I'm just going to play devils advocate for a sec and look at the possible disadvantages of using extensive portals and depth layers.
While it would add a lot of potential too to fill with content, it would also make each level feel more disconnected, and less like a cohesive whole. Yes, using the parallax method you could create the illusion of going back layers to tie it together a bit, but it seems to me that this method falls into the trap of trying to remake a 3D game in 2D. If you're going to do this style of game, you don't want to try and recreate every aspect from the 3D games that inspired it. As Dadio suggested, you want to use the tools and methods of 2D games to recreate the FEELING of the open world, not recreate the details that lose their efficacy when you strip away a dimension

 

[Sammi3]

I'm just going to play devils advocate for a sec and look at the possible disadvantages of using extensive portals and depth layers.
While it would add a lot of potential too to fill with content, it would also make each level feel more disconnected, and less like a cohesive whole. Yes, using the parallax method you could create the illusion of going back layers to tie it together a bit, but it seems to me that this method falls into the trap of trying to remake a 3D game in 2D. If you're going to do this style of game, you don't want to try and recreate every aspect from the 3D games that inspired it. As Dadio suggested, you want to use the tools and methods of 2D games to recreate the FEELING of the open world, not recreate the details that lose their efficacy when you strip away a dimension

Someone has to innovate from time to time. While traditional 2D games can be great in their own right, I think Yal has identified an issue for her game that could lead to very interesting design choices. Also, while it's easy to say 'you want to use the tools and methods...' you're not really offering her to design ideas for her problem.

 

[Snail Man]

I offered her more specific methods in my post earlier in this thread. I'm not saying nobody can innovate, all I'm saying is that you should play to the strengths of 2D platforming and use 2D methods to entice the player to explore, rather than produce some facsimile of the methods used in 3D games, such as seeing items in the parallax distance.

 

[mazimadu]

The style of game you are suggesting has actually been done before in the Wario Land series of games. Starting from Wario Land 2, the games allowed for the collection of a very large number of coins that were used to unlock extra content. The big problem with open world games in general is the issue of backtracking since most players don't like the idea of returning to areas they have visited before. I think this can be solved if you focus on puzzle based progression instead of exploration based progression. By manking the tougher, time consuming areas can be the areas with the most difficult puzzles instead of the most difficult platform challenge, the player feels returning to the area is easier since the puzzle is already solved.

Another thing Wario Land does is make the game still a level by level affair but each level an open world. This also avoids the metroid/zelda problem of back tracking.

 

[mazimadu]

On reading some of the replies, I think I have gotten a sense of the kind of game She is going for. Play this for reference:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/498969

 

[kris40k]

I know a few people mentioned shifting into the background/foreground. That has been used in the Shantae series to add some space to a 2D world. At various points, you could either move back or forward into another area. Also, as far as verticality, I know some mentioned some adjustments, I think if you had a character that climbed easily it could help with that. Or perhaps even adding a character that can fly, either for short of long periods. Flight would kill the challenge if a platformer is what you were going for, but could be used in a adventure game.

Edit:

How could you convey to the player that they've seen everything in the level and can move on to the next?​

I know someone else above mentioned a prompt. Something like in Dust: An Elysian Tale did with a percentage indicator for each stage on the overland map to tell when treasure chests or keys had been found. It allowed the player to quickly tell what stages were worth trekking through again to try to find something that was unreachable before or just missed.

You just have to determine what kid of pickups/goals are worth tracking.

 

[nujumkey]

"Or perhaps even adding a character that can fly, either for short of long periods. Flight would kill the challenge if a platformer is what you were going for, but could be used in a adventure game."

I think a good note about the flying is that it changes the way you approach platforming, which if you're making a long game with lots of walking around could be very helpful.
Also i remember a lot of Metroidvania style games using gating mechanics. Red key conquers red gates style that encourages exploration. Pokemons HM moves are a good example of this. It sets up the expectations of a player (that there is secret stuff they can discover later) and then passing these gates gives a very rewarding feeling. If you're not into key, making the player cut down a tree or something could be narratively very strong

 

[Yal]

I think @dadio's post pretty much pointed out the flaws in my reasoning I was looking for, but thanks anyway for keeping it going x3

As for the "seen everything" part, I don't mean collectibles as it seems everyone's assuming... I mean literally having seen the whole level. In 3D games, you can (typically) actually see the whole level from certain vantage points, which means you can see all the points-of-interest of the level; in 2D, you only see one screen / one room at a time and can't really assess the ground you've covered. I guess I could rephrase my question as "how do you convey the boundaries of a world has been reached" or "how do you give a sense of scale to your worlds that allows the player to subconsciously feel that they have traversed them in their entirety"... those just sound a lot more complicated than "have seen it all".


I guess the problem is that there are two different types of exploration. In 2D, you have no idea what lies ahead, and so you explore the unknown. In 3D, you can see what lies ahead before you reach it, and you explore something you have anticipated. In one way, not knowing what lies ahead might as well be more fun than getting to anticipate it, so I shouldn't worry too much about that.

 

[Snail Man]

Oh, well for representation of having seen it all in 2D, I don't see anything wrong with the standard way of starting with an empty map, then filling it in as you explore. The bounds of the map give you a sense of how much you've seen and how much you have left to see, plus it doubles as a handy navigational aide.

 

[Yal]

Heh, I guess there's no getting away from having the interface tell the story instead of the world itself, are there? Well, maps actually are pretty nice in Metroidvanias, especially in games where you'll leave an area for a while and then come back much later. I really enjoyed playing Axiom Verge by the map when backtracking since it's pretty good at hinting at obvious things you've overlooked, and in Harmony Of Dissonance the map was the only way you gauged your progress to begin with.

 

[Snail Man]

If you wanted to integrate the map a bit more into the world, I've seen games where the map exists in game, drawn on a wall near the starting point, and npcs "update" it when you explore. It's less useful as a navigational tool, but it's cool to go back to the map every now and the and see what you've explored

 

[kris40k]

Hmm, coming from the idea of being on a mountain peak and seeing into the distance, you could have a background, maybe a parallax one that shifts as you move through the level, that would display what was in the "distant land". As you go through various stages, the background changes to reflect a new "distant land", mounain peaks, forests, castles, etc... You can use that to show Points of Interest in the distance, which would later be found by the player in a new stage as they "moved throughout" the world. Just match the level design to what you showed in the distance in backgrounds.

 

[NY4NK0]

-edit- I misunderstood your question, sorry!

Have you played Yoshi's Island for the SNES?
I think they did a good job with what you're describing. :3

To answer your questions:
- You have four directions of traversal, you can use structures or the environment for vertical travel. Trees with different branch heights, is one example. The screens can also loop back around to create a sense of connectivity - you're not limited to the standard left to right mario style.

- Maybe not "see them off in the distance", but you could have the item the player wants visible, but unreachable without approaching it in a unique way(navigating the environment) or solving a puzzle.

- Yoshi's Island hides 20 red coins amonst the normal coins and plays a unique sound when you've collected them all. At the end of each level your score is calculated based on how many of the red coins, flowers and stars you've collected. The number of possible red coins, flowers and stars is consistent throughout each level of the game, so after playing the first level the objective is clear.

- I think it can work either way. A very large world will cause the player to backtrack a lot if they want to be a perfectionist, so the collectibles should probably have some value to the player, like in Castlevania SOTN where you find weapons, skills and health upgrades. If the only function the collectibles have is to advance to the next part of the game, it might get annoying in a very large environment. Yoshi's Island breaks the world into small chunks and the reward for collecting everything is simply personal satisfaction and an extra level if you beat each level on a map 100%.

 

[The M]

One way to show the world could be to simply zoom out the camera at certain points. Fez did this a lot when you entered new areas i think (though that world also span around in 3D while zooming).
Point is, if you have a big area you could show it off at times. Other than zooming you could pan the camera a lot and let the player move it to look ahead. I'd also like to point to Wario land, especially the third entry in the series for an open world platformer (and because it's a great game ^^).