No, please, no.

As an outsider, I think a key point is that this concept only makes sense in context with game-industry conventions. They (From my dive in just now) divide environment-creation into level design, environmental art, and other fields. The people who do one specialize in it, and don't have expertise in the others. Gaining experience in both, or working on both might be a taboo (?).

Another point is that the level design field is driven by superstitions, word-of-mouth, copying existing patterns etc, and is subjective. This is true about many arts, I highlight it here as context for the article. One of the author's points is that one-size-fits-all design patterns don't make sense for all cases.

I personally found the fallout 4 vaults really confusing and annoying and got lost easily, compared to Fallout 3/NV. Or even games like Deus Ex.

Fallout 4 felt like a terrible example of dungeon design. They were either linear and boring, or a weird layout where everything looked the same.

I'm usually pretty good at mapping game layouts in my head too, picking up FPS maps, etc. quickly.

Aside from that, I also feel like he misses that irl with a chaotic design we usually have a lot of signs. A lot! But people don't really use them in games as it's easy for players to miss thinking it's just decorative, and you've only got a certain amount of screen real estate when looking at a monitor, nor can you glance like you can irl.

* Make the place you want the player to go lit up, and other areas darkened.

* Make ledges, ladders, and other intractable elements you want the player to know are interactive yellow.

* Pick a thematically appropriate "this is a wall" like the very common smattering of furniture and use it liberally to signal that this is the wrong way.

* Don't use loops that aren't small, self contained, and that the player can see are loops. Don't use "diamond" maps where players must choose between two paths that end at the same place without making it painfully obvious that's what's happening. Elden ring with the grand lift vs the cave did it well.

* Make not-the-main-paths short and put a useful but not necessary or particularly valuable item at the end as a reward for players exploring and signal that this is the end.

It's not magic or anything, but players have likely played so many games that use these and similar visual cues that they've interned them without even realizing.

Seems like this option should really be 2 different options. An NPC briefing the players about the exit is lazy and signals to the player that they are regarded as stupid. The rest is great.

The first half of a article seems to be the author rebutting their own meme, which I've never heard of.

The main point of the second article is:

> What sounds more effective for pulling the player to the exit of a non-linear level?...

> (a) scripting, pacing, combat, economy: have an NPC brief the player on how to find the level exit, then place a ranged enemy turret, valuable item, and side-quest destination near the level exit

> (b) the raw power of architecture: rotate a rock, pray the player approaches that rock from a direction that coincidentally forms a secret imaginary invisible line that mind controls them into hallucinating a path toward one of three skybox mountains in the far distance

Which then concludes that one ought to prioritize the former over the latter.

Which isn't really convincing; it's attacking a strawman. From what I learnt, it's more of using things like lighting, motion, frames, and sometimes literal signs. Not really "magic rocks and mind control".

I think the author goes too far in the other direction. Both methods are useful; architectural hints (used IRL too), as well as game-specific hints (e.g. side quest destinations, valuable items).