Book 1, Process
Book 2, Culture
Book 4, Learning
Composition
the overall visual arrangement and organization of shapes in a level; landmarks, vistas, approaches; also, why "leading lines" aren't real
What is composition?
Composition is the overall visual organization of the level. There are two types of composition:
- Spatial composition: the overall big picture 3D arrangement of core masses. We cannot guarantee a specific view, and instead account for a wide variety of viewing angles and positions.
- This is "composition" as practiced in 3D arts like architecture, interior design, and sculpture.
- Shot composition: how the level looks in the player's 2D camera frame / screen, from a specific angle at a specific position.
- This is "composition" as practiced in 2D arts like drawing, painting, photography, and film.
A lot of level design tutorials and resources out there claim that specific shot composition is really important. For many reasons, we disagree and we have a different definition of composition. Instead, we argue that spatial composition is much more important than shot composition.
(TODO: image)
Spatial composition
Spatial organization involves building-up a spatial hierarchy, where some parts of the level should feel more important than the other parts. At the top of the hierarchy are key landmarks, focal points, and central areas that contrast meaningfully with their surroundings and anchor the rest of the composition. Some ways of building spatial contrast:
- Height. Big tall towers in crowded spaces, or small short objects in open spaces.
- Density / spread. A wider open space surrounded by smaller narrower structures.
- Orientation. An angled object that breaks from the surrounding grid.
- Shape. Lots of rectangular things nearby? Try putting a round thing there.
focal point strategies in Chandigarh Assembly (bottom-left), Piazza Del Campo (top-middle), and Shokin-Tei Pavilion (bottom-middle). Drawings from chapter 3 of "Architecture: Form, Space, and Order" by Francis Ching.
In the image above, notice how the central legislative chamber of the Palace of Assembly, Chandigarh by Le Corbusier (bottom-left) uses several types of contrast in its floor plan. It's big, it's a circle in a box, and it's rotated at a skewed angle / axis that breaks from the rest of the grid. So it feels very important and vital to the function of this building! If this were a level, the main setpiece or final boss fight would probably take place in this round room.
The chamber is off-center and almost touches the eastern wall. But it doesn't feel off-center, does it? That's because focal points create new centers within the spatial organization. Imagine a zone of influence emanating from important area; it sort of "pulls" the rest of the composition around it. (See diagrams in bottom-right for how focal points influence how we perceive the "center" of a space.)
And remember, hierarchy depends on local contrast and context. A tall thing only seems special if it is surrounded by short things. A small thing will feel more special if surrounded by bigger things.
Landmark
A landmark or point of interest (POI) is a unique and memorable shape, mass, or location in a level.
TODO: examples
TODO / IMPORTANT: landmarks have to feel relevant and useful !! otherwise they don't function as landmarks!
Actual landmarks (what the player notices during play) vs. fake set dressing landmarks (e.g. random skybox elements in The Last Of Us don't orient players, aren't actually useful)
Saliency
Sightlines
A sightline is a trajectory of empty open space that offers a possible view of another space.
Sightlines are tools that players use when it seems relevant to the current game state and goals. If the player has no reason to look along a sightline, then there is a high probability that they won't use the sightline at all. A sightline is an opportunity / situational tool that the player might ignore, it cannot guarantee behavior.
Even if the player looks in a certain direction, there is no guarantee they will remember or process what they saw. (Imagine reading a boring book or watching a boring movie; your eyes may see the words / images but that doesn't mean you actually read or process it.)
sightline analysis on de_cache by Sal Garozzo and Shawn Snelling in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, from GDC 2015: Community Level Design for Competitive CS:GO (via YouTube)
In the diagram above, level designer Sal Garozzo highlights common strategic sightlines on a 2015 version of the competitive multiplayer shooter map de_cache in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. Each sightline offers a different degree of coverage and information for attacking / defending the bombsite A area.
However, would all these sightlines be readily obvious to a first-time player, at first glance?
No. In fact, recognizing and memorizing these sightlines is part of learning the game / learning the map. Competitive players must actively study these sightlines; it is NOT a natural subconscious obvious way of looking around. The existence of a sightline does not mean the player will use it, nor even know it's there.
Vista
So how do we convince the player that, on first glance, the sightline is important?
A vista is an exceptionally deep scene composition that offers an overview of the next area, giving the player an opportunity to formulate a strategy. In modern encounter design, it is very common to introduce an arena with a vista beforehand, especially if the arena layout is complicated.
(TODO: talk more about vistas with examples that also emphasize the flow / layout into the vista)
Approach
An approach is a path with a vista.
(TODO: show approach examples)
(TODO: example... Fallingwater?)
Prospect and refuge
(TODO: probably needs its own page at this point)
In his 1975 book The Experience of Landscape, geographer Jay Appleton proposed a prospect-refuge theory that humans have an "inborn desire" to seek out prospect (vantage points / lookout points) and refuge (areas and interiors safe from view / predators).
When core gameplay focuses on hide and seek-like patterns, as in most action / shooter games, then this is a useful way to think about a level. Does the level offer enough prospects for seeking? Does it offer enough refuge for hiding?
... But that's where the usefulness of the theory ends. Don't take prospect-refuge theory too seriously. It's based on evolutionary psychology -- an imaginary fantasy of how early humans lived and felt. Some studies even suggest the refuge effect isn't real. (Frankly, we're confused why architects seem to believe in this theory so much. Maybe architects don't playtest.)
Even if evo psych was real, players take thoughtless risks in video games all the time. Unless you're making a game about roleplaying as an early human, this imaginary "instinctual paleo caveman lizard brain" is not relevant to our theory of player psychology.
examples of refuge-as-enclosure design strategies; from "Form and Fabric in Landscape Architecture" by Catherine Dee
Why "refuge" is complicated
How do we create refuges in games?
For many action games, threat assessment is a core mechanic / skill that players must develop over time. It is not the simple natural innate caveman-brain process that prospect-and-refuge proponents argue it is.
In the screenshot below from Elden Ring (2022), this is the approach into the "debate parlor":
(screenshot)
When most players reach this point, it will feel very dangerous.
- There is a giant glowing wizard wolf growling at the player. The wolf has a name and a large health bar, indicating it is a boss enemy.
- In Elden Ring, the most difficult boss enemies tend to inhabit highly decorated landmark areas. So the unique art assets here differentiate the room from past rooms, it stands out as a special area of high importance.
- The medium-sized room makes the large wolf feel even larger. It will be difficult to dodge the wolf's attacks. Furniture and clutter further limit the player's mobility and options. (Until the boss destroys the furniture, opening up more floor space, making the fight a bit easier.)
- The player has reached this point after fighting through 3-4 encounters, and is probably wondering where the next save point is. Past boss arenas featured convenient save points before the fight; this one does not, and pushes players to risk their progress.
Note all the factors that make the situation feel dangerous: the UI, consistent use of environment art, the past encounters and progression system.
(screenshot)
After defeating the boss, the debate parlor changes (see screenshot above).
There is no longer a giant glowing growling wizard wolf with a name and health bar. Instead, there is only a quiet "grace" campfire-like save point. This landmark boss arena now functions as a safe house, territory won by the player after a difficult battle. The refuge itself is a reward. The chaotic half-demolished parliament chamber now takes on the mood of a peaceful ruin.
This is why we argue that, even if you set aside other criticisms and focus on its formal aspects, prospect and refuge theory doesn't quite transfer to level design.
- sense of safety depends less on layout / blockout / architecture, and instead more on the wider game systems / encounter design patterns
- game worlds change ownership and function much more frequently than in the real world
- something won't "look safe" if past levels featured traps or ambushes
- refuge is a situation / game state, not a formal quality of architecture; no shape is intrinsically safe
Shot composition (fallacy)
Shot composition is the 2D arrangement of level geometry relative to the player's camera perspective.
And ok, some of this matters, sometimes. Sightlines, approach, color and lighting, perspective -- all these aspects can matter, sometimes.
But some level designers misinterpret shot composition as level design. They argue that if you arrange everything in your level to make nicely framed views, then players will magically wordlessly know what to do and where to go.
Composition is not mind control. This is such a common misconception in level design theory that we're going to devote a whole section to debunking it. For this reason, we call this the shot composition fallacy: a belief that seems true and useful, but is actually deeply wrong, leading to a worse understanding.
Screenshots aren't levels
First of all, a screenshot is not a level. This may seem obvious, but many level designers seem to have forgotten.
Instead, a screenshot is an image of the game at a specific position, angle, and time. Taking a screenshot is an act of photography.
Do photos capture an objective truth about a place or time? No. A photographer is an artist who chooses a place and time to create an image. Even a dev overview screenshot of a blockout emphasizes and downplays certain elements. A photo is an artistic interpretation that captures only one aspect of an actual person, place, or thing.
No photo can replace the experience of visiting a place or meeting a person, and no screenshot can replace a playtest.
More importantly, there is no guarantee the player will imagine the same framing or composition. The player never plays your screenshot.
For more on the decades-long debate about photography and meaning, see On Photography by Susan Sontag (about photos and US politics) or Camera Lucida by Roland Barthes (about photos and death).
"Ceci n'est pas un niveau" ("This is not a level") a play on "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" ("This is not a pipe") from the famous painting The Treachery of Images by Rene Magritte.
Leading lines (are bullshit)
There's currently a trend in level design to analyze screenshots by drawing "leading lines" that seem to point / guide the player's eyes toward a landmark in the distance.
However we argue that leading lines aren't actually effective, and furthermore, leading lines don't even make sense within their own logic.
Leading lines misunderstand human gaze, perception, and information processing. Retina scans and gaze tracking tech show how leading lines and other traditional tenets of 2D visual composition don't "lead the eye" in the ways we think they do. Even if they did, there's no guarantee the player actually processed the visual information.
Literally every hallway you build will seem to converge in the distance. This phenomenon is called foreshortening, creating an illusion of depth in an otherwise flat 2D image. Games with isometric or parallel projection make leading lines impossible. The art history of perspective drawing is interesting, but it's not level design.
"leading lines" always exist in any screenshot with linear perspective; you can't-not make leading lines
Ironically, leading lines mislead level designers into believing that shot composition, environment art, and set dressing are central level design problems instead of metrics, encounter design, or playtesting. Even if leading lines worked (which they don't), you would do it near the end of the level design process. Focus on the fundamental foundation of the level first.
Leading lines routinely fail if you actually bother to playtest. You'll find that there is a 99% chance the player will look somewhere else, and a 1% chance they will look in the intended direction for 0.5 seconds. A screenshot is not a level, no one ever plays a screenshot.
Leading lines are a self-fulfilling prophecy when you move the game camera into a specific place to frame a specific view. Of course the screenshot will follow rules of composition! That's because you composed it like that! And then you drew lines on it! This is photography, not level design. Consult the "Golden Ratio" meme about the absurdity of self-fulfilling composition patterns.
"leading lines" exist because you drew a pattern over an image, just like the "golden ratio" meme
This isn't how people navigate spaces. People use pattern recognition, prior knowledge, and cultural associations to build mental maps in their mind. Wayfinding is a complex active process of moving and using an environment, not just looking at one spot of a level from one angle.
Framing a view within a space is called photography, and it is a skill that humans practice and develop. It is not a natural subconscious process.
Shot composition makes more sense for photography, film, and other static flat 2D media where the author has strong control over the camera, and the audience can pay special attention to the entire image. However, it makes very little sense for interactive environments where the player can move the camera to the wrong place at the wrong time. A video game level is a place, not a painting, photo, or film.
level design is not photography / cinematography, sorry (photo under CC0 license)
Sightlines vs. leading lines
It may seem like sightlines and leading lines are the same. They both relate to tracing what the player sees from their camera perspective.
However, sightlines and leading lines emphasize very different things:
- Sightline: a trajectory of empty open space that offers a possible view of another space
- A tool that players use when it seems relevant to the current game state and goals
- Again, we want to emphasize:
- Sightlines are made of empty open space
- Sightlines are situational tools that do not guarantee behavior
- Leading line: fake imagined phenomenon where walls and linear set dressing seems to converge in the distance to subliminally direct the player where to go
- No one navigates spaces like this
- No one plays video games like this
- Don't make levels for no one
To review...
- Spatial composition is the overall organization of 3D masses in the level.
- Hierarchy is when some things seem more important than others, usually because they contrast in terms of size, shape, spread, or angle.
- Landmark
- Saliency
- Sightlines are lines of empty space that the player can use to see into another area.
- Vista
- Approach
- Shot composition is some kinda-bullshit theory that the player's view determines their behavior, rather than the player's actual understanding of the space.
- Screenshots aren't levels; levels are spaces that players use
- Leading lines are brain poison, don't use them
- Don't confuse leading lines with sightlines, which are actually real
Now what?
Further reading
Our stance against leading lines / shot composition in level design is currently not the norm in the game industry. While we think it's 99% brain poison, other credible designers disagree:
- "Environment Design as Spatial Cinematography: Theory and Practice" by Miriam Bellard, Rockstar North (GDC 2019) goes over Rockstar's approach to filmic environmental composition in Grand Theft Auto 5 levels. Bellard suggests a walkthrough method with rule-of-thirds overlay, and emphasizes affordance / salience model of embodied spaces. She also "myth-busts" leading lines and weenies while simultaneously arguing they are still useful. Overall, this is probably the most "balanced" industry talk on shot composition, but maybe just don't drink too much of the evo psych / shape psychology kool-aid.
- "The Importance of Nothing: Using Negative Space in Level Design" by Jim Brown, Epic Games (GDC 2014)
Last modified 1mo ago