Feedback ¿how to create a good level in a top down game?

so, I have several tilesets and tilemaps, the game I want to make is a top down, previously I researched about level design, without getting anything rewarding to help me to have an idea of what I could do, so my doubt is how could I create zones or levels in a good way? I really don't know if I can just create a zone based only on my intuition, I would like to create something that works and that fulfills its objective, but I think that first I need to know the theory on how to do it, so I would like to know, what I have to take into account or in consideration to be able to create a good zone for a top down game?

 

Just knowing "a top down game" isn't enough. You're not supplying yourself (or us) with anywhere near enough information to make useful decisions. That's why you're stuck.

Start by defining the objective. What thing(s) are you trying to achieve?

Without knowing that there's no way you can design something which does it, and there's even less chance we could provide actionable advice.

Partial example, if I was making a twin-stick arena shooter:
1. Levels must be a series of arenas connected by paths.
2. Early arenas will feel safe. As a level progresses each arena will feel more dangerous. This is done by decreasing the size of each arena and the amount of cover available within it.
3. Each level will have one or more secrets, where the entrance is visually hidden.
4. Each level will (or will not) have branching paths which the player must choose between...
5. Etc.

So, the super high level approach is:
1. Figure out what experience you want players to have. Write it for yourself in a sentence or two.
2. Figure out a bunch of things you think a level could do to provide that experience.
3. Build and try out levels, and change stuff in 1 and 2 as you see how people respond to levels.

 

the main experience I want players to have in my levels is that of a feeling of exploration, so I want my levels to "encourage exploration."

what I think I could do to encourage that idea is to put points of interest and areas where the player can access but are not mandatory, and you can find interesting things in them, as well as putting areas that can not be accessed until you do certain things within the game, other things I could add are missions that take you from one point to another far away where you can find places that you can access but are not part of the quest

the main conflict I have with this is, where in the area and level to put the points of interest? is there a specific way to do it? what if I do it the way I want and it turns out that there was a better way to arrange it and it works better?

to better understand what I mean, is to see the picture I sent, it is the one of a mother 3 level, more specifically the initial zone of the game, I wonder why necessarily the level has to be delimited by the mountains in that way? is there a good or specific way to do it? or something simpler like that just did it that way because it looked nice? I hope you can understand what I mean and if not, I would like you to let me know.

 

Then you change things. It's completely normal. You won't get things perfect the first time. Even experienced designers often have multiple takes on something before they're happy with the result.

It does look nice, but it also clearly communicates the boundaries of the level. So it has two purposes.

While happy accidents sometimes happen, it probably took quite a bit of experience and/or trying a bunch of different stuff before they settled on that.

Pick something, give it a go, and then see what does and doesn't work about it. Then think of something that might solve the things which didn't work, and give that a go.

Excellent! How does the player know? E.g. is there a clearly visible path but they can't see where it goes? Or if the areas are open, is there some kind of visual cue that something is in that direction? How can you communicate where players can / should explore in your design or visuals?

Great. What interesting things? People to meet? Loot to collect? Upgrades? Enemies? Is it the area itself that is interesting?

In exploration games this is neat, because it gives you a reason to go back, and also builds anticipation. I can see that there's something there (but see above - how do I know that?) but I can't access it yet.

This is really common in "open world" games. Which validates the concept immediately, and also means you can go and look for reference. What games do long journeys in a way which encourages a feeling of exploration, and what games don't give that feeling? In each case, why? And how can you incorporate those factors?

 

I think Motivation Reaction Units which is the building blocks for most fiction novels and tv is a good way to frame things.

Player has a goal.

There is conflict in way to get to goal.

There is a disaster which prevents reaching the goal.

Next, there is a Reaction. Player had an expectation, but now it is confounded.

Dilemma. What can player do? Ideally there are multiple options, but none seem perfect, and for each type of personality there is an option that sounds appealing.

Decision. The player decides what to do, and then marches on towards the new goal, only to face another....

conflict!


Cycle repeats again and again.

The reason this formula works is because by the time one question is answered, many new ones get asked, but its always metered out one by one so that the audience can easily digest and stay engaged.

So, in context, if you are wondering, should I put a mountain here, or there? A better question might be, with things as they are right now, when player is playing, where is their mind? What are they thinking about? What goals do they have? How can I present a conflict that will confound their goal? What new goals will player come up with to deal with this conflict?

So you end up building lots of traps and problems to keep the player engaged, and then you refine them so that player is not hitting so many that they get fatigued, and they are able to reach goals often enough to keep dopamine flowing but not so often that they realize the goals have no real value.

A couple other random thoughts:

A goodie is only good is there is a corollary bad thing. Therefore, goodie is effect, bad thing is cause. So introduce problem, then value of the goodie (and motivation to go after it) is taken care of.

I wouldn't put too much stock in theories. I'd make your levels completely based on your own intuition, and then get people to play it, and watch them.

Don't believe their words about anything - it counts for nothing. Same way if you have people over for dinner, they all will say the food is good. But if nobody got seconds, you know the food was not good.

So just see how people interact with the game. Do they do what you expected, or not? If not, it will be easy to imagine some small tweaks to start coaxing players towards your desired experience.