In defense of symmetrical level design

News & General Discussion
1

Before I start I should probably explain my background better as to provide some additional context to where I’m coming from.

Before getting into game dev I use to be (and still sometimes dabble in) a game modder/level designer from some of the games from the 90’s (Doom/Quake/Half-life). Even as late as recently I’ve been making some maps for those games, and the communities while niche are still active to this today. However, there is one highly prevailing attitude I’ve encountered in these communities regarding level design over and over that I’ve never been able to agree with:

The role of asymmetry in level design

Short version: Most of the Doom/Duke/Quake modders believe symmetrical design is inherently bad design, and that such levels are crap. And I massively disagree.

Long version: But what do they mean when they say asymmetry is bad?

Basically, they don’t believe any area or room can be interesting if the basic layout looks anything like this:

715×453 346 Bytes

And instead believe that rooms/areas should almost always be asymmetrical and arbitrary shapes along the lines of this:

715×453 1.77 KB

Their logic goes that symmetrical designs are lazy and boring, and that without asymmetry it is not possible to have interesting visuals. So prevailing is this view, that many levels/mods are dismissed as crap simply by the merit of having many symmetrical areas at all.

I’m not sure how widespread this view is outside of these niche communities, but personally I see this as snobbery that isn’t supported by evidence.

In defense of symmetrical design

For starters, lets address the first major problem I have with this idea that “Symmetry = Bad design”.

How many modern games even use highly asymmetrical room shapes anymore? Is it really that common for modern designers to have tons of walls at completely arbitrary angles? I won’t say this never happens, but the days of Doom style mazes where room shapes/angles are random/arbitrary are largely gone. It seems odd that this would be so if highly asymmetrical designs are objectively superior.

Secondly, I find that arbitrary room shapes just look crude and ugly for the most part. Like a noob just opened up the level editor and drew some random shapes. I don’t find it visually pleasing at all.

Thirdly, while random room shapes may work fine in a low-detail game like Doom, having lots of walls at awkward angles can quickly become a pain if you intend to add advanced geometry detail into your level. Complex level geo is not fun or easy to make if nothing about the room is symmetrical.

Fourthly, the fact that rooms have similar layouts/shapes doesn’t mean that they will also end up looking the same after being detailed/textured. So it isn’t really true that you can’t have interesting visuals in an area just become their shape/layout uses symmetrical shapes.

/end of rant.

What is your stance on this matter?

2

I don’t think you are using the word symmetrical properly and are confusing things further by using the words “symmetrical” and “asymmetrical” interchangeably, where as these two words mean the opposite of each other. I actually don’t know what you’re talking about. Maybe you meant “rectilinear” instead? “Axis-aligned” maybe?

I’m confused because In this picture you posted, the two rooms at the top are symmetrical (not asymmetric). The shape on bottom, however, is asymmetric.

In this other picture, the two shapes at the top are also symmetric, and the one on the bottom is also asymmetric, so these two examples are the same as far as their symmetry goes.

5 Likes
3

I’ll use a better example by posting the automaps of actual Doom levels. One from Ultimate Doom and one from Doom 64 who’s design is more modern:

E1M3 from Ultimate Doom

Map01 from Doom 64:

Notice how Doom 64 (which came out years after the original Doom and had a more realistic graphic style) doesn’t have room/area design that contains anywhere near as many instances of random or awkward angles. By the standards of the Doom/Quake/Duke community this is “bad” for some reason.

4

Symmetry is when each side is a reflection of the other, if you put an axis running down the middle. I think you’re talking about right-angles?

1 Like
5

Have they explained why they think it’s bad?

One justification I see for some form of symmetry is multiplayer.

6

Sounds like a debate within a very tiny niche audience, who are somewhat confused as to what symmetry actually is. It seems like you’re actually talking about spaces which are basically simple regular polygons versus complex or irregular polygons.

I doubt this notion has much traction outside that niche, or is seen as relevant to the rest of the game design world.

Manmade spaces, whilst not necessarily symmetric, usually stick to regular(-ish) and simple(-ish) polygons rather than complex and irregular. Where that’s not the case, its usually dictated by other factors, eg landscape features or specific functional needs.

I kind of also suspect that if someone cant make an interesting level with simple regular polygons, then irregular and complex polygons are basically a crutch.

2 Likes
7

It’s one those issues that people like to get dramatic about it and take a firm stand on. But really its just about application and context. Both can be fun, both can be done poorly. In level design, back in the day, there were a couple of really cool asymmetrical UT maps, November comes to mind. it was a sub base, both sides were very different but perfectly balanced. Symmetry is good for tournament play, it is safe from arguments. The real fun is asymmetrical game play. PVP with different goals. Or symmetric play with asymmetric content… Star Wars was like that… wookies vs speeders, Jedi vs droids… as was marvel… Thor vs. Squirrel girl, etc… luckily that is a designer problem. :wink:

3 Likes
8

I know Splinter Cell’s Spy vs Mercs multiplayer got a lot of praise for its asymmetry.

9

The point does seem to be about regular versus irregular shapes rather than symmetry, but it is all related.

Firstly, the both have their uses, and limiting to one reduces the potential gameplay options. For example, a regular, organised, clean area in a post-apocalyptic irregular world alerts you to spaces likely to have some organisation operating in the area, and therefore different threats.

Regular shapes such as circles, squares, or the golden ratio are spaces that a person will naturally feel more comfortable in. That is often not the atmosphere you want for much of the game world, although useful for providing a change of pace between intense battles.

Unusual angles are the opposite of comfortable, and provide variety to the way views open up as the player moves around. Multiple angles protruding into a space can provide choke points that are unique and therefore create new challenges.

One problem with regular shapes can be disorientation, particularly after a battle with a lot of movement. This should be offset by a hierarchy to the room, it doesn’t have to a be as formal as a church with the alter to the east and main doors often to the west, but sometimes it will be.

Like architecture, level design is about occupying and moving through space. The appearance is supportive of that. The original post mentioned similar shapes looking different, but a player will usually move through similar shapes in similar ways, not providing new gameplay.

Note how I mentioned moving through space. Doors are a prime example of this. Public spaces often have doors in the centre of a wall to allow efficient access, but houses often have them near corners to minimise the intrusion into limited spaces, and to reduce the amount of corridor needed. Also notice that in communal spaces in a house such as a lounge, the door usually opens towards the wall to welcome the person into the room and be seen as not a threat, but private spaces such as bedrooms and bathrooms the door opens into the room (unless impractical due to really tight spaces) to protect modesty long enough to tell someone to stop. Those different door scenarios can have a major effect on gameplay.

So do not rule out either regular or irregular.

3 Likes
10

Are you sure you are understanding the terms correctly?

Symmetrical level design is most commonly used to refer to the idea that in a competitive multiplayer game the different sides/starting points in a level are mirror images:

As the ‘sides’ become less alike it becomes harder to keep them ‘fair’. There are other ways around this for example if you die and respawn over and over in different spots on the map over time the advantages and disadvantages (may) level out.

6 Likes
11

just get paint on the canvas and then playtest it. its not like it is difficult to swap your level design around during design

there is no easy, one-size-fits-all answer.

things i’d want to keep an eye on: how quick do different types of players learn the map and gain advantage over others?
where is the action happening?
if you adjust map to shift where action happens, does that effect replayability?

drop the philosophy/religion, get to work with science

3 Likes
12

Maybe it has something to do with the typical user made maps of the era in Doom community which were usually just basically a big box->corridor->box containing a shotgun->corridor->big box with 50 cyberdemons. So maybe all the tutorials and level design gurus of that time emphasized the need to make more complex shapes and that stuck. Also earlier games like Wolfenstein 3D only had square angles so maybe there was a stronger need to differentiate from that.

1 Like
13

It would appear that there is a confusion of terms in this thread.

When I used the term “symmetrical level design” I wasn’t talking about MP balance or whatever, but the actual visual and layout design of individual rooms/areas.

14

Dear splattenburgers, just a 2 cents.
I understand what you are saying/getting at (or think I am?)…it is true that ‘visual readability’ seem stronger with the ‘more orderly’ map layout on Doom 64; using more symetrical/boxy/squarish like areas…in that sense, yes; it would be seen as more realistic/conventional…but for players…it may look boring/uninteresting. Asymmetry in the areas brings ‘chaos’, reduction of ‘order’ in ‘shapes/forms’…and also ‘intriguing’ shapes…asymmetry in forms and shapes ‘catches the eye’…

Plus, I think that visual/layout design (Doom 64) feels more ‘basic’ to players…couple of boxes…too symmetrical…too simple; not catchy style as that E1M3; I mean it’s still a very advanced Pro map, it shows. Asymmetry in that Ultimate Doom map is what creates that ‘special layout’ feeling/disorder…that intrigues. Bland/symetrical can cause boring/uninteresting/basic levels. I’m not saying that Doom 64 map is basic or anythin; there is lots of detail there; but the ‘chaotic’ layout of Ultimate Doom is what attracts and keeps player intrigued…rather that ‘boxy/boring’ ‘cubic/flat-square’ map. That does not mean you can’t make an intriguing/fun map with symmetry and normal shaped squares/triangles/primities, you can…it’s just it’s more convincing/‘eye catching’…this assymetry; this chaos ‘in the lines/shapes’. Shapes that Not Repeated/Not Repetitive (assymetry)…helps a lot…shapes that repeat themselves (symmetry) = bland. And they will say the map is ‘basic/amateur’ made of couple of boxes (‘cereal box map’).

Don’t get me wrong…myself I don’T believe that, I think you can make a great map even with more Order in the design using symetrical primites…but I understand the point, that chaotic/assymetrical lines/design boosts the interest and curiosity ‘to explore the map’…they want a non-boxy/non-conventional map; something that is moslty ‘less’ realistic and more chaotic with different assymetrical shapes…not many wants boring design/layout map. Just a 2 cents.

ps: [Totally off topic…did you know that faces/human faces that are asymmetric have more DNA compromising…and a ‘symmetric’ face is healthier/less compromised DNA (even if we think that a symmetrical face looks ‘fake’/retouched in Photoshop’…it’s actually better and means the person’s DNA is in better shape/less compromised;; while an asymmetrical face/body is a tell tale sign that the DNA experience compromising in mother womb - in the most extreme example it is like Quasimodo/face that assymetric and very different 2 sides…this is caused by gene/DNA defects and by selection/evolution pressure it is not selected for (because it means ‘compromised DNA → compromise specie survival’, thus unselected/means the genes will not be passed down because compromise body; it is also called recessive genes/or effects of incest (the DNA is not mixed/heterogenous (adapted/new mutations) but very homogenous (unadapted/no new mutations/deleterious); which causes congenital defects/diseases/hasten a short life (I did biogerontology studies))].

15

Two of your three example “asymmetrical” shapes are in fact symmetrical. One of your “symmetrical” shapes is asymmetrical. That’s where the confusion comes from. I don’t know what you mean by that word. I’m pretty sure it’s not the dictionary / mathematical definition.

The map examples you have aren’t clearing things up because I, for one, don’t know specifically where to look for the asymmetry, or lack of. Neither level is symmetrical overall, both have an assortment of assymetrical rooms. So clearly there’s something in there that matters to Doom aficionados, but since I’m not one it’s sailing right by me.

Edit: There’s mention of “random or awkward angles”. Is that the point, moreso than symmetry?

16

Largely yes. I’m talking more about the design of individual areas within a map, rather than the level as a whole.

17

You’re using symmetry to mean something completely different than it means, which is confusing.
A better term for what you’re in favor of is rectilinear.

That said, I mostly agree. Most interior architecture is largely rectilinear, and so if your game is set in anything resembling contemporary human buildings it makes sense to fit that style. I wouldn’t go quite 100% rectilinear in most cases - you’ll notice that the Doom 64 map still has some angle and oddly shaped rooms in it - but I’d expect more rectilinear rooms than irregular ones.

Obviously, this doesn’t apply to natural environments like caves, where a too-regular room would be jarring.

18

With that in mind I assume it has a lot to do with limitations from those early times.

In Doom the rooms don’t often have much in them. Rendering had to be really simple and the object count was really low. That means that the interest and variation had to come from the design of the room geometry moreso than the things within the room. Realistically designed rooms quickly become boring in that context, because real rooms are designed for ease of navigation and visibility - the opposite of what you want in many video game scenarios!

Here’s a room from one of the Doom games:

Note that almost all of the interest is from the room itself. It has a single prop, that column in the middle. Everything else to make it interesting comes from the walls being angled rather than straight, and from the hole in the roof. In this game the rooms were most of what they had to work with, so they had to really lean on them for both mechanical and aesthetic design.

These days the room itself is just one layer of a level’s or area’s design. We put objects in the rooms, and then we often decorate those objects, and separately have various effects - smoke and such - as well.

This is a room in Rainbow Six: Vegas where the room itself is mostly just combinations of rectangles. But because it’s filled with stuff, there’s variation in the decoration, and the game makes liberal use of effects such as objects getting damaged there’s a lot of mechanical and visual interest coming from things other than the shape of the room. The room geometry still does play a role, but it’s now one of multiple layers of design working in tandem.

Plus, as others already said, as soon as you’re making something “realistic”, rectilinear rooms are typically more efficient both in terms of construction and utilisation of space. They’re expected to be the norm unless you’ve done something to establish why it’s otherwise.

2 Likes
19

Thanks for the good reply!

But the thing is though, modern limitations don’t really apply in modern Doom/Quake level making. Actually, in the case of Quake I don’t think it ever applied at all except maybe in the super early days.

Somebody even recreated the first few levels of Quake 2 in a Doom source port:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF3wQuZS_Cs

20

I agree that the reasons I gave don’t apply. What does apply, though, is that the criticism is likely from people who like earlier Doom or Quake games and wanted more, similar stuff.

The stuff in my second example is about how we can make “good game levels” in general, but does that approach make “good Doom levels” in particular? It’s kind of like if my favorite band makes a new album of a completely different style. It might still be good music, and I might even still be into it, but it won’t be the same.

Adding to my previous post, then… a lot of what makes a level more specifically good or bad for a particular game is going to come down to how it works with and/or against that game’s mechanics.

Doom and Quake are very fast compared to most modern shooters. Movement and spatial control are major gameplay elements with reliance on dodging rather than cover, so open spaces that aren’t cluttered with props are important. Coming back to the shape of rooms, that would get boring very quickly if they were all just big rectangles. Not because rectangles are inherently bad, but because other shapes give you different interactions with enemy behaviour, attacks, etc.

Again using R6: Vegas as a comparison, players are much slower and explicit cover mechanics, to the point that I would say that it’s more about “positioning” than “movement”. This means that having plenty of clutter is actually important, as opposed to the hinderance it would be in a Doom level (imagine circle-strafing a Cacodemon in a casino’s video poker hall). A lot of gameplay interest is then provided by that clutter, so the shape of the room only has to do a part of the work.

Doom and similar games also often have dangers in the environment themselves, eg: holes you can fall into, or lava which burns you. This is a great complement to having movement as a major mechanic, and is often avoided by “realistic” games which don’t focus on that.

1 Like