Ava Matthews CAGD 270

  What went right? Path was easy to follow Playtesters did get lost in my level. There aren’t any alternate paths in my level, and the walls are very high, which contributes to this. Enemies well placed Not too few or too many Physically located in reasonable places; the player does not get overwhelmed with too many enemies or go for long distances with no enemies What went wrong? Goes by fast The level is completed very quickly with little to no challenge. Not enough to do Like mentioned before, there’s not a ton of challenge to this game There is really no replayability either, considering there is only one path.  Missing checkpoints If you do die, you have to start all over again, which is especially frustrating when the level is not particularly fun to replay.  The level feels somewhat empty without them, since playtesters tend to expect checkpoints to be there.  Improvements Add more pathways This will both make the level more interesting and longer.  The m...

What went right? The level’s platforming was strong. Playtesters noted enjoying the layout of the level itself. I did have some concerns with there being too much platforming, that it would become tedious rather than fun, but playtesters didn’t seem to have this issue. Enemies felt well placed, not too few or too many. I did have the concern that, especially compared to other levels I playtested myself, my level didn’t have enough challenge. The platforming plus enemies created enough difficulty for a fun level. Checkpoints were well dispersed throughout the level.  Checkpoint placement is actually super important in a level. It can signal a new area to a player, and also make a level much less exhausting to finish for the player. At no point did the play testers feel stranded or frustrated because they did not have a reasonably placed checkpoint.  Playtesters didn’t get lost in the level, in fact it was almost too easy to navigate… Example of level platforming What went wrong...

  What went right? I added some additional platforming which made the level longer, a bit more difficult, and more fun.  The highest amount of difficulty was placed at the end so that the level was still easy overall, but gradually became more challenging. I wanted platforming to be the star of the show (or level, rather), and so making it really strong was the most important part of the design process. Like the last version, the worldbuilding/environmental storytelling was really appreciated.  The environment should complement and be integrated into the platforming, and it seems like my level was successful in this.  Using the given assets and game mechanics and turning them into a themed level was a fun challenge. It made me consider assets in a way I may not have before. What went wrong? Too many enemies.  This is an introductory level and shouldn’t be too difficult. My level went from not quite having enough challenge enemy-wise to too much.  I would ra...

  2D Mega Man Level v1 Feedback Mar 22, 2022 Level designer: Ava Matthews Play testers: Kyle Tunison, Timothy White, Joseph Hagerman What went right? Play testers enjoyed the platforming.  They actually compared it to a Mario level. I was definitely inspired by Mario games, so that was great to hear. I consider this a sign of success, considering fun platforming is the star of most 2D games! Play testers appreciated the art design of the level.  Using the assets at hand, I attempted to tell an environmental story with my level, and it seemed to work! I spent a little extra time to add these details and it definitely paid off.  Example of worldbuilding in my level. Players did not get lost or stranded in my level; they knew where they were supposed to go every step of the way. They also didn’t find any areas where the player might be “soft-locked” or any other bugs. So, the critical path was obvious. What went wrong? It could be too similar to a Mario game. What...