View source for The Problem With User-Created Levels

by: Old Staff - June 14, 1998 for Freespace Watch

It seems like everyday more user-created FreeSpace levels come out. I have yet to see a level that is up to the standards of Volition, Inc.

Let's reflect back onto the days of Doom II. Computing and the Internet were in their infancy at that point, so there was less of an immediate demand to create levels. A few weeks after Doom II came out, level editors started appearing. These editors were cumbersome, difficult to use, and creating levels required massive time to complete. Even the simplest level took days to prepare. The first user-levels were pathetic. But as time evolved, the levels got much better - some developers even created levels that surpassed those in Doom2.wad itself. It seems that, over time, the levels become better and better.

Now let's look at FreeSpace for a moment. Currently, there are FOUR completed missions in wide distribution. Quite honestly, none of these levels are excellent - but they are getting better. Please note that all criticism herein is constructive and is not to discourage level editing, but this is here to show us what we can accomplish if we do well and evolve at level editing, which we no doubt will.

The first two missions I received were in a pack, and they were named FIRST and BOMBER, respectively. The instant I loaded First, I knew it was going to be bad. The mission name was "untitled.fsm" and, in the briefing, I saw and that was it. So I started playing, and then a ship warped out and it said "Primary Objective failed." Screw this, I thought to myself. Well, I loaded Bomber, and was equally disappointed.

A few days later, I received a new level - called "At all costs." It was a good concept, but bad balance. So many ships come at you that you really don't stand a chance on Medium - which is where your level should be barely beatable at. If you can beat the campaign on Medium, you should be able to beat your mission on Medium. If you can beat the campaign on Easy, then you should be able to beat your mission on easy, and so on. This is a prime problem now - because Mutliplayer isn't widely used, we don't know how good we are in relation to the "average" player. We can only make assumptions. I figure once PXO and Volition work out the bugs, level balance will soar.

Within the last hour, I reviewed "My Encounter with the Dragons". This scenario, probably the best I have played, is well-planned. The only major complaint I have is that he gives you Apollo-class wingmen with MX-50s in a battle where you have all weapons. After reoutitting the ships, I played it. I managed to beat it on EASY, but on medium I cannot beat it. This is a bit more balanced than the previous scenarios, although less than spectacular. A smaller tidbit that bugs me is the use of "hyper space" instead of "subspace" and lack of correct grammar in briefing. This is one of my pet peeves - if you are going to spend hours developing it, at least make sure it looks professional. There are two wings of ships thrown at you right off the bat, and you typically lose one wingman. The asteroids are a nice touch, although they are a bit dense. I think the option of calling in a wing of reinforcements would have been cool, but this scenario really marks the point that we should create levels at.

However, there are not enough standards with which to create levels with. As stated, there is no benchmark of skill just yet - but we are getting there. Also, we, as a community, haven't set standards for what should be in a level, what should be bundled with it, and so on. Imagine having to program software without an API - that is what creating Descent levels is at now. As a rough outline, I propose the following Development Standards with which to create future levels:


* First and foremost, we must create a documentation standard. With the levels I have received, they have been the level and nothing more. From now on, we should bundle a text file with such information as the author, date of creation, approximate difficulty, and amount of time it will take to complete, and Zip it up.
* There must be a certain standard on the quality of the briefing. The briefing should provide enough information on the mission, then state your objectives. Correct grammar and spelling should be used, as well as correct icons and terms relating to the game.
* Each level should follow a difficulty standard. Once we can define "average" we can develop this, but not before. It is my hope that this article will help the FreeSpace community develop better levels, which benefits all of us.


I have learned, though experiences with past games, that there must be a huge support from players, or else the game will be shelved in weeks. Many great games have fallen because of lack of players - one that comes to mind is Sid Meier's Gettysburg! The game is great in concept, but lack of a good multiplayer network (Mplayer sucks) destroyed the game. I hope FreeSpace will not suffer that fate. It is a great game, but we as players must assist Volition in keeping the game alive. We must create levels as good as Volition did. We must have a main site that has everything. So far, that does not exist. There is not a dominant FreeSpace web site. There are about seven sites that draw most of the traffic. To better the game, we must have a site that all players can go to and be assured that it is up-to-date with all information. This holds true for games like Quake II and Age of Empires, where two or three sites can influence more people than all the other sites combined. Descent FreeSpace is still in its infancy. The next months will shape the game, and determine whether it is another Sid Meier's Gettysburg! or another Quake II.

[[Category:VolitionWatch Articles]]