I have enrolled into Game Art and Design because it follows the path of the class I took last year: 3D Modeling and Animation. I came into that class not knowing anything, just to try it out and see if I liked it, and I thought it was really interesting. I decided to continue this path to discover what game design is like, and expand my knowledge in case I want to pursue this career, even though I have not decided yet. I hope that this class can get me the Unreal certification and enough knowledge to have the basics of game design to determine if I really want to pursue something like this.
The reason why I want the Unreal Engine Certification is because it serves as a proof of what I will learn in this course. This is what could eventually open opportunities in the job market if I decided to follow a career related to this class. It is important to mention that this certification, being industry-recognized, is especially useful as it is taken as valid by most, which should result in less problems when applying for a position. In game development or in any industry really, it is vital to have a code of conduct. A code of conduct serves as a foundation for what is expected from the employees in the working area, which is necessary to maintain a safe and effective environment. A code of conduct may state norms that seem obvious, but it never hurts to be reminded, especially for certain people who need to be.
If I had to choose a game genre that this game feels like is text-based. Of course it is not quite the same, as one is not actually typing at any point but it follows a similar basis. The game is purely narration, no graphics. The player needs to make choices as they go on in the game, although in this case it is by selecting a choice rather than typing; this is what the gameplay is about. One could also say that this is an interactive story game, as its major focus is storytelling rather than gameplay.
At first, with the whole mysterious effect of the forest and the unknown it seemed like a it could have been a horror game. The whole game in general also reminded me of the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, as different choices lead to different endings (although I think its either winning or losing in this case). Finally, there is the whole barrels section, which partly reminded me of a platformer, where the player must dodge obstacles to keep progressing through levels, and where one mistake might take you back to the beginning (in case you have no lives).
Having created my character and a structure for his story, I now imagine a more clear progression while playing What Remains. While playing the base of the game on the Google Form, there was clearly an element of mystery to the game, although it was not too clear why the mystery was there or why the environment was important. With a story and a background now set, a similar type of mystery should be there, but what will be different is that the objective will be more clear, and the mystery will have a purpose. In my case, the protagonist is in the Valley to discover more about his past, and the Valley has a soul on its own, which already gives it a degree of mystery and even mystique. In short, with the story now being set, the mystery of the Valley will now have a purpose and be more fully formed, as well as the objectives of the protagonist.
With my character and his main skills now defined, my expectation of the gameplay has had a slight shift. Before, I imagined a classic, more plain platformer perhaps. Now that I have defined the core skills, I can begin to picture what the final product will be like, most likely having to confront creatures from the Valley with my character's powers; this would translate for boss fighting too. The platforming would have an extra addition to the platforming with the double-jump and maybe climbing or something similar as well (even though I did not list that in the assignment). Ultimately, my view of the potential gameplay has changed from a duller, less interesting platformer, to one that incorporates enemies and an extra complexity or feature to the actual platforming.
The first reason why respecting copyright is important is to avoid trouble with companies. This might seem really obvious, but it is always good to remember the consequences that could come with a copyright infringement in a game. If developing a mobile or console game, they might not accept it in their stores, as many times do check for those kind of issues when taking in a game, and that can get one rejected. There could even be worse consequences once a game releases, like when companies sue the game developer, perhaps for a large sum of money. Even if the financial side is not a problem, getting one's game taken down can be very frustrating, especially if the developer took a lot of time and effort to make a certain game. To sum it up, it is better to avoid copyright infringement when making videogames because it can lead to problems that will have made a game developer and their team have wasted valuable time and resources.
The second key reason why it is important to respect copyright rules is that not doing so can result in a limitation when trying to make a move to big game developing companies. If a game company sees that you have had that kind of error in the past, it is less likely that they will hire you. Having had a copyright infringement in a game that you have made shows to the industry that you cannot be as trusted or maybe that you do not care as much as you should, and therefore they are more likely to not take you as seriously. Escalating in the industry of video games is very significant because it shows your growth and it most likely means a greater salary, which is why it is not worth the risk. In summary, having made copyright infringements in past video games can be the difference that gets you away from your dream company and/or salary.
In my experience, 3ds Max is much more similar to Unreal Engine than one might see at first. Of course the UI is going to be different, but it has a similar aspect of the viewport setup, having perspective, front, left, and right views. The moving and panting around in Unreal Engine is the same concept as in 3ds Max but it is more complex in execution in what I have experienced so far. Something that I found strikingly similar were the moving, rotating, and scaling gizmos, which look the same and function in the same way - that is when snapping is turned off. This is precisely an aspect that differs; in Unreal there is the option to enable snapping for moving and rotating, and it can be very useful actually. In 3ds I often found myself annoyed because I could not get an object to rotate exactly 90 degrees when using the Gizmo, but this actually fixes that. To conclude, the feel of Unreal Engine and many of its functions are similar to 3ds but the way to use them is not the same.
I had never had any experience with any type of 3D computer program before last year, so in my case 3D Modeling was crucial in preparing me for Unreal Engine in many ways. Having the little time I have had with Unreal, it seems to me as if it were a 3ds Max, but with functions that go a step forward in complexity. In other words, the 3ds Max UI feels like a simplified version of Unreal Engine, as seen with the snapping function, or the versatility that is provided in terms of layout with the tab system in Unreal. 3D modeling in general prepared me for Unreal Engine by getting familiar with what its like navigating through a 3D space with a mouse and a keyboard and manipulating objects inside that space. Additionally, knowing how materials and textures work from 3ds Max is most likely going to be useful going into this class, as I will need materials to apply to objects for my projects and assignments. To be clear, 3D modeling has prepared me for Unreal Engine because most of its features carry over in some shape or form to Unreal, making it very useful experience for this year.
This being my first run in Unreal Engine, I found a couple of aspects that were frustrating, but the most was trying to manipulate the way materials show on surfaces. When I was making my shelter for my first Unreal Engine assignment, I found myself applying a material for the walls of the house - as I should - and I ran into a problem: the brick material looked stretched and was sideways for one of the walls. This is due to the way I made the wall in order to leave a space for the door. I first tried rotating that specific section and modifying the dimensions to see if I could find a fix, but all I saw was that the material was still stretched, just in a different direction. Then I tried going into the material editor and making a Google search to see if I could find a fix. I ended up deciding that it was a bit complex for what I wanted to do for my first assignment and decided to leave it as it was at the start, hoping to get into it further later in the course. In short, I had a problem with a material which I tried to fix, but decided that it was better to wait to learn it later, in a more thorough way.
Using multiple inclined planes is better than using just one because it allows to control trajectory better, and can have different uses, not to mention that a single inclined plane can only get you so far. An example of how they can be used differently is shown on the first image below (Setup 1), where I used one plane to get the ball into motion and speed it up, and the other to impulse the ball to make a leap into bucket B. My third image on the other hand, serves as an example of controling trajectory efficiently and shows how multiple inclined planes can get an object far. In that section, I placed inclined planes in a down-forward succession until I got it to the bucket. Modifying some of the plane sizes and positionings helped me to have a greater control on where I wanted the ball to end up. To add to that, I placed another inclined plane at the end which straightened up the path of my ball and allowed to land it in the bucket. Essentially, when wanting to construct longer, or more complex pathways to an objective, it will always be more benefitial to use more than one inclined planes due to their versatility when together and to the limitations that a singular one has.
Snapping is a feature that is very useful in certain cases, but not in others, and I have certainly had to have it on sometimes and off at other times in this assignment. I found that snapping is useful when wanting to rotate objects 90 or 180 degrees specifically, while, on the other hand, it is better to switch it off when having to make more precise and specific rotations. When building a level, a way that having snapping on can be useful is when placing an object from the content drawer into a scene; I found that often the objects that I draw are facing the wrong direction, so using snapping to rotate the actor to align with everything else in the world is optimal. On the contrary, for example, I have had to turn snapping off when rotating the inclined plane shown in the second image (Setup 2) to face bucket C. When I tried using snapping on, my inclined plane would not face the exact direction I wanted it to. In summary, turning snapping on and off when optimal makes the process of building and testing a level less frustrating and more efficient.
When my first setups for these sequences failed, I learned that problem-solving is all about trial and error in rube goldberg machines, as well as experimenting with all of the pertinent features. In Setup 1, I had some trouble trying to get the ball to go into bucket B, as in my first attempt I had inclined plans going up and down until the last one (which went up) that was supposed to make the ball jump into the desired bucket. After trying that setup, I realized it would not work because the ball did not have enough speed, so I made the first inclined plane as tall and as long as possible so that I could gain speed at the beginning. Additionally, after trying a couple of extra times, I decided to remove the system of planes going up and down to only have the final ramp seen in the first image. I was not done though, as I had to make an extra, slight modification to the height of the final ramp to make it high enough it would make the leap, but low enough that the ball would not stop when hitting it. What all of this says is that, even if a task seems very simple, there will often be problem-solving involved, which will require patience and experimenting until you get it right.
The distance from the fulcrum to the extremes of the lever can either increase or decrease the force needed to put the lever into motion. The shorter the distance from the fulcrum on the effort side is on a lever, the more force it will require to lift the other side and the other way around; the longer the distance from the fulcrum on the effort side is on a lever, the less force it will require to lift the other side. I figured this out when I was testing around the features of the lever to try and catapult a pancake across to the table (Pancake Action). The reason why levers work this way is because logically, the longer one side is, the heavier it becomes, shown by how it tilts even before anything is placed on the lever. Essentially, the distance from the fulcrum changes how much force a weight applies to the lever because more distance on one side means more weight.
I noticed that scaling a weight simply meant that there would need to be higher or lower force on the opposite side in order to have a balance. Curiously, moving the weight closer or farther from the fulcrum has outcomes that are similar, but not exactly same as when scaling up or down. Moving a weight closer to the fulcrum means that the object will act as if it was ligther, and will make it easier to lift. On the other hand, moving a weight further away from the fulcrum will not only make it heavier, but it will also make starting to lift it exceptionally harder. I tested all of this in the first activity experimenting with the weights on both sides shown of the first image (Balance). To summarize, shifting the distance of the weights from the fulcrum is very similar to scaling the weights, the only difference being an extra momentum aspect that I noticed.
Customizing materials is very much necessary in a polished game from a design and a gameplay standpoint. I already had some experience with customizing materials from 3ds Max; in this activity I customized my first couple of materials inside of Unreal Engine, and my view on their usefulness has not changed. Customizing materials is useful from a design point of view because they are how your environment for your game will look, so it is essential that it shines where it needs to and that every material is how designers want it to tell a specific story, and to make everything in the environment fit the same vibe. From a gameplay standpoint, it is key that materials are customized in the right way because, maybe the player needs to see the specific different colors to know where to go or which buttons to press. To put it shortly, it is essential to customize materials for the aesthetic aspect of the game as well as the functional one in many cases.
In my experience, changing the sharpness of a wedge and moving it are both necessary actions to take in order to have the desired result in most cases. The image below shows why it is important to have a well-placed wedge; if it had been slightly below, none of the watermelons would have even touched the wedge, and would've fallen into the buckets in one piece. This tells us that in order for a wedge to actually cut through an object, it must be placed so that it clearly stands out from the surface, as in the image below. The sharpness of the wedge is equally as important as its positioning, as, in a similar manner, if the sharpness of the wedge is below .8 it will never be able to cut through an object. To conclude, in order for a wedge to do its job correctly, both the sharpness and positioning have to be optimal, and if one of them is not, it will simply not work.
In this activity, I learned that controlling chaos can be hard to do, but there is always a way to sort it out. In a couple of these activities, like with the pancake and the lever, I found that every time I tried with the exact same setup, there were different outcomes. The problem I had in this case with the watermelons was that, in the initial setup I used, there were times when the watermelons got stuck, or where sometimes the pieces were cut unevenly. After trying different things out, I was able to get consistent results by spacing the watermelons a different way, making sure that there was no way 2 of them could be trying to leave the funnel at the same time, and by better aligning the buckets and the wedge with the middle of the funnel. What I discovered was that there is always a way to get consistent results, that I should not call it done if the mechanism works well one time, and that spacing and positioning are vital to reducing the chaos and variability of the final result.
Experimenting with physics in the Unreal Engine can teach me a lot about real-life problems from a process standpoint. In all of these assignments, I have been playing around with physics in UE5, and I have had to try multiple times with multiple configurations until I found a sustainable solution. What it has taught me is that in real life or in a job, things might not go the way I want them to go every time, and often it will take trial and error and patience to achieve what is desired. Additionally, it has taught me that there can be more than one solution, and, with the chaos system, that the same solution might not work twice, which can indicate that maybe the solution I thought I found might need an extra tweak. Another aspect that is important to consider is that little modifications can make a big impact in whatever you do, like in this watermelon activity when trying not to get the fruits stuck in the funnel. My conclusion is that the process of experimenting with physics in UE5 is the same in essence as the process of many of the issues one will need to solve in life or in an occupation in the future.
Wheels reduce friction because they spin, making the object go faster. A great difference between having wheels and not having them is that wheels cause there to be contact with different parts of the wheel at any given time, which makes sliding easier and reduces friction. When an object simply slides, since there is nothing helping it move except for gravity, it will go slower as it will continuously stop itself. Having wheels on an object allows for greater speed, making a great difference in the start especially. To conclude, having wheels on a vehicle is more useful when wanting more speed and momentum, while not having them is better for a slower progression or a shorter distance.
I found that adjusting the Lazy Susan's size and rotation determined where the ball would go, but the chaos was hard to control the faster the rotation was. When I was playing around with the size, I personally found it easier to control the ball when the cheese was more closed in. Additionally, the speed of the rotation is key, because the slower the rotation, the easier it is to give the ball the desired direction making slight adjustments after each try. In my case, I did not found much difference when changing the height, but it seems as there is more control with a taller Lazy Susan. This activity has taught me that precision in design can be the most important factor, especially when wanting a very specific result. To sum it up, in order to have a greater control of the ball there needs to be a slow rotation speed as well as a more filled in plate.
Adding sound effects will add more depth and an overall more complete Rube Goldberg machine or even a level. In a Rube Goldberg machine the addition of sound effects is key to have a full experience; one with no sound would feel incomplete. The designer of a Rube Goldberg in most cases imagines the sounds of the objects which are supposed to add to that comical effect that the machines are known for. In a level of a videogame, sounds play an even bigger role because they notify the player of when someone or something is close by or if they are in danger, as well as to provide an immersive experience similarly to the Rube Goldberg. Sound effects play a part that can be compared to the visual aspect in terms of importance, in both videogames and Rube Goldberg machines because of how they complement the visuals to create the full experience.
It is important to leave a gap between the pulley basket and the platform from which the object is falling for because the basket is very sensitive. Because of the way the pulley is configured, as soon as there is minimal contact with another object it will be triggered. This not only happens with the top side but with all of them, which is why it is important to make sure there is clear spacing and it is not in contact from any side. Making this simple but common error can mess up the entire chain reaction, which attests to the importance of testing after each step you complete for your Rube Goldberg so that you know exactly where the mistake is. To resume, one should always make sure to leave a gap between the pulley basket and any other nearby object so that the reaction is triggered when intended.
Changing the rotation and the position of the pulley changes the outcome of the machine because it allows for control of where the effect of the boot will occur and the trajectory. Moving the machine is necessary to be able to position it so that the basket and the boot are aligned with the input and output platforms. Additionally, it is crucial to rotate the basket to get the handle out of the way for the incoming object, as well as the boot so that it faces the object that is intended to be impacted. Moreover, one can also move the gizmo of the transparent basket up and down to adjust the length of the trajectory that the boot will need to make to ensure that it is low enough so it hits the object it is supposed to. In summary, changing the rotation and position of the pulley, as well as the boot and the basket is key to certify that the pulley will carry out its desired function every time.
If I were to redesign today's pulley for maximum reliability, I would make some very minor changes that can make a difference in terms of consistency. First, I would scale the whole machine up laterally, so that the basket and the boot are wider. This would ensure that the last domino always falls into the basket no matter what and that the boot always hits the book. The second modification that I would make would be related to the position of the machine; I could have probably left some extra space between the box and the basket, and it would also be beneficial to have the boot closer to the book. This would ensure that the basket never touches the box and would again reinforce the boot hitting the book where it needs to. The shifts I would make would essentially serve to reinforce a setup that I believe is already adequately reliable.
Screws are considered simple machines just like the others because they are not much more complex than the other ones we've reviewed so far. Machines like levers or pulleys have many more components to them and they are still simple machines. After all, the sole task of the screw is to spin, and that is all it does. Something that is different from most other simple machines I have seen is that it is always in motion, something that it only shares with the wheel and axle. Furthermore, it is a simple machine that transports an object from place A to place B having full control of direction, with 100% certainty that the actor will always end up where it is desired. Screws manage to technically be the most reliable of all simple machines, yet still remain less complex than some of the others.
When extending a spline ramp, there are certain trade-offs that need to be considered between deciding to make the path smooth or precise. From what I observed, making the path smoother allows for the object to travel without having sudden changes in direction or bouncing. On the other hand having a smoother path makes it harder to control where the object will end up going. Contrarily, making the path more precise will result in a greater control, but if there are sharp turns it can lead to the object falling off of the ramp. To conclude, in order to get the most reliable ramp, it is necessary to find a midpoint between smoothness and precision.
Using splines, screws, and dominoes together, like in this activity (and as seen in the image below), allows for more creative chain reactions than using them separately. It is very simple to think about; the more tools you have in your arsenal to create a Rube Goldberg machine, the more space there is for creativity. These specific tools allow for even more creative chain reactions due to their flexibility and different possibilities. Since the ramp and the dominoes work with splines, one is able to mold the path that the reaction will follow as desired with very little restriction, amplifying the possibilities. In short, it is always better to use a variety of tools and machines in a chain reaction because a greater variety translates to more possibilities and more creativity.
For the planning of the Rube Goldberg we had to work in pairs. The team members were: Tomás Moreno (me), and Thomas Dean-Rouse.
The theme of our machine is essentially round food objects. The machine starts out with a watermelon, then switches to an egg, and finally an orange. The final objective of the machine is to get the orange inside of the orange basket in the kitchen. At first we were a bit indecisive on what our theme should be about, as we wanted to make something with the already-available actors in the Content Drawer. We also did not just want to do something with the pancake, as we saw another group already was. Our first idea was to make a sandwich, but we decided that would be too complex to connect everything together into a cohesive chain reaction. In the end we closed in on the orange idea, and as we designed our machine we added the other elements.
For this project we had to agree with our partner on whether we wanted to be the designer or the documenter, but the truth is we did not come to an agreement. We both wanted to be documenters, so I suggested we both participated in both roles equally. I found this to be the most fair solution, so each of us could do a bit of what we wanted and a bit of designing, which we deemed was not our strong suit. For the designing part, I had to come up with a large part of the Rube Goldberg system. For the documenting part, I checked out what my partner came up with, approved it after a couple suggestions and wrote a description (last paragraph in the reflection).
Since we split the roles in a particular manner, our process was a bit different than others'. After making the decision of doing half and half for each role, we agreed that Thomas would make the first 6 steps of the process, and that I would then take it from there and finish it. After sketching out the first half, I made 1 or 2 suggestions and asked a couple of questions. One of the things I didn't understand was the watermelon. I thought we were going to do an orange, so I asked and he said it would be better if we used multiple food items. When I made my section I decided to also add the egg for more variety. I also made sure to add the simple machines that he had not used in the first half and showed it to him. We both took a picture of the paper so we could review the steps, understand them, and add the picture to our reflections.
The goal of the machine is to start from a watermelon and end up fitting a split orange in the orange basket. First, the watermelon drops into a funnel and then falls onto some inclined planes, slowly descending from the top of the house. Then the watermelon drops into a basket which is attached to a pulley system. The boot on the other side of the pulley goes up to the fridge and starts a domino chain reaction, which in turn drops a book. This book then hits a skateboard which rolls down an inclined plane and hits some cans. After that, one of the cans will launch an egg through a lever, which will then roll onto a surface with an inclined plane to give it speed. Afterwards, The egg will activate a lazy Susan which will reveal the orange. The orange drops onto some more inclined planes, then goes through a screw and falls into the basket after being split in half by a sharp wedge. The humor aspect comes from the switch in the food items. At the beginning the spectator may think the machine will be completely about the watermelon, but then they may think it is about the egg, to finally realize it is actually about the orange. Additionally, the egg ends up landing into a pan which will add to the humor factor of the switch.
From my understanding, replay value can come from either the variety of activities or modes or collectibles in a game, or from the unpredictability of the game as well as its skill ceiling. The aspect one would think of first that can make a game more re playable is the game's content itself, and how much there is of it. This includes extra levels, like in DLC content, collectibles, or maybe the variety of game modes that a game offers, either upon launch or through updates. The perhaps simpler way that a game can offer replay value is through its gameplay. The more unpredictable a match is in a game, the more likely it is that each match will be different, giving it a high replay value. Furthermore, games that have many tricks to be learned and have a big space to grow in terms of skill is more likely to have players keep coming back. To sum it up, games will be more re playable if there is more content and if there is room to improve skills.Â
In Rocket League, there is a high replay value because of the constant updates, the high skill ceiling, and the variety in game modes. The game is updated very regularly, and it has been this way since it came out around 10 years ago. There is a season based update system, with different Rocket Passes each season with different cosmetics, similar to Fortnite; this makes many players come back every season to see what is new. In addition, there are a couple of game modes that are always there (the most basic ones), but there are others that disappear and reappear once in a while, keeping the game always fresh for players. The final aspect to address is the gameplay. In order to get proficiency in Rocket League, it will be necessary to learn how to maneuver the car in the air well, which is hard to dominate. This keeps players engaged and coming back to improve and get better every time. In short, Rocket League is a game that has a very high replay value because it gets constant content updates, has different game modes, and has a challenging gameplay.
Simple mechanics can lead to complex gameplay because simple mechanics, if applied well and when combined, have more depth than what it seems at first. In Tetris, there are a couple of simple mechanics, like moving and rotating a piece, as well as dropping the piece to the bottom. These 3 simple mechanics allow for a game that requires fast reaction times and careful, tactical play. As the game progresses, the chaos and the tension builds up, adding a layer of depth and complexity to the game which makes it fun and gives it its charm. To conclude, in order for a complex gameplay to develop, you only need a couple of simple mechanics and make them fit together properly to get a rewarding and challenging experience.
Game mechanics are crucial to understand when doing game analysis because it allows for a better understanding of gameplay and a greater capacity to describe it to the reader. When analyzing a game, the writer wants to make everything clear for the reader, explaining precisely why certain aspects in the game work and why certain aspects do not. In game reviews, gameplay is most times the protagonist, as it is the core of a game, usually considered more important than music, graphics, etc. Furthermore, gameplay is made up of different game mechanics which work like gears to run a machine. Understanding the different mechanics the game - whether that is moving around, jumping, climbing, etc. -Â allows for a better analysis of the gameplay itself, which will give the reader a better idea of what everything looks and feels like in-game.
Mood and atmosphere are very significant in games because they are the emotion that is transmitted to the player. The atmosphere of a game, made up of the lighting, the sound effects, the music, the visuals, etc., is what creates the mood of a game. The mood is the feeling itself that the atmosphere of the game gives off, and it can serve for a couple of different purposes. Mood can help get a message across, or just determine the vibe of the game, or maybe to make the player feel something significant and get more immersed into the game. If a game has no distinct mood, it basically has no life or essence, and that can make a game less attractive or special, more generic even. If a developer wants a game that feels unique and gives a memorable experience to the player, it is key to have a defined, intentional mood set up through the game's atmosphere.
Mood and atmosphere are different from game mechanics because they are about the emotion of a game, while game mechanics are more about the technical aspects of a game and how it actually plays. These are both important in a great game. Mood and atmosphere are what gives a game liveliness and color; they are, in short, the game's soul and appearance to the player. The game mechanics are what make a game fun or entertaining; they are the "meat" of a game and most likely the most important aspect, because if a game's mechanics are not fun, even if the mood is appealing, it can get dull for the player. One could also argue the other way around, but a game will always be more about the gameplay than anything else in my personal opinion. To summarize, mood and game mechanics are necessary to give a game a purpose, make it fun, and provide immersion for the player.
From what I understand, mood is the emotion that is transmitted to a player when playing a game. Mood is closely tied with atmosphere, which is what is found in a game that evokes the mood. Atmosphere in a game usually consists of anything the player can take in: sounds, music, colors, and animations are some of these. In the game Sonic The Hedgehog (2006) there is a distinct serious and eerie mood throughout the story. This is conveyed through the game's atmosphere, in stages such as Kingdom Valley with the seemingly abandoned and destroyed palace structure throughout the level, and the music accompanies which accompanies the tone very fittingly. The most important aspect about mood to remember is that all of the greatest games usually convey some sort of mood that stands out from the rest and gives the player a memorable experience, which keeps them wanting to replay the game to relive that experience.
Risk vs. reward occurs when everyone has a chance of obtaining a certain reward, but there is a risk that each player will need to go through to obtain that, creating fairness. If there is a certain object in a multiplayer game which is completely overpowered and only one person can get it, that can seem as if there is great unfairness. Now, if everyone starts from the same place on the map, or they can choose where to start, there is a risk/reward situation. If a player wants the desired object, they will need to go to the most dangerous part of the map, where there is a higher risk of losing right off the bat. The player will need to sort through all the other players in the area to obtain the reward. In essence, risk vs. reward creates fairness because each player assesses if they want to take higher risks to obtain better rewards, or if they want to play it safer, but not have as good of an inventory.
An example of risk versus reward is seen in Rocket League matches with the boost pads. In the game, boost is essential to move around the field either to reach the ball before the opponents or to reach the goal to make a save or defend. In order to get a substantial amount of boost, it is necessary to drive over a major boost pad, which there are only 6 of in a field. By going to search for one of these pads, the player is taking a risk, because the other player has extra time to do whatever they want with the ball and attack you. The risk can be somewhat high, depending on where the boost pad you are trying to reach is, where the opponent(s) is/are, and where the ball is. The reward that the player gets when reaching the boost pad is great as well, as they can now win more balls and be quicker to transition to defend and attack when needed. In summary, boost pads are an example of risk versus reward in Rocket League because the player sacrifices time and becomes vulnerable, but obtains a boost that is almost 100% necessary to defend and attack efficiently.
In Unreal Engine 5, the mouse and keyboard are both used simultaneously to navigate levels. While holding the right click of the mouse, With WASD you can move in all directions like in a typical game. There are also Q and E, which serve to go up or down and the mouse wheel, which is used to zoom in and out. One can explore the different assets in the level by selecting them and pressing F, which will allow to focus on them. By left clicking and holding Alt, you can orbit around an asset and look at it closely. When playtesting, you can test the physics of the objects, the collision, and if they have some sort of reaction when pressing a key, like it is the case with the lever.
There are different types of actors in the content drawer, and those are static meshes and blueprints. Static meshes are what they sound like: they are normal objects that do not have any special feature to them. Blueprints are actors that come with coding pre-integrated, giving them special attributes. An example of static meshes in the first level is the building where the player initially spawns, which is made up of many objects which have collision but no programming. An example of a blueprint would be the moving platform in the second building, because it has a code that makes it move when the player gets close.
Inside of this first level I playtested, there were some interactive elements to point out that could contribute to gameplay. First, there is the lever, which is activated by pressing E. This could be used in gameplay to activate some sort of hidden path or open a door. I also observed the boxes, which had integrated physics and could be pushed around. These could serve to make platforms to get to a place where it is impossible to get to by jumping normally. Finally, a third interactive element that I noticed were the coins. These will probably serve as collectibles that the player needs to obtain as many as they can of in-game to get a higher score.
Once I opened the file with the project, I had to open the correct map to build my game. I had to open the content drawer, go into content, then Hour_of_Code, and then Maps. Finally, I double-clicked on Level_HOC_world, which booted me directly into the level.
Once pressing play, there is an important problem that shows up very quickly and that prevents advancing to the next part of the level. The platform that is right in front of the spawn point cannot be accessed; the character goes through it when trying to step on it. On the next lesson, we will be adding collision to the platform so that the computer knows that it is meant to stop the player from falling.
In Unreal Engine 5, collision objects are necessary if the developer does not want the character to phase through an object. When placing a static mesh in an environment, it will behave as if nothing was there for the player. The computer needs a code that has specific instructions that an object will need to be tangible, which is where collision objects come in. The reason why it cannot just process all static meshes to handle collisions is because the computer needs a lot of processing power to calculate where everything needs to be in each frame, going multiple frames a second. Making it calculate multiple complex static meshes which could have intricate designs makes it require even more processing power than it would already use. Collision objects are key to make the shapes of the static meshes that will be used simpler and make everything easier for the machine.
For me, the hardest part understand was the change between having 10DOP, 18DOP, and 26DOP collision boxes. It was hard for me to notice which borders or vertices were affected by the changes. In the end it does not really matter, as they are all essentially the same (that is to say, the change is insignificant for our purposes). Another aspect that was hard to manage for me was trying to decide if to make the box extend to the very top of the mesh, or only to the first surface. None of them are 100% satisfying, but I chose to place it over the top because I did not like seeing the character's feet sink into the mesh.
It is important to create player immersion when designing a part of a level using static islands because it makes the game more entertaining. A game that immerses the player has the player enjoying the game more in each of its aspects and has them coming back to play again. Using static islands, a way to make the game more immersive is to make the jumps hard by positioning the each island far away from the last, just enough to make it possible. An important aspect to understanding player immersion is that it doesn't always come exclusively from the gameplay. Adding things like rocks or grass to the static islands and making them stand out visually can be a factor that the player finds attractive, even subconsciously.
The greatest challenge that I faced when creating the animations for the moving islands was trying to understand how the automatic keyframe was used. I understand the principle of how it works, it just feels somewhat messy when I use it, which is why I usually stick with normal mode, where I feel more in-control. All in all, the animation of the islands was not that challenging for me, as I already had some experience working in a similar keyframe system in 3ds Max from last year. I do find it a little strange that it is necessary to add the animation into the world apart from the object. It makes sense in a way, maybe if you wanted to delete the animation easily it can come in handy, but it does not feel natural to me.
The animations I made are simple, but get the job done. There is always an extra layer of complexity that can be added, but it is important to remember to keep it balanced for the player. Something I think I could've improved is maybe have the islands rotate as they move laterally, increasing the difficulty of my level, although it might be excessive for level 1. Going back to what I learned in last year's 3D Modeling and Animation class, there is most likely a way to make animations smoother and adjust the curve to make it look better as in 3ds Max. An additional layer of difficulty could have been added to the section by adding keyframes in between and making the islands change size, causing timing to become even more crucial, although again, maybe too much for level 1.
I think the attribute that suprises me the most about these reviews is the variety of vocabulary that they use. Reading both reflections, you can easily tell that they know how to write with convincingly and with very descriptive expressions, like in IGN's review, where it says "... you're going to turn a corner and come face to flabby face with a grotesquely girthy golem that's urgently squeezing its way down the hallway towards you." I saw the same happen in the GameSpot review. This not only makes it sound better when reading, but it is a skill that can really elevate the rhetoric of your review and make it more convincing and professional. In short, the variety of vocabulary stands out because it can increase the professional quality of a review as well as the rhetoric.
Comparing 2 professional reviews can help me become a better game reviewer and designer because it lets me know what I should focus on in a review and what makes a game better in all aspects. When analyzing professional reviews, I can take note of what the reviewers point out of each aspect of the game, and how reviewers structure their writing, so I can consider emulating something of the sort when writing my own review. In terms of designing my own game, comparing professional reviews can help me make my game balanced and fun by taking note of what seems unfair and fair for the reviewers as well as seeing what works and doesn't in terms of gameplay mechanics, storytelling, and more. I can trust their expertise because most have studied, played tons of games, and reviewed tons of them, not to mention that they were hired by prestigious, industry-leading companies when looking at reviews from IGN or GameSpot. That being said, Trusting their expertise does not mean fully commiting to what one reviewer says; I always need to have my own input and opinion, as well as look at other reviews to receive a more balanced POV. To conclude, comparing 2 professional reviews teaches me what is desired of a game and what the optimum styles and formats of reviews are.
In the video below, you will be able to see all of the jump boosts that I added to my level. If I had the possibility of adding other types of power-ups to my game, the main one I can think of is a fly power-up. Perhaps there could be a section with a big abyss, where it is necessary to have a flying power-up from earlier in the level. If I could, I would hide it near the start of the level, and have the player maybe retrace to find it if they did not pick it up at first. This power-up would be activated whenever the player presses a certain key, so they would need to keep it throughout the level. This would incite exploration, and after a couple of instances, players would know they have to keep it until they need it,
Players find it satisfying to collect coins because they encourage and reward exploration in many cases and serve as something to collect or to be entertained with while playing. Without coins or something similar, running through a platformer can feel a bit empty, depending on the game obviously. Coins serve as something that is extra, but that is very present at the same time in a game. In some games, coins are stacked up and can be used to purchase an item in the game, or in others, their function is to provide points. There are even games where the player is incentivized to collect all the coins in a game, as an extra challenge. Basically, they are satisfying to collect because they represent progress in a level and are a reward for exploring it.
In my level, there are aspects that can be improved to make the collection of coins more satisfying. The level I am making is mostly linear, so there is not a huge amount of additional pathways to explore and get more coins. I did, in the floating islands section, add an alternative pathway of islands that led to a couple of coins (shown in the image below). The player needs to go down the alternate path and then come back to keep going in the level. I believe this makes coin collecting more satisfying, as the player needs to really explore different parts of the level to get every coin. Apart from adding more alternate paths, I could also change the coins themselves, perhaps giving them a more satisfying sound when collecting them, or making them glow more/adjust something aesthetic to make them more appealing to collect. In conclusion, the 2 main ways I would make coins more satisfying is by expanding my level with more pathways or by modifying the coin itself, whether that is visually or in terms of sound.Â
The Information for having the key in possession or not is stored in the Game Mode generally instead of the door or the player. This has a very simple reason: the possibility of having multiple doors. If one would want a key to open more than one door for any reason, it would not function if the information is stored in a singular door. The Game Mode is like a higher-level location to store information, where aspects are affected universally. To sum it up, if a developer wants something to affect the whole level, it is better to store it in the Game Mode rather than anything more specific.
The toughest part to understand when building the key and connecting it to the door was why after adding a collision sphere, I was still able to walk through the key. From the collision detection lesson, I had the idea that collision boxes by default made the player able to bump into those objects. From what I have learned here, there is no default function of collision boxes when adding them in this way. It is necessary to program what that collision box will do first if I want it to do anything. If there is no programming, it will be the same as if there was no box present. In short, Unreal Engine will not know what you want a collision box/sphere to do unless you program it first.
In general, it is advised to keep the logic for updating the timer inside of the HUD instead of the Game Mode, unlike with the key information. This is all due purely to organization purposes. For the key, there was a functional reason why it was better to keep it in the Game Mode, but in this case that does not happen; the timer is only one thing and it does not affect anything else. It is always better to try to keep the code as tidy and least confusing as possible, so when coming back to it, it is easier and quicker to understand it and modify it if necessary. Keeping the logic for the timer inside of the HUD helps with this organization, as it takes code away from the Game Mode and leaves everything where it should be.
As I followed on Gameplan, I did not have any major challenges or difficulties when setting up a timer from scratch. Despite this, there was something that was confusing: the "Get Game Mode" node. At first, I was puzzled by this because I did not understand what the connection with the Game Mode was. Then, upon looking at the code inside of the Game Mode, I understood that it had the code that made time actually be counted. The HUD needed to contact the Game Mode to get the time information, to then display it on the screen. This activity helped me understand a bit more of how blueprints work by showing me how codes for different things can contact and get information off each other.Â
My hero's story will connect with my new world through the atmosphere and the small details scattered throughout the level. The main idea of my hero's story is that the valley is alive, and it wants revenge with the main character. This will show in the level most likely as small details like making the checkpoint area feel like it is still unsafe and insecure, especially in the latter half of the level. I may also adjust the lighting to be whatever color I feel inspires danger or uncertainty for the player. Something that I do not want is for the environment to feel friendly; my idea is for it to start looking like it will, but to change gradually as the level progresses.
As I build my level, I need to think about how I want to compromise what I know now about the level and what I typed in the "Where are you now" assignment for my story. The question of whether I will change my story or my hero to adapt to the level design or alter things in the level to adapt to my story could be hard to manage, but I think I will do a bit of both. I'll obviously try to keep the level as faithful to my story as I can, but if I see that it would be better off a different way, I have no problem in modifying my story slightly as I go. It's trying to find a midpoint or a balance, where I don't change my set story too much or the design of the world too much. With this, I can expect to have both the main aspects of the story and the level remain unchanged.
In the assignments in Gameplan, out of the 3 activities, all will influence equally in my finished level. In "Imagine Player Actions," and "Balance the Challenge," I feel like I mentioned aspects that are basic and therefore could be added to any of my classmates' games, such as having a standard moveset, some collectibles, and a village to interact with people, as well as consistent enemies. In "Shape the Feeling," I mentioned some more specific attributes which my world could very well adapt to considering my character's story. In "Where Are You Right Now?," I mentioned that the valley has a spirit which is trying to make the main character's life miserable. While I want both to influence equally, it is true that what I mentioned in the mood section is more specific case, and can be more noticeable.
Dangerous
Uncertain
Adventurous
Experimenting with lighting helped me understand the importance of atmosphere in a game because it let me experience different types of moods myself. When playing with parameters such as intensity and light color or playing with the positioning of the directional light, I can imagine what kind of game or level I am about to come across. For example, having the directional light be placed directly above the scene can lead to a more joyful or laid back atmosphere. On the other hand, a light that is a specific color, like red, could evoke danger, or leaning more towards green or blue could evoke mystery perhaps. All of this emotion that the lights transmit is what the game's atmosphere is, and that is why it has a high importance.
Lumen was very revolutionary when it came out in Unreal Engine 5, greatly leaving behind baked lighting from Unreal 4 and prior. Baked lighting was a system that was very slow and inefficient for many purposes. Having to recalculate the entire lighting of the scene every time an object was moved took a long time, depending on how complex the scene was. With real-time global illumination, also known as Lumen, upon moving an object, lighting and shadows updates instantly. This change made it possible to make a level much faster, and be able to visualize how everything will look instantly after each step.
It is crucial to the level that the correct game mode is set. The game mode stores the code for controlling the character, the player respawn, as well as the HUD and the timer. When setting the game mode, the code built in it overrides the level, and it will play like the other levels in that game mode. If the wrong game mode is applied anything could be different than what is desired. The controls could be completely different, maybe you don't respawn after dying, or maybe you are not controlling a character at all. To sum it up, not having the correct game mode set to your level can make it feel like a completely different game than what you were thinking of, as well as being broken, as the level you are building could not adapt to the different type of gameplay.
When building my end goal, I learned how data was transferred between the game mode blueprint, the widget blueprint, and the widget itself. A widget is essentially the UI the player sees on screen, and in this case it was the UI for the level completion, where it says the time it took to complete the level, the coin count, and the gem count. The way this works, in the game mode blueprint there is code to, once the goal is reached, pause the game, create a widget, and show it on screen. On the widget's end, the code is set to - when the widget appears - obtain the time, coin count, and gem count from the game mode, and then translate it to text. On the widget designer itself, for the coin count, for example, it only says "coin." The timer comes from setting the text as a variable, and making the blueprint get the coin count information that was already present in the game mode with the node Cast To [game mode with the code], and which I already used for the level UI.
Organizing blueprint code is not the most important aspect, as it does not change anything in the level itself or in any actor, but it can be, especially if one is just starting with Unreal Engine 5. Fortunately, there are tools that can make code tidier, and easier to manage, such as reroute pins or sequence nodes. A clear example of how this is useful is shown in the image below, where I have some code for the shard animations for the end goal, all connected by a sequencer node at the beginning. What this does is basically run one line after the other while keeping the code compact and easy to follow. Before I applied this, the nodes were in the same organization visually, but the line was hard to follow and simply not practical to see, being all over the place. The sequence node prevents that and having a very long, horizontally organized line of code.
The main sculpting tools that I experimented with are sculpt, smooth, and flatten. I also played a little with ramp to see what it was like. Sculpt is crucial for making mountains, and just any elevated terrain; it is probably the main tool to use when starting to build any world in UE5. It has different settings and options, like being able to change the brush type and falloff, as well as the strength of the tool and the size, which is changed depending on the scale you're sculpting in. The other 2, smooth and flatten, are more about refining the terrain and getting it polished. I find that there is a certain workflow to these 2 tools, usually first using flatten to define the boundaries of the flat section you want, and then using smooth to not have the edges of a mountain look as sharp as they naturally do after flattening. The best way I can describe the smooth tool is that it compresses the vertices, or brings them together.
When trying to make my landscape look realistic, there are certain challenges that arise, but I am able to fix some of them. Sometimes mountains can get very sharp, in an unrealistic way. This happens because the sculpting tool brush is too small, or because the flatten tool was used with a high strength or a low falloff, causing a sharp stretch of vertices. This is where the smooth tool comes in as I mentioned in the Sculpting Tools section of this reflection. That on its own can create more problems, because it can be hard to figure out how high the tool strength needs to be in order to make the tool be effective while not fully flattening your elevated sections very quickly. In any case, you can always alternate between smoothing and sculpting until you get a satisfying result.
Reference images are key to making a more realistic, and especially more accurate landscape to what the original idea was. It is always good practice to have a solid idea of what you want your environment to look like, and the best way to get that idea into reality is to have a reference image ready. That can be a picture from the internet, an image of a simple version you modeled, or even a just a quick sketch. It just helps organize the developer's ideas and have a smoother flow to the sculpting process of the level. Without a reference image, you need to have the layout for your level in your mind, which just is not practical in game design. A case in which a reference image would not be useful is if one were to be playing around with the features of the program, but in any other case, it is always better to have a visual, planned structure of your level.
The easiest part of the landscape to recreate was the middle, and just any flat section really. This includes the outside and the middle sections. I exclude the water part in this case for reasons that I will develop later. Flat sections do not require much additional readjusting, and especially towards the middle of 2 mountains, it gets to the point where the distortion of vertices is minimal and insignificant. Sometimes I did have problems, where some ground ended up being slightly above other sections, but that had an easy fix with the flatten tool.
The most challenging areas of the reference image where all where there is a high difference in elevation. This includes the mountains, the river, the platform attached to the mountain beside the river, and the ramps. For the mountains in general it was hard to keep the vertices from not expanding, which is why I needed to use the smooth tool consistently along with the sculpt. This problem was amplified when I made the river; it felt like when sculpting downward in the way I did it, it stretched even more, which required constant smoothing and then sculpting again. Finally, with the ramps, the challenging aspect was trying to get it to be the right size so that it would blend in correctly according to the reference. The only way to solve this was trial and error until I found a satisfying result.
My terrain is far from perfect, and there is a key aspect that I would like to change and improve if I were to re-sculpt it. The problem that I saw is that in some sections of the corridor (the part in between the mountains), the space is uncomfortably narrow, especially at the beginning, before the ramp. This also had consequences in the middle section, which is significantly larger than that of the reference image. This will have an influence later on the section of the castle, which will be larger and may have more things to do in it, and in the "corridor," which I may need to adapt at some point if the idea requires it. Finally, something that will definitely change as I go are the mountains, as some of them are still a bit sharp on this image, and will require some polishing.
Painting with layers was very useful to have an organized structure and to have everything look more natural in my world. To begin with, compared to when there was nothing on the world, to now, where it is painted, there is a huge jump in liveliness. The gray level looked completely lifeless, lacking any type of defined personality. While it's true there were the mountains and the river, but an empty world with no color can never feel immersive in the slightest. Now, by looking at my world it is easier to tell the different sections apart, giving it diversity, and improves sense of orientation therefore.
I began by painting the entire map with the grass material. This served as a base, or as a canvas on which I would paint everything else. Then I applied the gravel material on the elevated sections of the map, both on the outer edges and on the edges of the middle section. This gave the mentioned sections the distinct mountainous look that I wanted, and differentiated them from the grassy ground. Lastly, I added pavingstone to the sections I know the player will be walking through. I left the ramp and the middle sections grassy, as I decided I will figure out what is best for those once I start to see what kind of challenge will go in this part.
Adding water affected the atmosphere of my level by making it come more alive. I added the water by placing a plane below the regular ground, but above the stream ground I had set up (see Landscape Sculpting Reflection image), and then applying the special water material. This gave the level a sort of liveliness it didn't already have because of the movement of the water. The material is set up so that the water looks like it is moving in the points where there is contact with the land. As I develop my level, the amount of details that make the world feel more immersive will continue to increase, but this is the first one that shows animation.
I used natural barriers and paved paths to guide my player through the world. In the beginning, the river itself is enough to guide the player. Once getting to land, there is a first checkpoint and then a paved section. In all 3 corners the player goes through in the level, the mountains indicate the sharp turns as well as the pavement. The only section that does not have a clearly delineated path, but I am sure it will in later stages of development; for now the elevated terrain does the job well enough. In conclusion, most of the guiding in my level is done by the mountains, then by the paved paths, and then by the river at the beginning.
In order to make each of my checkpoints stand out, I followed a simple logic. As can be observed in the images below, in the first checkpoint there is plenty of food and there's a drink, mostly aiming for a cozier mood. From there on, everything escalates for the worse, getting scarcer and scarcer in resources. This is meant to evoke the feeling that tension is increasing throughout the level. The other aspect that changes gradually is that the checkpoints get more aggressive, as seen with number 4 and the subtle guillotine. This increases the sense of danger and decreases the sense of calmness or that "everything is fine" leading up to the end of the level.
These checkpoints have 2 main influences in the experience of the level. The first is the functional; as expected from any checkpoint, it is a place for players to respawn if they die so they don't need to start over. This way, after passing a challenging part of the level and dying, the player remains encouraged to keep playing. The second has to do with the atmosphere; as the level progresses, the tension and the sense of danger increase. This is tied to the story of the game because the valley is trying to make the protagonist suffer and feel the tension.
Foliage has a solid variety of settings, the most useful for me being Density, Align to normal, and Ground slope angle. Density/1kuu regulates how many of an object spawns per unit land (in unreal units). This controls how crowded the objects appear, which highly impacts the realism of the level. For instance, if the density is too high for trees, they will be going through each other, taking away from the realism. Align to normal makes objects' orientation be based on the slope. With trees, deactivating this setting makes it so trees don't sprawl on their sides when they aren't placed in a completely flat surface. Finally, Ground slope angle controls the limits of the slope on which objects can spawn. Taking the example of trees once again, it is important to set the slope so that trees can't appear far up into a mountain.
Adding vegetation made the atmosphere of my level feel more natural, alive, and lush. The vegetation feels the world feel more complete and interesting in general. Before this, even though there was color present, it felt mostly like an empty hallway, lacking most of what makes an environment distinguish itself. Now, the place at least seems worth exploring, and creates intrigue towards what secrets the land could hold. To summarize, applying vegetation to an empty world gives it life and makes it more interesting and immersing to move around for players.
The addition of forests and fields looks very nice, and serves well as decoration for the environment. That being said, the best way to implement vegetation in games is to make it useful and an integral part of the game, influencing gameplay and exploration. A simple way I can think of this is by hiding coins or collectibles inside of the green to encourage players to move around the world and explore its features. It can also be used the other way around, ergo shaping the path a player needs to follow in the way seen in the image below, advancing through where there is an absence of trees. Essentially, however vegetation is included in a level, it is better if it helps shape the game in different ways.
The design of my castle's exterior is very simple, although there will be significant modifications in later updates. The four walls of the castle are 5 units (meaning pieces of wall I placed) long. Due to the design of my world, which has a particularly large central area where the castle is placed, one might say I could've made the castle bigger. While this was an option, I decided to keep this size because it will let me have a bigger middle village. There are 4 towers in each of the corners of the castle, which are meant to evoke some respect and give it the actual look and feel of a castle, especially from the roof section.
As I built the castle, I was constantly moving assets around, creating different folders and sub folders to keep everything organized. An example of this is the floor, which had its own folder where the pertaining assets were placed. For me, the greatest advantage of keeping this kind of organization is how much more manageable the process becomes. This was especially useful when making the towers; after making the first one, I selected all of its components, set everything into the same sub folder of the castle, and then was able to copy the structure onto the 4 corners. The same technique I applied to 3 of the 4 sides of the castle, as the front differentiates because of the windows and door.
When players reach my castle interior I want them to feel uncertainty, and I would like my atmosphere to evoke mystery. After lighting up my castle properly and adding 1 or 2 extra details in the next few activities, I'll be able to achieve this. As you can see in the images, the castle still has no roof over the top yet, which makes it very challenging to create this type of mood. Once covering the top, I'll be able to work with a dark environment, placing a few braziers to create the atmosphere I want. I will also add some grass inside of the castle because I want it to feel like an abandoned structure, which will go along with the mood of the village.
Adding lighting changed the feeling of my castle completely, giving it a near-360 degree turn. Before adding lights, the castle looked nice on the inside, but did not have the kind of effect I intended. The darkness in combination with the brazier create an atmosphere of mystery and uncertainty, which fits very well with my story.
Creativity and variety make a world unique because they bring freshness and immersiveness to the gaming experience. Without these 2 key elements, game worlds can feel generic, or as if they do not have anything special to offer to the player. I tried incorporating both of these elements into my world as I built it, keeping in mind the player experience. An example of this is how I tried to hide the gems in my world (ignoring the first one) in a way that it would feel special and different when getting each one of them. One of them is obtained by jumping across some floating platforms above the section of the houses, while with another one, you need to get inside the roof section of the castle, find the jump boost, and get to the gem quickly. I believe this sort of variety and inventiveness is what makes a game fun and keeps it fresh throughout.
When designing a game, there are ways to make the environment stand out so that players will want to stop and look at it closely. I believe the best way to do this is by adding small details, which players will be forced to discover by looking closely. A way I did this in my level was with the farm section, where I placed some small dead crops in the middle of the field. Upon entering this part, I imagine players could stop and look at these kinds of details, wondering why they are there. This is what makes them special, and especially if they are tied to the story (which they are in this particular case. To sum it up, for me the best way to get players to stop and look at a game environment is by adding small, but interesting details that help tell a story.
Game environments can tell stories in ways that one perhaps does not think of, in fact many developers like to be inventive about these kinds of aspects. My level has a few hints and details that depict the larger story that I am trying to tell, some examples being the checkpoints and some of the houses in the village. For the checkpoints, I made a progression that reflects that the intensity is ramping up. As the player passes through each one, resources start to get more scarce and the mood becomes threatening, which symbolizes the valley's conflict with the main character. Upon getting to the village and seeing some of the houses, especially in the section to the right, the player will notice that all of them are blocked off and that the markets are empty. This shows how everyone in the village left after feeling threatened by the valley, closing off their doors and taking all the supplies possible.
Balancing decoration with gameplay flow is something that can get overlooked, but that is important when designing a game and the spaces players will run around in. In my opinion, it is about placing just enough details to be able to express a story, or to communicate a certain atmosphere to a player. If a developer decorates without a purpose, that's where I think you start to maybe overshadow some of the gameplay. An example for this is my village, where, in my creative expanse I did not bombard the player with decoration, but give them enough to get a feel of what was going on. It is also positive to add a gameplay feature in decorations if possible, like I did with the extra room in the castle, needing the player to collect a jump boost to get to a gem. Again, this is only my opinion, and I understand if someone would think otherwise, but, to summarize my thoughts, there needs to be as much put in in gameplay sections as is put in in decoration to have a balance.
My current world design does not greatly support the challenges shown in the video. While this is the case, I believe with a few minor adjustments, mainly in the hill and in the 3rd checkpoint, there should be no problem.
One of the changes I am expecting to make is to clear many of the trees in the hill to make way for the boulders. The other main change I'm thinking of is to move the 3rd checkpoint backward slightly to have more space for the 3rd challenge, although I am still not sure if that will be necessary.
The main way the challenges will match the mood of my level is by having that similar abandoned, unmaintained aspect that is mostly seen in my center village. I believe this mood will mostly be seen in the 3rd challenge because it involves a small village which will be similar to what I already did most likely.
The ragdoll physics applied change the feeling of failure in the game by heightening it. This happens because it looks as if the character has actually died after getting hit or having fell. This can, even unconsciously, make the player less willing to lose. According to what I tested and what I felt, before adding ragdoll physics, failing did not feel the same, it felt less meaningful, and even incomplete. Finally, it is always important to add some sort of animation, or ragdoll physics after dying to have a more polished product that makes moments like failing feel important.
An adjustment I would make to balance difficulty to the sweeper arm would be the height. As I followed the tutorial, the arm turned out to be long because the river from the tutorial is very deep, while mine isn't so much (in fact, I already made this modification). I would also want to vary speed, depending on how saturated the specific area where the arm is, or how far into the challenge I am placing it. The more obstacles there are in an area of the river, the slower I will make the sweeper arm to give the player a fair chance. All in all, I will modify the sweeper arm based on how close I place it from the end or if there are other arms or obstacles in very close proximity.
This first obstacle sets the tone for the rest of the challenges because it gives the player a taste of the level. After having completed this first challenge, the player will most likely imagine what level of difficulty the other challenges will have. It is my job to try to keep the level balanced in terms of difficulty, keeping in mind fairness, and that I want players to keep being engaged with my game. Apart from difficulty, I think this first challenge will serve to get used to the atmosphere of my level, which is much different from what is seen in level 1. In conclusion, the first obstacle will serve to set the tone both in terms of challenge and of mood for the rest of the level.
Pendulums change the feel of the sweeper arm challenge because it provides variety and freshness overall. The pendulum is not just an add-on, it becomes a crucial part of the section, just as much as the arm is. In my opinion, it is necessary to have a second type of challenge because if it was all the same, even though it could be fun if I structured it right, it would be more monotonous. Something that might seem insignificant, but that is key is that the pendulum involves a different type of action; moving forward instead of jumping. Even if it does not seem like it, these kinds of small details keep the player engaged and objectively improve the level and make it more interesting to play.
In order to balance the challenge and frustration, there were a couple of modifications I needed to make. My idea was to make a challenge that was hard, but doable in not too many tries. In order to do this, I made sure to space out my pendulums and sweeper arms so that the danger was not so constant throughout the section. I also felt it was important to leave spaces where the player could rest and decide and time when they were going to keep moving. To balance it out, while I did leave spaces of rest, I made sure to have some high-intensity moments, especially around the middle of the circuit, where there is a pendulum followed by 2 sweeper arms, then another sweeper arm, and then another pendulum.
Simply polishing the environment can make a big difference in any game level. Without enough polishing, even if there are great ideas, the game can feel rough, and will not be nearly as enjoyable. Such adjustments can include modifying the lighting, the textures, sculpting the terrain, or adapting the difficulty of the challenges. A great example of the latter is what I did in this section by trying to balance difficulty and fairness. With these changes applied, a game is more enjoyable, feels smoother, and seems like it is more of a finished product rather than a beta.
The size and speed of the boulder affects the feeling of danger mainly because of the player's vision. This is especially the case with size, as there is no real increase in danger if the boulder is bigger. It's not like it will make more damage, but it can feel more towering, and therefore increase the feeling of danger. With the speed it is a different story because a higher speed does translate directly to a higher danger and difficulty, as it makes timing tighter in the challenge. To put it simply, the size of the boulder affects the sense of danger more irrationally, while the speed of the boulder affects the sense of danger more on the rational side.
To balance safe zones and danger in any challenge, the best way is to playtest and make the adequate modifications. I did not overcomplicate myself in this case; I kept the same distance from one safe zone to the other. This way I did not absolutely need to playtest after adding each stop (although I did just in case). Furthermore, for the boulder I kept the standard size, in fact I just adapted everything in the environment to the standard boulder from the tutorial, as it felt perfect for the size of the character. Something significant I did change was the time interval between boulders spawning, which I made higher to accommodate my distances.
The purpose of playtesting is to try to find flaws or aspects that could be improved, often related to fairness. In my original idea of the challenge, there would be some planks that would then be followed by some stairs which the player could hide beside, serving as a safe zone. This would have been a good idea if the boulders had not slowed down once getting to the planks. I wanted to specifically use the worn down, broken ones, but when the boulders got to the section they slowed to the point where the path was completely blocked. I tried rescaling in different ways, but there was no way to incorporate it, so I ended up making the modification.
This new challenge has things that are very different from the first, but in essence they are based on the same concept. Something that is very much felt in this second challenge as compared to the first is the steady, continuous ground, which was very much not there in the narrow path. I would also like to mention that, for me at least, in the safe zones in this area feel safer than those in challenge 1, probably having to do with what I mentioned about the ground. Despite all of this, in the end, both challenges are purely about timing, the main idea of platformers, just that one (the narrow path) requires more precision than the other.
Adding destruction effects changed the feel of the boulder hill challenge because it served as a sort of "polish" for the game in the visual aspect. What I mean is that without the effect, the sudden disappearing of the boulder feels out of place, like something out of an unfinished game. Paying attention to details like these might seem minor, but it shows the developer really cared about the game and about making a quality product for players. The more of these added, the better (without overloading the player and the computer obviously), as long as they are well placed and have a purpose. Technically it is not a large change, but it can make a big difference.
To be completely honest, I wish I'd had more time to focus on my particle system for this effect and experiment more. Either way, I had 2 emitters, one for the rock pieces, the other for the dust. I had to modify very little to make the rock pieces, the most notable thing being the material, for which I obviously used the rock material that was already available. On the other hand, making the dust was a bit more interesting, as I had to make the particles transparent and much bigger, and deactivate Gravity Force, Drag, and Scale Sprite Size to obtain the desired effect. I decided not to add anything extra because I did not have a lot of time to spare, and I wanted to follow the simple nature and flow of my level.
Visual effects not only show care for a game, but can also be useful to communicate certain events and information in-game. Probably the most clear example of this is when visual effects represent an immediate response to something the player does in the game. This is useful for the player to know that they have triggered something or performed a specific action. In addition, another key aspect is that visual effects often communicate danger ahead, or something that the player is supposed to react to. The final idea is that visual effects show caring for a game, serve as decoration, as reactions to how the player interacts to the environment, and as warnings for the player.
The timed element makes this challenge feel different from the sweeper arm and the boulder hill. This is not to say that the first 2 challenges did not have a timed element, but it was a different kind. In the first ones, it was about timing each individual jump and move so to not get hit or fall into the water. In this case it is different, because the timed element is in a block which takes up the whole section, instead of being in chunks. It is different because the player needs to be constantly active without stops or time to calculate jumps.
It is hard to tell at this phase how long I will adjust the open duration to be to make it fair. In fact, I am not even sure if I will keep the space I designated the same size or if I will modify it. Despite this, I can say that I will try to make the timing be just enough to finish the challenge without needing to rush excessively, but having no errors. That way, I am rewarding those who don't mess up, and punishing the impatience to try to get there as fast as possible and failing. I believe this to be the most fair way because it makes the challenge accessible, but it requires concentration and intelligence.
Timing-based obstacles can increase tension without feeling unfair only if it is made with the player experience in thought. It is always key to playtest the level constantly to make sure the time available fits with what I envisioned in the Possible Adjustments section of this reflection. Furthermore, something that I believe to be important to keep fairness is to keep the jumps and obstacles relatively easy compared to past challenges. If I made them be the same difficulty as the jumps in the narrow path I would need to increase the time available, therefore, in my view, decreasing the tension if you manage to pass some obstacles quickly. In short, obstacles need to be simple and doable and the time needs to be just enough to make it to the other side without rushing.
I decided the props that I would use based mainly on the idea that I did not want this to be an abandoned village. The village in the center of my level is already abandoned, so I thought it would be a good idea to switch it up and make this one look inhabited. Additionally it fits well with my story, so I had no reason not to make that decision. For the obstacles, I used some platforms in the first section, but I mainly reused the obstacles from the narrow path (sweeper arm, pendulum), which I found worked well for this section. To block off some sections I used multiple obstacles that a small village might have, like a market, some barrels stacked on top of each other, haystacks, etc..
In order to balance out the challenge, I did a fair amount of playtesting. Once I decided how big the area of the challenge would be, I estimated a time it might take; I settled on 22 seconds. Then, I built my obstacles with this time limit in mind (I figured I would only need 3-5 obstacles/sections). After adding each new feature I playtested to make sure I was still doing well in terms of time limit. My approximations throughout the process were overall correct, resulting in me having to do little modification to the structure. One of the only modifications was in the closed section, where there are 3 sweeping arms of varying heights, where I added a light because it was difficult to tell what was going on in the semi-dark environment.
The "escape before the gate shuts mechanic adds a new type of tension than those of previous challenges. In earlier sections, the game constantly started and stopped; once the jump was already made, or you already made it to the safe zone, there is nothing to worry about. In this part, there are no stops, it is all action from start to end. What this means is that in previous challenges, the tension was delivered in short bursts, while on this one it is constant throughout. If you dare to stop, even once, you are already more likely to not make it than you were a second ago. In short, the tension factor is more maintained, and kept at the same level in this challenge because each second counts to get past it.
Ranged attacks changed how I tested my level compared to previous challenges because it has a completely different component to everything that came before. Obviously, like in every platformer, all challenges will be based on timing, but on every one there is a different twist to it. In this case, the testing is different because you not only need to watch for the fairness of the section, but also try to figure out if the tower is well positioned and if there needs to be trees or other obstacles removed. In the topic of improving fairness, taking the example of the narrow path, I mainly just needed to adjust the position of the platforms and maybe the speed and height of the sweeping arms, but here there are a bunch of more factors to keep in mind. These include radius and range of throws, position of tower, frequency of throw, potential hiding spots, etc. which make the developer be able to look to different alternatives to modify to improve the experience.
As I create the marketplace, I will need to make at least a couple adjustments to the towers. In each and every one of the towers that I place, I will need to alter the parameters differently because they will all be in different locations, and I want to make the difficulty ramp up as the player progresses. In the first couple of towers, I will have an interval of 1 second between throws and I will have accessible hiding spots, but progressively I will begin to remove walls, towers will be closer, and they may shoot faster. Additionally, and to clarify, by "progressively," I mean it will change as the game progresses, but not necessarily slowly, as the section I have left for this challenge is fairly small due to how I modeled my island. To summarize, to make the challenge increase in difficulty, I will probably make fire rate faster and have less spots to hide towards the end.
Adding a a visible enemy, even though not evident, makes the mechanic of the tower more immersive. Having different characters in my level apart from the playable character is one of the things that can give more life and immersiveness to a level because it makes the player feel like they are not alone. Furthermore, it increases tension and brings freshness to a game, it is not just another decoration. Without the enemy, first of all it would feel strange for the projectile to come from nowhere, but more importantly, the section would feel less remarkable, much more dull to a certain point. Finally, I also believe it is important to make the character unique and give it a personality that makes it memorable, which I tried to do to an extent.
Changing the ProjectileSpeed parameter affects predicted aim and it can change the player's decision making. In regards to predicted aim, with the current code, the projectile is programmed to be thrown slightly in front of where the player is going, the distance depending if they are sprinting or not; it will shoot directly at the player if they are standing still, as the machine has no real indication of where the player is headed next. Increasing ProjectileSpeed makes the projectiles be thrown closer to the player's current position because the projectile will take less to travel from the tower to the player the faster it is. On the other hand, decreasing ProjectileSpeed makes objects be aimed further away from the player because they will take longer to arrive. So, when thinking about the player and their dodge options, a projectile that is much slower will have a much harder time accurately predicting what will happen further in the future because the player will most likely notice it and change directions, something the code is not programmed to take into account.
In order to make towers feel fair and challenging, there is a rough order in which I would approach modifications. First, and before any type of tweaking, I would place the towers in strategical places to maximize fairness and have a reasonable level of challenge. The first value I would change is the aim offset to give some randomness to the projectiles and make it more interesting and challenging for players. Then I would also adjust the sensing interval simply to manage how often the actor needs to check for its surroundings to help optimize performance. Finally, I would modify Z offset to have the sensing area begin at the eyes of the character, just for a polish.
For this challenge, I turned gravity off, mainly because it was unnecessary, and calculating it would be harder for the computer. If I had turned gravity on for projectiles, today's prediction approach could have slightly changed. The main aspect I can think of is aiming higher: if the projectile will be launched and slowly arch downwards in its trajectory, it will need to aim higher up. This would lead to having to do much more complex calculations, because the further away the objective is, the higher the projectile will need to be aimed. To sum it up, adding gravity will be unnecessary because calculations will be more complex both for the developer and the computer.
In my opinion, the per-tower variable with the biggest impact on fairness is probably vision angle. For context, vision angle lets one change how wide the towers can see and shoot at the player. The reason why I think this value is key is because if it is too high, it can sometimes overlap with the vision angles of the other towers, causing the player to be shot from 2 different towers at the same time. This can be managed depending on what I want; in the beginning, I will probably have one tower shoot the player at a time, but that could change in the later stage of the section. It is a similar case with the time between throws, but I just do not think it is as important because for me, it is harder to have to dodge 2 different medium speed projectiles at the same time than 1 high speed projectile.
On component hit is a node inside of Unreal Engine which activates something whenever the designated component hits anything. There are also overlap events which are similar, but in this specific case, there are reasons why it is more adequate to use on component hit. The basic explanation is that when working with this kind of projectiles, collisions are constantly being calculated as the potion flies through the air, which can require a large amount of processing from the computer. This can cause projectiles to sometimes go through the player or other objects. On component hit makes this process lighter and easier.
The explosion VFX I added to the projectiles once they hit mean a significant improvement in player readability. By being able to see the bright burst of light the player is able to know exactly where the projectile landed lets them know if they are in danger. When the player sees a projectile land, they can estimate when the next one will arrive, which improves fairness. Furthermore, if I had to make a modification to the effect, I would maybe change the color to blue due to the color scheme of my level, which could potentially blend in with the current pink. Otherwise, I think it works perfectly just as it is.
When sight cones overlap in this challenge, it is important to make that purposeful and take fairness and difficulty into account. In my section, I have no part where 2 sight cones overlap from the front and from the back; there is only 1 instance in which 2 cones overlap facing the same way. If there is a point where cones overlap from opposing sides for a sustained amount of time, the most fair would be to have a slightly higher interval between shots and maybe a longer distance. Another option which would make it more fair and even more fun is to have more obstacles to hide behind and have to manage 1 tower at a time. Essentially, if there are 2+ overlapping sight cones, there needs to be difficulty subtracted to balance it out, in any way possible.
To guide the player along the route, I placed wooden fences to block the incoming shots from the first 2 towers. Additionally, I made them smaller so that the challenge was elevated and the fences didn't look out of place with everything else in the scene. The other object that helps navigate this part are the coins, although I think the path is clear enough as it is. If I had a bigger space to work with for this section, then I probably could've used more props and blockers to guide and help the player out, but given the circumstances, this set up is good enough. In general though, it is best practice to have objects of any kind to serve as a guide in any platformer.
After playtesting, the single adjustment which improved fairness the most without killing the challenge was the radius of the sight cone. This has to do, again, with the small space that this challenge happens in in my world. Due to the short trajectory and the quick escalation of difficulty, the only real constant that I had to modify throughout and that was truly influential was the radius. For the first 2 towers, which are facing opposite sides, cones do not overlap at all, while still covering the entire traversable part. After that, there are 2 towers right next to each other whose cones do completely overlap, which is meant to increase difficulty towards the end, while the final one has a small sight cone but is really close to the path to serve as a final stretch.
Based on my feedback that I received after some classmates playtested my game, I made a couple of small, but significant changes to some of the challenges. One of the comments I received said that some jumps that required sprinting felt a bit unfair, so I moved the platforms a bit closer together as much as necessary to avoid having sprint jumps. Then, I also added a checkpoint in the middle of the section because it felt particularly challenging for a tester. Furthermore, someone said the checkpoint prior to the boulder path was too far away from said challenge, so I moved it closer. Another minor shift I was planning to make was to place a jump boost on the boat that has the first gem in the beginning of the level, and I did after someone complained about not being able to jump back from the boat to the main path.
I believe the feedback confirmed most of what I believed about the first sections of my level. The main modifications that I did were on the narrow path section, which, from my own playtesting, I already believed the difficulty of it was harder than it should've been, and this activity confirmed it. Apart from that, someone also said they could skip through the boulder path, but that was probably because it was still a work in progress when we playtested. I have tested this section multiple times and I have not found any disturbing flaws or highly unfair parts. The other aspect I wasn't sure of was the atmosphere and the visual sector, but now I feel better since 2 of the reviewers complimented it.
Looking back, the most improved zone after these updates is by far is the narrow path. This section was slightly unfair as it had jumps that were too long and unnecessary for this early in the level. By making certain jumps shorter and adding a checkpoint midway through the section, I was able to improve fairness and make it more adequate for this part of the level. I pretty much made no modifications to later stages of the level because I did not have them done when we did this activity. I was actually midway through developing the boulder path, which is why I had no one assess the rest of the level other than me.
In this assignment, I chose not to focus on one specific area to improve, as I felt the level only needed a couple of general touches. First, I added coins throughout the level in the areas that didn't already have them (mainly the challenge zones). Then, I placed 1 more gem to reach the same total of 5 that I had in level 1, in the guarded marketplace, near the first tower. In terms of visuals, I painted the challenge areas with trees and grass to create a more immersive experience that matches with the rest of the level. To finish up, I repainted the mountains because some of them had too much green in the top half areas.
The changes I made did not substantially change my challenges, but they did change the way they are experienced. With the coins, there is now a very clear guide on how to progress through each challenge, which is perhaps needed the most in the timed gate, where the player needs to keep moving forward fast. The trees aspect makes some of the challenges feel more full and alive, especially with the case of the boulder path, where I see the biggest improvement. The addition of the gem in the guarded marketplace gives the player an extra risk that they might opt to take to 100% the level. Essentially all of these minor modifications make a significant change through immersion, guidance, and alternate challenges to complete.
In order to have the player not get lost in the level, it is important to balance decoration with gameplay. I try to make my decoration not overly complicated and only serve the purpose of building the game's atmosphere and the mood. If the decoration is over the top, placing coins or something similar that can guide the player through a level is key. In my case, the decoration is mostly a secondary item, with it mostly being comprised of trees and 0 to 3 buildings per challenge to keep it simple. To summarize, I believe it is important to keep the world looking nice and have its own atmosphere, as long as the gameplay is still in focus.
Out of UI, cutscenes, and sound, I would say sound has the biggest impact on how players feel while playing my game. This is because, first of all, cutscenes happen briefly, but they are not present constantly in the gameplay itself. The UI and sound are, but I just feel like the music in particular is one of the biggest atmosphere-setters in a game; you can very often tell what a game or a level is going to be like just by listening to the music. In the next lessons, I plan to make The Valley more immersive through these mentioned items. I will do this by making a functional UI that can direct players to where they want to go, smooth cutscenes that get players hooked to the game and perhaps its story, and music that puts them in situation in terms both of story, and pacing of the level.
The most important connection I learned between widgets, levels, and controllers when building my main menu was how to make a widget show in a level. This is done by, in the level blueprint, using an event begin play, then a create widget node, selecting the desired widget, and finally add to viewport. It is a very basic connection but it is key to know about. Adding a background image to my main menu changes the experience of booting up my game because it makes it feel much more professional, and it shows a higher attention to details. If it just had a black screen with buttons, this section would feel a lot more raw and make the game seem unfinished.
The most important part of the pause system to make the menu feel responsive and reliable is adding the mapping context. This makes it so that each button/key does the function that it is supposed to, like using the escape key to pause. I think players experience a pause menu that fits naturally into the game's world and flow only when it is efficient, responsive, and goes along with the game's theme/atmosphere. An example of how a pause menu can be efficient and responsive is that the pause button leads to the pause menu and out of it as quickly as possible. On the other hand, a way that it can go along with the game's theme can be by having buttons with a specific font or design that goes with the game, or in this case a background image.
Storing and switching between multiple widgets in the player controller makes my UI system more efficient and flexible because everything is much simpler to manage for the developer, since it is all in one place. For the player, it improves the experience because the transitions are much smoother and there is a lower chance of bugs or errors. As players move seamlessly from one level to the next, I want players to feel like they are playing through a cohesive experience. The seamless aspect along with the cutscenes and the story have to make players feel like the game has a logic that and a theme that are followed throughout, especially in the second and third levels. The first level serves more as a tutorial, so that does not apply to the same degree.
Using sound attenuation and distance-based audio makes my game world feel more realistic compared to fixed volume sounds because it is more like what one experiences with sound in real life. As one gets further away from a sound source, the sound itself should not be heard as easily, which is what sound attenuation emulates. Today's work with sound design changed the way I think about how audio influences the player's experience through a contrast. In my experience, playing through my world before it had any sound felt completely normal, because I did not expect it to have sound. Now that I have added it, if you were to remove it, it would probably feel awkward. This is because sound can set the mood of a level or at least contribute to it, just like the color of objects, their placement and their shape can.
Random timing and sound variation make ambiance feel more natural because it resembles the natural world more. If you were dropped in a jungle, you would generally not hear the same birds chirping in the same after a set amount of time constantly. It would probably feel much more random and spontaneous, with different birds and sounds occurring at all times. When I think of my favorite games, taking the example of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (which I reviewed in this portfolio), there were nature sounds similar to those I already have in this world, and intense music during action sections, which I also have implemented. Additionally, there were ominous and mysterious sounds every once in a while, and after defeating an enemy. I could recreate a similar kind of sound right after completing every challenge to keep the player alert; to tell them that there is still more to come.
Connecting MetaSounds to Blueprint events make a game feel more reactive and alive because it makes sounds move along with objects. In the case of the pendulum this was especially useful in making the game come alive because you can feel the pendulum moving back and forth. This connection also allows for attenuation, which improves realism as discussed before. When I play a game, the small audio details that make me feel the most impact and tension are the dying sounds, which in this case plays when the pendulum hits the player. This sound effect causes deaths to feel more impactful, and subconsciously often make the player want to lose less.
Using blueprint interfaces makes it easier to connect different systems in a game because it creates a universal function to reference anywhere. Additionally, since blueprint interfaces themselves are only a name, different things can respond to them differently. Also, it is important to mention that these help the computer by avoiding hard references, which are heavier. In games in general, I have noticed music changes occur when there is a complete shift in mood, like when there is a boss fight or when a highly action-packed section begins, or when any of those ends, where the music can go back to what it was or even become completely peaceful. This same idea is found in my game, where the music changes, increasing in intensity when challenges begin, and going back to normal after leaving them to put the player in situation.