Case Study 01 • Level Design
Your Project Name — Encounter-driven dungeon
One sentence: what the level is, what it’s for, and what makes the problem non-trivial. Example: “A multi-route dungeon designed to teach a new enemy archetype while escalating pressure across three beats.”
Blockout → Polish
Combat beats
Wayfinding
Iteration
Overview
What you built, for whom, with what constraints, and how success was evaluated.
Role & scope
- Role: Level design (blockout, encounter authoring, scripting hooks).
- Team: (solo / small team / class project / studio)
- Duration: (e.g., 3 weeks) — include iteration count if you have it.
- Tools: (engine, editor, scripting, spreadsheets, etc.)
Goals & constraints
- Primary goal: teach X, then stress-test it under Y.
- Constraints: memory budget, encounter count, traversal time, etc.
- Success metrics: time-to-objective, deaths, confusion points, path diversity.
Elevator pitch (keep this tight):
The level teaches the player [new concept] using [space + encounter design],
then escalates through [beat 2] and culminates in [beat 3] where
[systems interaction] creates varied solutions.
Layout & encounter design
Show intent: critical path, optional path, gating, sightlines, and beats.
Beat structure
| Beat | Player intent | Design levers |
|---|---|---|
| Beat 1 | Introduce the space + teach the core mechanic/enemy. | Sightlines, safe reset pocket, first “readable” flank route. |
| Beat 2 | Escalate pressure + require a choice (commitment). | Crossfire geometry, elevation, timing windows, resource placement. |
| Beat 3 | Climax: combine concepts + reward mastery/creativity. | Multi-solution arena, hazard interplay, enemy roles, escape vector. |
Add an overview image: top-down map, greybox capture, or annotated layout.
Put it in assets/ and uncomment the <img>.
Wayfinding strategy
- Landmarks: (e.g., skylight, altar, turbine room).
- Breadcrumbs: lighting, props, sound, enemy placement.
- Occlusion: reveal goals in stages to prevent overwhelm.
Combat readability
- Keep “threat sources” legible: avoid hidden crossfires early.
- Use elevation to suggest roles (snipers up, brawlers down).
- Provide at least one “reset” pocket per major beat.
Iteration & playtests
Show before/after decisions. This is the most persuasive section for hiring.
Playtest findings → changes
| Finding | Hypothesis | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Players missed the optional route. | Landmark not visible at decision point; signage too subtle. | Opened sightline, added lighting contrast + prop frame. |
| Beat 2 felt “spiky” (unfair deaths). | Unexpected crossfire + no safe reset pocket. | Reduced angle overlap; added cover rhythm + fallback nook. |
| Climax dragged past desired duration. | Too many waves; unclear win condition. | Cut wave count; added explicit objective cue + faster read. |
Before: add a screenshot with a short, specific annotation.
After: show what changed and why it improved the experience.
Outcomes
State what improved, how you know, and what you would do next.
Results
- Readability: fewer wrong turns at the first junction (evidence: notes/metrics).
- Pacing: combat duration closer to target (e.g., 6–8 min).
- Agency: increased route diversity (players used flank more often).
What I’d improve next
- Increase systemic interplay in Beat 3 (hazards, AI roles, environment affordances).
- More robust onboarding for mechanic X (earlier safe demonstration).
- Add accessibility pass for contrast, readability, and navigation cues.
One-sentence takeaway:
The key lesson from this level was [your lesson], and it directly changed how I approach
[future design decision].