Lets say for the sake of conversation, well had jobs at some 3rd rate Diploma Mill teaching game design and that even those our students will NEVER work in gaming since the school we work for has no accreditation, we still want to teach game design. What games do you use to teach with? Mega Man 1-6, 9,10, X1, X4 and X5- Mega Man Games when done right (looking at you fan games) are perfect examples of learn as you go. Usually the games give you hazards early the the stage you'll get later on in the stage and near the end of the game. You're already used to them. Also how to do boss patterns is illustrated here, how to pull off branching paths (later games) and how using something you got earlier can enhance a stage. Sonic 1-3k- How can classic 2d Sonic NOT be taught in a game design class? Sonic teaches atmosphere, obstacle placement, branching paths, and Boss patterns Anything Mario- Learn from the best Mario 3 especially the levels get more and more difficult but don't feel any harder as the challenge eases up ever so higher as you play. Kirby- For me Kirby has the best of everything some Mega Man elements, some Sonic, Some Mario. Classic Ninja Gaiden 1-3- How to pull off hard but fair.........well until the last stage of Ninja Gaiden 1 that stage can eat a dick. Examples of what NOT TO DO Sonic CD- Never was a huge fan of Sonic CD's design the levels aren't so much mazes are they are multilayered clusterfucks. Sonic heroes and 06- JUST NO..........everything in these games seem off. Especally in 06 which the best thing you can say about 06 is that it's playable. Mega Man X6, Mega Man and Bass-Hard for the sake of Hard does not mean good design. X6 just keeps throwing shit at you and Mega Man and Bass abandons Learn as you go that the other games are known for. How about you guys? If you were teaching a class in level design what would your pick be?
Super Metroid it's a almost perfect example of game level design, this analysis sums it up better than I ever could http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/HugoBille/20120114/90903/The_Invisible_Hand_of_Super_Metroid.php Have to agree about Sonic CD the time travel idea just doesn't work, it slows the game down and there are way to many dead end for no real reason.
All Dimps Sonic games are perfect examples of how not to do Sonic level design. Ikaruga's level design, on the other hand, is incredible.
The first level of Super Mario Bros teaches you nearly everything about the game. How to jump, how to run, that there are secret paths, hidden blocks, fire power, star power, nearly everything. It is so perfectly designed.
GodOfHardcore: to expand on the problem of Mega Man and Bass, the levels seemed like they were designed almost exclusively with Bass' overall greater mobility in mind. They're often MURDER to play with Mega Man since he doesn't have a fancy dash or double jump. As for great level designs, I'd like to nominate Castlevania; specifically, the original game and X68000/Chronicles. The gameplay is fairly clunky in both games, moreso the original, but the games do a phenomenal job of minimizing the problem with levels tailored to the gameplay.
The Bowser levels from Super Mario 64. They retain SMB 1-3/SMW's linearity while still maintaining the relative openness that was found throughout the rest of SM64's levels. It feels like an older Mario level yet still fits perfectly within the 3D. I would highlight Rainbow Ride for doing the same thing.
I have to disagree on Sonic Heroes being poorly designed: if anything, I'd say Sonic Adventure is the one not to emulate. Taking a bunch of thrilling Sonic portions and bogging them down with mandatory fishing and scavenger hunt minigames was a terrible idea. Sonic Heroes did a good job of emulating the S3&K system of having multiple characters who could play the same basic levels but access multiple routes within those levels. My main complaint with SH was that it should have had fewer teams (Be gone, Team Rose!) and more levels for the remaining teams.
The first level of the game (doubly so for the first level of a series) has to perfectly introduce all the features of the game. World 1-1 in SMB is a classic example. The first mushroom is almost impossible to miss because the designers wanted players to realize that mushroom=good. The first enemies are all the easiest forms (Goombas and green shell Koopas, the easiest types to defeat). Green Hill Zone Act 1 introduces the player to the speed that the Sonic series would become known for, but still has some platforming, and Act 2 introduces more difficult platforming (like that section where you're jumping on the pillar things and trying to avoid spikes even though you're invincible). Only have one or at a max 2 different main mechanics. With Sonic Adventure, there's 4 completely different ones (Sonic's speed and platforming stages, Knuckles' exploration, E-102's destruction, and Big's ...fishing). That's at least 2 too many. Usually when a player is forced to play a completely different game in order to finish, they'll be less inclined to do so. NO GODDAMN CALL OF DUTY MAPS, EVER.
Quit and get a respectable job. As someone who has taught at real universities, those places make me sick. If it is anything like the scam Corinthian Colleges, I hope that they go after the administrators and instructors in addition to the schools. They knew that they were scamming people. You don't just "[teach] a class in level design". What is your goal in the class? Are you looking at platformers, FPS's, RPG's, what? Do you care about instructional level design or fast level design? Most of the answers here are classic games and, while useful for comparative and historical analysis, are not useful by themselves for modern game designers. Yes, they are great if you are doing the next Shovel Knight, but retro games aside, this isn't the majority case anymore. (in other words, look for more modern and 3D examples) Also, don't just use the best in gaming for teaching. Take some of the worst examples as well. Learning about boring and broken level designs is arguably more important in my opinion. And don't forget to take game mechanics into account. A good level for Splinter Cell might not be the best when using the mechanics of Hitman.
I think you read too much into my initial post, I just wanted to take a Jab at Full Sail and the like. On a You Tube video some kid was blabbering about something he learned in his "Game History class" and all the info he was taught was clearly false. I was mostly thinking about platform design, but there are hallmarks for good game design that cross all genres. Like the tutorial level you don't know is a tutorial level. I think elements from what worked in platforms can still apply to say an FPS, Look at Pac Man, if Pac man doesn't perfectly display how to design a Maze Level what does, and that can apply to FPSes. I also think learning what worked in the past will help shape the future too, Games are too easy these days.
Well, I can never tell with you, but I would point out that there are far worse places than FS or Digipen out there. They are more like vocational schools than diploma mills.
My reputation proceeds me I guess. No matter how hard I try to shake it. But worse places than Full Sail? I know of quite a few people who won't even look at a resume if Full Sail is on it.
