Clear & precise level titles

[Simon]

Hi folks,

I've planned to write an essay about level repeats. One of my arguments hinges on good level titles. Titles easily fill a topic of their own -- here it is!

We care about levels. Levels are the unit of our culture. We create levels, we play levels, and we discuss levels. Good level titles help us with that: Titles are our mental handles when we share levels and ideas.

• A title should be clear: When I see a level, its solution, and its name, I should recognize a connection. This is good because I can then remember the name without effort. When I'll discuss your level later, I'll have its landscape or solution in mind, and the title will come to me easily.
  
• A title should be precise: It should be hard to associate the title with other levels. When I read a precise title in a discussion, the chance will be high that I think of the correct level. That is good because it encourages joining an interesting discussion.
  

If we accept these benefits, we'll arrive at good recommendations.

Say the title, not (only) rank & position! When you discuss levels, always give the title. Rank & position cannot be precise, any level could be at that position. If you'd like to abbreviate long titles using rank & position, fine -- but please state the title at least once. Sometimes, levels change position, rendering rank & position even worse a substitute for expressive titles.

Puns or pop culture, if any, need a connection to the level's landscape or solution. Song titles or movie titles can be good level titles, but it's very hard because they are so flowery. Titles don't become any clearer merely because you like a song; others don't necessarily know your taste in music. Once you've designed several levels, taste in music or movies cannot give precise names anymore on its own: Any Tame level could be called Gone With the Lemming.

Sometimes, repeats copy the terrain of a good puzzle and give 20-20-20-20-... skills. You've stripped the puzzle but haven't inserted any fresh idea. How will you name the easy level? Most titles cannot be precise because all ideas would also apply to the hard version. Lemming Drops and Bitter Lemming are titles of such easy versions, they're void of any connection whatsoever. Maybe find a pair of titles where either title suggests that there is a complementary level?

If you're really fond of a title even though it's not clear or precise at all, decorate the level accordingly. That won't create the strongest connection because the puzzle's solution will be unrelated, but it's far better than nothing.

A title shouldn't merely fit the tileset, it should fit the level. Which levels exactly were Ice Spy, Snow Joke, and On the Antarctic Coast? Fitting to the tileset, however, is a good start. Can you think of a unique detail in the level's terrain or solution, and tailor your title towards that? That can turn a passable title into a great title.

Keep titles reasonably short. Avoid titles that are annoying to type, like AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!. Our culture is about sharing ideas in written form, we will type level titles many times.

-- Simon

[ccexplore]

Those are definitely good guidelines for level titles, and I'm sure most level designers will love for the level titles to help make their levels more memorable.  That being said, titling is not easy and I can see some people for at least some levels to choose not to spend as much thought on their titles, instead prioritizing time over, say, other levels they care more about, or things like backroute fixes, better decorations, etc.

I think even in the official games they are actually a fair number of examples of good level titles.  And yet at the same time, I'd ask about cases like "There's madness in the method" (Havoc 5).  The level's good, level title is not that bad but certainly a little generic.  Yet I wonder what you would propose as a better title?  Especially if you aren't keened on revealing any spoilers about the level solution.

Adding a decoration could be a useful workaround in some cases for titling, but then the decoration still has to be relatively unique, and may not be that effective if it needs to be placed out of the way (and therefore potentially out of player's mind) of the main area of the level where the solution plays out.

------------------------------

As for level repeats, it is of note that only the first official game in the franchise even featured them, and it was mainly because they created too many of the harder levels and need a quick way to fill out the easier ranks in the game.  The takeaway, regardless of titles, is probably that you're better off creating repeats that are actually designed on the outset with the repeating in mind, rather than being a cheap way to crank out easier levels.  Choices of titles can then just be part of that design process.

[Simon]

Yeah, I'm not attempting to sell titles over the more fundamental parts of level design.

"There's madness in the method" (Havoc 5).  The level's good, level title is not that bad but certainly a little generic.  Yet I wonder what you would propose as a better title?

Considering levels in L1 and ONML ordered before than "There's madness in the method", the title becomes surprisingly good. The level and terrain focus on a single main idea. This trick is hard to explain and needs experimentation to execute, but it either works or fails immediately. Such trial and error is worthy of that title. Maybe the madness lies in holding RMB to assign to walkers?

Contemporary level design focusses even more on one core trick per level than L1 and ONML. The title would be less precise today.

Especially if you aren't keened on revealing any spoilers about the level solution.

Hints at the solution in the title, hm. Sometimes, even direct hints look innocent. You don't interpret them as hints at all before you've solved the level or are explicitly told to interpret the title as a hint:

Spoiler: Contemporary levels that spoil the main trick in the title

Derailed Level
Abort the Experiment

And I'm looking forward to... <Nepster> SimonN: I disagree with quite a few of your arguments and will reply eventually. But first I have to transform my loose feelings and vague ideas into proper arguments.

-- Simon

[Nepster]

I totally agree that referring to levels by name is at least as good as referring to them by position. And I agree that every level designer should ponder at least some time over the level title to make it descriptive, instead of using the very first pun that springs to mind.

But I disagree that descriptive titles have a big impact on remembering levels, i.e. that the two benefits described in Simon's first post are actually big. In my opinion, there is mostly a correlation rather than a causal relationship.
At least in my case there are three main reasons why I remember a level (and title):
- The level is very hard and a huge roadblock, e.g. "No added colors and lemmings", "Lemming's Ark" or "Oh no, not again".
- The level uses a very unique idea (or at least it was the first level I saw using this idea), e.g. "I am A.T.", "Cascade", "AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!" or even "Call the bomb squad".
- The level has a beautiful and unique terrain, e.g. "Hunt the Nessy", "Pea Soup", "Upside-down world" or the special graphics levels.
In all these cases I can easily remember the level and title, regardless how bad the title is.

On the other hand there are aptly titled levels like "Let's block and blow", "A ladder would be handy", "Turn around young lemmings!", "Bomboozal", "Walk the web rope", "The Far Side" or "All or Nothing", where I don't remember the level layout. These examples came from looking through the L1 level list on http://tle.vaarties.nl/ and writing down the ones where I only remembered them after seeing them in the list.
All these levels have in common, that their solution is rather standard and nothing special.

The arguments so far should explain why I don't see a strong causal relationship. But there is a correlation:
- If a level has a very unique terrain, then it is an easy and natural thing to give it a title referring to this.
- If a level has a very unique idea, then referring to this (at least in an oblique way) is again somewhat natural, because the level designer did have a specific theme in mind and therefore is likely to refer to it when choosing the title.
- If a level just turns out to be very hard due to a well-hidden solution, then giving it a good title is actually very hard, as my examples above show.
But the levels from the first two categories already suffice to establish the correlation between memorable levels and ones with good titles.

[IchoTolot]

Referring a level by name or by position often comes down to me on how the level left an impact on me, as well as the current circumstance I want to mention that level. Both cases do not clearly mean good or bad impacts 100% of the time. I would need to make a long detailed study on how I refer levels before I really can make an educated point on when and why I use method A or B here.

But I disagree that descriptive titles have a big impact on remembering levels, i.e. that the two benefits described in Simon's first post are actually big. In my opinion, there is mostly a correlation rather than a causal relationship.
At least in my case there are three main reasons why I remember a level (and title):
- The level is very hard and a huge roadblock, e.g. "No added colors and lemmings", "Lemming's Ark" or "Oh no, not again".
- The level uses a very unique idea (or at least it was the first level I saw using this idea), e.g. "I am A.T.", "Cascade", "AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!" or even "Call the bomb squad".
- The level has a beautiful and unique terrain, e.g. "Hunt the Nessy", "Pea Soup", "Upside-down world" or the special graphics levels.
In all these cases I can easily remember the level and title, regardless how bad the title is.

Another point which really has a lot of weight to me on remembering levels is the music track it uses. It goes back to the originally defining music tracks on "Menacing", "What an AWESOME level" etc.
Newer examples here:

- "Wheel of Fortune" from the 2nd rank of Lemmings Reunion. I remember Simon humming the track (The Green Orbs - At the fair) whenever he mentions it and also often talks about on how he loves the title of the level in combination with the actual level

- "Final Frustraition" from the last level of NepsterLems. Even though the newer versions don't come with custom music tracks anymore, because of some tracks having issues with Youtube.

- "Nick of Time" as the last level of the 2nd rank in PimoLems.

There are a lot more examples here, but the music track by itself can be a big reason why a level is remembered in the first place.


Back to the titles:

For me a good title has some connection with the level in at least one of the following aspects:

- The tileset the level uses. There are typical Shadow, Hell or Egyptian titles for example and therefore there is a real danger here of ending up as generic anyway, if this title with this connection has been used before.
- The solution the level uses. It may even hint at it.
- The overall landscape or decoration. The level might represent something.
- The music or type of music the level uses. Yes, even if this connection may often be a bit loose.
- The overall level type. This goes from hard level, easy level to X-of everything level, 10(or x)-lemming level and button level.

Of course a generic level title is usually not intended, but making really good titles is an artform of it's own and no one wants to grumble about every level title for hours. This leads to some titles being better than others. I am no exeption here, I can come up with some great titles, but there is also a forgetable bunch, some where the connection isn't really there, or you would need to get a reference.

That's another point: The title is only good if you get a reference. If the reference is not widely known I find this quite annoying. If most of the people get the reference I would call this acceptable.

Using film or song titles/quotes can be really good or really bad. It depends highly on the level, but if one or a few of the aspects I listed above matches with it it's usually at least ok (maybe even great). An example here would be my old contest level "The Adventures of Lemdiana Jones" where I used the rock tileset to make some extra Snakes, tried to represent a little temple at the end and chose a fitting music track.

[mobius]

Say the title, not (only) rank & position! When you discuss levels, always give the title. Rank & position cannot be precise, any level could be at that position. If you'd like to abbreviate long titles using rank & position, fine -- but please state the title at least once. Sometimes, levels change position, rendering rank & position even worse a substitute for expressive titles.

Yes! Please! I hate it when people talk about a level (often from the original game but other games too, even custom ones) and say; "...Taxing 5..."
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT LEVEL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! How could you remember the numbers easier than the title? Use the title please, I can't remember ranks and numbers.

[Nessy]

Yes! Please! I hate it when people talk about a level (often from the original game but other games too, even custom ones) and say; "...Taxing 5..."
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT LEVEL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! How could you remember the numbers easier than the title? Use the title please, I can't remember ranks and numbers.

I'm afraid I fell into that on my level pack thread. I apologize. I'll stop that in the future to prevent confusion and irritation.

Personally, I do believe that titles are just as important as the actual level, but I don't think titles should take priority over the actual level and I don't think someone should alter a level just for the sake of matching the title in some way. Titles are the last things I think about when I design a level, and I usually try to see what the spirit of the level is and come up with a title matching that. Sometimes it's literal and direct; others are less literal and less direct. They still hint at the solution using titles that may seem like they have nothing to do with the level, but they actually do. I will go as far as to say that even "There's Madness In The Method" falls into that category and was a vague hint to the solution. A hint where in order to solve this level you're going to have to try doing some things that seem crazy enough to work.

As far as making pop culture references: on one hand if someone doesn't get the reference then the title would just seem generic to that person, but if the person doesn't get the reference and it still connects with the level in some way then that's okay. I did name a level "Walking The Blue Mile" which is a reference to "walking the Green Mile", but even if you don't get the reference the level has lemmings that are walking in a crystal terrain (blue) and the level is a little long (mile), so it still works out even if it's kind of dumb and can still be much better. "Never Getting Back Together" is another reference, but the title perfectly summarizes the spirit of what the puzzle in that level is going to be without being literal and direct.

EDIT: Just remembered another good example. There's a GeoffLems level called "Panic At The Disco". It's a reference to a band, but at the same time even if you don't get the reference...

Spoiler

the level itself looks like a disco with what looks like a disco ball and everything, and you're panicking because of the short time limit. Not direct at all, but still related in some shape and form.

[ccexplore]

Yeah, I suspect the "refer level only by rank and number" thing might have grown particularly out of a bad habit fostered on the challenge topics.  It likely came about on those topics due a combination of following factors:

1) The person posting typically had just spent lots of time on that one particular level, (s)he happen to remember what the rank and number is very easily.
2) It is shorter usually to type out just the rank and number instead of the full level title.
3) With multiple persons doing so, it helped set a trend where other people who started participating on the thread (often after first reading older posts on the thread) may unconsciously started emulating this habit as well.
4) As a counterpoint specific to challenge topics, since replay files and/or screenshots are often posted as well, interested readers do often have a way to find out which level it was through those assets (that they might have planned to look at anyway), at least when spoilers aren't a factor.

At least that's how I think I ended up doing that, most likely started as #3 with #1 and #2 helping.

But yes, there is no argument that referencing by rank and number only is basically the least memorable way to refer to a level.  It is a habit that should be curbed.