This post is adapted from a section of a previous essay I wrote for a University assignment; ‘How Have Level Designers Adopted the Spatial Considerations of Architecture Theory?’

Here, I will be sharing my findings related to figure-ground theory, its uses in architecture, and how level designers can adapt this theory to create compelling spaces in multiplayer maps. A lot of this is heavily speculative, so I would love to hear from other designers!

Mass and Space

Architect Matthew Frederick explains in ‘101 Things I learned in Architecture School‘ that all urban and suburban spaces can be viewed through the lens of figure-ground theory. This offshoot of gestalt psychology separates all things we can see into, conveniently named, Figures and Ground. When considering the physical nature of architecture, we can also consider these components as Masses and Spaces.

When looking at overhead plans of social places, we can see how mass alters our perception of the space surrounding it. This results in either positive or negative space. Generally, positive spaces are often seen as safe and protected areas, and negative spaces promote movement – people want to move from an open space to a closed space. This can be illustrated in your typical college campus environment; students are likely to flow through negative space and rest within positive space / interiors.

The Flow of Multiplayer Maps

This flow of movement and rest is something that, when reaching hard enough, can likely be applied to almost any facet of game and level design.

In particular, we can see how this marriage of positive and negative space can be liberally applied to multiplayer maps. Here, being stuck within a negative space becomes more threatening, as you are now exposed to enemy players. Chris Totten echoes Le Corbusier; ‘the game level should be the machine for living, dying, and creating tension by exploiting everything in between.’ This philosophy can not only be applied to multiplayer maps, but level design as a whole.

When threatened, the desire to move into an enclosed, elevated, or otherwise positive space becomes a high priority for players. Within positive space, players can rest and survey negative spaces with relative safety. This approach to level design aligns well with the idea of prospect and refuge spaces.

How Nuketown Manipulates Players with Space

Since its introduction in Call of Duty: Black Ops in 2010, Nuketown has been loved and embraced by players and modders, arguably to a similar degree of de_dust2. I feel that much of its success is owed to its wonderful use of spatial theory.

When looking at a figure-ground diagram of Nuketown, we can check off some of the map’s spatial elements:

• Player spawns are enclosed within positive spaces that are difficult to immediately access.
• The two houses act as bases that offer much protection from enemy gunfire.
• The houses have elevated positions where players can survey the central area of the map, the cul-de-sac.
• The central area uses vehicles to not only act as cover, but to form negative space. This cover breaks sight lines, and introduces an element of uncertainty for surveying players; ‘what side is the enemy going to come from?’ If the vehicles were removed there would still be a negative space, but the resulting no man’s land would make pushing beyond the safety of the houses frustrating and difficult for attackers.

Also, Nuketown is very small. Since the main goal of a TDM is to seek out and eliminate enemies, players should expect to fight through the unsafe negative space to engage with campers and other attackers.

In such a small area, the player’s transition between positive and negative space will occur very often. This frequent push and pull of rest and engagement should result in an experience that is very intense.