Getting on the roof-tops

[Springheel]

Been wondering about this. I've got a city map in beta-test, and Merry has managed to show me how easy it is to climb into areas where you can see the skybox and the illusion of the city is shattered. What are people's preferences about this? Is it better to block the player from getting anywhere that this can happen? Or is it better to just let them see the skybox if that's what they want? Or something in between?

[Goldwell]

I voted "Let them climb but use playerclip to keep from completely seeing void" because I like having a balance. It is nice to be able to explore where you want to but if that means breaking the game or seeing the skybox limit then reducing my freedom a little bit is understandable for me. Invisible walls suck but if i'm in an area I know I shouldn't be and I hit an invisible wall I just think, ok that's that time to go back.

[RJFerret]

Best to create believable geometry preventing them reaching there. This avoids horrible fake invisible walls or ceiling and breaking suspension of disbelief.

 

It's easy/cheap to create invisible walls to prevent it. Those are the most common solutions.

 

There is a game-play solution, but it's a spoiler for my mission, so PM me if you'd like to know. It doesn't require much extra effort depending how many areas you have.

[grayman]

I put an immense amount of time into preventing bad views in Home Again. I never used invisible walls, but I constructed believable architecture to block access.

 

In spite of that, a few determined folks were able to ascend to places I never expected anyone to get to.

 

If that happened during beta, I went back in and spent even more time trying to prevent what happened. I even reconstructed one neighborhood to keep it from happening, and two intrepid climbers were able to break it after release.

 

In the end, I probably spent way more time than it was worth; some folks live to climb to see things they shouldn't see. You can't stop them.

 

So my vote would be to block as much as you have time for, and don't sweat the rest.

[Sotha]

You are breaking the immersion in both cases:

1) player reaches a place where they can see the void/skybox

2) player bumps into and invisible wall.

 

I do invisible walls. People can cry about it, but i find it less immersion breaking than scenario 1).

 

The best would be to avoid both 1 and 2, but it is very difficult and forces you to have certain type of architecture.

 

I think most of the cases of player getting too high can be avoided with these:

1) Having believable architecture that prevents access to high place

2) avoid wood materials in high areas.

3) make high level architechture non-mantleable

4) have a good long buffer architecture between play area and decorative area.

 

I think using these and blocking the remaining few obvious accesspoints with player clip prevents most of the area infringements.

[Melan]

The best way is to build your architecture in a way that leaves those moments few and far between, and incorporates the remaining ones into the gameplay. If you can mantle up on a ledge you didn't think was mantleable, put something there. If someone finds a hidden nook, let them enter an interesting mini-area, find a readable or just a cool view. This is extra work that requires a lot of internal testing. However, if you do it, it will make your architecture more complex and organic, and exploration more rewarding. (It is through this iterative method I build my missions beyond the initial plan - I try crazy stuff and if it works, it goes into the plan.)

 

If you block things off, do it with a metal railing, a wall, or something that makes sense in the environment. Signal it to the player that the area is out of bounds.

 

Even then, people will surprise you. [edit]TDM gives the player very high mobility if you combine its powerful mantling mechanic with the very long ropes the rope arrows spawn, so it's more than what you can get in Thief.[/edit] It is I think that's cool, and it should be embraced, not penalised. It is a longstanding Thief tradition which doesn't appeal to everyone, but it is very enjoyable for some players.

 

Invisible walls are just... I dunno... disappointing. But then I am all for complex environmental simulation where you are put into a situation and every gameplay mechanic is fair game.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Melan

[SteveL]

I voted for #1 but it was really a vote against #3. The only situation I dislike is being narrowly hemmed by playerclip. Playerclip somewhere halfway up a high wall where there's no obvious objective up there is fine as there are plenty of plausible reasons why a climb up a wall can't go any further. And I don't find occasionally seeing void a problem after such a climb. I just think oops, nothing to see here, and re-enter the game. It's a very small inconvenience to pay for the feeling of freedom.

[Lux]

I agree with gman, sotha, and melan, here but with that being said, some players feel immense internal satisfaction from getting some place they're not suppose to be. Should we not reward them?

[lowenz]

I agree with gman, sotha, and melan, here but with that being said, some players feel immense internal satisfaction from getting some place they're not suppose to be. Should we not reward them?

In Siege Shop (3) the reward is an optional quest

Edited April 9, 2014 by lowenz

[Airship Ballet]

Bear in mind I only showed you the places you can climb that show you the void. There are plenty of other places to hop up to that give you a sense of freedom. I don't think using invisible walls in those few places just before you get to a compromising view would really ruin any immersion.

[Plutonia]

I think levels should be designed with realistic architecture in places where the player has no business going, but I don't think invisible walls are bad either. For example, if you have a section of a city, then it's stupid that the area depicted in your map is somehow this self-contained space with no actual way out. If there are streets leading out of the district, in my opinion it's more realistic for there to be an invisible wall and a message that says "You can't go any further", than it is for that street to be inexplicably filled with junk or entirely blocked by a cart or something. Your map shows the area you can access. It doesn't mean that the area should be physically cordoned off. Games have levels. Levels are parts of the world. Every player should understand that the entire world can't be depicted seamlessly. You don't need piles of garbage blocking the streets to keep the world intact.

[lost_soul]

I prefer not being able to escape from the level... but I know you can never fix all those types of flaws.

 

Also, sometimes in games it will seem as though you can reach an area, but when you try, you find out you're not supposed to be there. An example of this is Amnesia, near where you have to mix the chemicals to destroy the debris blocking your path in the basement. After you destroy it, there's a hole in the ceiling where you can see chandeliers above. That is an example of taunting the player; I stacked up stuff to try to go up there because it looked legit, but I was stopped by an invisible wall.

Edited April 9, 2014 by lost_soul

[demagogue]

My philosophy on this is it depends on difficulty or out-of-the-wayness. If it's a very easy or close thing to get to, you should either construct a way to make it look natural or stop the ability in a natural way (not invisible walls). If it's a difficult thing to get to or clearly way "out of bounds" from the normal game, so the only reason a player would want to get there is to break the game, and they have a very difficult job of it, then IMO they deserve to be "rewarded" with seeing the fringes.

 

The other side of this is something we had a thread about once, which is that seeing the mechanics of a game in-game can sometimes be touching to a player, if not spiritual, or anyway fun, like they're seeing the hidden gears behind reality. I wouldn't want to take that away from them. But it's only special to the player if it's a special event in the game and a very difficult thing to get to, like you clearly went to a ton of work to keep them from seeing it but they persevered and made it anyway. That's what makes it special. If it's around every other corner, then it's just cheap and bad design.

 

tl;dr. If it could be construed as "in bounds" to the game, try to cut it. If it's clearly "out of bounds" to the game, then leaving it is ok IMO.

[grayman]

2) avoid wood materials in high areas.

 

I find this to be the most challenging aspect of blocking access. As a player, it's fun using rope arrows, and they really give you a sense of going somewhere you're not supposed to go, or getting into a bedroom through a high balcony, etc. But they also open up the possibility of getting to where the mapper didn't want you to be. While working on Home Again, each time I added a new building with wood near the top, I found myself going, "Crap! I have to change that to stone". I don't think there's one building in HA that has wood near the top. Sort of screws up the architecture choices, but it's either that or leave rope arrows out of the game.

 

In a way, it's kind of depressing. Using rope and vine arrows opens up a world of possibilities and fun, and yet they're probably the easiest way to break a game.

[chakkman]

Invisible walls are fine imo. Better than seeing a "broken level". It gives you the, sorry, impression of unprofessionality. And it's pointless anyway, as you can't walk properly there anyway, and it's just broken. That said, i think its more immersion breaking when invisible walls are present in missions where you can climb up high on the roofs, than it is in a level which mostly plays on the ground. Unfortunately it's especially in the sky high levels that there is the need of invisible walls, i guess. Anyway, of course it is always nicer to have "natural" obstacles than the invisible walls, but i guess there's no problem with having them occasionally.

[MasterHelpo]

Second option seems the best to me, letting players see the map void might get a bit messy...

[buck28]

I also voted for option 2. I love to climb, but I have confidence in the author that he won't let me get in a compromised position. I am working on my first release, and find it hard to believe that if I create a model tree; I can climb it? Even if I add spawnarg to be non-mantleable? That makes me have to watch tree placement now. So; I can see that climbing out of bounds might be pretty easy to accomplish... Climbing with rope arrows is what made me love this game so much from the start. I would love to be able to do another map like the original roof top mission; was it Life of the Party? I can't remember.

[Airship Ballet]

in my opinion it's more realistic for there to be an invisible wall and a message that says "You can't go any further"

 

[RJFerret]

Somehow the "Like This" button doesn't seem suitable for that video share, perhaps "Cringe This"? Heh.