Unopenable Doors

[Springheel]

Maybe if you frob a non-openable door he could say "It´s stuck!" or "Not a chance!" ... something like that. That would not break the immersion

 

[New Horizon]

How about it just doesn't highlight, as the case has always been? lol Seriously, why go to such lengths to reinvent the wheel when it's such a minor, minor thing. There is no perfect solution to it that isn't contrived...so why not just leave it alone, and not ask our coders to come up with some unnecessary system. If the mapper doesn't set the door as frobable, it doesn't highlight and it doesn't open. Pretty simple.

[Fidcal]

Here's another compromise but it will only work in FMs where mappers use it. A new static model entity in the shape of a hasp, bolt, lock, padlock, knob, sign or whatever is acceptable. It will be mainly symbolic. The mapper positions it on all static doors. Eventually we may have custom mapper options added to the difficulty menu. One of these could be "Show Static Doors". By default they are not spawned in the same way that not all AI are spawned on Easy level now. If the player sets it ON then they are spawned and he sees the lock on all static doors.

 

Players would know that normally they are the same as now and do not need to scan for the symbol. But if they see "Show Static Doors" on the difficulty menu then they know it will be in the map.

 

This is why I have tried to promote the idea of mapper custom settings for a long while but I don't think others realize all the possibilities. The 'unopenable' symbolic lock does not need a 'special' setting all its own. There would be a dozen spawnargs (eg, nospawn_1, nospawn_2) available to the mapper as to what will spawn and what will not. The mapper names the string that shows in the difficulty menu. "No Zombies" or "Show unopenables".

 

Even though I would have such a setting set to off when I play, I would consider using it in my own maps. In Chalice for instance, I would only need it on the front door and the yard gate.

 

Now, what do we do about non-openable furniture and containers? Does that cabinet open or not?

[SneaksieDave]

Now, what do we do about non-openable furniture and containers? Does that cabinet open or not?

A great example. We accept that normal looking drawers that don't highlight simply don't open, so why be bothered by doors that follow the same convention?

 

I'll take my door with handle, and hold the frob, please.

[Unwanted Guest]

Eventually we may have custom mapper options added to the difficulty menu. One of these could be "Show Static Doors".

 

IMO, that would be awesome!! - greater flexibility when not too much effort to implement is a good thing

 

 

A great example. We accept that normal looking drawers that don't highlight simply don't open, so why be bothered by doors that follow the same convention?

 

 

Doors are/can be critical for the game in that one door can lead to the outside or another hallway, other rooms - the access of any ofwhich could be imperative to accomplish the game -

 

 

Now it is true that one key in a chest is imperative for accomplishing the game but the problem is this.. ( and I think was mentioned already)

 

How do you know if a non-highlighting door is a dummy door and should be completely ignored or is a essential dummy door that has to be opened by .a hidden switch - (somewhere!) being one of those little switches which can be in another room, a depressable floor tile, a torch that has to be swung or something else. Once activated, the door slides/swings open. The prob is.. a non-lighting dummy door just may not be a dummy door after all, and being wrong about that fact set you waay back.

 

IMO

 

 

m

[Baddcog]

The way I see it s if a door is usable it should highlight. If it needs a key or switch you get the lock sound, just like T2. That way the player knows it CAN open, but they gotta figure out how.

 

No highlight = no go.

[Fidcal]

The door might not necessarily make any sound but there should be a clue or some visual suggestion that you need to find an alternate lever or something otherwise treat it as a static door.

[demagogue]

The more I'm reading this, the more I'm thinking this is all within the fuzzy realm of permissible mapper variety, and that's how it should be IMO. Different mappers will like different solutions to this and implement them, and players can usually catch on to what the mapper is doing. The only thing really bad that goes over the line is if the author is purposefully misleading ... like putting a lot of guards on a real-looking door like it's important, and the player goes to a lot of risk to get to it only to find it a dummy-door. That's just being a jerk.

 

But as long as the author has put some thought into playing fair with the player, I think a little variety is cool -- just like with Thief FMs. And they'll reap whatever respect or criticism they sow; it's still fair game for comment and whatever they do someone's not going to like it, and you can still do a better or worse job of whatever you do; but they can pick something they're comfortable with and stick to their guns.

 

Edit: BTW, I should mention... I actually thought about leaving off the door-knobs (and did for one dummy door). But one problem is that the door skins don't have door-knob art on them, nor are there any door textures with door-knob art (well, there might be a few, but not for the door you want). And a door doesn't look right if it's just bare. If we had some door-knob decals to put there, authors might be more likely to use that instead of a dummy-latch that makes it look like a real door. Anyway, another thing to think about.

[Springheel]

Now, what do we do about non-openable furniture and containers? Does that cabinet open or not?

 

That's a valid counter-example. Maybe it comes from being part of the development team, but I find that I automatically ignore certain models because I know they're not designed to be opened. Those desks and end tables are purely decorative. If someone actually took one of those desk models and made an openable drawer for it, I'd never find it because I'd never think to look. Maybe I'm just a lazy Thief, but I don't want to feel like I have to frob every single piece of furniture just to find out whether it opens or not (on the other hand, I have felt a bit of a thrill when I find something that opens when I didn't expect it to, so I clearly have mixed feelings about the issue).

[Fidcal]

Yes, don't forget your very own desk model which comes in static and openable forms.

 

But I wasn't raising these seriously. I still think the whole issue is academic because at the end of the day the player just won't know in most maps which is what so has to go up and frob.

[Baddcog]

exactly, the player will never know so the player has to do it anyway, so it might as well be

frob=works

no frob= no works

[Tels]

How do you know if a non-highlighting door is a dummy door and should be completely ignored or is a essential dummy door that has to be opened by .a hidden switch - (somewhere!) being one of those little switches which can be in another room, a depressable floor tile, a torch that has to be swung or something else. Once activated, the door slides/swings open. The prob is.. a non-lighting dummy door just may not be a dummy door after all, and being wrong about that fact set you waay back.

 

IMO

 

Saint Lucia has such a door in the crypt and after spending ages trying to get through it I even tried to file a bug report that the door is unopenable - because I thought, it surely must open! How would a player know this door is supposed to never open?

[Mortem Desino]

The St Lucia door only seemed suspicious just because of its placement in the map. If it wasn't at the end of a decorated hallway, I wouldn't have thought much of it.

[Tels]

The St Lucia door only seemed suspicious just because of its placement in the map. If it wasn't at the end of a decorated hallway, I wouldn't have thought much of it.

 

Yeah and it was accessible to the player from both sides, too.

[Fidcal]

Saint Lucia has such a door in the crypt and after spending ages trying to get through it I even tried to file a bug report that the door is unopenable - because I thought, it surely must open! How would a player know this door is supposed to never open?

Because:

 

• It was not frobable
  
• There was no clue or indication of any kind that it should open.
  

Now you know. Whenever you come across 1 & 2 then don't worry any further about such doors.

[Melan]

This is a perennial design problem. In most cases, verisimilitude is desirable: if there is a door, you should be able to open it; if there is a crate, you should be able to lift and manipulate it. But sometimes that's not fun gameplay. In a city mission where NotGarrett could open every door and explore every building, exploration would not be very rewarding: if your "sub-objective" was to get to the rooftops, you could choose any house, climb up to the attic and exit through a hatch onto the roof. Instead, a fun mission would force the player to find a route more circuitous - e.g. climb some ivies onto a ledge, than creep along that to an apartment window, taking stairs from there to a higher floor and then a steel pipe to the rooftop area across. Sometimes, there is a way to design around that problem, but you can't count on it.

[kaldor]

The more I'm reading this, the more I'm thinking this is all within the fuzzy realm of permissible mapper variety, and that's how it should be IMO.

I think, the information about doors is very essential to the player and can ruin the experience, if the way of how to handle that changes too widely from mapper to mapper.

 

I still think the whole issue is academic because at the end of the day the player just won't know in most maps which is what so has to go up and frob.

Well, there are new players, but also experienced people that maybe won´t look at anything that looks like a openable item again and again, just to see that 90% of them are decoration and then (later) miss those which are important. So you better not use the same models for cupboards that can open and those that can not.

 

Especially regarding doors, there should be confidence in the gameplay. The level designers of T1/T2 had their own rules, which they applied to. I would prefer an "audio" signal over visual, but that doesn´t seen to be consensus here

 

So, being not frobable in a consequent way - meaning that those doors _never_ open - should be a good compromise of gameplay vs immersion. There could be a (short) text in the wiki area about how to create doors, that explains that. That would not be a "rule", but a recommendation to mappers.

[kaldor]

What do you think about this for the "Doors" wiki? (I have no idea how non-frobale items are called or created in the editor, so that should be added).

 

 

Doors as decoration

 

In many cases, e.g. in city streets, doors are essential to create a feeling of immersion. But doors are also an important element of gameplay in TDM, so a sharp differentiation between decoration and openable doors is necessary.

 

Especially because the player might take a long and frustrating time to search for a key or lever to open that door. Also, frobable doors as decoration can lead to problems with the AI opening them accidently.

 

We recommend to create decorative doors as non-frobable items, also those to be opened with a lever. [add technical stuff here]. That way, the player can be sure about it and proceed with the real challenges in the map.

[Baddcog]

But that's the point of contention here.

 

Some of us DON'T want 'dummy doors or objects' ie: a certian door or object that is NEVER frobbable. It dumbs down the experience and takes the searching, investigating out of the game and soon becomes a simple point and click adventure.

 

As far as frob highlighting, there are objects, entities and skins.

objects are 3d models that can only be stationary. This includes every model in the game and can be used to the benefit of decoration/performance.

Alot of models are only static objects, such as building, doorframes and furniture.

 

entities are objects (not all models and not only models) that have a collision mesh so they can be movers. This includes pots, weapons, doors , door handles (models) but entities are also things like path_corners and sound speakers. This second group has little to do with player 'frobbing'.

 

Skins

also tie in to a degree. Our door models have many skins. everything from plain boards to decorated doors for a wide variety and each has multiple skins for hinges, lockplates.

 

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

So our system is to have as many possible combinations of all the above.

 

If an author doesn't want a door to be used, but doesn't want to dumb down the play experience they can use a texture, or a model (for models or world textures) on terrain (best performance), or they can use a door object (model with no frob props - best for no use doors) or they can make a door entity and make it unfrobbable (no highlight - but this can cause issues with searching AI that try the door)

 

So to get all authors to follow any rule is hard enough with no options.

 

But to me it still comes down to dumbing down the missions. Do you really want to have signs pointing the way for you? Or do you want to explore the mission for yourself. Personally I like to explore and when I play a dumbed down mission I feel slightly cheated.

 

For the most part authors don't make extensive areas beyond the play area anyway, so 'going out of your way' for a door or cabinet is a slight exageration IMO. It's a waste of time to build areas that have nothing to offer the player, so typically if there is an out of the way door, there is usually something in its vicinity that the player should be aware of anyway.

----------

As far as visual>audio clues. That gets confusing if you have a visual clue that says door opens (frob highlight) only to have that highlight be a trigger for an audio clue it doesn't open. It's going out of your way to make it a pain in the ass and confusing. It also makes it so you HAVE to use entities whioch take more performance for no real reason.

----

 

 

So in my opinion NO, we shouldn't add info to the Wiki to encourage dumbing down missions. We should only encourage good design and maximum playability in missions.

[kaldor]

But that's the point of contention here.

And thats good, IMO.

 

Some of us DON'T want 'dummy doors or objects' ie: a certian door or object that is NEVER frobbable. It dumbs down the experience and takes the searching, investigating out of the game and soon becomes a simple point and click adventure.

First of all, using the term "dumbing down" is insulting the mappers following that way. We are talking about decoration here that only adds to the map, and is not the main challenge the mapper is creating. So, to contradict you, it would not simplify the map if the decoration is identified as such, but would focus the player on the real tasks out there.

But, and I think this is where I agree with you, placing unfrobable doors in important areas of the map (e.g. centered hallway), would be a mistake, as the player always would try to open it and gets confused if nothing happens.

 

So to get all authors to follow any rule is hard enough with no options.

I did not suggest a rule, but a recommendation. Any mapper can do what he/she wants. But to say nothing about the topic in the wiki would be irresponsible, especially regarding that AI issue.

 

But to me it still comes down to dumbing down the missions. Do you really want to have signs pointing the way for you? Or do you want to explore the mission for yourself. Personally I like to explore and when I play a dumbed down mission I feel slightly cheated.

Again: We are talking about decoration. Using that decorative doors too often would be a "bad style".

 

For the most part authors don't make extensive areas beyond the play area anyway, so 'going out of your way' for a door or cabinet is a slight exageration IMO. It's a waste of time to build areas that have nothing to offer the player, so typically if there is an out of the way door, there is usually something in its vicinity that the player should be aware of anyway.

Leave that to the mapper. Personly, I like maps that have that "immersion" of being in a real town that lives.

 

As far as visual>audio clues. That gets confusing if you have a visual clue that says door opens (frob highlight) only to have that highlight be a trigger for an audio clue it doesn't open. It's going out of your way to make it a pain in the ass and confusing. It also makes it so you HAVE to use entities whioch take more performance for no real reason.

Okay, you are right about that audio thing.

 

So in my opinion NO, we shouldn't add info to the Wiki to encourage dumbing down missions. We should only encourage good design and maximum playability in missions.

Hehe, I would like to have no dummy-doors in missions at all, too. But there are cases, where those doors are needed. What I wrote for the wiki is just a proposal, so change it in any way, if you want. But I am absolutely convinced, this topic should be mentioned in the wiki for mappers. Edited November 9, 2009 by kaldor