Door handles...love or hate them?

[Springheel]

I've heard both sides of this issue, so I thought I'd see what TDM players generally prefer. We all have decorative doors in our maps that don't go anywhere...would you, as a player, prefer that those doors have handles (so they look like real doors) or not (so it's obvious they're not functional)?

[nbohr1more]

I believe it's possible to have door-handles that "Dont Frob or make handling noises"... correct?

[PranQster]

I think that doors with the handles missing look dumb. I'd prefer to wonder 'can that door be opened or not?' and venture over to find out, than to glance at a distance and think 'that's only decoration... move along'.

[Sotha]

I say 'no.' I have a very strong preference about this, if someone hasn't noticed.

 

In my maps, I will always leave prop doors without handles and I do not care if it looks dumb or not. The player needs to know whether a door is openable from a distance.

 

In real life we could go anywhere. This is a game and it is impossible to make all places accessible. There will be unopenable prop doors.

 

The player needs to have some kind of clue which door is openable and which is not. It does not need to be obvious, just a subtle clue, like a missing door handle. Or maybe a boarded up door.

 

Some reasons for this that I can think of just now:

• It is very annoying to expend limited equipment and take a risk to get to the door only to see that it is not openable.
• If a player needs to go to every fricking door to check if it is openable a city mission might be maddeningly frustrating. This is about sneaking and stealing, not about frustrating door checking.
• A player might assume an unimportant looking door is not openable and never check it and that way miss an important location.
• The first case also promotes save/loading which I hate. Save, go check perilous door. Not openable, busted, load. Yugh!

Of course each mapper can choose the way to go, but my preference is very strong in this direction. I'm a gameplay man and making openable doors indiscernible from unopenable doors in simply bad for the gameplay.

[Baddcog]

I think that doors with the handles missing look dumb. I'd prefer to wonder 'can that door be opened or not?' and venture over to find out, than to glance at a distance and think 'that's only decoration... move along'.

 

Exactly how I feel.

 

I also feel not adding handles so a player doesn't 'venture' there is just dumbing down the experience, something I'd expect from fast paced games where every second is critical.

IMO this is just not one of those games, it's all about exploring and discovering where you can go without being fed by silver spoon. It's also about detail and no door knobs is ugly.

 

If the handle can't be frobbed it is obvious it can't be used and no amount of argument can make me believe players aren't smart enough to figure that out.

It's been well established that doors that can be used are frobbable. Whether or not by key, lockpick or other side of door. Frobbable means YES, not frobbable means NO.

How is up to author to leave clues or player to figure out.

 

I've never seen a mission yet either that is just crammed with doors. It's not like you're in a modern hotel with 300 rooms and you have to check every single door in each hall on each floor. An Inn usually has 10 doors. What's inside depends on authors but authors usually leave a clue like a list at front desk of who's in what room #, etc..

[Springheel]

I kind of agree with Sotha, in that I've had experiences where I've been busted going into lit areas to check doors, only to find out they're decorative and it was a waste of my time. That is annoying. On the other hand, the arguments from the other side have merit too. That's why I'm interested in the poll results.

[nbohr1more]

I think a couple of strategic decorative doors add an interesting gamble element but this should not be abused.

 

Though it's not practical, I think (from a sandbox game-play perspective) players would like all doors to lead "somewhere". Whether the rooms they lead to are empty rooms, "junk rooms" or have treasure or pathways in them, it's simply more immersive to have real rooms of any kind behind each door.

[Springheel]

Though it's not practical, I think (from a sandbox game-play perspective) players would like all doors to lead "somewhere".

 

Of course; but that's not going to happen on modern hardware. I also suspect that players would quickly get bored even if it was possible--imagine trying to find the one important house in a town full of houses that you can enter. You'd never get the story started.

[Melan]

It doesn't look like results are conclusive so far. I am ambivalent about this. Thief had texture doors which were obviously fake and didn't need to be (couldn't be) bothered with. The aborted Deus Ex mod Project Cassandra even had a design philosophy stating it would not use texture doors since that breaks the illusion for a protagonist who is, ah, a getting through doors specialist. In TDM, the illusion of the simulated world is more complete since there is nothing to distinguish a properly made texture door, a non-interactive object door and an openable entity door. This comes at the costs that have been mentioned. I personally lean towards simulation over gameplay in this case, since like PranQster and Baddcogg, I also enjoy staking out doors to see if they yield, and consider it a part of the thrill.

 

Now what bothers me is objects/func_static being made non-solid for the sake of performance where I can reach them. And with TDM's efficient mantling and long rope arrows, it is sometimes very easy to get up somewhere the mapper doesn't want me. So put a tall fence there or something.

[Professor Paul1290]

It depends, in most cases I prefer decorative doors to not have handles.

 

This may or may not apply depending on the story of the particular mission, but the explanation I like to go with for inacessible doors is that the player character knows he has no need to go there. In that case, going up to those doors to try them doesn't make sense.

I think of the lack of handles as something to convey what the player character knows about the doors to the player ("I don't have to go here, don't bother with it.").

 

Now if it's part of the mission's story that the player character doesn't know the door can't be opened then the above doesn't really apply.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Professor Paul1290

[Midnight]

I was in agreement with Sotha, a game doesn't have to be 100% percent realistic and realism shouldn't have a negative impact on gameplay, but Baddcog makes some good points also.

 

I'm going for no preference, both methods are fine, although I'll add one caveat: I don't mind wasting a few minutes getting somewhere only to find the door doesn't open (hey, that's the fun of exploring), but FM makers should take care to avoid placing decorative doors with handles somewhere that a player could conceivably get to if it means wasting a precious rope arrow to find out it's not possible.

[Zaratul]

I voted for non handle doors.In T1 and T2 i liked non frobable doors.They have no knob and it was clearly visible from distance.So i am with Sotha.+1 for no handle.

[New Horizon]

I prefer no handle.

[demagogue]

I think this is an issue best left to the mapper.

And I'm not saying that just to punt the question. I think different FMs have different "personalities", and the handling of space and props is part of that personality, and that's a good thing... We all know FMs that do it both ways, and you can feel what the mapper is trying to do. So I'd rather an FM stay true to its personality.

 

Edit: I mean, when you put a handle on it or don't, you think about the space a little differently; it abstracts it more or less, which is practically an artistic or design decision in itself. And I'd rather swing with what the mapper wants to do than forcing their hand, even if I'd have done it differently, just like their picks for textures or furniture.

[Baddcog]

It depends, in most cases I prefer decorative doors to not have handles.

 

This may or may not apply depending on the story of the particular mission, but the explanation I like to go with for inacessible doors is that the player character knows he has no need to go there. In that case, going up to those doors to try them doesn't make sense.

I think of the lack of handles as something to convey what the player character knows about the doors to the player ("I don't have to go here, don't bother with it.").

 

Now if it's part of the mission's story that the player character doesn't know the door can't be opened then the above doesn't really apply.

 

Though I prefer handles it's a good point that maybe a character knows the layout well thus wouldn't bother with Joe Smith's house when he's going to rob Baron So and so.

 

However I still feel like this leads you more into the leading the player by the nose instead of letting them figure it out. To me it breaks immersion because even though 'my character' may 'know' they layout, I don't. So I don't want to not explore because 'I' should know better.

 

I do find it a bit funny that TDM is supposed to be 'harder' or more 'hardcore' than Thief. Everyone wants more minimalism, more of a realistic experience. More details than the original. No sight on the bow, etc... And yet when it comes to doors a lot of players tend to want the easy, guided, simplified experience. Not knocking anyone's opinions, I just find it a bit ironic.

[Springheel]

Everyone wants more minimalism, more of a realistic experience. More details than the original. No sight on the bow, etc... And yet when it comes to doors a lot of players tend to want the easy, guided, simplified experience. Not knocking anyone's opinions, I just find it a bit ironic.

 

I don't think it's the same thing at all. In an actual city, you could go through any door you wanted. Having decorative doors is an artificial restriction the game puts on you, so why shouldn't the mapper limit the frustration those restrictions can cause?

 

To me it's the same thing as invisible barriers at the end of tunnels. If the map won't let me go through the tunnel, then just put an obvious gate blocking it--don't make me go all the way to the end only to find I can't go any further because of a map limitation.

[Sotha]

..and putting subtle gameplay clues is not exactly leading the player by the nose nor does it open the door (with handle heh heh) for big red arrows pointing where to go.

 

In the dark it may still require the player to check a distant door with the spyglass.

 

I'm not aiming for hardcore. I'm aiming for fun and challenge, not mild frustration.

[Fidcal]

I vote yes. No door handle = loot glint. The only meaningful argument for having no handles on dummy doors is to have to get to an awkard door only to find it is false. imo you should always try to get everywhere anyway even if you can see it is a dummy or there appears to be nothing worth investigating. You should still explore every nook and cranny. Anyway, I really can't actually remember any occasion when I've struggled specifically to reach a door only to be disappointed. Never happened to me. To me it's always worth exploring everywhere and there are far more places where you find nothing than something. Maybe this is because I truly try to immerse myself and in RL as the player character I would investigate all doors, all avenues, all possibilities.

 

One further argument against no handles is that some real doors do not have a handle anyway: a special design, a portcullis, unfrobable doors controlled by a nearby lever or other control not immediately obvious. So I still always investigate.

 

The final killer argument against no handles is that you can't force mappers either way so there will always be some maps with either so you are always obliged to investigate handle or not. One exception might be where the mapper declares in the readme that all dummy doors do not have handles. What an immersion breaker even thinking about it in a game.

 

[EDIT] I guess I should add that I could have voted no preference because it makes no difference to me whether a dummy door has no handle. The no preference option is slightly ambiguous and all those voting actually do not mind if there are handles or not. To have 'no preference' means it doesn't bother you to have to reach a door only to find it is a dummy - right? But that is the only reason for having no handles on dummy doors.

[Mortem Desino]

No real preference. As stated many times above, it should just come down to smart mapping practice.

 

The opposite issue is what I worry about more. I've played a few FMs only to think to myself, "How the hell could I have known that window was openable?! No subtle hint like a handle, or being slightly ajar? Grr. I think I hate TDM for life now."

 

Sometimes mapping comes down to knowing little psychological tricks.

[Professor Paul1290]

I think it would be nice if other methods would be used instead over having doors with no handles whenever possible.

For example, in outdoor areas I think it's better to have a map but have it end at doors or gates that supposedly lead to areas of the city not relevant to the mission. That way you have a way to tell the player to not go there that is more believable.

For that matter, even boarded up doors or doors that are secured in other ways would be preferrable to not having a handle because they're more believable

 

No real preference. As stated many times above, it should just come down to smart mapping practice.

 

The opposite issue is what I worry about more. I've played a few FMs only to think to myself, "How the hell could I have known that window was openable?! No subtle hint like a handle, or being slightly ajar? Grr. I think I hate TDM for life now."

 

Sometimes mapping comes down to knowing little psychological tricks.

 

Now this thing with windows really bothers me too.

 

Unlike the doors, windows can be more troublesome to get to. It's rather irritating when the building in question is one that you can go into and does have insides, but the window doesn't open and is unbreakable.

 

Right now I don't feel like I can "trust" windows very much. They're behavior is so unpredictable from mission to mission that I generally prefer other means of entry unless I there is some indication that that they can be opened or broken through.

 

I think it would improve the use of windows a lot if there was somehow more consistency in the way they worked, but I understand this would be tricky with some missions

Edited April 11, 2011 by Professor Paul1290

[fllood]

I'm with the list of things Sotha said.

 

I want to add another reason which really bugs me with decorative doors with handles:

 

I'm supposed to be a Thief!! I approach a door because I want to open that door, enter and explore. Why else should I go and check?! ... so when I made my way to a door and it isn't operable I always think "why the heck are my lockpicks not good enough to open THAT one door" ... that breaks realism for me. ...

To keep immersion on decorative doors with pro-handles there should be at least an audio/visual clue why it can't be opened or why I wouldn't bother entering. Something like "the lock is too hard to pick" or "a carpenter live here not worth checking" or similar. But then again a "too hard to pick" message would suggest that there might be a key and gameplay behind a door. Also brings up the question "I can pick a lock of a tresor but not even a simple street door???". And a note "not worth checking" brings me back to "why my character even did I bother going here??". ...

[Bikerdude]

The opposite issue is what I worry about more. I've played a few FMs only to think to myself, "How the hell could I have known that window was openable?! No subtle hint like a handle, or being slightly ajar? Grr. I think I hate TDM for life now."

Im guilty of doing this, and will make a point in my FM's of making it more obvious to the player where they can go.

[Sotha]

Im guilty of doing this, and will make a point in my FM's of making it more obvious to the player where they can go.

 

If you need a suggestion, I'm using a cue system like this:

If a window is openable, it has shutters that are closed. Or they may be open so that you can see straight inside.

If a window is unopenable, it has glass texture or, it's shutters are closed but slightly ajar so that the window glass texture can be seen.

[Springheel]

The final killer argument against no handles is that you can't force mappers either way

 

Of course. But we're talking about what players prefer.

 

The loot comparison doesn't work, either. We don't have loot glint, but we make sure that our loot generally looks distinctive. I don't think anyone would be happy with a system where ANY object could be loot, and you had to frob them all to find out.

 

I think Mortem is right that the window example is completely analagous to the door one. If a mansion has twenty windows and only one of them can open, players will rightly complain if there's no way to distinguish which of the twenty actually opens. No one wants to spend time figuring how to get up to a window only to find they can't do anything with it. To me it's the same with doors.

 

 

Maybe it's a playstyle issue. Back when I had more free time, I was pretty interested in "exploring" a map; going everywhere to see what I could find. It was even fun just to try and see if I could get to places that weren't even important by stacking crates or whatever. I'd spend a lot of time in it and squeeze out all the enjoyment I could. Now I find that I'm far less interested in exploring for its own sake (which is why I don't even bother with Oblivion style games anymore). I don't have a lot of time to play, so I don't try and track down every piece of loot, or even visit every room. I'm more interested in following the story and planning how to get in and out without being caught.

[Sotha]

Heey, I see a pattern here. I see the things exactly like Spring.

 

The game isn't about exploring, but making a heist. You observe the location, examine some maps, intellgently choose the best way to get in and do what you're supposed to. All this without getting caugh or killing. Or saveloading.

 

Checking every corner with a magnifying glass would be simply boring.