Invisible walls

[Razura]

Or.. when you get a distance far enough, one of the huge birds will swooop down and eat you, or there is a strong wind and it blows you back a few steps.

[Kompatriot]

These are several ideas of mine, ordered by sensibility (Note that the thread is too massive for me to have read it, so I'm probably repeating other ideas):
-Deep canyons, down which if one jumps one will fall, and over which one cannot jump. You can see a distant land across them.
-Instant turnaround at borders
-Monoliths and ruins of ancient civilization, which house ancient, rabbit mangling magic.
-A steep, rocky cliff or mountain slope. Too sheer to for even a ninja rabbit to climb.
-A dense thicket of trees and overgrowth, around which one must go (the path created by them leading you back to the area of play). Note the stinky pun embedded in this bullet.
-Dangerous marauders, wolf packs, and beasts patrolling the periphery. They'd have to be so overpowered that no manner of ninja rabbitry could overcome them, or even escape from them.

Better yet, a combination of all the above.

[capn.lee]

people are having a problem with invisible walls through past experiences however i think the reason people feel so strongly is because of a tendency to misuse invisible walls.

it's also a bit of a common trope, people know to dislike them just as people know to dislike quick time events or a wii game involving 'waggling' and I think, after reading these pages about alternative ideas, that we need to reassess invisible walls. There are bad uses of invisible walls and they tend to revolve around blocking off access to an area that is fun to explore, it's kind of a quick patch over bad level design. "playtesters keep going off this way instead of the way we planned", "oh, just put an invisible wall there then".

I don't see any issue with putting invisible walls around the edge of the game level. Fair enough, it doesn't make any sense that Turner simply cannot progress any further, but because it is the edge of the map, there is nothing there to explore, we the player aren't annoyed that we are unable to explore an area.

If we're going to continue to bash invisible walls, we're going to need to justify why we feel this way.

In this thread, we've had 4 ideas:

1. wall of death - Turner takes environmental damage or faces an enemy he cannot beat. I am particularly hesitant with this idea, it punishes exploration.

2. environmental wall - Turner is faced with cliff edges, thick foliage and rocks that block him from progressing further. This is a better idea, but is just as inexplicable as invisible walls. How did we get to this sealed off square of land?

3. remove control of the player - take control away from the player to turn him around and walk the other way. you have to be careful when taking control away from a player, it can be a frustrating experience. When i think of games that do this to me, i immediately think of a game like zelda where stepping on the wrong square of terrain gets you pushed back and dialogue explains "you shouldn't leave until the princess is safe"

4. go back to the map - fair enough idea, but since these levels are so large, they will be of little practical use (why run quite far to go back to the map when the escape key would do the same?), and will just be used to take the player out of the game before he ever sees an invisible wall.

This kind of brings me back to my original point. Rather than abolish invisible walls, how about we focus instead on having the game built up so that players won't accidentally bump into them while trying to get around? With such large levels, you could make it so that only players exploring the limits of their world find them rather than somebody bumping into one during a fight.

[Wilbefast]

Agreed - make the edges of the map so devoid of interesting areas that, should a player go there and find an invisible wall, there responsible will probably be "it's a fair cop". How often do you run into invisible walls in Lugaru?

They're there though - watching you

[Luporum]

The reason I don't like invisible walls is that they break the spell: you can't be immersed in a game that randomly contradicts the nature of reality. Another reason I don't like them is that they are a rigid boundary: gaming (especially 3D gaming) is, in many ways, about testing boundaries and trying to break them. Invisible walls, unlike most alternatives, completely fail to provide a sense of (false) hope in this respect.

The method used by most of my favourite games is, without a doubt, the "wall of death" idea. This doesn't punish exploration at all, provided the player is given enough time to escape before being exterminated.

In Bugdom, in the levels where you could fly, there was a "ceiling of death" to prevent you going too high: if you did, you instantly got eaten by a bat. The difference here is that the ceiling is a constant point in the dimension of height, whereas walls are a potentially arbitrary 2D shape. (It's all about perception.)

The major reason why I like the "wall of death" effect most is that there is a certain thrill when an undefeatable enemy appears and tries to kill you. None of the other methods I've seen have this

How often do you run into invisible walls in Lugaru?

Almost every time I played the level with three wolves in it. I'd run away to get the attention of a wolf, run away so I didn't end up fighting two at once (and to get the advantage over it), and eventually get so far from the play area that I didn't know how to get back. A few other times, too, but that was the main one.

[capn.lee]

you can't be immersed in a game that randomly contradicts the nature of reality.

a bird that would swoop down and pick you off if you leave the game area (sorry, Razura) is just as arbitrary as anything else. Why can't the bird get you if you're 5 feet further from the boundary?

Perhaps they are hidden ninja at the borders of the map
* Are these undefeatable enemy guarding something?
* why won't they let you leave?
* how are you planning to progress once you've defeated the enemy you're meant to be fighting?
* if there are such kickarse warriors out and about, stronger than anything else in game, why aren't they being used to do something useful like guarding the king?
* if they aren't agents of your enemy why are they attacking you unprovoked

once we start trying to rationalise these things, they kind of fall apart. I did like the idea of the bat, that sounds like it would work with the lore of the game, but what lore can you write about these warriors that block you from leaving a small area until the battle is over? why are they doing it? why aren't they helping the guy you're fighting? where do they go once the battle is over?

How often do you run into invisible walls in Lugaru?

Almost every time I played the level with three wolves in it. I'd run away to get the attention of a wolf, run away so I didn't end up fighting two at once (and to get the advantage over it), and eventually get so far from the play area that I didn't know how to get back. A few other times, too, but that was the main one.

seems to me like invisible walls weren't the problem, having a map that was too large was the problem. This issue wouldn't have been fixed by replacing the boundaries with a wall of death, some kind of compass or minimap would have been needed; that isn't what we're discussing.

[Wilbefast]

Pretty much agree with everything Lee says.

Almost every time I played the level with three wolves in it. I'd run away to get the attention of a wolf, run away so I didn't end up fighting two at once (and to get the advantage over it), and eventually get so far from the play area that I didn't know how to get back. A few other times, too, but that was the main one.

Well then, the problem to address would be to prevent you from getting lost in the first place. A "wall of death" is all very well but what exactly is going to swoop down and kill Turner randomly? He's supposed to be wandering the world - it'd be contrived if all the areas you enter happen to be surrounded by Whaleman Territory or something

[Advert]

I don't think most people would have a problem with invisible walls at the map boundaries, but I have a huge problem with invisible walls within the level (i.e on top of buildings, where hazards would be, etc). They shouldn't be used for anything other than map boundaries, in my opinion.

It would also be nice if instead of just the area for the objective, if there were some space around it where you could explore, but some kind of indication that you're heading the wrong way (instead of blockade in a street with an invisible wall).

[ima]

Hmm yeah, don't really know how portals work(performance), but if you do the wraparound thing you'd need to have some sort of way to render the player on the other side of the map, so he doesn't just simply disappear from the sight of the player that is chasing him when he reaches one edge of the map and teleports to the other(think multiplayer).
There's also the SuperMario64 way, hehe that unlimited hallway, I have NO idea what so ever how they made that, but I definitely didn't know that I wasn't going anywhere.
It's like magic to me, still has me a bit puzzled:P.

[jaggerlink]

The way they did it in Super Mario 64 wouldn't work in Overgrowth. Mario would teleport back at just the right moment to make it impossible to tell what had happened. It became obvious in Super Mario 64 DS though, since there was a mini-map on the bottom screen.

[ima]

Hehe, I figured it would be something simple, but just had too many ideas in my head ^^.
Very well executed though, shame that the minimap ruins it on the DS, great illusion. Should have removed the minimap in that area or something.

[Luporum]

once we start trying to rationalise these things, they kind of fall apart.

That's the nature with any solution: it is unrealistic to be constrained to a map, particularly a square one. The best we can do is try to avoid them being completely jarring in the context of the game. To me, invisible walls are just that. I won't say that the "wall of death" is the best solution, as I haven't seen every solution in action, but at least it's not completely unreal.

Although you do bring up a good point: how would this work in Overgrowth? There's nothing that would be able to kill all the various species, except the whaleman, and we really don't want one of those at all the map boundaries.

Well then, the problem to address would be to prevent you from getting lost in the first place.

Agreed. But a) even the best designers aren't perfect and b) nothing is foolproof to a talented fool. This is for the edge cases.

[dra6o0n]

Design the map so there will be very little use of invisible wall areas, then for areas with them, have powerful border guards or environmental hazards.

But limit them to certain maps so they fit the picture.

Say your in a desert area, there will be a lot of hills and cliffs, and giant rocks can block the path.

Maybe we can have random encounters in the game for use with this, as exploring is a lot of fun, but being ambushed by enemies because you went into a unknown area should be interesting.

Maybe you could have archer posts in some areas.

[ShnitzelKiller]

Terrain generates as you go?

[PurePareidolia]

I would agree with the map idea. As you get near, an map icon (or a text box) appears and if you get too close you go back to the map. That way you aren't just pulled out of the game, and it provides a practical and believable solution to the problem.
The icon means you can't just stumble back into the world map, and the majority of players will instinctively just turn around and return to the play area. Assuming they don't want to go back to the map screen of course. Obviously there are some circumstances in which you could just push them back, like if it were an ambush or there was a boss of some sort. however generally you want to restrict the player's ability to leave in those cases by more natural obstacles.