Timeline for How can I create borders in an open-world game that don't feel artificial?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2018 at 8:38 | comment | added | trevorKirkby | Reading this answer, it occurred to me that basically all 4 of the suggestions are the major barriers showcased in The Truman Show, which is a much more elaborate scenario that works off the same principles as open-world game design. | |
| Dec 9, 2015 at 11:02 | comment | added | joeytwiddle | A cheap and spooky alternative to infinite sea would be infinite fog. | |
| Dec 5, 2015 at 21:04 | comment | added | deworde | @MAnd I agree entirely; "effectively untestable" was too hyperbolic, what I really meant was that you can't exhaustively test it, so you can get weird hard-to-replicate situations, which I think we're agreed on. Certainly I'd want to be aware of the potential for those kind of issues before adding that additional content to a game, which is all my comment was intended to say. | |
| Dec 5, 2015 at 20:01 | comment | added | MAnd | @Random832 and DoubleDouble, I think the decision between what MikeD suggested and simply autosaving the game for the player to reload if she/he does not want to swim back, is one that pretty much depends on each game-play and other characteristics. | |
| Dec 5, 2015 at 19:56 | comment | added | MAnd | @deworde I don't think procedurally generated additional space is untestable at the integration level. It can certainly be harder to test and debug, though. About the additional work it poses for non-procgen games, that's a cost/benefit calculation that each developer has to make by themselves depending on how important is the going-beyond-borders issue for their game, as well as the suitability of the alternatives. | |
| S Dec 4, 2015 at 18:11 | history | suggested | Kevin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
TLoZ: Wind Waker takes place on a series of islands (and has invisible wall boundaries for the world map). I think the poster meant Skyward Sword, which has a hubworld in the sky.
|
| Dec 4, 2015 at 17:32 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 4, 2015 at 18:11 | |||||
| Dec 3, 2015 at 17:37 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | @Random832 Sounds like you really care about your users' experience... If I remember correctly, games such as GTA have done what MikeD suggests. Sometimes you just want to see how far the game lets you go. At that point, the player is not "immersed" already. A limit on how far they actually proceed helps prevent wasting too much time not being immersed and gets them back into playing the game, rather than wasting maybe 15-30 minutes and then turning off the game - and then the game is off already so, might as well leave with that feeling of boredom.. possibly not to come back. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 16:35 | comment | added | Random832 | @MikeD. If they had time to swim out, they have time to swim back. If they don't like it, they can drown or reboot the game. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 9:29 | comment | added | deworde | "Procedural generation is your friend" I would recommend being cautious about this. Procedurally generated additional space is effectively untestable at the integration level, so you need to be sensible about producing potentially game-breaking (auto-saved fall-forever or random segfault) bugs in an aspect of the game that is by definition an optional extra. Don't get me wrong, procedurally generated games are great, but taking on the additional work of procgen'd content in a non-procgen game is probably low on the priority list for a releasable game. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 4:32 | comment | added | MAnd | @MikeD. What you mean is that, for instance, all the player swims after the first X minutes is actually just visual because it would still take him/her the same X minutes to come back? If that's the idea, it is not a bad one. But depends, because in a more realistic setting it would certainly break immersion because you know that you swam much more. But in other games where more liberties can be taken (Zelda style for instance) it can certainly work great. | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 4:27 | comment | added | MAnd | @WebWanderer Me too. I also think that can be risky, although still interesting to try | |
| Dec 3, 2015 at 3:32 | comment | added | Mike D. | An alternate solution to the "player has swum too far from shore" problem is to let the player swim pretty far out and then simply animate the water as moving without actually letting the player get any further away. That way when they turn around to go back it will always take a fixed (and reasonable) amount of time to swim back to shore regardless of long they persevered in trying to get away. Now you don't have to break immersion by offering a teleport dialog and it shouldn't take forever to return to the actual map. | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 21:31 | comment | added | WebWanderer | I find your challenging who tries option very interesting, I've never thought of that before, but I could find this very frustrating. | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 19:14 | comment | added | MAnd | Also @recognizer, your addition is welcome as well. It does not mention a new way of achieving what the OP desires, but certainly a way of making a traditional "scene barrier" solution looks much less cheating on the players. Nice one. | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 19:14 | comment | added | MAnd | @WernerCD That was more or less what I had in mind when I mentioned radiation, but You brought up a much more detailed setting for it. I particularly like the incremental nature of the solution, since that would "kill the player smoothly". | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 19:11 | vote | accept | Ethan Bierlein | ||
| Dec 2, 2015 at 16:24 | comment | added | recognizer | The "Scene Barrier" concept made me think of how Metal Gear Solid V does the opposite. In MGSV's Afghanistan map, there are unclimbable cliffs, bluffs and outcroppings throughout the area, not just at the edges. This, combined with an irregularly-shaped map, makes the edges of the map blend in. It's not a sudden change in terrain when you reach the edge, it's just another area you can't climb. The disadvantage is that much of the map is valleys and mountain passes, with less open land. But using the same features for map borders and interior map features is a good idea. | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 13:55 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Dec 2, 2015 at 14:37 | |||||
| Dec 2, 2015 at 12:52 | comment | added | WernerCD | I'd add Radiation Zones: The game takes place in a safe zone... and the surrounding area is a nuclear wasteland. There is no cure for the amount of radiation, that increases as you go past marked "safety" points. Similar to "Water to deep, don't go beyond these markers" ... except your skin boils. | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 9:56 | comment | added | MAnd | @joltmode Exactly, although I never had the chance to work on a proper open world game yet, I always thought of that: giving one super dificult to find easter egg after a lot of tedious swimming or walking across proceduraly generetaded nothingness. :) Also, in the case of a procedural infinite forest, there is always the option to generate also entrances/caves for new procedural dungeons after each X minutes. Then the nothingness after the finite open world becomes less nothing, and therefore more meaningful | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 9:52 | comment | added | tomsseisums | The #1 can also be changed into a not so dense, but huge forest. Not so dense, but huge city. This will make the wandering part somewhat boring. Though, you could slip an easter egg or two in there - a secret zone or something. The water, though, is the easiest of the options, and a distant island is the ultimate e-egg. :D | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 8:38 | comment | added | Luaan | I guess you could invent some way to keep this without breaking the immersion. For example, if it's a modern game, a patrol boat might approach you, and give you a lift if desired. | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 8:30 | comment | added | MAnd | @Luaan That makes sense. Of course it is more intrusive, in the sense of harming a bit the immersion. One solution might be firing an auto-save at some distance from shore. But sure, if it's a game where player is unlikely to save often and autosaves are not an option or one does not mind a message appearing at screen, I would totally go for the option you mention. It is the easiest and safest way. | |
| S Dec 2, 2015 at 8:27 | history | suggested | Louis15 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected several spelling issues (sorry) and reorganized some sentences.
|
| Dec 2, 2015 at 8:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 2, 2015 at 8:27 | |||||
| Dec 2, 2015 at 8:17 | comment | added | Luaan | It's also quite handy to give the player a quick way to return back to the "actual game zone" when they're in the endless ocean/forest/... People don't save their games anymore - if you don't have some kind of "Teleport home", show them something like "It seems like you're lost. Press F1 to teleport back to shore." | |
| Dec 2, 2015 at 6:14 | history | edited | MAnd | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 328 characters in body
|
| Dec 2, 2015 at 2:27 | history | answered | MAnd | CC BY-SA 3.0 |