Sidhe designer Gareth Griffiths (
Gripshift) sparked much debate with his
previous article on invisible barriers in games -- and he returns with an
in-depth design article, examining practical solutions for the problem.
Sidhe notes that despite the point that we're playing "games," we still struggle with the issue of reality versus fantasy.
If a game goes beyond the bounds of reality too much, we often hear players complaining that the action wouldn't be possible in real life. However, we're just as likely to hear players complain that games won't let them access closed-off areas or execute particular actions.
"Because of this we need to tread carefully and somehow incorporate some fantasy into the reality -- standards whereby the player can do crazy stuff that basically adheres to the boundaries that would exist in the real world.
Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't use things like doors, walls or other kinds of barricades, but it is important that they are consistent, fair, and conceptual, and that they follow the visibility and affordance guidelines I discussed previously.
For example, take a game that sees you walking alongside a cliff, that won't allow you to fall off the edge, no matter how hard you try. This is probably a good thing, isn't it? There's probably nothing worse than running along when all of a sudden you make one slip-up and down you go. And yet, if you can just hug the edge and no matter how hard you try it will just be impossible to fall off, will this break the immersion more?"
Organizing game boundaries into two categories, Sidhe labels certain obstacles as "macro boundaries" and others as "micro boundaries," defining the latter as barriers preventing access to a particular area within the game, such as doors.
Macro boundaries, however, are there as the "big picture," setting the limits of the player's game world.
"An example from the comments from the previous article's discussions was an island. Here, the obvious macro boundary is the ocean. Sure, we can allow the player to swim -- but bogged down with equipment, they can only go so far before they must either come back or drown.
Another way we can keep the player on the island is to put a danger in the way -- sharks, for instance, work pretty well. However, if we use this kind of boundary then it becomes necessary to make the boundary visible from the onset, which means our visibility and affordance rules now come into play. The player can see the fins, and as fins mean sharks, they afford danger.
However, if we had the scenario where the player swims out and sharks for no apparent reason suddenly attack them, then it makes no sense. But ensuring the player can see the dorsal fins from the shore reinforces that it may be pretty dangerous to try and swim away. This now makes the boundary plausible and contextual. Of course, if there happens to be a random boat moored up somewhere that won't allow the player to get in for some reason, then this micro boundary breaks the macro boundary."
You can
read the full design article, which goes into detail on macro boundaries, micro boundaries, and potential solutions for creating realistic barriers in games (no registration required, please feel free to link to this feature from external websites).
