Illusory and Breakable Walls

[WhiteShark]

I've played a lot of exploration-heavy games that have secrets hidden behind walls that can either be broken or simply passed through as though immaterial. It's a gimmick I have mixed feelings about.

In principle, I think it can be done well. If there's always an environmental clue of some sort and the game takes care to make it clear these things exist, I think it's fine. The problem is that some devs scatter them about indiscriminately; thus, once I know a game has them―or even before I know, just based on genre expectation―I feel compelled to attack and throw myself into every wall that could possibly contain something... which basically means every wall. It gets tedious, but the alternative is possibly missing out on important secrets and upgrades, so I do it anyway. At this point, it would almost be a relief if a game said up front that it contained no fake walls.

Thoughts?

[wndrbr]

You've pretty much described everyone's thoughts.

I still like them though, the existence of illusory walls make me more observant of patters in the environment. Why does this exact section of wall doesn't have a torch attached to it? Why is this patch clean and not covered in moss and vines?

[WhiteShark]

I think it's especially careless, or perhaps devious, when some fake walls are signposted in some obvious way but others aren't. It can lull you into hoping they will all be signposted when in reality you still have to bash every wall. At least some games have the decency to give you a treasure detector in the late game so you can know approximately where you should be meticulously wall bashing.

[rusty_shackleford]

I like the idea but I have trouble thinking of a way to have it done well that doesn't devolve into just bumping into every wall to make sure you don't miss something.
Feel like if I was actually in the world, I'd be running my hand along the wall as I walked to make sure it's not illusory then

Secret walls that require extra effort to get thru and/or breakable walls are probably a better idea

[WhiteShark]

Exploration game devs should have to include a sworn statement with their games that all fake walls have adequate clues to indicate them. It's not enough for them to just silently do it right because I'll still spend the whole game wall bashing just in case.

[J1M]

I find hidden passages to be enjoyable when their existence can be inferred from other information. For example, games with automapping features and deducing a passage from an unexplored region of the map (Exile 3). I also enjoy games with a fixed camera angle that play with perspective and expectations to hide things from the player that wouldn't be hidden to the characters (Lufia 2).

Zelda has done both extremes of the most common approach, which is "the wall is solid until it is hit with the right item" (usually a bomb). Zelda (NES) gave no indication of where a bomb might open a passage in the overworld. By Zelda (SNES) the wall panels were marked so obviously that they may as well have not been there. The former is awful, but the latter is only enjoyable if access to 'bombs' is situational and the gameplay involves finding/activating/transporting the 'bomb' to the obviously marked spot. The mountain area of Zelda 64 does this until you get the bomb sack item.

TLDR: I don't like 'noticing things' as gameplay. In part because I don't trust developers to be fair/consistent/non-lazy and in part because I'd rather solve a puzzle by playing with the pieces than looking for them.

[TND]

I don't like 'noticing things' as gameplay. In part because I don't trust developers to be fair/consistent/non-lazy and in part because I'd rather solve a puzzle by playing with the pieces than looking for them.

Nobody likes I Spy in a video game, looking for an item in a certain place just isn't fun when it's hidden someplace stupid combined with modern graphics where the environment isn't readable.

[Valter]

Yeah each of these walls should have some indication or clue of its existence, otherwise I won't bother. Keep your secret, I'll keep my sanity.

[Tangerine]

I can't think of a single game where illusory walls made it better, but I like breaking walls open with a rocket launcher.

[WhiteShark]

TLDR: I don't like 'noticing things' as gameplay. In part because I don't trust developers to be fair/consistent/non-lazy and in part because I'd rather solve a puzzle by playing with the pieces than looking for them.

I was writing up a post about how noticing can be engaging, citing the puzzle bosses of Darksiders, which generally boiled down to noticing things like, "Hey, that crystalline spot on the boss looks a lot like those other crystals I can break with my gauntlet," but then I remembered that I don't like puzzle bosses, so maybe it's not engaging after all. Still, doesn't a lot of puzzle-solving also come down to pattern recognition, which is essentially noticing? I'm not sure where to draw the line or if it can be drawn. A lot of game puzzles are essentially solved the moment you notice they exist, e.g. this room has four torches but only three are lit. It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with noticing as a way to engage the player; the problem arises when there's nothing to notice.

[Xenich]

I like some secrets that are accidental in nature, designed to be in an area or location where the chances of someone happening upon them randomly is greater because of how they are placed, but outside of that, there is no distinct clue or mechanic to lead the player to them and there is still a fair chance they will miss it.

I also don't think it is bad design for a player not to find everything in the game when they play through. Sure, it may encourage the autists to go through a series of recursive mundane play habits, but is that the fault of the game or the player?

I do think there should be a good mix of secrets that use various methods (player logic, perception, attention to hints via things like notes, dialogue, etc..), but I think the secret that has none of that and is placed in the manner I mentioned above is still a reasonable design method in addition to those.

[Kalarion]

Exploration game devs should have to include a sworn statement with their games that all fake walls have adequate clues to indicate them. It's not enough for them to just silently do it right because I'll still spend the whole game wall bashing just in case.

I agree that it's usually a bad mechanic, but when done right it serves as a perfect spice to exploration and makes me really dig in and engage. "Doing it right" usually means really good rewards in secret rooms and stuff.

Chronicles of Vaeltaja is really super-duper jank in this regard. Secret passages are very obtuse with no visual clues whatsoever — some secret rooms are actually outside the map grid! But @Witchgrove Games did such a good job putting enticing loot behind all the secret passages that one of the first things I look forward to when I hit a new map is smashing my face into every single wall that could possibly hold a secret passage/room. It's fantastic, I'm like a police dog on the hunt for crack.

I suppose it's so rare to have a dev who can properly flip that switch that it's probably just safer to go with your idea though.

[Tangerine]

TLDR: I don't like 'noticing things' as gameplay. In part because I don't trust developers to be fair/consistent/non-lazy and in part because I'd rather solve a puzzle by playing with the pieces than looking for them.

I was writing up a post about how noticing can be engaging, citing the puzzle bosses of Darksiders, which generally boiled down to noticing things like, "Hey, that crystalline spot on the boss looks a lot like those other crystals I can break with my gauntlet," but then I remembered that I don't like puzzle bosses, so maybe it's not engaging after all. Still, doesn't a lot of puzzle-solving also come down to pattern recognition, which is essentially noticing? I'm not sure where to draw the line or if it can be drawn. A lot of game puzzles are essentially solved the moment you notice they exist, e.g. this room has four torches but only three are lit. It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with noticing as a way to engage the player; the problem arises when there's nothing to notice.

The difference is noticing something that has an immediate solution (like putting a bomb in front of a cracked wall) and noticing the pieces of the puzzle and putting it together. A Zelda "light the torch" 'puzzle' has the solution be to whip our your flame rod and light it. Darksiders has "light the torch" puzzles in it, but the puzzle is figuring out how to get the fire from the source to the target, which may involve positioning and getting other objects in the right place.

[stormvermin]

Kiwi nerds are arguing about Dark Souls again so I have it on the mind. Dark Souls 1 has imo one singular really well done illusory wals: the one in New Londo after you drain the water with the darkwraith behind it. You can see the item and the pathway behind the wall from the side. There's a reasonably likely chance that an unknowing player might hit the wall for no other reason than out of frustration. It has all of the necessary pieces: the carrot you can see, the path to the carrot, and the out of place architecture; more of a minor visual puzzle than anything. Out of place <bare patches of wall> on their own are lame and encourage the player to hug walls like a *******.

edit: the player should have interacted with illusory walls before this point in the game so they shouldn't be unfamiliar with the concept but still.

[Xenich]

TLDR: I don't like 'noticing things' as gameplay. In part because I don't trust developers to be fair/consistent/non-lazy and in part because I'd rather solve a puzzle by playing with the pieces than looking for them.

I was writing up a post about how noticing can be engaging, citing the puzzle bosses of Darksiders, which generally boiled down to noticing things like, "Hey, that crystalline spot on the boss looks a lot like those other crystals I can break with my gauntlet," but then I remembered that I don't like puzzle bosses, so maybe it's not engaging after all. Still, doesn't a lot of puzzle-solving also come down to pattern recognition, which is essentially noticing? I'm not sure where to draw the line or if it can be drawn. A lot of game puzzles are essentially solved the moment you notice they exist, e.g. this room has four torches but only three are lit. It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with noticing as a way to engage the player; the problem arises when there's nothing to notice.

The difference is noticing something that has an immediate solution (like putting a bomb in front of a cracked wall) and noticing the pieces of the puzzle and putting it together. A Zelda "light the torch" 'puzzle' has the solution be to whip our your flame rod and light it. Darksiders has "light the torch" puzzles in it, but the puzzle is figuring out how to get the fire from the source to the target, which may involve positioning and getting other objects in the right place.

One thing I noticed over the years is how early games required the players to solve puzzles to progress, regardless of how clever or inane their solution was and this obviously was a point of contention on the difficulty of various games back then. It wasn't an issue of "should" a secret or solution exist, but often a matter of that the solution was unreasonable, too vague, or forced a solution that was lacking.

These days, most games (and I would even stray out to say 'all" to some extent) don't even bother trying to "game" the player to a solution, they simply lead them to it. I blame the general mindset of developers pushing for "A game must be Fun™" and so think any frustration of the player is bad design, but this becomes a major problem when you consider... "lowest common denominator" design ethics, which then relegates all situations to "The dumbest person possible" and so we end up with arrows, life lines, and bouncy balls.

It comes down to the most quintessential question... do people want a game? Or do they want entertainment?

[J1M]

Curious what other people here think about The Witness' environmental observation/perspective puzzles. Example of good secret or bad secret?

[rusty_shackleford]

I am not a fan of zelda's "put a bomb at the wall with cracks" approach. I do not know how to do it better, but it will be systems-based instead.

[Tangerine]

I am not a fan of zelda's "put a bomb at the wall with cracks" approach. I do not know how to do it better, but it will be systems-based instead.

Deus Ex doesn't consistently commit to this, but you can generally tell which kinds of doors you can destroy based on the material it's made out of.

[Tadeusz]

Curious what other people here think about The Witness' environmental observation/perspective puzzles. Example of good secret or bad secret?

The Witness has well designed puzzles, perspective ones were fun. Can't say about endgame puzzles as they've become too hard for me.

[rusty_shackleford]

With regards to general design of secrets,
I'd place Larian very high for well-done secrets, especially in DOS2/BG3 due to them making heavy use of the verticality. Lots of cool stuff in places if you're willing to explore. I think it would have been even better if it was less bird's-eye-view and closer to something like Gothic.

[The_Mask]

Best stuff like this is in NOX and Dark Souls. NOX because it is simple and easy to figure out. Dark Souls because it rewards thoroughness and autism. Anything else I've found to be either tedious or forgettable.

Oh, and every game should have a chest behind a waterfall and the chest should have epic loot, and it should make you feel clever for checking the waterfall.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I remember this in Sonic Heroes. There were four different teams and their stories that they played, reusing the same maps. But each team was tuned for a certain difficulty. Ie the Amy team was the easy mode, Sonic team was the normal difficulty, Shadow team the hard one. On the upside down castle map, I distinctly remember that if you did it with Sonic's team, there were certain walls you could see cracks in, so if you swapped to your heavy hitter Knuckles you could smash it and find treasure inside an alcove. IIRC the crack was smaller or nonexistent on the Shadow route so you either had to be paying more attention to see it or remember it, and I am not sure if it even existed on the Amy easy route or if it was just an exposed alcove with treasure in it or whatever. I always thought that was neat.

[WhiteShark]

Exploration game devs should have to include a sworn statement with their games that all fake walls have adequate clues to indicate them. It's not enough for them to just silently do it right because I'll still spend the whole game wall bashing just in case.

I agree that it's usually a bad mechanic, but when done right it serves as a perfect spice to exploration and makes me really dig in and engage. "Doing it right" usually means really good rewards in secret rooms and stuff.

Chronicles of Vaeltaja is really super-duper jank in this regard. Secret passages are very obtuse with no visual clues whatsoever — some secret rooms are actually outside the map grid! But @Witchgrove Games did such a good job putting enticing loot behind all the secret passages that one of the first things I look forward to when I hit a new map is smashing my face into every single wall that could possibly hold a secret passage/room. It's fantastic, I'm like a police dog on the hunt for crack.

Your idea of "doing it right" is born of Pavlovian conditioning, the words of an addict, not a police dog. You have been deceived by means of especially high quality crack into thinking the mindless tedium is engaging. This seems obvious to me, but if an activity in a video game would be painfully boring absent a big reward, it's bad design.

[Stack of Turtles]

Exploration game devs should have to include a sworn statement with their games that all fake walls have adequate clues to indicate them. It's not enough for them to just silently do it right because I'll still spend the whole game wall bashing just in case.

I agree that it's usually a bad mechanic, but when done right it serves as a perfect spice to exploration and makes me really dig in and engage. "Doing it right" usually means really good rewards in secret rooms and stuff.

Chronicles of Vaeltaja is really super-duper jank in this regard. Secret passages are very obtuse with no visual clues whatsoever — some secret rooms are actually outside the map grid! But @Witchgrove Games did such a good job putting enticing loot behind all the secret passages that one of the first things I look forward to when I hit a new map is smashing my face into every single wall that could possibly hold a secret passage/room. It's fantastic, I'm like a police dog on the hunt for crack.

Your idea of "doing it right" is born of Pavlovian conditioning, the words of an addict, not a police dog. You have been deceived by means of especially high quality crack into thinking the mindless tedium is engaging. This seems obvious to me, but if an activity in a video game would be painfully boring absent a big reward, it's bad design.

I think it's fun even if there isn't a big reward. Meanwhile, thinking back to the thread about play style categories, I find some of what you like in a game to be mind-numbingly boring. Different people have different tastes!

[WhiteShark]

I think it's fun even if there isn't a big reward. Meanwhile, thinking back to the thread about play style categories, I find some of what you like in a game to be mind-numbingly boring. Different people have different tastes!

I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing because I find this line of argument surprising coming from you. To be clear: you think bumping into every wall to check for secrets is engaging gameplay? I think exploration is fun; I think navigating to hard-to-reach areas is fun; I think treasure is good to enhance that experience; but I find it difficult to see how anybody could enjoy running into every wall unless he had already been trained to enjoy it by games like the one @Kalarion mentioned.

[Stack of Turtles]

I think it's fun even if there isn't a big reward. Meanwhile, thinking back to the thread about play style categories, I find some of what you like in a game to be mind-numbingly boring. Different people have different tastes!

I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing because I find this line of argument surprising coming from you. To be clear: you think bumping into every wall to check for secrets is engaging gameplay? I think exploration is fun; I think navigating to hard-to-reach areas is fun; I think treasure is good to enhance that experience; but I find it difficult to see how anybody could enjoy running into every wall unless he had already been trained to enjoy it by games like the one @Kalarion mentioned.

It can be done well or badly, and I certainly wouldn't expect it to carry a game as a core mechanic all on its own, but yeah, press X to swing your sword at the wall and see if there's something on the other side is fun

[Kalarion]

Exploration game devs should have to include a sworn statement with their games that all fake walls have adequate clues to indicate them. It's not enough for them to just silently do it right because I'll still spend the whole game wall bashing just in case.

I agree that it's usually a bad mechanic, but when done right it serves as a perfect spice to exploration and makes me really dig in and engage. "Doing it right" usually means really good rewards in secret rooms and stuff.

Chronicles of Vaeltaja is really super-duper jank in this regard. Secret passages are very obtuse with no visual clues whatsoever — some secret rooms are actually outside the map grid! But @Witchgrove Games did such a good job putting enticing loot behind all the secret passages that one of the first things I look forward to when I hit a new map is smashing my face into every single wall that could possibly hold a secret passage/room. It's fantastic, I'm like a police dog on the hunt for crack.

Your idea of "doing it right" is born of Pavlovian conditioning, the words of an addict, not a police dog. You have been deceived by means of especially high quality crack into thinking the mindless tedium is engaging. This seems obvious to me, but if an activity in a video game would be painfully boring absent a big reward, it's bad design.

I hate wall-bumping when there aren't good enough rewards for it. Therefore I am not addicted to wall-bumping but to the loot. I hate getting loot for no good reason. Therefore I am not addicted to loot but to rewards for engaging effort. By the transitive property this is good design.

Please do not respond further to my argument as I have now conclusively destroyed you rhetorically. There will be no further communication on this topic.

@WhiteShark close the thread I wo-

****.

[rusty_shackleford]

Exploration game devs should have to include a sworn statement with their games that all fake walls have adequate clues to indicate them. It's not enough for them to just silently do it right because I'll still spend the whole game wall bashing just in case.

I agree that it's usually a bad mechanic, but when done right it serves as a perfect spice to exploration and makes me really dig in and engage. "Doing it right" usually means really good rewards in secret rooms and stuff.

Chronicles of Vaeltaja is really super-duper jank in this regard. Secret passages are very obtuse with no visual clues whatsoever — some secret rooms are actually outside the map grid! But @Witchgrove Games did such a good job putting enticing loot behind all the secret passages that one of the first things I look forward to when I hit a new map is smashing my face into every single wall that could possibly hold a secret passage/room. It's fantastic, I'm like a police dog on the hunt for crack.

Your idea of "doing it right" is born of Pavlovian conditioning, the words of an addict, not a police dog. You have been deceived by means of especially high quality crack into thinking the mindless tedium is engaging. This seems obvious to me, but if an activity in a video game would be painfully boring absent a big reward, it's bad design.

Developer who puts exactly one illusory wall in his game to drive whiteshark insane

[rusty_shackleford]

Magic powder that dispels illusory walls but it's expensive and explodes if you carry too much so you can only bring enough to use it twice

[aimlesshealer]

I agree that it's usually a bad mechanic, but when done right it serves as a perfect spice to exploration and makes me really dig in and engage. "Doing it right" usually means really good rewards in secret rooms and stuff.

Chronicles of Vaeltaja is really super-duper jank in this regard. Secret passages are very obtuse with no visual clues whatsoever — some secret rooms are actually outside the map grid! But @Witchgrove Games did such a good job putting enticing loot behind all the secret passages that one of the first things I look forward to when I hit a new map is smashing my face into every single wall that could possibly hold a secret passage/room. It's fantastic, I'm like a police dog on the hunt for crack.

Your idea of "doing it right" is born of Pavlovian conditioning, the words of an addict, not a police dog. You have been deceived by means of especially high quality crack into thinking the mindless tedium is engaging. This seems obvious to me, but if an activity in a video game would be painfully boring absent a big reward, it's bad design.

I hate wall-bumping when there aren't good enough rewards for it. Therefore I am not addicted to wall-bumping but to the loot. I hate getting loot for no good reason. Therefore I am not addicted to loot but to rewards for engaging effort. By the transitive property this is good design.

Please do not respond further to my argument as I have now conclusively destroyed you rhetorically. There will be no further communication on this topic.

@WhiteShark close the thread I wo-

****.

It's just another form of skinner box. Hit wall = reward not always, but some of the time. Therefore brain think hitting wall is very engaging