There was a discussion just now in the IRC about how different force field elements should look...

lets say you can have various force field properties... such as...

A1 can walk through, can portal through (air)
A2 can walk through, cannot portal through (fizzler field)
B1 cannot walk through, can portal through
B2 cannot walk through, cannot portal through (combine style ff)

up to this point i have seen use of B2, but now Nacimota would like to have B1 in his map.

a fizzler field and a combine field have completely unique looks already... therefore... i suggested that B2 ought to have a unique look or sound queue so that it enhances the game play experience.

maybe somebody here would like to design the look of a B1 type force field?

I thought a different pattern, sound, or color for such a force field would make it obvious when there are mixed and matched forcefields either in one map or among many maps.

what do you think?

Personally, I think that visual designs and concepts should be entirely in the mappers hands. People should follow the ideas and concepts taught in Portal, and if a map wants to introduce a new concept, they can teach it to us just like Valve did.

msleeper wrote:
Personally, I think that visual designs and concepts should be entirely in the mappers hands. People should follow the ideas and concepts taught in Portal, and if a map wants to introduce a new concept, they can teach it to us just like Valve did.

I agree completely, as long as the mapper provides his/her players with consistancy when using these new mechanics.

ok then but if you are introducing a new concept and utilizing graphics that belong with an old concept, that's where i have an issue. new concepts... new graphics.. new queues... not old queues. otherwise how would a player know the new concept is being utilized and that it isn't just a re-use of the old one?

Throw in a custom GLaDOS voice? Put it in the readme? Give players more credit than assuming they have the mental capacity of mongoloid 4 year olds?

If a new element is added in the player should either see its different or hear that it is different. They should not have to find out by stumbling into it blindly.

Basically if you use a new feature give it a little 'safe' introduction (like everything in portal does)

duffers had a good idea, which is that a force field you could portal through but not walk through is just like a grate...

so if somebody wanted to make the texture of a grate for a forcefield, that would be really cool... then people could use that in their maps if they want.

to me that would be the nicest solution.

msleeper wrote:
Throw in a custom GLaDOS voice?

This would work.

msleeper wrote:
Put it in the readme?

This would not. People don't read readmes unless they have a problem.

That said, gamers make a connection between what something looks like and how it works. If you alias (re-use) one material into two purposes, you will confuse players. If that's a cost you're willing to accept, okay.

Otherwise, I would recommend trying to find a new look.

Quote:
B1 cannot walk through, can portal through
B2 cannot walk through, cannot portal through (combine style ff)

Actually, the primary use of combine forcefields I've seen in in GlassPrison, and in that one, they behaved like B1 above, not B2. Just like a grate. Its not like we have an official map that shows how combine shields behave; its more like whether or not you decide to put a func_no_portal there or not.

iamafractal wrote:
duffers had a good idea, which is that a force field you could portal through but not walk through is just like a grate...

so if somebody wanted to make the texture of a grate for a forcefield, that would be really cool... then people could use that in their maps if they want.

to me that would be the nicest solution.

As images go, I think thats about as intuitive as you can get; assuming that you can imitate the grate using effects only. A close second though is simply to change the combine ff color between option B1 and B2. The the combine field texture implies that you cant walk through it, and the color tells you whether you can portal or not.

iamafractal wrote:
A1 can walk through, can portal through (air)

http://www.ieatbees.com/pics/aaaiiiiiiiiiirrrrrr.jpg

This has already been discussed in another thread, a few topics below this one :
http://forums.thinking.withportals.com/new-types-of-fizzlers-doable-t738.html
In my maps, I simply use a grate/fence to represent a place where you can't go but through which you can portal. It's somewhat intuitive and the texture already exists in the game... (plus, I saw a lot of people using this in their maps)

NykO18 wrote:
This has already been discussed in another thread, a few topics below this one :
http://forums.thinking.withportals.com/new-types-of-fizzlers-doable-t738.html
In my maps, I simply use a grate/fence to represent a place where you can't go but through which you can portal. It's somewhat intuitive and the texture already exists in the game... (plus, I saw a lot of people using this in their maps)

I tend to agree; the only reason for having an energy field instead of the grate is so you can trivially turn it on/off (as opposed to putting it on a func_door and simply opening the grate). Its NICE to have that option, but its hardly required; the grate texture works in 99% of all situations I can think of. You just have to be open to the idea of using it.

hm i don't really like the color as an indicator too much i think a grate like pattern is the most intuitive possible, so i say whoever can make this texture to put in the library here, please do it so we can start to see it in some maps

It's all good, I swapped to a grate.

Personally the shield looked kickass IMO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIGJwgN3FCc [WIP]), but I've swapped to a grate to make everyone happy.

Video doesn't work for me.....

MrTwoVideoCards wrote:
Video doesn't work for me.....

Me either... worked for msleeper fractal though.

http://www.nacimota.com/boxdropper.jpg

EDIT: deleted my internet files and cleared my cache... video works for me now xD

wouldn't be end of world to have a ff that looks grate-like... would be hot...

Nacimota wrote:
I've swapped to a grate to make everyone happy.

Hey, dude, that's your work and your maps, don't be so defeatist.
You can use anything you want as soon as its use is clearly explained.

You could still have grates that turn off.
Just make them part of a moving object and have them slide into a wall.

Personally, I don't really care much WHAT the thing looks like. What I'd prefer to have is CONSISTENCY - consistency from map to map, author to author - I don't want a forcefield in one map to allow me to shoot through it when I'm accustomed to not being able to and having to spend (half-)hours agonizing over what to do next. I don't mind having to learn things, but map authors aren't going to want to put a tutorial with each one of their maps on what the different surfaces do, and players aren't going to want to repeat the same basic tasks repeatedly.

The grate is pretty straightforward for a shoot-through-but-not-walk-through surface (B1) and so far it seems that the combine field (B2) is another solution identical in nature to the glass already in the game (also B2).

A1 (air) and A2 (fizzler) are already implemented, so I'm not quite sure why everyone is still discussing all of this.

If anything, we lack the ability to distinguish whether objects (cubes, cameras, spheres, chairs) go through these surfaces as well.

Let Y = "yes, objects pass through" and N = "no, objects do not pass through".

That gives us :

A1Y can walk through, can portal through (air)
A2Y can walk through, cannot portal through
B1Y cannot walk through, can portal through
B2Y cannot walk through, cannot portal through

A1N can walk through, can portal through
A2N can walk through, cannot portal through (fizzler)
B1N cannot walk through, can portal through (grate)
B2N cannot walk through, cannot portal through (glass, ff)

Perhaps the combine forcefield should be more typically used for one of the four categories not currently implemented? And I've seen two types used so far, a white one and a green one - which suits which better?

This is also assuming that you can see through all of the above 8 categories and that any wall you cannot see through you should not be able to portal/walk/pass objects through for the sake of sanity.

well there can be different force fields that demonstrate their properties by their looks... ones that are loud and buzz a lot and look strong and are bright, and have sharp textures with pointy lightning shapes and that have the telltale yellow/black striped paint around them, might hurt you.

ones that look like a combine field won't hurt you and you could even walk on them...

there are some fields that are soft like spider webs that i've seen here or there... like the magnetic ones...

if people think in terms of what is intuitive, then we get a nice consistent user interface and enjoyable game play.

to determine ahead of time what hasn't been done and then to devise audiovisual properties that make sense is a good thing. for the rest of us to adhere to that or agree with it later is good too.