#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# edges of the world

This topic is 5143 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

What should I do when the player gets to the end of a world? On larger Earth-like worlds I planned on just having an endless ocean. On very small worlds (asteroid size) I was going to have it wrap around on all edges so that the world actually feels tiny. I''m stuck on what to do for something like Mars. Obviously I can''t really do an ocean. Any ideas?

##### Share on other sites
It really depends what type of game your making. One common solution is to simply block off the edges with some sort of impassable terrain, such as ocean, or mountains or something. You COULD always wrap around same as on the asteroids, but that most likely isnt what you want. I''d go with some kind of impassable obstacle.

##### Share on other sites
I was thinking about mountain ranges actually, but I''m just worried someone with a jet pack might find a way to get over it or at least see over it.

##### Share on other sites
well because you can''t have endless memory or bits
but you can have fairly complex near never-ending
using trick like l-system or fractal and the kind, if you get how to design with...

for example i have worked of a engine which has level of complexity from the single leaf of a tree to different galaxy, but i don''t have a game for this
you could go near a tree and see fruits, branch, parasite all different, but there is limitation to the lod according to the ram and the cpu speed
but the content is generated, you have only to design the primitives, better the relation build to make the content can be use as a knowledge base by the npc

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

##### Share on other sites
Rap-around would be awesome... personally.

Uberness...

##### Share on other sites
I know wrap around would be cool, but I don''t really feel like making a 120000x120000 map to make it feel realistic .

##### Share on other sites
The problem with a fully wrap-around world is that it doesn''t describe a sphere. Unless you really fancy up the math, you''re going to have either a cylinder or a torus. I don''t think I''ve ever seen a truly spherical world portrayed in a video game. Can anyone come up with an example?

As to world-edges, one solution I encountered in an old flight sim called "A-10 Attack!" was pretty novel. At the edges of the world, the terrain flattened out and all you had was ground clutter (little trees and what-not), and no matter how long you flew you''d always be about five miles away from the edge of the "map". The ground scrolled by underneath as though you were really going somewhere, but you weren''t. You could start up, flay straight to the edge of the map, and then go until you ran out of fuel. No barrier, no imappable obstacle, just a time-space anomaly. If you add in some fractal terrain, it might be more convincing.

I guess it depends on the game type. For an RPG, you could always bound the world with phenomena. At the north edge of the map is the Desert of Mystery, which is just a fractal terrain filled with monsters so tough that nobody can really get more than a few miles in anyhow, and by then they''d be dead. On the South end you get the Typhoon Sea, which you can sail on, but it''s filled with horrible weather such that no man can get far ("The Truman Show" had this). East and west could be fractal mountains that have several layers of "impassable" cliffs, so even if you jetpacked over one or more of them, you''d be out of fuel and/or eaten by dragons before you saw the other side.

For a space-related game, you could have the "maps" be little hand-crafted regions of the astral body, on which you can land and explore, and have everything else be fractal desolation. That saves you the trouble of the 120000 square map, and gives you the power to wrap around in the style you most like. With this solution, you could have small maps scattered about the wasteland, so the important relics and crash sites would be exactly where they are supposed to be, and the world could be big enough that you''d have to know where to look if you hoped to find one.

What manner of game are you thinking of?

##### Share on other sites
You could place the game in a crater... have jet packs to only work at certain altitudes or have recharge times. One game I know whiched used hover tech for tanks and such also allowed tanks to jump... but they could only go so high before falling down again. If you place the map on a crater, it would forect them to stay within a small area

##### Share on other sites
How is wraparound on all edges/corners of the map not a sphere?

Sorry about not being very specific about what type of game it is, I'm not even sure myself . I know I want it to be a third person shooter though. I think I will just settle for an impassible barrier at the edge and then extend the map farther with more handmade data. You would never be able to see beyond it and it won't be hard at all to implement.

 With the story I was planning it also wouldn't be too hard to do something like the MechWarrior series. As you approach the edge you see a yellow line and get a warning that you are leaving the mission area. As soon as you cross the red line you blow up.

[edited by - Raloth on November 10, 2003 10:00:32 PM]

##### Share on other sites
I''ve always liked the idea of using some sort of gameplay mechanic to limit the play area. For example, on Mars you would need an air supply, and the amount of air that you can carry limits the distance you can travel. That sort of thing.

quote:

The problem with a fully wrap-around world is that it doesn''t describe a sphere. Unless you really fancy up the math, you''re going to have either a cylinder or a torus. I don''t think I''ve ever seen a truly spherical world portrayed in a video game. Can anyone come up with an example?

Populous: The Beginning had a spherical world.

##### Share on other sites
What is with this obsession with huge game worlds? For something like a raceing/flying game...I can sorta understand...but a RPG where you are running around on foot? A RPG where you run off in one direction for 10 real minutes just to find some NPC guy who tells you to go back and "talk to his cousin"...so you turn around and run for another 10 real minutes...20 minutes of the players life wasted because of some anal retentive insistance on "realisam"...and this is considered "fun"?

Instead of concentraiting on huge nearly endless worlds...why not work on new and innovative ways to populate the game world with interesting and fun things for the player to do?

##### Share on other sites
Raloth consider your map.. if you are one the top row of whatever units you are you using on a grid of say 25000x25000 units, then you are technically pretty damn close to the ''northpole'' but on a globe how long does it take you to walk around the northpole in a circle?

If you are 3'' away from a tangible pole sticking out of santas backyard, it would take you about 2 seconds. You''d only be moving a few feet around it.

On your grid though, you''d still have to walk across the full 25,000 units. Which is the same if you were walking around the earth at the equator.

See the problem now?

~Vendayan

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I don''t think I''ve ever seen a truly spherical world portrayed in a video game. Can anyone come up with an example?

Dark Reign 2 had a spherical world, but you could only traverse part of it, it was possible to see the entire world, though, through the editor

##### Share on other sites
"How is wraparound on all edges/corners of the map not a sphere?"
Because walking past the north pole doesn''t cause you to arrive at the south pole.

in order to acuretly portray a sphere you need some tricky math, for one thing the east west distance gets smaller the further you get from the equator. As well as when you walk over the north pole you on the opposite side of the planet not at the opposite. So if you walked over the pole at the 0 degrees longatiude you would be 180 degrees longatudge.

its all very confusing and hard to portray.

dividing the world into a grid would look more like this.      2   1111111100000000000000   AAAAAAAA      Bbut here is the tough part if the screen is a 3x3 grid  the user would see this:at the north pole:  111 121 111 at the equator111  000AAAone south of the equator would look something like this000AAAABA

just imagine the hours of fun you could spend designing the algorithim that portrays that correctly in game as well as fun of desgining the map based on that.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

##### Share on other sites
Ah, I see now. So much for wraparound .

MSW: I'm not so much obsessed with large worlds as lots of detail. My game-units are relatively small compared to the characters so it will take a lot more to render the same "area". I only referred to "larger" worlds as compared to very small worlds, not just as normal large worlds. I'm more interested in giving the impression that they are large.

[edited by - Raloth on November 11, 2003 5:23:06 PM]

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by TechnoGoth
"How is wraparound on all edges/corners of the map not a sphere?"
Because walking past the north pole doesn''t cause you to arrive at the south pole.

in order to acuretly portray a sphere you need some tricky math, for one thing the east west distance gets smaller the further you get from the equator. As well as when you walk over the north pole you on the opposite side of the planet not at the opposite. So if you walked over the pole at the 0 degrees longatiude you would be 180 degrees longatudge.

its all very confusing and hard to portray.

What if the map were laid out as a cube? Provided that it''s large enough, the player wouldn''t likely be able to tell the difference between that and a true sphere. There would still be some tiling issues at the corners of the cube, when the world is flattened out, of course... That could either be dealt with by mapping the world onto a sphere (rendering just a patch of the whole at a time), or by making the corners inaccessible.

##### Share on other sites
It could work provided you don''t use cardinal directions. Since on a sphere you can walk north from any point and arrive at the north pole.

A cube shaped map would really consist of 6 smaller maps with their edges connected to another map. But in the end the user will notice that the world is a grid rather then a sphere.

But unless your going for a high level of accuracy its usual not worth the trouble of creating a sphere map, espically since the user will most like not even appriceate or notice that fact.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

##### Share on other sites
Hmm... What are the mathematical problems of making a spherical world? I mean, imagine that you just used a colossal sphere, so big that it would be impossible to perceive the curve of it. If you did that, and made it mostly fractal, with the "map inserts" concept I described above, you could conceivably make a full planet. If you went far enough in one direction, you''d wind up at your starting point, but nobody would be able to do that without some serious spaceship action anyway.

The "world" in which all the action takes place would not be any bigger than your map-making requires, but if you need to just keep running, you can. And it lends itself to transportation issues as well. You have to take a train to someplace that''s a thousand miles away. Sure, you can TRY to walk it, and if you are all kinds of badass and take lots of food, you might even make it, but it would take a couple of weeks. I''m thinking here of a desert planet, like in Dune or Trigun, but if you wanted to, I don''t see what''s preventing climatic zones. Since the fractal will handle generic areas, and the individual maps can have any theme you want, it''s entirely possible to have multiple "styles" on a single planet.

If it''s space-oriented, this would work especially well with uninhabitable planets. You could have biosphere colonies scattered about the planet, and uninhabitable waste everywhere else.

The thing that would kill this is if it''s tough to actually MAKE a gigantic, fractally-terrained sphere. If you can produce it with 2MB worth of algorithm and use it, then why not? But if it buggers your representation of space or hurts the use of gravity, then screw it.

Really, I''m just imagining a world in which you can orbit a planet while shooting at a fixture or even a moving target on its surface. That would rock. You wouldn''t even have to be actively rendering the planet''s surface, with cities and whatnot. Just throw the fractal onto the sphere as a texture/bumpmap, and let "sensors" pick out targets Star Trek-style. Little JPEGs could be imposed over the fractal to show large mapped features, and an atmosphere would be simple enough to concoct. At this point I''ve entirely lost track of the topic at hand, and am enjoying some top-notch pipe dreams. I''ll be quiet now.

NOTE: Bear in mind that I have no idea what the capabilities or limitations of fractal-generated terrain are. I know a little bit about how fractals are used in creating texture maps, and that''s the idea I''m running with. Just a huge bump map for the planet, that has real 3D depth to it. Like a big spherical Bryce terrain.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Raloth
What should I do when the player gets to the end of a world? On larger Earth-like worlds I planned on just having an endless ocean. On very small worlds (asteroid size) I was going to have it wrap around on all edges so that the world actually feels tiny. I''m stuck on what to do for something like Mars. Obviously I can''t really do an ocean. Any ideas?

If it''s a sci fi story, then possibly your player is interacting with some sort of alien technology at some point in the gameplay as perhaps part of a puzzle or key or method of game advancement progress solution of some sort, and you could easily use the same technique at the ends of the world where one of the effects of interacting with the technology acts as a gate to bring the player back to where they should be (or not, if you want to say ''don''t be looking here'' without words to the player) to continue level advancement.

There were all sorts of "throwback" devices from a lot of famous games, but I think the purpose here is to bring a player back to earth, because exploring is fun, but endless exploring would be not so fun I think.

One of the devices I use is magical, where you can explore all you want, but, there''s no guarantee you will find anything, except occasional powerups (you can bury some fun or nasty boss things, but how many of them satisfy the player? Probably only a few.) and you can simply invoke the ability to return to your last completed task.

HTH,

##### Share on other sites
How about using an icosahedron?? (Did I spell it correctly?)

20 triangles, each with their own map (hard to do tile based on a triangle though).

##### Share on other sites
Your world is flat, circular and carried by four elephants on the back of a giant turtle flying through space...
Personally I think it would be a brilliant idea to actually have such a setting, but eh, I love Discworld

Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !

• ### Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
628696
• Total Posts
2984265

• 18
• 9
• 13
• 13
• 11