WYGIB: Part Two! The Sierra Operating System

[Vince Twelve]

Note: Based on some of the feedback here, I made a small addendum to the final version of part one on my blog.  For the rest of the articles in this series, I'm going to post them here first and then modify them based on the discussion before posting the final versions to my blog.

Previous parts:

• Part One: Cursor Confusion

Part Two: The Sierra Operating System

In this edition of "Why Your Game is Broken," I'm going to pick on something near and dear to many adventure fans' hearts: the Sierra and Lucas Arts interfaces.  These two interfaces, Sierra much more than Lucas Arts, are used in an overwhelming majority of the games that come out of this community. This is largely because the Sierra interface is used in the default template provided with AGS.

Unfortunately, partially due to the inherent flaws of these interfaces, and partially due to the developers' sloppy use of them, nearly every one of these games are broken.

The Sierra Operating System

Imagine you're using a computer.  Shouldn't be too hard.  Now imagine it's a completely different operating system â€" a new one you've never used before.  There are four items on the desktop: a folder, a video file, an mp3, and a word document.  There's also a little image of a man in the bottom corner.

Let's open the folder.  Move the cursor (with its well defined hotspot) to point at the folder and double click.  Nothing happened… Oh wait, the little guy is walking up there.  That's strange.  Try the movie.  Same thing.  The little guy just walked over there.

Obviously something about this new OS works different from the ones you're used to.  You'll have to learn how to use it.  Oh look, pointing at the top of the screen reveals some buttons, let's see…

"Browse," "Watch," "Listen," "Read"?  Oh my god… I know what this is…  It's the dreaded Sierra Operating System!!! Dun dun duuuuuuuuuun!

In this nightmare OS, you have to change your cursor mode depending on the type of file you want to interact with.  Instead of simply double clicking on any type of file to open it, you now have to change your cursor to the appropriate mode depending on the filetype you want to open.  Want to watch that video?  Mouse to the top of the screen, click the "Watch" button, and notice your mouse turns into an eyeball.  Now go and click on the video.  Want to open the word document next?  First mouse up to the top of the screen again and click the "Read" button.  Alternatively, right-click to cycle through all the modes until the cursor turns into a pair of glasses.  Oops!  Clicked past it?  That's alright, just keep right-clicking, it'll come up eventually.

Sound horrible?

Well it is!  But probably not for the reason you're thinking.  The Sierra interface, and for the same reasons, the Lucas Arts interface would make terrible computer operating systems.  After posting the first "Why Your Game is Broken" article in the AGS forums, a number of people mentioned how generally annoying the whole Sierra system is.  I've also seen a few other threads and discussions about the problems with the Sierra and Lucas Arts interfaces, but none of them have gotten to the real heart of why these interfaces are broken.  But before I get to the real issue, let's talk about the most obvious problem with these two interfaces.

The obvious problem: they're annoying!

The Sierra and Lucas Arts interfaces are annoying.  Anyone who can manage to take off their nostalgia-tinted glasses should be able to see that these interfaces are irritating.  Sierra has you mousing up to the top of the screen, selecting a mouse mode, then mousing back down to the object you want to use that mouse mode on and clicking a second time.  Arguably more annoying, the Lucas Arts interface has you mousing down to the bottom of the screen and choosing from a list of around 8 (the number changes depending on game) verbs and then mousing back up. 

We may be used to mousing away from the action to select menu items in any software, or to select tools in graphics programs like Photoshop, but when I'm trying to identify with a character and lose myself in a story, making me fight with the interface is going to take me right out of the game.

The standard Sierra implementation also allows you to right-click to cycle through the modes, but as illustrated in the Sierra OS hypothetical above, this often leads you to miss the mode you were looking for and have to click through a second time.

One recent game, Ben There, Dan That, gets rid of the buttons at the top of the screen and relies solely on right-clicking to change the cursor mode.  I've seen other games do this as well, but it always results in a frustration.  I hope from the few comments in the game's thread about this issue, that they've realized their error and will remedy it in their next game.

It could be argued that a well-implemented verb-coin GUI, which lists your available interactions when you click on an object, is a far more elegant solution than the Sierra and Lucas Arts interfaces since it doesn't require your mouse to go flying all over the screen when you want to try multiple interactions on an item.  However, the Sierra interface tops the verb-coin interface in one area: mode permanence.  If I click "Use" on one item and it doesn't work, I can quickly go and try "Use" on another object without changing modes.  With the verb-coin, you need to select "Use" with a second click each time you want to try an object.  Lucas Arts interfaces sometimes lack this mode permanence as well, which is another mark against it in my book.

An interface with mode permanence â€" left-click on anything to use the previously selected mode, right-click on an object to bring up a verb-coin and change the mode that you want to use on the object â€" might be a better solution. This would require fewer clicks than an interface without mode permanence (verb-coin), and require less mouse movement than an interface with fixed mode buttons (Sierra/Lucas Arts).  I haven't tried this out, nor do I know of a game right now that uses it, but it might be a workable interface.  Just throwing that out there.

Another way people can improve the Sierra/Lucas Arts interfaces' annoyance issues, also mentioned in the forum thread responding to the first article in this series, is to add keyboard shortcuts.  These can be useful to players who don't mind playing with one hand on the keyboard rather than relaxing and using just the mouse (no jokes here as to what your other hand may be up to).  However, this fix still has problems.  There are no "Use" "Walk" "Examine" "Inventory" or "Talk" buttons on my keyboard last time I checked, so the developer will have to decide which buttons would be the most intuitive.  Do you use (U)se or (I)nteract?  (L)ook or (E)xamine?  Giving the player more options like also using the 1, 2, 3… keys to represent the verbs can help, but regardless, until the shortcut keys become ingrained into the player's brain so that he can hit the right one without thinking, they're still acting as a barrier to immersion.

I have yet to play a game with either the Lucas Arts or Sierra standard interface that I didn't feel was annoying.  I don't like having to fight with the interface, and I don't like having these things get in the way of my immersion in the game.   I think that some games manage to be great despite using these interfaces, but I almost universally think that these games could have been more enjoyable with a better designed interface.

However, I still think that the whole "annoying" thing is a minor issue with these interfaces when compared to the second issue which is my real sticking point.

The real problem: They're completely superfluous

I'll admit that much of that last section dwelled on opinion and personal preference.  Some people may, for some reason, love either of these interfaces despite (or because of?) these issues.  However, what I'm going to discuss next is not opinion.  It's the hard truth.  If your game is using one of these interfaces, I can almost guarantee that your game is broken.  It's broken because your interface is completely superfluous.

What do I mean superfluous? 

One of the defenses that I always hear for using the Sierra or Lucas Arts multiple-verb interface over, say, the simple left-click to interact/walk, right-click to examine interface is that having multiple verbs gives the player more control over the player's actions.  Let's see how this argument holds up.

I'm playing a game with the Sierra interface.  I have four verbs, Walk, Look, Use, and Talk.  My character is in a room.  There's an elevator with a button and a man standing in the corner.  We know "Walk" doesn't do much.  It's usually only useful for helping us see the other end of a long scrolling room or for moving through an exit into the next room.  "Look" doesn't usually play into puzzles unless you need to examine something closely before you can do something with it.  It's usually only used for helping the player understand his surroundings and adding to immersion.  So the only real verbs that we have for gameplay are "Use" and "Talk."

Let's try "Use" on the man standing near to the elevator.

"I'm not touching him!  That would be sexual harassment!" quips my quirky character.

Oh, right.  I'm supposed to use "Talk" on him.

Let's try "Talk" on the button next to the elevator.

"I don't think buttons are very good conversationalists."

Thanks, quirky character!  I've now learned some valuable information.  I suppose I should try to "Use" the button instead.

With very little exception, every single game that I have ever played using this interface has used the "Talk" on people or other characters and "Use" on everything else.   Let's show that in a handy Venn diagram:

If the set of things that I need to use "Talk to" on is completely separate from the things that I need to use "Use" on, and trying to use the other verb just results in a useless "I can't do that" comment, your game is broken.  There's no puzzle in it.  No thinking required.  Person equals talk, thing equals use.  That's it.  It doesn't make me feel more "in control" of my character.  If anything, I feel less in control, since my character systematically refuses all my commands that don't fall in line with the above diagram.

If you're going to make two separate verbs, there had better be a reason for them.  That is, the set of things that I can use one verb on had damn well better overlap the set of things that I can use the other on otherwise there's no reason to ask me, the player, to specify which verb I want to use.

Think back to that Operating System example at the start of this article.  Remember how terrible it sounded?  Each file had only one obvious use, but I still had to change the cursor mode to tell the computer how to use each file.  Your game works this same way as this system.  It's pointless.

If, on the other hand, you design your game with the peculiarities of the interface in mind, the Venn diagram would look more like this:

Considerable overlap means that there is good reason for me to have different cursor modes.  Imagine if that Sierra Operating System had only one file on the desktop called "Resonance data" and using the "Watch" mode on it would open up the movie files contained therein.  Using the "Read" mode would open up any design documents, or maybe code.  "Listen" would play any mp3s contained within the data.  Now, this OS has good reason to have these cursor modes.  (It's still annoying… but at least it's justified.)

Games using the Sierra interface that fit the second Venn diagram are not broken.  At least not for the reasons I'm discussing now.

However, 90% of the games that I've tried that use the Sierra interface (and that's a conservative estimate) more closely resembles the first Venn diagram than the second.  And if the sets are distinct, then there is absolutely no reason for you to inconvenience me with the previously discussed annoyances.  Combine the separate verbs into one cursor and be done with it.  This has two big benefits.  One, I don't need to right click through an extra cursor mode, and two, you don't have to write so many "I'm not gonna do that, ha ha" messages.

One game that I worked on, Spooks, fits into this 90%.  I can only remember one time in the game  where you have to use the hand cursor on a character, and that was before you realized he was a character.  After that, you must always use talk on him.  Every other object/character fits into the two distinct "Use" and "Talk to" groups.  I didn't realize it back then, but I do now: Spooks is broken.

Let's see if the Lucas Arts interface does any better:

Nope.  Pretty much all the items are distinct in most games.  Small objects can be picked up.  Big objects can be used.  Characters can be spoken to.  Things with hinges can be opened and closed, and things that are movable can be pushed and pulled.  There may be some overlap here and there (a mechanism that you can use and also push aside to reveal the plug behind it), but for the most part it's all completely superfluous.  Even though the open/close and push/pull circles overlap, you can usually only use one at any given time on an object, for example, open on a closed door, close on an open one.

Again, this doesn't require any real thought by the player.  It doesn't give me more control.  It just makes my character refuse my commands more often.  All you're doing is adding this overcomplicated barrier between me and the game, and if I have to struggle with this slow and unnecessary process just to give commands to my character, I'm not getting immersed, I'm being cut off.

This is just the Sierra Operating System with even more verbs.

So, combine the superfluous verbs into one cursor mode.  Let the computer figure out what I'm trying to do.  It'll usually be right.  If I clicked on a closed door, quite likely I was trying to open it.  If I clicked on a crowbar lying on the ground, yeah, I was probably trying to pick it up.  Clicked on Jerry the bellhop?  Fair chance I was trying to talk to him.  The system works and it works without wedging an interface between me and the character I'm trying to connect with.

As such, I am a strong advocate of the two button system.  A left click interacts with whatever I clicked on in whatever way is likely my intention.  If I click where there is nothing to interact with, that's a walk command.  A right click examines whatever I click on.  This system doesn't require taking my mouse away from the action, it doesn't put a GUI between me and the story, it has mode permanence, and it doesn't require any keyboard shortcuts or other tweaks to make it bearable.  Moreover it is fast and easy for me to communicate my intentions to my on-screen character.

If I were to convert your game over to this simple system, I would have eliminated pretty much every issue we discussed in the section about the annoyances of the Sierra and Lucas Arts interfaces AND if your game matched that first Venn diagram (and seriously at least 90% of them do) I would have managed to do it without sacrificing any of the gameplay or puzzles that you had in your game.

I could do this because your game was broken.

Choosing an appropriate interface

You chose to use the Sierra interface in your game, either because you like that interface or because it came prepackaged with AGS and was the easiest option.  Or maybe you managed to tack on the Lucas Arts interface because you're aiming for the nostalgic value of those old classics.  However, an interface should be tailored to the game, not chosen because of nostalgia value or ease of implementation.  I really like Photoshop's interface, but I wouldn't want to slap it on Firefox, that just wouldn't work.  I really like cover flow in iTunes because it's fun to flip my albums using it.  However, I think it makes a shitty file browser in OSX Leopard.

Your game is broken because you chose an interface for reasons other than how it would lend itself to the gameplay that you designed.

Before you choose an interface for your game, you need to know if it's going to be appropriate for your game.  I think a lot of us amateurs just pick up AGS and go, "Yay, I can make games.  Ok, let's see, default template… It has an inventory!  I'm going to have my character pick stuff up!"  I mean, working within your limitations is an important skill for an amateur game developer, but don't impose limitations on your work that aren't there.  Inventories are fine, but you don't have to use one.  Lots of great AGS games don't have inventory items.  Likewise, you don't have to have multiple verbs just because they're there. 

You don't have to use the interface that comes with AGS.  You don't even have to use an interface that you've seen on any game before.  Figure out the kind of game you want to make, and then figure out the best way that you can let the player interface with it.  Nanobots, for example, has a very unique gameplay style and an interface that, I hope, lends itself to that gameplay.  Anna also has a very non-standard interface that I think works really well for that type of game.

Before making your game, take a long look at your design, be it on paper or in your head.  What is the best way for the player to play this game without even realizing that he's communicating with the character through an interface?  That's the interface you should be using.  If it isn't, your game is broken.

[LeChuck]

Very nice article that I wish a lot more people would read, if you know what I mean! 

In general, you want the hotspot to be clearly pointed out and usually in the upper left hand corner of the cursor.  This is familiar and comfortable to computer users and is usually what I try first in the absence of a clearly defined hotspot. 

See, this is the problem right here. If your adventure game needs to have a cursor with a one pixel mark (so you know exactly where you are pointing), your game is already broken. If you're pointing at a man and you need to differentiate between his nose and his moustache and you can't make out where your cursor is hitting him, you need LARGER hotspots. If those hotspots would collide, you need to increase the size of your art. If you won't put the effort into the game and decide the player needs to click pixel perfect with the cursor on his moustache, then I won't be playing your game. Point is, a cursor shouldn't have to have a tiny clear marker over what part of the cursor that's triggering an interaction. I know you already pointed out the importance of large hotspots, but it can't be stressed enough.

And always, always have an arrow or some pointy thing helping to show you the exact pixel.  This goes double for inventory items. 

I disagree with this. Again, people must design their games so that pixel perfect cursor clicks aren't neccesary. Look at how Sam and Max solved it; by creating a huge red frame around the inventory items when they hovered a hotspot and hand actions for walking and talking etc. that also changed when over a hotspot. If two hotspots are so close together and small that you NEED pixel perfect clicking, there's a huge flaw in your design.


When we're talking cursors and inventory, I'd also like to share my dislike for games whose inventory items disappear from your cursor if you try to combine it with an object on screen. It's unnecessary and time consuming for the player if he wants to try the item combined with the game world, and it bugs the hell out of me. Don't do it people! That goes for you too, Telltale!

[MashPotato]

Nice article Vince, I know it's given me things to think about on the project I'm working on now   In fact, I immediately opened up my GUI and looked for for problems!

See, this is the problem right here. If your adventure game needs to have a cursor with a one pixel mark (so you know exactly where you are pointing), your game is already broken. If you're pointing at a man and you need to differentiate between his nose and his moustache and you can't make out where your cursor is hitting him, you need LARGER hotspots. If those hotspots would collide, you need to increase the size of your art.

I agree with LeChuck here   I don't think anyone enjoys pixel hunts; bad icons can make it worse, but having a pixel hunt there in the first place is already bad design.  If you make hotspots large enough, I think you can get away with icons that are not exactly defined.

As an example, here is a portion of the GUI I'm currently working on:

After reading the article, I took a look and wondered if these were good icons.  I think the hotspots for the walk (the middle of the X), examine (the middle of the magnifying glass), and talk (the end of the balloon tail) are intuitive, even though they are not all in the same locations or have pixel-precision... perhaps others might not agree, though?
The interact button, on the other hand, is more ambiguous and I'll try to come up with something better (already your advice is paying dividends )

Thanks for the article!

[zabnat]

I agree with LeChuck. I haven't really paid too much attention where the hotspot of the cursor is. I haven't felt the need when I have a cursor that changes it's appearance over hotspot and have an overlay text that tells me what is the name of the hotspot I'm pointing. But when there is no @OVERHOTSPOT@ or changing mouse cursors I have really frustrated while playing some games. I usually end up clicking blindy everywhere because I don't know what is a hotspot and what is not...

[Vince Twelve]

Yup, I definitely should have added in something about making the room hotspots easy to click on.  In the example, Fluxworld, half of the problem is the size of the dinky little guys.  Really, three things should be considered in every game:

1) Well-defined cursor hotspots
2) Mouse over indication
3) Large and easily spotted room hotspots.

In the absence of number 1, numbers 2 and 3 will suffice.  I'd still rather see all three.

Mash: I think all of those are fine except for the interact one which would be something that I'd probably complain about!

With walk cursors, rules I discussed above aren't all that important really, since you're rarely need the character to walk exactly to a specific pixel.  Yours is well defined, and having it in the middle isn't a big deal.

The examine cursor being in the middle of the circle means that you won't be able to see exactly where you're clicking, but the icon is small, so you always know it's in the neighborhood.  Having large room hotspots will negate any problem I might have had to moan about.

The talk cursor is well defined.  The upper-left consistency isn't a hard rule, just a matter of comfort and personal taste.

But yeah, I would advise some kind of redesign on the interact cursor.  Maybe flip the image horizontally and vertically to put the small cog in the top-right corner, then fill in the center of the large cog and make the hole in the small cog the hotspot.  Just an idea.


Thanks for the feedback.  I should make an amendment about the big hotspot thing.  Thanks LeChuck.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I don't think visibility for the hotspot of a cursor is necessary unless the cursor in itself is awkwardly shaped or does not have an intuitive hotspot location (like at the center, or in a place on the image where it would make sense).  Examples Vince gave above, like the huge mirror, are a good example of icons not designed with the player in mind.  Sometimes it hurts your game more to be arty than it does to be unoriginal; sometimes, grandiose and pretty icons are harder to use and more unwieldy than just using a crosshair, so it definitely pays to consider function while making cursor designs.

[monkey0506]

I gazed over and read most of the article (I spent a lot of time skipping to the pretty pictures! ) and I rather enjoyed it. I'd say you definitely make a fair argument. I hate not knowing where the hotspot of my cursors is at. If I ever decide to make a game myself I'll definitely keep this one in mind!

[zabnat]

Vince: Could you give an example of some good mouse cursors? (or anybody else if you know any)
Only games that have well established cursors that come to my mind are those that don't use a different cursor for different actions, like the simple cross in old Lucasarts games. I'm not nitpicking here, but I am truly interested if someone really has succeeded with all those different kind of cursors.

[Vince Twelve]

Sometimes it hurts your game more to be arty than it does to be unoriginal; sometimes, grandiose and pretty icons are harder to use and more unwieldy than just using a crosshair, so it definitely pays to consider function while making cursor designs.

Definitely.  I couldn't agree with this statement more!!!  Our voices are as one.   

And I completely agree with your statement about this being needed more for oddly shaped cursors.  A pair of scissors has a natural point.  A pencil could be a good cursor.  A basketball... not so much.  If your cursor is a basketball, you need a little arrowy thing.

Vince: Could you give an example of some good mouse cursors? (or anybody else if you know any)

That's a good idea!

In Nanobots, Erin started with a the same bunch of cursors you see in the final except without the arrows.  After some pressure from me, she changed them to the nicely standardized set you see here:



The text on the right of the cursors only appears when you mouse over something usable.  For example, the shelf on the wall is analyzable, so the analyze text pops up while mousing over it.  But the shelf wouldn't be realistically pushable because it's mounted on the wall, so the push text won't pop up.  This slightly and subtly simplifies the huge number of things the player has to mess around with right off the bat.

I could name lots of other games with good cursors.  Like I said, the majority of games that really break these rules are first games or low-quality in most other areas as well. 

One recent game that I remembered that had nice cursors was Ben There Done That.  Each cursor has a little wedge in the top-right corner.  Very simple, very clean, and the cursors are attractive.  The one weird thing about BTDT's cursors, though, is that the inventory items all have the little wedge up there too when they're sitting in the inventory.  The authors should have used one of the few methods available to make the wedges invisible in the inventory, but visible when they become cursors.  A very minor complaint though!  I'd rather have the wedges in both places than not at all.

[Dualnames]

Well, can't agree with you more. It wasn't so hard trying to change the cursors to some of your choice though. Sierra had big cursors less pixel hunting and no hotspot diplay label, thus you could pick bigger area of the screen. But this isn't designed for all games. It's not Chris problem if people can or didn't had the time to recognise that bloody default sierra interface can't or isn;t completely suitable for their creation/s.

[LimpingFish]

These were the initial cursors I made for Heartland Deluxe:



Only the first three made it into the final game, but you can see that I didn't stray far from the traditional "pointer"-type design.

I dropped the ball on the inventory item hotspots, though.

Ideally, when an inventory item was chosen, it would have been displayed in the center of the first cursor, and the hotspot would be pretty clear.

Unfortunately, I lacked the...um...technical ability to do so...

[Vince Twelve]

I specifically remember loving the slick cursors for Heartland, even in it's original OROW version.  Though, yeah, having the inventory cursors match the others would have been nice.  If AGS allowed two sprite slots to be defined for each inventory item, one for the inventory, one for the cursor, it would be easier for people to make sure they had well-defined hotspots on their inventory cursors.

Found this tracker entry.  Wish I could bump it.

[Radiant]

Some very good points here. I've seen several games with very good ideas behind them that had their gameplay lessened (or, in some cases, ruined) by a poor interface. Not seeing where you click, well, that's not good. My personal quibble is keyboard shortcuts.

This isn't just AGS, either. I can think of a few commercial games that suffer from the same problems. And there's always the interface Hall of Shame.

[Vince Twelve]

My personal quibble is keyboard shortcuts.

Oh, I'm gettin' to that one!

[markbilly]

Inventory cursors too!

With some very simple scripting, you can use one big attractive sprite to represent the item in your inventory and one smaller, iconic sprite (preferably with a big arrow pointing to the upper left hand corner) as the cursor.

Is there a tech forum post with how to script this? The article was very well written and extremely relevant. I think I link would improve it further.

Also, I would go so far as to say the default AGS cursor system is broken in itself. Because of the right click = cycle function, it takes ages to do anything, and if you miss a cursor when cycling you have to go round again (unless they are all displayed in the GUIs, but that makes cycling pointless anyway...). The first thing I did was swap this for a Broken Sword/BASS system of one cursor, with right and left click functions.

[InCreator]

Hah, cursor pointer thing, this is something I told Grundislav after every Ben Jordan game....
Many other people too.

This is something AGSers tend to ignore, not sure why.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Also, I would go so far as to say the default AGS cursor system is broken in itself.

I'd hardly call a system broken that does the job its meant to.  Inelegant, perhaps, but hardly broken.

[markbilly]

Also, I would go so far as to say the default AGS cursor system is broken in itself.

I'd hardly call a system broken that does the job its meant to.  Inelegant, perhaps, but hardly broken.

OK, a little harsh. But, using 'broken' in the same manner as Vince I'd say it is. It does the job yes, but as mentioned in the article clicking lots of times to search for something renders a game broken, partly because this takes a lot of time. The default system takes a lot of time too, and can be very frustrating - that was the point I was making.

[Makeout Patrol]

Inventory cursors too!

With some very simple scripting, you can use one big attractive sprite to represent the item in your inventory and one smaller, iconic sprite (preferably with a big arrow pointing to the upper left hand corner) as the cursor.

Is there a tech forum post with how to script this? The article was very well written and extremely relevant. I think I link would improve it further.

Also, I would go so far as to say the default AGS cursor system is broken in itself. Because of the right click = cycle function, it takes ages to do anything, and if you miss a cursor when cycling you have to go round again (unless they are all displayed in the GUIs, but that makes cycling pointless anyway...). The first thing I did was swap this for a Broken Sword/BASS system of one cursor, with right and left click functions.

I absolutely agree with this. I actually hate both the LucasArts-style interface and the late Sierra-style interface, because they both force you either to take ages cycling through cursors or to move your mouse all over the screen to select a new one. Charlie Foxtrot and the Galaxy of Tomorrow is one of my absolute favorite AGS games, but the interface drove me crazy - there were billions of different interactions to try, but I had to move the mouse to the top of the screen, select the cursor I wanted, and then move it back to the object I wanted to interact with, even if I was interacting with the same object more than once. I'm having fun with Ben There, Dan That, but I don't even have the option of going directly to an interaction mode - I have to cycle through all of them, and if I miss the one I want, I have to go all the way through again. These are both really good games, but I would like them a lot better if the interface was more streamlined.

My game has a simple right-or-left-click interface (like Beneath a Steel Sky's) exactly because of this. If you want to make a game with a hundred different cursor modes, make it so that clicking on a hotspot opens a GUI with the other options, like in 7 Days a Sacrifice or The Longest Journey. THESE ARE GOOD SOLUTIONS TO INTERFACE PROBLEMS! There's really no excuse to keep using these terrible interfaces when you have seen and played games with actual decent, well-functioning, usable interfaces.

[LimpingFish]

I'd hardly call a system broken that does the job its meant to.  Inelegant, perhaps, but hardly broken.

Indeed, though maybe also due for retirement? Seeing as AGS supports 1024x768 now (though 800x600 didn't exactly result in an influx of higher resolution games), maybe an alternate set of "default" icons could prove handy?

Or keep both types, and split them between resolutions.