4-verb versus 2-click interface?

[SilverSpook]

So I am considering revamping the existing interface for Neofeud which has been implemented thus far with a 4-verb interface, into a two-click interface.  I hadn't known about the LBASS type of interface until a good ways through the development process so was reluctant to start modifying a whole lot of code and game logic, although I liked the simplicity of it.

Would you say that having a 4-verb (walk, interact, look, talk) interface would be a big problem in a modern adventure game?  Would it turn off a lot of players or do you think most of the players could handle it?

In addition, if anyone has any experience with converting a game from four-verb to a two-click interface in a quick and easy way, or with the pitfalls of attempting to do so, I'm all ears!

[Snarky]

Well, the first thing to work out is whether changing the UI will require any changes to the game logic. For example, are there any things in the game that you need to be able to both talk to and interact with? Are there locations you won't be able to reach if you can only use non-hotspot regions as walk targets? Do any of the puzzles depend on surprising actions (e.g. talking to a book)?

I can't give any solid tips on the coding off the top of my head, but I suppose you want to keep all the event handler bindings you already have set up. So you'll probably want to intercept any mouse clicks, run some simple BASS-style logic to determine what kind of interaction it was*, and then call the appropriate RunInteraction(). Rip out all the stuff for changing cursor modes and so on. The two-click UI is pretty simple to code; the only slight complication is dealing with inventory items.

* There's a complication here: it's not obvious whether to run the talk or interact handler. The simplest thing might be to redefine all talk handlers are interact handlers, but it depends on how many characters there are to talk to. You could also use a custom property where you store which one to use, but it's not a big saving of time. Or you could use unhandled_event() to try talking if there's no interaction handler defined.

[MiteWiseacreLives!]

I believe you lose a layer of depth and exploration when you go to two-click, but I'm old-school I guess. Just because everyone else is going BASS doesn't mean you have to if you want a good game, I suggest asking your playtest team if they think the game would better suit that style.

[Radiant]

It may be worth considering that a two-click interface isn't going to work on Apple or tablet devices.

Also, bear in mind that quite a lot of two-click games forget to inform the player that the right mouse button actually does something (meaning they may get stuck because they don't know how the interface works).

[Snarky]

It may be worth considering that a two-click interface isn't going to work on Apple or tablet devices.

Macs have supported two-button mouses for decades, there's a simple touchpad gesture for right-click (two-finger tap), and if it comes down to it you can use ctrl-click (which on the Mac is equivalent to right-click). There's no reason it won't work as well or better than on Windows machines.

Yes, on tablets you might need to adjust the UI, but that's true for the Sierra-style multi-cursor as well.

[Radiant]

It may be worth considering that a two-click interface isn't going to work on Apple or tablet devices.

Macs have supported two-button mouses for decades, there's a simple touchpad gesture for right-click (two-finger tap), and if it comes down to it you can use ctrl-click (which on the Mac is equivalent to right-click). There's no reason it won't work as well or better than on Windows machines.

Don't assume your players know that. That was the point, after all.

[Snarky]

I think you can safely assume that Mac users know how to right-click (or ctrl-click or double-finger tap, or whatever) in this day and age. And with the introduction of 3D/Force Touch across the Mac sphere, there's even better hardware support for this kind of secondary interaction (I'm not sure what it takes to integrate it, whether AGS needs to support it explicitly or it's a system setting). They may not be familiar with the two-click interface, but that's equally true of Windows users. So my point is that I don't think Macs and tablets are any kind of argument in favor of the Sierra-style interface over the two-click UI.

[Radiant]

Snark, my point is that a game should explain its interface instead of just "safely assuming" that everybody will already know it. It is not a given that all your players will be Sierra fans, or even that they will be computer savvy.

[Cassiebsg]

I think you should choose the interface that fits your game vision. If you need 4 verbs, than use 4 verbs. If you only need look and interact, use 2 clicks. If you want the player to use only one verb, then use all you need is 1 click. So, don't adjust your game for the interface as that seems counter-indicative.

Which interface is best? No idea!
I have, however, this "myth" that 1 or 2 click interfaces makes an "easy game"... But maybe that's just cause one of the first games I played with the 2 click interface I solved it/finished it in a flash, thus giving me the idea that the lack of verbs made you had less options to think about.
But okay, most of the time if you click on a character is to talk... However, if you also need to punch, shoot, steal it's wallet, etc... then having a 2 click interface will reduce your options and player choices.
I haven't yet tested the game enough to tell if the sierra interface is the right one, or not.

[Ali]

I think a multiple choice verb coin sometimes works, especially when the verbs are context-dependent. But I can't think of a situation where I'd want 'Walk' to be a verb I have to select from a GUI, rather than just clicking on the ground.

[SilverSpook]

Thanks for the input, guys. 

I guess when I say which is "the best" interface, that's a subjective question.

My goal here is I want to try and reach as wide an audience as possible -- without over-diluting the gameplay such that the "base" of point-and-click veterans such as the AGS community won't like it.  Are there any commercial games that use 4-verb or something like it nowadays?

[Stupot]

It's as much a style choice as it is a practical one. Most people go with 9-verb, 4-verb, two-click or verb coin, because those are the 'classic options'. But the truth is there are any number of options. Ron Gilbert is using 9-verb for Thimbleweed Park but that's mainly because he wants it to be classic Rob Gilbert-style game and he will have built the gameplay around that from the start.  The Sierra style does feel more AGS-ey than anything else, so if you want to avoid being an obvious AGS game then maybe it would have been better to choose something else. But I'm not sure it's worth ripping your game open to change at this point.

[Mandle]

so if you want to avoid being an obvious AGS game then maybe it would have been better to choose something else.

Hehe, just change the order the verbs cycle in...That'll fool the little buggers!

[SilverSpook]

Thanks Stupot for those examples, that does add perspective. 

I did like Gemini Rue which was a successful four-verb game so I guess I am leaning towards sticking with it, but trying to do what I can to make the cycling less frustrating and more accommodating for players.  Like if they attempt to "look" at the ground, perhaps have the game interpret that as a "walk-to" click if there's nothing to click on.

[Babar]

I don't remember the specifics of how those other games handled the 2-click interface, but if you don't have any interactions where you'd want to separately USE or TALK TO a person or item, the simplest way to handle the problem you mention is having one button (usually left-click) for USE, and if there is nothing usable at that location, to WALK TO that area (heck, you could have the player character walk to the area before USE too), the other button (usually right-click) would then be for LOOK.

You'd have to be careful to make sure the player realises this, though, because as Radiant said, they might not even realise LOOK is an option. Maybe the first puzzle in the game be a simple and obvious tutorial thing where the player is instructed to look at some stuff before interacting (eg looking for a specific book before picking it up).

I'm still looking for an optimal solution that allows interact and talk to be separate while still being simple and not requiring onscreen buttons . "Simplest" I could think of was incorporating one keyboard button into the system.

[Funkpanzer]

Alternatively, in the Monkey Island remakes, right-click showed you which interactions were available. I don't know how easy (or difficult) this would be to implement but it's always been my favourite.

e. Thanks @Cassiebsg, now I finally know what verb coin means.

[Cassiebsg]

That's the verb coin one Funkpanzer. It's the one am using/testing for my BSG game.

Let's not forget that both the Sierra's 4 verb and the Lucas Arts 9 verb and heritage from the time you actually had to type "Walk to...", "Talk to...", etc. I also don't see a point of having the walk command, when you can just click where you want to go. Unless of course if you have a room so full of hotspots, objects and/or characters that it's virtually impossible not to hit a spot... then just walking is a puzzle in it's selv.

[CaptainD]

Would you say that having a 4-verb (walk, interact, look, talk) interface would be a big problem in a modern adventure game?  Would it turn off a lot of players or do you think most of the players could handle it?

It wouldn't be a problem as such, but on the whole as Cassie mentioned "Walk" is basically null anyway, so it's more a case of whether you can actually use any interaction other than Talk with the characters you meet.  If that isn't important, I can't really think of an advantage for having a 4-verb system apart from maybe adding more of an old school feel.

I may be a little biased as I'm a fan of the two-click interface on the whole.  Really not a fan of verb coins!   For some games a verb system seems better (for instance I wanted to do something a bit different with Troll Song, so it's got custom verbs) but for Captain Disaster the 2-click interface is working beautifully and doesn't feel the least bit restrictive, because there are plenty of things to do in the game (and several puzzles which use their own specific interface anyway).

[Radiant]

It wouldn't be a problem as such, but on the whole as Cassie mentioned "Walk" is basically null anyway, so it's more a case of whether you can actually use any interaction other than Talk with the characters you meet.  If that isn't important, I can't really think of an advantage for having a 4-verb system apart from maybe adding more of an old school feel.

True. A downside of the Sierra interface is that, in most games using it, the number of things that you can both Use and Talk To is zero. Well, of course they give a witty response for trying, but it's very rare that a game requires you to click the hand on a character, or click the mouth on anything that's not a character. This also applies to verbcoins, as most verbcoins mimic the Sierra verbs.

(also, when a player clicks the hand on a character, it can be unclear whether he wants to shake hands, grab the guy's hat, or punch him in the face )

The advantage of the LucasArts nine-verb system (and the older versions with twelve and fifteen) is that occasionally a puzzle is solved by uncommon verb/noun combinations, like opening a radio to get the batteries out, or by pushing a character away. The downside of nine-verb is that it takes up a lot of screen space, and that easily 90% of verb-object interactions are handled by a default response ("I cannot pick that up", "Nice <noun>", "It doesn't seem to open", etc).

[SilverSpook]

Thinking of it in terms of when the walk is necessary (not really ever, aside from walking on hotspots) and using a hand on a character or mouth on an object... it may be better to switch out.  One "interface-lock-in" problem I have though is since I've ben dev'ing with 4-verb, I've got a bunch of witty ripostes when the player attempts to talk to screwdrivers or put his hands on people.    There is some game logic that may break if I change as well, and I have limited time so I don't want to take any cornerstones out from under at this point. 

I may have cursor "redirection" so that if you click on something you can't grab it automatically does "look" instead, or if you click on obviously blank ground with "talk" you automatically walk there, to reduce a little of the cycling time, if that makes sense.