Quick game design opinion time!
I've noticed that in a number of AGS games that background items are often 'named', even when they don't actually play any part in the game. I've seen various examples, but strangely the only one that comes to mind as I write this is the water leak in Apocalypse:Vel.
It's something that doesn't seem to happen in commercial games. I replayed FoA recently and noticed that while the backgrounds were full of details, only 'workable' items had names. I found it a timesaver in solving puzzles, as you aren't wasting time trying to use every object in your inventory with a non-functional background item.
Perhaps it happens in AGS games due to the way it works (in defining hotspots etc.) or maybe people like to explain just what the object is that they've drawn in the background.
So the question is, do we like this practice of assigning names to apparent objects that are never used, or not?
t
PS - I'm excluding deliberate 'red herring' items in this - they're fine in moderation!
No.
(only if hunting is part of the fun, otherwise no - I know a book is a book without beingtold it's a book)
(edit: I originally had a frowny face after no but I really don't feel that strongly, why o why is there not a grimacing face or a slightly frowning whilst smirking smiley)
I feel if one is going to go to the trouble of making something a hotspot, they shoudl at least do interactions, even if they just give a message.
the only way you'd know it didn't do anything was by testing every single inventory item you had on it, and some hotspots only do something if you click on them enough times...
I don't think non-interactive hotspots help the game at all. It just makes the game more confusing to stupid people like me who can't even finish Larry Vales without a walkthrough.
By the way, I'm sure somebody's asked how to make hotspot names appear next to the cursor when you mouse over them. I don't want to start a new thread about it, so can anyone tell me the name of a thread in which this question was answered?
What, completely and utterly non-interactive? You don't even get a response for looking at the hotspot?
Well even if you get a "It's a rock" kind of response, I think it's at best useless and at worst confusing, UNLESS the 'rock' has some purpose in the game.
I guess my lament is focused on people using hotspots to identify the set-dressing...
I've been thinking about this subject a fair amount lately. I think that if one's graphics are well drawn enough that hotspots are identifiable than having a look interaction is kind of redundant. However will a player know to use the radio if he got no interaction when he looked at the radio?
In a way I don't like it when all hotspots are identified by name when the cursor is over it, especially if only hotspots that play a role in solving the game are identified. To me it makes it a little too obvious that something is important. A player need not know why something is important but just goes into trial and error mode with his inventory.
Personally I think every click should have some response, naming hotspots for unhandled events is important I think. I think it's pure laziness in game making not to go to the effort. (not necessarily a name on screen on mouse over hotspot)
I think people seem to want adventures that are too easy and logical these days, aren't these games about thought, it's what seperates adventures from other genres.
well that's my opinion
so to answer your question, I like non-interactive hotspots, too many AGS games have too few interactions which makes it quite boring a lot of the time, and makes me think Laziness.
No, I prefer to be able to interact fully with the object/sprite, so it's a bummer AGS-users just creates the *actions* needed.
I think it adds depth to the game if you include hotspots that have no bearing on the game. They can enhance the atmosphere and give you insight to the main character's personality, especially if you have original comments when you try to interact with them.
Well, if hotspots makes the character says something funny about them I think then they are ok. Like: In The Curse of Monkey Island, Guybrush looks at a porcelaine vase, he says: "More porcelaine! When will this nightmare end?". Don't guys agree that THAT is funny? ;D ;D
Speaking of Elaine, m girlfriend looks exactly like Elaine. I noticed it when she dressed up like a pirate for Halloween. I was like, "OH MY GOD! ITS LIKE MONKEY ISLAND!!!" She had no idea what I was talking about. I'll get a picture asap, its almost scary! Sorry about being off topic.
I like it when people make things hotspots in their games and have what they are at the bottomin text. Having hotspots like that are good but I dont like them as much when they have unhelpful interactions.
Most games seem to use the interacting with hotspots as comic relief. But if you're not making a comedy then it can upset the tone of the game to put in zany descriptions of hotspots.
I am a hotspot freak when I make my games. I try to cover all interactions for all hotspots possible usaully and feel that a room is empty unless you can check it out....
So yeah, I like hotspots that aren't vital to the game, I think of it as finishing touches instead of an annoyance, because it bothers me to be in a room and not be able to interact with it...
What an interesting and surprising set of responses!
Coming off the heels of the previous AGS discussion about our love/hate relationship with puzzles, I'm surprised that many of us prefer a game mechanism that could make many puzzles more drawn-out and torturous.
I agree that descriptions of scenery items add texture to the game world, but I (for one) prefer efficiency in puzzle-solving so as to maintain an overall suspension of disbelief in the game.
As I say, these thoughts were initially prompted by replaying FoA. I tend to think LucasArts' decision to only label pertinent items was deliberate (rather than laziness) and I certainly wouldn't call the puzzles obvious...
But each to their own!
t
PS - While I think of it Big Brother, the forest in Apprentice was another example of what I'm on about. Hands up how many people were trying to get into the forest?
Oh, just me then...
I did try to get into that damned forest....I just figured that when they were making it they intended to use it for some puzzle, then changed their minds....but I enjoyed the fact that I was trying to get into it and then found out I couldn't ....Somehow thats entertainment to me...
Oh right, if we're talking about hotspots that aren't directly related to solving puzzles, then yeah I want loads of them. I love all that extra interaction stuff.
Well, I thought you meant hotspots that have absolutely no possible interaction. Hotspots like the porcelain vases in Monkey Island are good.
By the way, I never played the first two Monkey Island games. What was the whole porcelain thing?
Quote from: Ytterbium on Sun 02/11/2003 22:51:01
By the way, I never played the first two Monkey Island games.
You lucky bastard, I'd give anything to play those 2 games fresh again. I'll just have to wait until I get dimentia and then I hope I remember to play them.
QuoteAs I say, these thoughts were initially prompted by replaying FoA. I tend to think LucasArts' decision to only label pertinent items was deliberate (rather than laziness) and I certainly wouldn't call the puzzles obvious...
Yeah I know what you mean, I was thinking more on the lines of Amateur games that we make. At least FOA had thought behind the interactions rather than have none at all (not even look) until you happen to use the right object on the spot.
But all I'm saying is from a game making perspective, not having interactions is just easier to do, but to have the right one's is crucial.
Yeah, I don't mind non-interactive hotspots as long as the message is more than just 'It's a door'. But I do understand that this does make it hard for determining which items are usable or not. So I think that, as long as whether you use non-interactive hotspots or not consistently throughout the whole game then its fine.
I think Sierra games had a lot more non-interactive hotspots than Lucasarts did.
I think hotspots for non-essential items are great. I love being able to get descriptions for everything even if they don't matter. Steve McCrea's recent III Spy is an excellent example. To me, it makes the overal game world more interactive and adds definition to the player character, since his reactions to various items bring out his personality.
See Runaway for an example of how NOT to do this.
I've always tried to have a response for every non-inventory-item interaction on everything in a room. Before CJ upped the limit I would quite often run out of hotspots to use... As long as the messages are quite interesting or amusing, and not just 'it's a NAME' then it adds to a game, imo.
I like to have the charactor say things in responce to clicks on everything!
I don't like it when you walk into a room and there is alot of background and only one item worth looking at. waste of background.
tell me is this wrong then, i have a sigh saying 'Park, no dogs' when you look at it it reads it out and adds a comment. This is not a clue though, i just know people who can't read too well and would appeaciate the option of having it read out. (when I add sound though)
Gemmelah: No reason you shouldn't do that, especially since it adds an additional comment, unless you're concerned about size (voice clips obviously make for larger game files).
When I was playing Book of Spells i was extremely irritaded over those "I must've gone blind! I can't look at the sky" messages.
EDIT: the 10000th post in Adventure-related talk and chat!!!
I absolutly HATE it when there's no response at all when I click on something. This drove me NUTS in P:DA. It was my first non-Sierra graphic adventure (you always remember your first! *sniff!*) I ended up spending more time clicking on things when there's no message, because I'll think I've just missed it. I spent abot five minutes in the bathroom trying to look at the faucet or something.
If it's just a wide expanse and you can't think of anything to write about it, put in a general room description. This is what they usually did in Sierra games, and it's the main reason why if you click anywhere you'll get some sort of message. Avoid this if you're doing the @MOUSEOVERHOTSPOT@ thingy though.
If the hotspot is for something that isn't a clue- like your No Dogs sign, Gemmalah- go for it. A great thing about non-essential hotspot messages is that they really fill out the game. For example, say you're looking at your main character's bedroom. There's a bookshelf, a wall calendar, and a CD player. None of these things influence the storyline. If you look at them and learn that the bookshelf is full of Anne Rice novels, the wall calendar has photos from the 12 Greatest Horror Movies Of All Time and the CD player is loaded with a bootleg Marilyn Manson recording, you get one character. If the bookshelf is groaning with Harlequin Romances, the calendar has photos of teenage movie stars and the CD player is playing Britany Speers, you have a totally different character. But you wouldn't be able to see the differences from the background.
Personally, I'm not big on even having any names appear when the mouse is over a hotspot. I think anything drawn should have some sort of response, and it should be left to the player to choose which hotspots are important to the game. It's the game designer who should also be able to give subtle, and sometime blatant, clues to the player as to puzzle advancement in a game.
Syberia is a perfect example of a game that does exactly what this topic is suggesting. It shows the player everything of importance, and it infuriated me that I'd see all this eye candy and there was nothing the main character would say about it, most of the time.
Even in a serious game, the player can give me some serious insight to a sunset or even a marble floor. I'm an interaction whore, and without them I feel that the player unintentionally steps out from the game, and in a game, one should be immersed.
-MillsJROSS
Mills: I completely agree about Syberia. It was incredible how much detail was rendered into the backgrounds, but you could hardly interact with anything, and when you pick things up the character doesn't even say a word! That was a HUGE waste in my opinion.
Well I gotta admit, some of my design philosophies are being influenced by this thread. Initially my plan was to keep look interactions to a minimum. The look interactions I had planned were merely showing a close-up of the object in question rather than giving a text box description. I believed that if a description was neccessary than the problem lay in the graphics being inadequate. As many have pointed out the descriptions of objects and hotspots can help establish the character. Creating a well fleshed out character is certainly desirable but I'm torn on the method. Are the text boxes his thoughts or is he talking to himself? Or should the text boxes take an omniscient point of view and be a narrator stepping in? None of these methods really appeal to me but I do want to create the immersive experience that players seek. I think the problem may simply be that I haven't yet learned the language of games. I try to apply film conventions to my game design and perhaps as a result I'm making a rather crappy game.
Much to consider.
For Awakening of the Sphinx, I'm using the broken-sword style interface of:
Cursor over hotspot/object/exit gives a pointer change to indicate action
Left-click is activate/pick-up/etc.
Right-click is look
Also, inventory items can be used on things, and the left/right clicks for inventory applies too
By making the player do something active to get the description of a hotspot, then the description-as-thought model works better than having an @OVERHOTSPOT@ or tooltip, IMO.
It really confused me that left/right are the other way around in BASS!
As for the dialogs: well, I thought about implementing the iconic dialog system of BS, but it looks like FAR too much work: won't be able to use dialog scripts, will have to do it all manually, and have to draw of icons to represent each topic! However, might try and see if I can get the inventory items to be extra topics of discussion during a conversation, like in BS.
EDIT:
AGS now has the ability to have a thinking animation to use during such "thoughts" and a gui option so that the thought can appear in a though bubble rather than just a white box, if you prefer that.
ANOTHER EDIT:
Having done a pile of research into the Amarna period, I will also use look interactions to incorporate this info into the agme for those who are interested. It's Edutainment!