Let's talk Icons.

[ginanubismon]

We have touched on the subject of adventure game puzzles many, many times before now I must bring up another thing I believe to be another curcial - Spelling? - part of the point and click community, the arrow icon.

I thought of this while trying to decide on what kind of interface I should have, which I am still trying to settle on but that is for later, and the thought of that the wong icon would and could break my game's atmosphere.

On one hand I could have a shifting arrow, when it rolls over an hotspot or person it would change to a shape and the player just click it, what's annoying is the lack of choices for the player to interact with the surround but I kind of love the whole streamline thing so I can focus on the puzzles, gameplay and story.

Yet on the other hand there is the standard look/grab/item arrow that is used a lot, they are great if used right, it can bring the player further into the whole game (and story even) but if the icon does not quite matches the atmosphere it may distrupt and even ruin the whole game like a bad, out of place puzzle.

What it comes down to in the end is the how and where.

Sorry for the rambling and if it did not make scene, I wanted to discuss the topic and really do not have much of an idea to bring up a classic part of the Adventure games.

[Vince Twelve]

I assume that you're talking about the interface cursor's usage and implementation rather than its appearance.

I have some problems with the traditional Sierra and Lucas-arts interfaces.  Too often, it feels like these interfaces are obfuscating the gameplay rather than adding to it.  Having lots of verbs to apply to different objects may seem like a nice idea, like it's giving the player added control over the game, but games rarely use this interface to its full potential. 

For example, in any game using the Sierra interface, you have a look cursor, a walk cursor, an interact cursor, and a speak cursor.  The look cursor serves an obvious purpose: giving the player additional information about his surroundings.  The walk cursor is also important.  But there is really no reason for interact and speak to be separate.

Usually, in a game, you can use the interact cursor on an object to pick it up or use it in an appropriate way, but using the speak cursor on it results in a standard "I don't talk to inanimate objects" message.  Similarly, clicking the speak cursor on a character launches a dialog, but using the interact cursor on a character results in some useless "I can't just go around touching people" comment.  So why aren't these two cursors just combined into one?  The only thing that would be lost would be a bunch of (probably unfunny) responses.

In essence, Sierra style games could be easily streamlined into Walk, Examine, and Interact.  And I forgot about inventory.  If a game has an inventory then using the inventory item as a cursor also serves a specific purpose.

The Lucas Arts GUI has the same problem, only to a much larger degree.  For example, if there's a character blocking your path in the game, you can give, open, close, pick up, look at, talk to, use, push, or pull the character, however usually only look at and talk to are going to result in anything other than a poor attempt at humor.  And in the instance of inventory usage, there's rarely a need for the distinction between "Give inventory item to" and "Use inventory item on".

Again, the complicated interface is well intentioned, in that it's trying to offer more control to the player, but it rarely adds more possibilities to a situation, it only adds more default comments.

For that reason, I'm a fan of the simple left click walks or interacts if you've clicked on an object or character and right click looks at anything.  It just seems to me to make the gameplay a more natural experience without adding an unnecessary extra barrier between the player and the game.  Though, I'll readily admit that there have been games that have used the extra verbs or cursors well.

In summary (I totally didn't intend to make a post long enough to need a summary) the Lucas Arts and Sierra interfaces can be great when used well by the game designer, but more often than not (especially in an amateur game) it's not used to its potential and actually takes away from the game.  If you're not sure what kind of interface you want for your game, write out several examples of the types of puzzles that your game is going to have and think about what is really necessary to make those puzzles work.  I hope I made sense... 

[Akatosh]

Well, if you really combine Interact and Talk, you could also strike out the seperation between Look and Walk. If the player clicks anywhere where is nothing (no hotspot, object, character...), he walks over there. If he left-clicks on something, it's treated as "Look At", and if he right-clicks, it's "Interact/Talk". Simple³. Okay, this will finally scare away the few left Interactive Fiction fans from the adventure, but I think simple controls are very very important for immersion.

[Vince Twelve]

I find it better, as I mentioned above, to combine Walk and Interact together into one mouse button and leave look to it's own mouse button.  This allows the player to look at things like the floor that you wouldn't be able to look at in your version.  But the distinction is small and would come down to the taste of the designer.  Or, if the designer is nice, he could allow the player to choose between these in an option menu.

In Linus I combined interact and walk into the left click (if you click on an interactable, it interacts, if you click anywhere else, it's a walk) and made right clicking just walk.  I did this because I didn't think that a look command would add anything to the game.  So I just stripped it out.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

So basically we're talking about the all-purpose interface of KQ7 or Discworld. Bottom line is, some people hate it on the grounds of "making everything too simple".

My point is, pretty much everything's been done. It's always up to the designer to choose a method, and it's guaranteed that some will love it and some will hate it.

Just wanted to share this. Now go on weighing pros and cons, it's getting interesting.

[Akatosh]

The simple interface

Pro
-> The player has more time to play the game - time that isn't used up by fiddling around with the controls / verb guessing
-> Not having to think about the controls increases the immersion in the game
-> You don't have to think up so many funny responses 

Con
-> All the SCUMM and IF fans will hate, hate, hate, hate, hate you
-> Some people don't like "dumbing it down"

[LimpingFish]

I think two seperate icons suffice: Look and Interact.

Look can't really be combined with anything else, though, but Interact can pretty much cover anything. Speak, Take, Use, Punch, Click, Lift...can all be unified under a single interaction.

Purists may disagree, but anything that simplifies user input is preferable in my book.

Having a seperate icon for each available interaction can be confusing, escpecially if each isn't properly distinguishable.

[m0ds]

[ramble]I find the simple interface is particularly cool in heavily cinematic games because naturally I do just want to progress in more of a movie-paced manner - but the use of specific actions, even more than the simple four - also acts as that kind of "sim" feeling that makes a truly great adventure. Your ability to make wider choices on the environment is essential. In my perfect adventure any use of any of the verbs on anything would result in some kind original action, a cut-scene etc - another reward for "exploring". Sure, this can be achieved through the simple interface of left looks, right acts, but I enjoy knowing on solving whatever it is, that I made the right choice. Rather than the simple interface where I would be left clicking everything "any-way" to do it. You're cutting down half of the likeliness of something new & unique happening on something in your game environment.

Sure - in amatuer games that, for a simple click interface, could still amount to a LOT of work! That depends how many hotspots, characters, regions etc you have in your rooms

The game on my mind here is Flight of the Amazon Queen. It has quite a LucasArt's feel yet it is still very unique. Back in the day before I mail-ordered my copy, I had made a GUI in QBasic similar to that in FotAQ, simply because I couldn't make the LucasArts one. So I was surprised to see a similar gooey, and it's still one of my favourites.Ã, 


(their arrow is big and grey but it's still cool)

Simple pictures make up the actions you can use. Sim style too! So, sim-ple pictures. I bet if IBI could've, they would've made everything have it's own interaction for every possible verb action no matter how silly - "talk to pole" etc was. If you ask me that's immersive! But the fact there's a hulking great interface on the screen doesn't in anyway (to me at least) detract from the gameplay, the general look and feel of the game. With FotAQ I'm quite happy to know I'm there, playing a game

With Myst, I'm quite happy just to see a hand, or whatever it was. I'm in a 3D world. Can't get much more fake than that, so a hand doesn't matter. Gina, I don't know what kind of style your game is, I don't even know whether it's third or first person - but the point I want to make is that it's unlikely you'll detract from the atmosphere in your game through the GUI (so long as you make the wait cursor blank, otherwise yes, I might complain )... It sounds like your game is graphic-heavy. Have you played Lost Eden? I think it was that game that used a kind of rolling rock cursor. It was a great effect, especially for a 3D game. As it moved over areas of interest it would "roll" into a different defaut action for it. I don't remember it fully...though now I'd like to play that game again...but I don't think you were able to cycle the cursor yourself. So when you say "...it rolls over an hotspot or person it would change to a shape and the player just click it" I think could still work very well, and perhaps if its cycleable (sp?) then there would be an oppurtunity to explore the surroundings.

Perhaps somehow, controlled through the hotspot etc, you could block some of the cycleable actions, or change them into ones specific to that bit of environment, so you don't have to resort to witty one liners from your character! So a rock might have look, take & push/pull. A pint of Fosters might have look & interact. A book on a table might just have look, because it's not moveable or takeable. Depending how you're controlling the environment, you can also control the necessary parts through the cursor. It could just cycle look, interact, talk-to & walk for everything too, I guess it's all determined by how confident you feel the atmosphere/environment you've created creates a suitable, beleiveable atmosphere/environment. When you play Joe King you know you're practically toying with a cartoon strip. When you play Myst, you're being asked to cast yourself away into thus mysterious place. When you play The Dig you're being asked to cast yourself away into thus mysterious place again only it's 2D but still driving for that cinematic experience. When you play Fate of Atlantis you know you want to be able to make the right decisions for Indy, but naturally from a plethora of decisions. Best way for that, one of those chunky sim style GUI's at the bottom of the screen. It'd be interesting to know what environment you're creating, and in how much depth, and especially in what depth it has in relation to your storyline.

You say you want to focus on the gameplay but where does the gameplay start? Perhaps when you're first given control? Would you as Rocky need a verb-coin? No, he's a simple interface man. Would Inspector Morse need some options? Yes! That kind of thing. It's part of the puzzle itself!

So, Vince, though the simple-interface isn't my prefered method, I do agree with your reasons. I get the feeling though you too would enjoy more original responses to actions, whether it's animations, anything other than a useless comment. Gina, there's a lot to think about! I've kind of made it seem more complicated than it's meant to be!! Basically I think your simple arrow would still be fine, so long as it's subtle. If it does two things or eight things, that's fine. If you've got your classics on and you're making something LEC/Sierra style, like heavily so, one arrow with two options may not be the way to go. Lots of actions, even if it is just one cursor saying it all, would be good. But at the end of the day it's your game, and we'll all still become acustomed to the GUI you use, however it's designed! [/ramble]

[Kweepa]

Would you as Rocky need a verb-coin? No, he's a simple interface man. Would Inspector Morse need some options? Yes! That kind of thing. It's part of the puzzle itself!

Great point. Makes perfect sense!

[ManicMatt]

But there is really no reason for interact and speak to be separate.

If the game never needs you to interact with a character at any point in the game, then I agree. But take curse of monkey island. You have to interact with someone to push them. Although it was kinda funny watching my mate play it. He interacted with everyone, and then just before he needed to interact with this one guy, he'd concluded it's pointless to try doing that anymore.

[Akatosh]

Oh yeah, the "it never was like that, so why should it now" effect... the same thing happened to me at the end of 6DAS, when you

Spoiler

have to kill the tall man via interacting him

[close]

[Snarky]

As a player, I can usually think of a good reason to try "non-standard" actions. For instance, I might want to try to open a window (Interact) and shout at it (Talk). Or talk to a person (Talk) or pick their pockets (Interact). So ideally, I want at least the standard Sierra collection of verbs. (Except I think Walk can be made a default action for clicking on non-hotspots.)

However, I take Vince's point that the potential of all these interaction modes is rarely realized, especially in amateur games. I was just playing Sydney Finds Employment, which is a great game, but about half of all possible interactions aren't even scripted: attempting them doesn't even elicit a default response. This is very annoying. I'd much rather have a game with two verbs and all the actions available, than a half-dozen verbs where most actions haven't been included.

[Sparky]

Would you as Rocky need a verb-coin? No, he's a simple interface man. Would Inspector Morse need some options? Yes! That kind of thing. It's part of the puzzle itself!

Great point. Makes perfect sense!

I'll second that. I'm not partial to any particular type of GUI. I can see advantages to both simplified and more complex interfaces.

Simple GUI
reduces the learning curve for novice players
keeps the GUI clean and unobtrusive
interferes less with the game's atmosphere
makes the experience a little more videogame-ey
limits guessing by reducing options

Complex GUI
opens up some new possibilities (open tree, push brick)
adds freedom, which can make the game world feel more real
encourages logical puzzle-solving, discourages guessing by making it useless or inefficient
gives the player a sense of being more in control of the character