Good Response

[Helm]

I do find that I talk to myself alarmingly often, but I fear it is a sign of an unstable psychology more than anything else. Therefore: adventure game main characters are predominantly schizophrenics.

[GarageGothic]

And kleptomaniacs.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I like how it's breaking the fourth wall to be talking about how it's a game, in the game, but nobody seems to mind that a person is talking out-loud to nobody in particular

I don't personally like the characters in games to shout out their actions either.  'Ok, I pick up can lol1' is pointless, and that's what an omniscient narrator is for anyway (if you really need to say anything at all about picking up an object).  Also, contrary to the Book of Roger, talking to yourself is not a sign of madness!

Ah the old games where you'd collect floppy disks and joysticks for points. That sucked.

But picking up coins in Super Mario Bros. bigger than little Mario is ok.

[ManicMatt]

In my game I would make the character say "I got it!" or whatever sometimes 'cos it makes it clear to the player he actually grabbed the object in front of him that is obscured from view by his body.

A sensible way of having the character appear sane is with George Stobbart. He thinks the descriptions of objects and the like.

Hmm, the narrator in BJ 1 deluxe, I can't remember who did that voiceover, but I found it slow and annoying.. I think it was the accent?

[Helm]

Yes, thinking or descriptive text outside the screen, be it from a narrator figure or just utilitarian 'this object has been picked up' is better for serious games, I think.

[Evil]

7h1rD p3r50n TotTaly bR34ks teh 4TH W4ll!

f1R57 P3rs0n a|| t3h w4ys!

[ManicMatt]

Shut up.

[2ma2]

I personally HATE generic replyes such as "That doesn't work.." or "I don't want to do that.."

First off, in my mind, that DOES work and secondly, YOU have no vote in this, I play the game, ok?!

I have no better alternatives other than making an unique reply for every possible action. Sure, it's one helluva job, but what isn't in game creation? A huge bit of extra effort and voila..

[Babar]

I very much agreeify with 2ma2. Showing personalised responses to each action shows some understanding for the player. If you are forced to go through each action, you're likely to see many different solutions to your puzzle, and even if you can't make the solution broader, you can explain why the method you tried didn't work.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I personally HATE generic replyes such as "That doesn't work.." or "I don't want to do that.."

This is a situation where it's simply better to just not have interactions than to have poor ones.  Objects I know I can't do anything with are better off as background noise imo than a footnote for the designer to infuriate you with evasive comments and lousy attempts at humor.  It's easy to leave in a look at interaction and just not have a pickup/interact one at all, sending a clear signal that the item is useless in the game without saying 'I'll never use this'.

[Tuomas]

I think, that in games where you have to use duct tape with a fishing pole in order to catch a bird, there is a good reason to give every possible action an answer. Like, I can't do that just now, or, that item doesn't work that way. Just to give the player a hint that there's something to do that is allowed, but it's not this.

Then again, in a more realistic game, or so, you should nedd to point out that you can't use a broken shoe with a spoon in order to pick a lock, when you have a lockpick in your inventory. So basically, for example in the game I'm doing atm, I will try to make it clear there is no need to use absurd thing on each other, or to try to open a mirror or talk to a tree etc. Just because it wouldn't make sense. So I'm not sure if I should give everything an answer saying the same, that doesn't work, or just figure out something. Like, "you can't talk to a tree" or "a mirror doesn't function that way"...etc etc

[Erenan]

Did Ripley say anything about ridiculous commands in the Riddle of Master Lu? I seem to recall him simply shrugging. Can anyone refresh my memory?

[Neil Dnuma]

On my current project I'm working on this system to avoid the player just trying everything on everything without a clue. Every time s/he tries something like "talk to banana" s/he is awarded 1 idiot point. After 50 points s/he is kicked out of the game.

[ManicMatt]

Which in turn makes the player afraid to experiment and try anything?

Which in turn, makes them realise they can save the game prior to doing something that will risk getting an idiot point, so they spend the whole game interupting play to save it just incase?

[Neil Dnuma]

To make this thing work, the game world needs to be clearly defined - it should be obvious that talking to bananas would be useless. The player must feel what kind of experimenting makes sense according to the situation.

The player is forced to pay attention to what is going on, what clues are given and how the game world works. The creator must make sure it's all clearly presented, and that it's an interesting world to be in. The goal is to keep the player so hooked onto it that s/he drives the plot forward at a good pace and is never clueless. Pointless experimenting digresses from the world and makes the experience far less interesting.

[lo_res_man]

Though it was the same every time, the can't pick up sequince in Sam and Max: Hit the road, will always be dear to my heart.

[Ali]

First off, in my mind, that DOES work and secondly, YOU have no vote in this, I play the game, ok?!

I agree wholeheartedly. I've just given up on Journey to the Centre of the Earth because of awful responses/lack of response. At one point there's a map screen and the character responds "Do I really want to go there?" when you click on ANY of the locations. The answer is 'YES, of course you do!'

I've never seen a poorer or more frustrating reason for keeping a player from exploring a location. There are many more examples of dreadful interactions in that game, but that's the worst.

On my current project I'm working on this system to avoid the player just trying everything on everything without a clue. Every time s/he tries something like "talk to banana" s/he is awarded 1 idiot point. After 50 points s/he is kicked out of the game.

That sounds like a good idea, as long as you print this on the screen after:

*** You have died ***

Idiot points: 50/50

You have reached the rank of Bananamage

[Helm]

The issue with 'I don't want to do this' is player command, and the designer hiding behind a silly 'free will' clause for the main character. So we feel we're not really *controlling* the main character, we're just nudging him along in what he wanted to do anyway, because he has a 'character' and he can't step outside of it. This is in most cases awful. Either the character is compelled to do every little silly thing we want him to do, and is therefore more of an Avatar than he is an actor ( Sierra deaths ahoy! ) or our method of control of the character has to be scaled back considerably (The Last Express, for example). DON'T give me a walk pointer and then rob me of the ability to walk in toxic waste. DON'T give me a gun and then tell me 'I don't want to kill these innocent people!'. Bad design.

[Candle]

Thank you Helm, that was very helpful to me.

[Ali]

DON'T give me a walk pointer and then rob me of the ability to walk in toxic waste. DON'T give me a gun and then tell me 'I don't want to kill these innocent people!'. Bad design.

I disagree that this is necessarily bad design. The freedom to do those kind of things is a great boon to some games, but not all. Player character free will is not bad design in itself, it is a problem when it MASKS bad design, as in the example I mention above.

"I'm not going in there, it's too dark."

This would be an acceptable response if the main character was a small child, but not if they were a grizzled marine. It would be fun to find the child a nightlight, but irritating to find the marine a torch.

As long as the PC's refusals grow out of their character and not out narrative necessity they will be enjoyable rather than frustrating. If the character is to be anything other than a puppet or a suicidal sociopath then they ought to refuse to walk into toxic waste or shoot bystanders.

I suppose the problem is that games often fail to offer sufficient freedom to make a 'puppet' PC fun, and fail to make a 'conscious' PC rounded enough for their refusals to feel like anything other than artificial obstacles.