Two-Click Interface - which way round?!

[kaput]

But what is the difference between a dynamic verb coin and a dynamic verb list of the same size as you see it? I feel it's essentially the same thing.

If I understand correctly, it's the static verb lists that I find fidgety. As for the dynamic verb lists and the coin comparison - if they appear in the same place and ultimately do the same thing, yeah, it's the same. I just think the possibilities are there to make the coin look more aesthetically pleasing with nice 'pretty' pictures. Doesn't even have to be a coin, could be a triangle? Or bubbles? I think the verb coin has gotten some bad rap. A list would suffice though, you know what I'm saying?

[qptain Nemo]

Yeah, I see. And I agree, if you can make it prettier then it's even better for sure.

[Trapezoid]

This might be a good place to share the interface I've made:

http://www.neilcic.com/testgame.zip

It's basically a bunch of crap I've scripted purely for fun over the past year or so. I'm not even working on any specific game. There are definitely bugs, and the code is probably in no way understandable or releasable, sorry.

It uses an onscreen interface. I prefer the bottom-third method, but it could definitely be less obtrusive, semitransparent, etc.
Clicking on the verb icons with either mouse button will assign that verb to the mouse button clicked. The ampersand button assigns the context menu feature.
This way you have quite a few options as to how you want to play. If the player wants "left click use, right click look", they can quickly set it to work that way. Or they can play LucasArts/Sierra-style (click the verb, then the object, "constructing a sentence" style.) OR they can use the popup context menu (which remembers your last chosen verb to minimize scrolling.)

edit: Oops, forgot audio.vox

[Knox]

One way to eliminate the whole problem is to just implement a voice-command "interface". Just tell the game what you want to do, hehe!

[CaptainD]

One way to eliminate the whole problem is to just implement a voice-command "interface". Just tell the game what you want to do, hehe!

Why not go the whole way and link it to thought commands?

[David Ostman]

Interesting discussion, this.

What it boils down to for me is what kind of interaction interface I enjoy in a game, and that would have to be a verbcoin/radial menu/thing, like the one in Full Throttle with "hand/eyes/mouth/foot". That's why my game has such a menu although it's not quite as elaborate looking (looks just like a D-pad).

There's some talk about redundant actions that end up not being used since they are used so rarely. That's fine. For instance, the "foot" action is rarely used, which gives the player that "ah-ha, I forgot about that!" moment when they remember to try it on something the other actions won't work on.

I don't see the point in freaking out over having to press twice instead of once to do something in an adventure game, even if it's a whooping 100% extra action that needs to be taken. People aren't so lazy it's going to be a dealbreaker. Also, what's wrong about holding the button down to have a menu pop up? This is second nature to people today what with the smartphones and tablets that have saturated our lives.

We can keep shaving milliseconds off here, and cut a click out there, but I feel some of the thoughts in this thread border a little bit on the absurd, like it's from Zynga's playbook where the idea is to hook as many people as possible, remove any and all obstacles, and keep them playing by making it as easy as possible. But it's just absurd to me because I try to make a game that I would enjoy playing, and that doesn't mean a user interface that's simplified down to one click that could be anything.

Not saying I can't enjoy a two-button interface. The Blackwell games are very enjoyable, but it makes up for the lack of interface by having two characters that need to interplay to solve puzzles, and sometimes there's a notebook that you can use in various ways.

[Trapezoid]

I don't see the point in freaking out over having to press twice instead of once to do something in an adventure game, even if it's a whooping 100% extra action that needs to be taken. People aren't so lazy it's going to be a dealbreaker. Also, what's wrong about holding the button down to have a menu pop up? This is second nature to people today what with the smartphones and tablets that have saturated our lives.

I'm not a fan of holding down a button. Clicking is decisive, you can get fast at it. CMI-style verb coins involve waiting for the interface. I'd rather click twice.
Clicking and dragging, on the other hand, isn't that bad. Sort of like gestures. I think that would more comfortable on a tablet than a mouse, though.

[Knox]

Why not go the whole way and link it to thought commands?

Haha yes! I'll get to work on that right now actually.

[qptain Nemo]

This might be a good place to share the interface I've made:

http://www.neilcic.com/testgame.zip

It's basically a bunch of crap I've scripted purely for fun over the past year or so. I'm not even working on any specific game. There are definitely bugs, and the code is probably in no way understandable or releasable, sorry.

It uses an onscreen interface. I prefer the bottom-third method, but it could definitely be less obtrusive, semitransparent, etc.
Clicking on the verb icons with either mouse button will assign that verb to the mouse button clicked. The ampersand button assigns the context menu feature.
This way you have quite a few options as to how you want to play. If the player wants "left click use, right click look", they can quickly set it to work that way. Or they can play LucasArts/Sierra-style (click the verb, then the object, "constructing a sentence" style.) OR they can use the popup context menu (which remembers your last chosen verb to minimize scrolling.)

edit: Oops, forgot audio.vox

OMG! Trapezoid, this control scheme is brilliant! I love it. The scrolling menu alone is pretty damn great but combined with the ability to reassign buttons it's simply amazing. I'm assuming you don't mind it being reimplemented by others?

edit: Also I loved all the random jokes in the demo. I literally LOL'd.

Also, what's wrong about holding the button down to have a menu pop up?

It's both excruciatingly frustrating and unneccesary. As apparent from this thread I'm a fan of extra options but making me both put so much effort into activating it and wait an arbitrary amount of time for no good reason whatsoever every time I interact is on the verge of being insulting and humiliating.

[Trapezoid]

OMG! Trapezoid, this control scheme is brilliant! I love it. The scrolling menu alone is pretty damn great but combined with the ability to reassign buttons it's simply amazing. I'm assuming you don't mind it being reimplemented by others?

edit: Also I loved all the random jokes in the demo. I literally LOL'd.

Haha, thanks. Feel free to steal ideas from it. I wish I could share the code, but I'd probably need to rewrite it completely to make it sane-looking.

[Stupot]

I love your system, Trapezoid.  I like the fact that the menu options move around your cursor rather than your cursor moving up and down the menu.  This way, your cursor remains trained on the actual object/hotspot that you are interacting with.  I would like verbcoins a lot more if they also did this.

[Knox]

I love your system, Trapezoid.  I like the fact that the menu options move around your cursor rather than your cursor moving up and down the menu.  This way, your cursor remains trained on the actual object/hotspot that you are interacting with.  I would like verbcoins a lot more if they also did this.

Cool! I like it too, heh

[Thaumaturge]

I'm a little late in returning to this thread (for which I apologise), but I'd like to add that I, too, rather like your prototype, Trapezoid. I think it worked very well, and found it to be rather intuitive. ^_^

I'll confess that I think that in the context menu I'd prefer to move the mouse to each option rather than moving the option to the mouse, but given other opinions to the contrary I daresay that this is simply a matter of personal taste.

[VVK]

There were a couple of mentions of games of other genres back there, and it got me thinking how utterly different the situation can be elsewhere. Coming to the Diablo games (I've played the first two) from a traditional CRPG direction, I sneered at their oversimplified "click on everything to do the only thing you can" interface while at the same time enjoying them greatly. But if you compare an interface like that with what's been discussed here, it's actually absurdly complicated. You have dozens of special abilities, plus some items, for which you have to half build the interface yourself by assigning quick keys. And then you have to learn to use it, in combat, with a split-second reaction speed, while moving and clicking around at the same time. But once you get the hang of it, it barely ever gets in the way, and it's also pretty awesome.

I guess this reinforces the point that if there's something meaningful to do with the interface all the time, it can be arbitrarily complicated, at least provided it isn't pointlessly slow. However, there's probably a difference to adventure games in that in them, there's much less freedom as to how to overcome obstacles, because the obstacles aren't just enemies whose hit points need to be reduced to zero somehow.