Two-Click Interface - which way round?!

[frenzykitty]

My only fear with that, is that RMB gets ignored. People just only end up interacting with everything.

[Vince Twelve]

Maybe off topic, but- (edit: frenzykitty ninja'd me, making this somewhat relevant!  Yay!)

Even better: LMB = interact/walk/talk; RMB = interact/walk/talk

I'm questioning whether adventure games actually need the look function.  Ask yourself if it's ever actually useful in your game.  Other than comedy games where the game has genuinely funny responses for everything, I'm trying to come up with an example of a game that actually made good use of a look at function.  I guess it could be a chance to demonstrate the character's "voice".  You learn about the character by the way he/she sees his/her surroundings.  But how many games pull that off well?

I guess it makes some sense in games with very low resolutions where you can't see detail in something a few pixels wide.  But most of the time (and I'm super guilty of this), the look-at response doesn't really provide any information that a hotspot mouseover label couldn't convey more efficiently.

[Stupot]

My only fear with that, is that RMB gets ignored. People just only end up interacting with everything.

Possible.  Personally, I nearly always 'look' at something before I interact with it anyway (and that is also how I have been training my niece - with proud little nods to myself when she does this). I feel I owe it to the developer for taking the time to write the (often humorous) descriptions in the first place, the least I can do is read them.

So in reality I probably click 'look' just as often as 'interact'.  It still feels like a secondary, RMB action though.

[AGA]

If you don't look at everything, and read every response, you're not playing adventure games properly.

Examining objects should provide a level of detail that no art, no matter how high res and detailed, can necessarily convey.

[Retro Wolf]

One of the projects I've been working on has LMB for everything, RMB to open the inventory/cancel use inventory. I like to experiment with different control styles.
I think anything is better than the old LucasArts verb thingy anyway.

[Radiant]

My only fear with that, is that RMB gets ignored. People just only end up interacting with everything.

Yes, that's very likely. And bear in mind that people tend not to read manuals, nor pay attention to tutorials, and that if they don't understand your interface they're likyly to stop playing rather than ask about it.

I'm questioning whether adventure games actually need the look function.  Ask yourself if it's ever actually useful in your game.

And this is your answer. Having designed several Sierra-style games, I conclude that the traditional look/touch/talk buttons boil down to one way of doing something useful with a hotspot or object, and two ways of making a silly remark about how you can't do that. It simply doesn't add anything. In pretty much all look/touch games I've seen, every hotspot is either (A) almost all of them do something useful when touched, and provide no useful information when looked at, or (B) the rare exception that does something useful when looked at, and paraphrases "you cannot do that" when touched.

Therefore my preferred control style, as seen in Warthogs, Quasar, Errand, Root of All Evil, and Quest for Yrolg, is simply left button does everything, right button either speedwalks or opens the inventory-and-save GUI. AND bear in mind that people playing on a tablet won't have a right mouse button in the first place.

[qptain Nemo]

I'm questioning whether adventure games actually need the look function.  Ask yourself if it's ever actually useful in your game.  Other than comedy games where the game has genuinely funny responses for everything, I'm trying to come up with an example of a game that actually made good use of a look at function.  I guess it could be a chance to demonstrate the character's "voice".  You learn about the character by the way he/she sees his/her surroundings.  But how many games pull that off well?

I guess it makes some sense in games with very low resolutions where you can't see detail in something a few pixels wide.  But most of the time (and I'm super guilty of this), the look-at response doesn't really provide any information that a hotspot mouseover label couldn't convey more efficiently.

What. :|
First of all, I'd say more than half of adventure games are virtually impossible to beat without reading the hints contained in the examine responses unless you're a clairvoyant and/or a mentalist and/or holding a walkthrough right in front of you. Secondly, any half-decent adventure game offers so much in terms of atmosphere, immersion, and interesting narrative through the looking. I'd ragequit an adventure game that doesn't have the "examine" command in the first three seconds unless it has some other very impressive elements, e.g. The Last Express, or very cleverly integrates examining into an automatic action, e.g. The Legend of Kyrandia. Hell, one of my biggest discomforts in playing non-adventure games often comes from not being able to examine things. So, I couldn't disagree more.

[Radiant]

Secondly, any half-decent adventure game offers so much in terms of atmosphere, immersion, and interesting narrative through the looking.

The point is that you still give that information when the player clicks on the object. You simply leave out the part where the main character says "I cannot pick that up".

[qptain Nemo]

The point is that you still give that information when the player clicks on the object. You simply leave out the part where the main character says "I cannot pick that up".

There is no need for "I cannot pick that up" indeed. My solution would be to come up with at least one interesting action to perform on an object for most of the hotspots. I definitely want more interactivity, not less. Even though, again, admittedly, my favourite adventure game pulls the said control scheme off very well. Then again, The Legend of Kyrandia 2 has so many optional interactions delivered through other means that it fully compensates for that. So it can work well, but still when it comes to controls, I want as much freedom and interactivity as possible.

[dactylopus]

I'm questioning whether adventure games actually need the look function.  Ask yourself if it's ever actually useful in your game.  Other than comedy games where the game has genuinely funny responses for everything, I'm trying to come up with an example of a game that actually made good use of a look at function.  I guess it could be a chance to demonstrate the character's "voice".  You learn about the character by the way he/she sees his/her surroundings.  But how many games pull that off well?

Some games actually require you to examine something before you can interact with it.  I can't name one off the top of my head, but I'm sure I've seen that mechanic before.  Interestingly enough, it often frustrates me.  I feel like I already knew what I had to do, but the game wouldn't let me do it until I had the character look at it first.

Radiant also raises an important issue with modern adventure games, which is tablet support.  Since there is no right mouse button on a tablet, the 2 click interface is obsolete.  Ultimately, I think a single click interface is preferred, and will become more popular as modern adventures become more prevalent.

This is all off topic, though.  Since he's asking which set-up would work best for a 2 click adventure, I stand by my initial responses.

[CaptainD]

I'm questioning whether adventure games actually need the look function.  Ask yourself if it's ever actually useful in your game.  Other than comedy games where the game has genuinely funny responses for everything, I'm trying to come up with an example of a game that actually made good use of a look at function.  I guess it could be a chance to demonstrate the character's "voice".  You learn about the character by the way he/she sees his/her surroundings.  But how many games pull that off well?

Some games actually require you to examine something before you can interact with it.  I can't name one off the top of my head, but I'm sure I've seen that mechanic before.  Interestingly enough, it often frustrates me.  I feel like I already knew what I had to do, but the game wouldn't let me do it until I had the character look at it first.

I'm pretty sure The Book of Unwritten Tales did that.

[Radiant]

There is no need for "I cannot pick that up" indeed. My solution would be to come up with at least one interesting action to perform on an object for most of the hotspots.

Oh, I completely agree with that. But unless the game comes up with at least two interesting actions for most of the objects/hotspots, then the interface doesn't need two interaction modes. And I'm having a hard time thinking of an existing game that does that.

[Babar]

Since (I think) the question has been suitably answered, I hope nobody minds me hijacking this thread for a slightly related topic, which I may have asked ages ago before, but I can't remember the responses except that they seemed to be inconclusive.

Most people say that the two-button interface is the best in terms of simplicity and intuitive design and so on, with one button (usually LMB) for walk to and interact, and the other for looking at. My game features (I dunno WHY I keep designing them like this ) occasional characters you can both interact with- push, pull, pickpocket, etc- AND talk to.
How would you handle that?
I'd really actually prefer an actual control scheme, but for now I've got it so that each character is actually two characters, and if you click the head, it does talk, if you click the body, it is interact, and I do it for every character, otherwise it becomes too obvious which characters you can interact with.

EDIT: Hahah..I didn't notice the second page with the whole new path to the discussion. In this case, yes, I've seen games with single button does everything (I think possibly the new Sam & Max is like that?), but I definitely prefer having a look. If tablets are an issue with not having more than one kind of interaction, I think that is an issue for tablets to solve (or inventive UI designers).

[Radiant]

Most people say that the two-button interface is the best in terms of simplicity and intuitive design

[ citation needed ]

occasional characters you can both interact with- push, pull, pickpocket, etc- AND talk to.
How would you handle that?

I find that most less-common verbs can be replaced by an inventory item. For instance, rather than putting a dig command on the GUI, give the player a shovel. In the case of pickpocketing, a suitable item could be a sharp coin; this is a coin with its edge sharpened, so that it can be used to cut purses (hence the term "cutpurse").

But I have also been known to code a special GUI with 40+ verbs on it, just to see if it could work

[Andail]

I definitely want separate buttons for Look at and Interact with. I like the fact that Look at is mostly "harmless" and won't trigger reactions. I can always look at the lever before I know whether to pull it. I can look at a character without necessarily initiate a dialogue. I can look at things just to be reminded of their functions. Also, how else would you de-select an inventory item?

I can understand the reductionist approach to GUIs, and it's become a trend to do away with everything that isn't 100 percent necessary, but I also think there's a risk of streamlining things too far, especially when the result is that all games have identical GUIs.

There's a whole genre of minimalist point-n-click games (that tend to be oddly popular) where all you do is click stuff and watch something random happening, and the task is simply to click at stuff in the correct order. I want proper adventure games to be more than that.

People mention iPads and tablets as a reason to ditch left/right clicks, but so far at least the Android port does a great job of simulating right-click with a two finger touch - I've tried this myself and it's really easy to learn.

Too much in gaming business is about about making stuff easier and quicker and more accessible for a casual smart-phone-app-player, but let's not forget that a lot of people still own proper computers.

[TheBitPriest]

It's not so much his team as just me.    I have been playfully pointing out the games that break the BASS mold. Let the dog pile commence...

We're not really disagreeing on the interface, but just on what is more important: interacting or looking.  I said that whatever is mapped to the LMB must be the most important action.  The RMB needs to be the action that takes just a little more effort, and thus, will be often skipped.   

So, which is more important?  Look first and then act?  Act and possibly never look?  Does the player want to answer the question, "What's that thing?" before rushing to use it?  Is the game more about exploring before taking action, or taking action with optional exploration? I don't think this is a closed-case for every possible game, even if many people are used to one kind of control.  I can easily imagine a player being frustrated with the default being "walk over there and pick that up" rather than "tell me what it is first."  Unless they've played many of these games and expect this to be their character's first reaction, but then we're back to the question, "Which was really more intuitive?"

Making descriptions for "look" is more expensive in terms of time, effort, and memory (space).  We certainly don't want to put most of our expense into descriptions if they are unnecessary or skipped, and we certainly don't want to beg the user to please remember to look at items so that they can be entertained.  That would be silly, too.  

As was mentioned in the thread above, I think we're settling on asking ourselves the question, "And why do we even bother with a 'look' button?"  We're going to play with some options in a sandbox app and try them out.  Either making "looking" entirely obsolete or making it clearly "examine more closely," which would certainly be a more contemplative and optional action.  This goes along with making the player aware of which items can be examined and which cannot. This will keep it from being a guessing game for every hotspot, and the game will not seem incomplete when we choose not to include a repetitive description.  This certainly beats generic responses for dozens of items, and the nightmare of voicing useless descriptions.  Random generic responses also get tiring. Additionally, we are looking at making the player aware of the default action by contextually describing what "interact" means before they take that action, alleviating the frustration mentioned above.

The portability advantages of ditching the RMB are attractive too, even though that's another issue.

The design issue really came to a head with signs and similar objects where "look" is the default rather than the optional interaction.  What should be the default interaction with a sign?  Probably reading.  How is that different from looking at it?  Do we need to further describe every sign?  Do we simply "read" them with both the interact and look buttons (that was the first idea)? How about reading them with the mouse hover instead since that's a "kind of look?" Do we need to read them *more*?  What about pulling them off the wall?  Although, shouldn't that be the option that takes more effort (RMB) versus the default action (LMB)?  Etc., etc.

Whatever we settle on, LMB will be the default action, and a BASS-style system is our basic model.

[Eric]

I'm questioning whether adventure games actually need the look function.

Moderators -- any chance this (and subsequent replies) could be broken out into its own topic? This is a segue into what I think could be a valuable discussion of game mechanics that goes beyond the scope of the original thread subject, and that discussion might otherwise be missed by many members that would contribute.

[Trapezoid]

Onscreen (or popup) buttons for Interact and Look and any other verbs you want. If you left click on one of the buttons, it sets your left click to that action. Likewise if you right click.
This way the user can choose which action they want assigned to which button, OR they can play with the more traditional 2-click system (click the verb, then the object.)

I think adventure games benefit from giving the user a set of tools. A too-condensed range of interaction dulls the immersion, for me.

[Snarky]

I'm questioning whether adventure games actually need the look function.

Moderators -- any chance this (and subsequent replies) could be broken out into its own topic? This is a segue into what I think could be a valuable discussion of game mechanics that goes beyond the scope of the original thread subject, and that discussion might otherwise be missed by many members that would contribute.

I think it'd be too hard to tease apart the two subjects. People have been talking about both in the same posts, and there's no real way for moderators to split individual posts into separate parts. If you think it merits its own thread, just start a new one and mention that the topic came up here.

[Vince Twelve]

[...] unless the game comes up with at least two interesting actions for most of the objects/hotspots, then the interface doesn't need two interaction modes. And I'm having a hard time thinking of an existing game that does that.

Yup, I'm pretty much of the same mind as Radiant on this topic.

Such a controversial standpoint for adventure gamers, though!  Let's break into tribes and duke it out!

I love immersion and think that good descriptions from the protagonist is one great way to accomplish this.  But I also think that games are getting much better at doing this via other means.  And maybe I'm just getting old and impatient (and playing the games wrong, right AGA? ) But, I almost never use the look-at verb in any game unless I'm really stuck.  The Dan & Ben games might be the last time I made it a point to look at stuff.