I used AGS to create a game a couple of years ago, but it wasn't very good as I didn't spend as much time on it as I should have done. I'm now at university studying Computer Games Design and I recently rekindled my love for the point 'n' click genre. Until recently, the only ones I had played were Broken Sword I & II and Simon The Sorcerer I & II, I had also played a few games at friends houses etc. I am currently in the process of playing through a few of the classics (I played the Secret of Monkey Island for the first time last month!!!) and I'm now in the design mood again. I want to start a project in summer after my University projects, but I'm scribbling stuff in my brain for now. I began thinking about what kind of user interface I should use and wanted to get peoples opinions on the style they prefer, so...
What is your favourite point 'n' click interface?
Do you prefer Lucasfilm style (Look at, Talk to, Pick up, Open, Close, Give, Use, Push, Pull) or maybe something like Broken Sword with the white hands?
What would YOU like a point 'n' click interface to be like?
The interface that Ben304's games use (left click to interact, right to examine) appeals to me in its simplicity. That said, I like the other styles I've tried too, from the UI of Return to Zork to the Sierra-style verbcoins and the Lucasarts verbs.
I think simplicity is best: the one-click interface used in Warthogs, Quest for Yrolg and Root Of All Evil reflects that.
Basically, consider the Sierra interface. Then consider that there are basically three kinds of things on the screen: floor, hotspots, and characters. The "walk" cursor only applies to the former, the "speak" cursor only to the latter. That means you're down to one or two cursor modes without even trying. Additional actions can always be taken from "use item on".
I've been using either the 2 button (left click use right click look) or 1 button (left click does all) interfaces for a while now.
I noticed while playing Planescape: Torment that any time one required puzzle interactions beyond the standard "interact" they were presented via dialogue trees. Presenting puzzle elements (such as "push lever" and "pull lever") via a dialogue tree is something I now favor over having unique verbs (such as the Lucasarts style verb GUI) as it streamlines the game design and puts the focus on the puzzles being the challenge, rather than the interface itself being part of the challenge (such as trying to brute force one's way through puzzles by using every action on every hotspot).
That being said, I can also appreciate the merits of other interfaces as well.
I agree that the modern style games should have a feel of simplicity. I recently tried playing Maniac Mansion and the number of verbs to choose from.. YIKES! It can be a little overwhelming, especially (as Ben304 mentioned) if the player is stuck and is attempting every combination of verbs, inventory, hotspots and characters, it kind of takes the fun out of figuring puzzles out.
I will have to play a few of these games you have mentioned, so I can reflect on the interface. How about an interchangeable cursor that morphs depending on the situation, for example if you hover over a person, a speech bubble appears, or if you hover over an object that can be picked up, a hand icon appears. And right clicking on any of these things would class as the 'look at' interaction.
What about inventory? Do you like it to be on show all the time like Monkey Island II and Broken Sword, or do you prefer it tucked away as with the default AGS setting?
There's nothing wrong with having multiple verbs in a game so long as you have a USE for them. The major issue with older games like Maniac Mansion is that, while all of the verbs had important functions in the game and multiple uses, many of them were just plain REDUNDANT. OPEN/CLOSE could be reduced to USE, for instance, thereby saving an addition menu click should you want to toggle the door between open/closed. Same with TURN ON/TURN OFF and several of the other oddly similar verbs. When you refine down the controls, I don't think your goal should necessarily to be to make it as plank stupid to use as possible but as an augment to whatever gameplay you have going on. It's perfectly reasonable to have the cardinal verbs (look, use, take, talk) with a default to walk, for instance. Even so, if you really want you can compress use and take into a single verb like INTERACT, though INTERACT by name doesn't necessarily conjure images of picking up strange rocks so much as pulling a lever or molesting a female sprite. One fairly sensible reduction is to change use to interact and sacrifice talk, since that leaves the player with a reasonable sense of verb purpose.
Ultimately though, the interface needs to deliver the goods (whatever those are), so a mega-simple interface can fall short of delivering just as easily as an overly complex one (lack of things the player would like to be able to do vs. confusion over what does what).
I'm not sure which game I'd list as having my favorite interface; I loved and despised Kyrandia's at the same time (loved the dynamic inventory but hated the backtracking it was designed to accomodate). I definitely think verbcoins have their uses and avoid being intrusive (occupying screen real estate) which is a definite bonus. I think my favorite interface would probably be a couple of basic verbs at the bottom of the screen and an inventory bar you can pluck or drop items into/out of at will.
I prefer the simplicity in an interface these days, for my game The Face of Corruption I have ended up using the left click is interact and right click to examine. I have also made that the inventory is at the top of screen also so there is need to press TAB to bring up an inventory screen. I like everything streamlined and I guess context sensitive. Makes for a much more enjoyable experience even though to a degree it makes the puzzles somewhat easier to figure out.
I think it is not the amount of verbs, but the implementation that may either favor or annoy.
For example, I always hated classic Sierra interface, because it sometimes required lots of verb switching while character found himself in various dangerous situations. I hated Lucas Arts multi-verb interface much less, because usually you had enough time to choose verbs there.
Speaking of favorites, I like 2 types of interfaces:
1. Two button interface already mentioned above - left button interacts/right button examines. It's fast to use and easy to get used to. Good for games with simple interactions.
2. The interface introduced in 7 Days a Skeptic (and maybe in some other games which I simply don't remember) where you click on the object and a verbs GUI opens, which also contains your inventory. In fact, I believe that is the best multiverb solution I ever saw. It allows more complicated puzzles than 2 buttons interface, while is much more convenient and flexible than classic Sierra and Lucas Arts ones; and it does not require to click'n'hold mouse button like LA Verb GUI a la MI3.
That's my opinion.
I guess Im probably one of the "rare" few that likes the classic Sierra iconbar...Ive never been a fan of lucasart games (!), sorry guys :P
Im also not a fan of the "2 button" simplified interface (left click or right click)...I feel like its "dumbed down" and that Im not really getting to "choose" what I want to do, know what I mean? I personally LOVE Gabriel Knight 1's iconbar, just perfect!
The whole thing with the interfaces is what goes for pioneering thought.
Once something is discovered we wonder how we didn't come up with it, and how easier it makes our life. Great example is Verb Coin's biggest annoyance: Time Delay. Great example of fix is: Reactor 09. Simply no bloody time delay.
It's hard to go "Cool" and "Easy", and those few interfaces that keep a game's interactivity levels up, and actually keep coolness factor up, are those that are really worth it.
It's a first, but I have to admit Yahtzee's text parsing theft from Magintz, into the 3rd Trilby game, is purely magnificent. If only it was his idea.
Nevertheless praising Magintz, yes you fool, you!
Crimson: With all the respect 7 days a skeptic interface felt rather too much.
I think Resonance is up to something great. Every time I talk to some member saying that it might be too complicated, they go frenzy saying I'm totally wrong. And Vince tested it on his mother. So that's something, I guess.
An interface must feel natural, yet as i said full interactivity. I think ProgZ pretty much sums all up what I want to say. Indeed a Kyrandia - Reactor 09 interface would be perfect.
Quote from: Dualnames on Thu 08/04/2010 02:16:38
I think Resonance is up to something great. Every time I talk to some member saying that it might be too complicated, they go frenzy saying I'm totally wrong. And Vince tested it on his mother. So that's something, I guess.
We meed to remember that his mother is HIS mother. The woman who gave birth to Vince XII, ergo an amazing woman to begin with! ;D ;D
If an one click GUI serves the purpose, then it's fine. Vince found a way to use two clicks, but having plenty of options with the items, memories and dialogues. I could go further but % o $ are stopping me! ;D
Incidently the old Kyrandia games were using an one click GUI, if I remember correctly and they worked fine, for what they were. Either way item puzzles are 95% solved by "use" and item "on" something else. Interact seems a beautiful compromize for an Adventure game.
Quote from: Dualnames on Thu 08/04/2010 02:16:38
Crimson: With all the respect 7 days a skeptic interface felt rather too much.
Ah, I forgot to mention, that it would be better if verb list was context-sensitive.
Anyway, it is the interface I am now trying in my own project, "Open Eyes" (context-sensitive verb menu opened by left click (left-click - since characters cannot walk in my game ;))). We'll see if people like it.
Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Thu 08/04/2010 01:44:36
2. The interface introduced in 7 Days a Skeptic (and maybe in some other games which I simply don't remember) where you click on the object and a verbs GUI opens, which also contains your inventory. In fact, I believe that is the best multiverb solution I ever saw.
That sounds like the classic Delphine GUI.
I find it important for quick gameplay that commands are available with a minimum of mouse clicks,
and have keyboard shortcuts. This rules out most verbcoins: a click-hold-drag action should be unnecessary. The LucasArts GUI actually has lots of keyboard shortcuts, and lets you pick common actions by right-clicking; these features tend to be absent in many indie games using a similar GUI.
I love the elegance of the CMI verb coin but I really think there's something truly special about selecting a purpose-built verb from a big ol' selection.
But yeah, as it's been said, keep it logical and useful: move instead of push and pull, consume instead of eat and drink, operate instead of turn on and turn off, no 'rub left elbow on' option if its only used once etc etc
I like either ones that hide themselves at the bottom of the screen (I think Broken Sword 2 had one like that) or just big clunky ones at the bottom. But of the big clunky ones - I like the graphical versions, as seen in Flight of the Amazon Queen - rather than the LEC loads of words style. Mr Rideout projected my favourite style (from Amazon Queen) into this GUI he made for me:
(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/ki_gui_new.jpg)
I'm playing 'Secret Files: Tunguska' (http://www.firingsquad.com/media/hirez.asp?file=/media/galleries/secret_files_tunguska/12.jpg) at the moment, and I'm getting on quite well with the interface. There's nothing special or gimmicky about it. The cursor changes to a picture of a mouse and tells you which buttons are pressable, and what it does when you press it (look, use, return,) - And the items are locked to the bottom of the page.
You could do worse than to check out Vince XII's Why Your Game is Broken (http://www.americangirlscouts.org/agswiki/Why_Your_Game_Is_Broken) articles. Part Two is especially relevant to this discussion.
Verb Coin, it's the perfect mix between the smoothness of the Two Buttons interface and the interaction possibilities of the Sierra/LucasArts interface. Just make it so it appears instantly the moment you press the right mouse button and so you don't have to hold the mouse button when it appears.
But it is intrusive, and usually blocks view of whatever you clicked on, and usually takes a while to disappear (or you have to click somewhere outside).
I don´t much care for 2-click interfaces either, though :D.
I don't really like those streamlined one-click-takes-care-of-everything interfaces (or verb coins, but for other reasons).
I mean the original LucasArts verb bars are probably overkill, but I always enjoyed trying out the different verbs. The many options gave an illusion of freedom, and you couldn't really try everything on everything but had to really think your ways through the puzzles, especially since online walkthroughs were not yet around. That also meant the puzzles had to be logical. Ahh, good times!
Probably my all-time-favourite interface and the best compromise between simplicity and interactivity is the one from Gabriel Knight 1, closely followed by the reduced LucasArts verb bars (Monkey 2, Indy 4).
Quote from: Wesray on Thu 08/04/2010 19:03:43
the best compromise between simplicity and interactivity is the one from Gabriel Knight 1, closely followed by the reduced LucasArts verb bars (Monkey 2, Indy 4).
I just replayed GK1, and I've got to say the interface is one of the most unintuitive and most cumbersome i can think of, thought the game is great in spite of it. It's a shame the designers hadn't read Vince's Article (http://www.americangirlscouts.org/agswiki/Why_Your_Game_Is_Broken). Waste my time with a 'Move' verb...
Broken Sword and CMI provide the player with 2/3 interactions per subject, which seems the right amount to me. The latter more appropriate to a comedy game, where the silly responses are part of the fun. Though I don't find verbcoins intrusive, I believe CMI allowed you to use shortcut keys in its place.
I did find the one-click system of Telltale's SBCG4AP to be limiting, which was a negative point in an otherwise good series.
I think that less important than what type of interface is how well is it implemented. A tightly integrated, well implemented interface/GUI will always be appreciated.
Some GUI/interfaces will be more suitable for integration into various types of games. For instance: I think if you're making a short game or a very simple/easy game a two button interface is probably the best. Why clutter the game with things that you aren't going to need? On the other hand if you've got a grand sweeping, interaction heavy, red herring filled, mind bending, epic tale then maybe easy to access and unobtrusive, but still feature capable like a verbcoin interface is the way to go. And for games in between the Sierra/LucasArts interfaces are probably great choices.
There is no end-all-be-all best GUI, but there are GUIs that are probably best for certain situations/games/stories. I think choosing the right one for the task/game at hand and implementing tightly into the game is essential in the interface being considered "Good" or "Bad."
Vince's article is also not be all end all. There's plenty of games where less verbs is more, but there's also plenty of games where more verbs is more. The talk, smell, lick or zipper verbs in Space Quest/Leisure Suit Larry games are completly useless 99% of the time, yet removing them and the countless of funny responses they generate would be a huge mistake.
Make the extra verbs really worth it in term of puzzles and unique responses or just lump them with other verbs. In a game that mostly involves conversation like GK1 (at least from what I recall), a move verb doesn't have much reasons to exist, in an Indiana Jones game where you invariably end up in some ruins filled with traps and ancient puzzles, adding a move verb is a no brainer.
If you think you can pull off a Time Gentlemen Please, go ahead and cram as many verbs in the GUI as you want, I'll be the first to use every verb on as many hotspots as I can, otherwise you may want to go for a streamlined GUI.
QuoteIt's a shame the designers hadn't read Vince's Article.
The article was written 15 years after the creation of GK1, don't you think you're asking a bit much? :)
-edit-
What Questionable said.
Quote from: blueskirt on Fri 09/04/2010 00:47:38
QuoteIt's a shame the designers hadn't read Vince's Article.
The article was written 15 years after the creation of GK1, don't you think you're asking a bit much? :)
*Raises eyebrow dramatically*
Am I?
Wow, there appears to be a lot of diverse opinion on this subject. I have to agree with Questionable's take on the argument though,
Quote from: Questionable on Fri 09/04/2010 00:22:49
Some GUI/interfaces will be more suitable for integration into various types of games. For instance: I think if you're making a short game or a very simple/easy game a two button interface is probably the best. Why clutter the game with things that you aren't going to need? On the other hand if you've got a grand sweeping, interaction heavy, red herring filled, mind bending, epic tale then maybe easy to access and unobtrusive, but still feature capable like a verbcoin interface is the way to go.
I started playing some of the suggestions on the previous page and I played through Ben304's '!' and 'hope' and enjoyed them both and although some people dislike the one/two click interface, I can't imagine these games being as good if they had used any other kind of interface. But for grand sweeping, interaction heavy, red herring filled, mind bending, epic tales, an interface with more options like Monkey Island 2 and the Verb Coin system would be a good choice. Or not, as the case may be, I think it depends on the overall design of the game, Broken Sword was an epic game, but implemented the two click interface very well.
I think the best way to choose the correct interface, when designing a game, is to think about what you want to achieve through the design and what kind of experience you want to give the player and not just stick to one UI with every game you make, as different games call for a different style of gameplay.
I don't like Lucasarts style. My favorite is old sierra agi style (with typing).
I think some people are approaching it from the wrong angle.
If game X is a great game, and it uses interface Y, it does not follow that Y is therefore a great interface.
For example, Monkey Island II is widely recognized as one of the best adventure games of its age. If you ask why people love it, they will likely point out the humor, the dialog, the detailed graphics, the puzzles, or the plot twists. What they will likely not point out is the interface. It's certainly not bad, but it's really not great either. Indeed, this ties in with Vince's point that several verbs on the LucasGUI are redundant. It seems to me that MI2 would be just as great a game if it had used a Sierra interface, or a two-button one.
Overall, yes, a bad GUI may ruin a game; but the difference between an average GUI and a great one don't seem to factor much into overall enjoyment. And this means that using a Sierra or Lucas GUI to invoke feelings of nostalgia is a valid design choice, even if neither GUI is all that great technically speaking.
And since opinions on what makes "a bad GUI" differ, giving the player options is good: that includes such things as keyboard shortcuts and right-clicking to switch cursors. There's really no excuse for omitting those.
I agree with opinion that bad GUI may ruin the game(That's why I didn't played "Trilby's notes" and didn't complete whole saga). When I first time turn on any adventure game, I get angry because I don't like the GUI, but if you play further, you'll notice that GUI is not that bad and later it will be a good one. After that you'll move to another game and same story...
When I started to play Secret of MI, I was confused with all that buttons, some of them you only used few times(Pull/Push), but later I hang onto it and it became my favorite. Then I decided that my game will be like this. When I started creating, I realized that I won't use this GUI again, because you have to work with each button and it takes lots of space in bottom. I decided to use CMI style guy after this GUI, mostly because some games I played recently... and what the hell did I wrote here? No one's gonna read it anyway. Except for last sentence.
I think GUI mostly depends from popularity and how many players uses it and are used to it.
Quote from: Radiant on Fri 09/04/2010 18:28:37
Blah Blah Blah...
And since opinions on what makes "a bad GUI" differ, giving the player options is good: that includes such things as keyboard shortcuts and right-clicking to switch cursors. There's really no excuse for omitting those.
Blah Blah Blah...
You could've followed Blueskirts lead:
Quote from: blueskirt on Fri 09/04/2010 00:47:38
-edit-
What Questionable said.
=D Good elaboration, however. Much more eloquent than I was capable of mustering (at the time.)
I think much more often it is not the interface complexity that spoils the fun of playing, but rather subjecting the player to incredible amounts of pointless walking and text reading.
If choosing an action takes no more than 2 clicks, the interface is fine by me.
Didn't Vince write a whole article on something similar?
Anyways, maybe two clicks is fine, but still a puzzle which requires you to "push" and doesn't work if you choose "pull" is kind of silly. If 1-2 click interface seems too simple a verb coin (like holding the right mouse button and choosing from a list of 4-5 things) and inventory by pushing mouse to the top of the screen is just fine. I mean I just played the rerelease of SoMI, how many times I had to "push" something? Once.
* I like sierra/AGS-default 4-action bar. ONLY if right click scrolls through interactions too. Not too much though, it gets kind of dull
* I totally dislike pop-up full-throttle kind of gui.
Don't know why, I simply find holding down mouse button and trying to choose right thing too ARCADE moment for an adventure game, it distracts somewhat
* Also I don't like Lucasarts' verb madness much better. If I have like 12+ things to choose from, I'll be dealing much more time using the interface than playing the game. It's even worse when most of the verbs do not generate response of any kind or gives that same static "i can't do this" answer. It's a complete turn-off
HOWEVER, I do like choice and I think KGB did it absolutely right: common things were automatic via "smart pointer" which automatically did what you need, such as look, use, talk... But should you need something unusual such as "hide" yourself or "move" something - such as dead body, "destroy" something, etc, right click opened a menu with every possible verb so you could manually pick one you need.
I find this system perfect and best one I've seen. Plus, it was super simple to use.
* using only left and right click to look/interact is comfortable also, but kind of limiting and feels too dumbed down.
Quote
that includes such things as keyboard shortcuts and right-clicking to switch cursors. There's really no excuse for omitting those.
Before starting my own menu's + Gui's for a WIP, I pondered if I should make 2 types of interfaces and let the player choose in the Settings which one they want to use (Sierra style or LucasArts)...but then I said "bah, the heck with it, too much work" and chose the sierra style...BUT...I mean each and every icon or action has its corresponding keyboard shortchut, and you can scroll though them all by right-clicking. I dont think people will complain too much if they "have to" scroll though 8 cursors...right?! I will NEVAH...NEVAH....have a 2-button interface, for SHAME!! ;D
Quote from: anian on Sat 10/04/2010 01:44:27
Didn't Vince write a whole article on something similar?
As far as I know he wrote at least 3. Two recent ones (http://hardydev.com/author/vincetwelve/) are at my site, one was posted in this thread (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=35142.msg460095#msg460095), and I think there are even more to be found at xiigames (http://xiigames.com/).
Quote from: Tenacious Stu on Thu 08/04/2010 00:30:27What about inventory? Do you like it to be on show all the time like Monkey Island II and Broken Sword, or do you prefer it tucked away as with the default AGS setting?
Since as far as I can tell, no one has answered this yet:
It depends on the number of inventory items. If there are not very many, or the player will not have very many at any given time, then out in the open is nice because then it only takes me one click to get an item. However, if there are so many items that I will have to scroll a lot to get to the one I need, I prefer the default style, as you can fit more items on screen and it ends up taking me fewer clicks to get what I need.
Also, if there will be any 'use inventory x on inventory y' style puzzles, I personally prefer the default style as I don't generally try using one item on another with the always on-screen inventory. Don't really know why I don't think to do it.
Yeh, I too prefer the items to be on the screen, so they are within reach and you don't need to open up a load of menus to get to them. And as Jasmine says, it's better when there's not so many items that you have to keep scrolling back and forth.
One thing that annoys me, is when you have to keep selecting the same item over and over again in order to try it on several things. This is bad form. Once you select an item, it should remain selected until to tell it otherwise.
I dislike inventory windows that fill up the whole screen (like they did in Monkey Island 3 and Sam & Max). It especially looks weird when all descriptions are narrated by the player character, since you can´t SEE the character, and it gives you the impression that the game is continuing in the background, which you can´t see.
I realise it is unrealistic, but I like to have the game paused when the inventory is open. Gives you reasonable time to do whatever you are thinking, instead of rushing because a vampire hippopotamus is attacking you on screen. The pop-out inventory window appeals to me, I guess (like in BASS and stuff). The LucasArts didn´t pause the game with their inventory, but you weren´t ever in any rushed situations usually (except those occasional ones where you had to wait to recognise the pattern of actions someone did, and then quickly click something when they were at one action).
Most questions about interfaces can easily be solved just by sitting and thinking about it with respect to your game.
Quote from: Harg on Fri 09/04/2010 13:49:43
I don't like Lucasarts style. My favorite is old sierra agi style (with typing).
Hehehehe... thread title reading fail.
I second what Stupot said about having to select an item after every use, it's indeed bad design.
I don't have any favorite inventory system, that said, there are some guidelines every inventory systems should follow IMO.
1 - First of all, inventory items should be recognizable. I know when your inventory is shown on-screen at all time, as a designer you want it to be small so it hides as little of the background as possible. But if it's absolutly unconceivable for you hide your background with a bigger inventory window, then implement a BASS kind of inventory system (which appears when you move the cursor at the top of the screen), because I am tired of trying to make out which items is what when the inventory icons are no bigger than 10 pixels.
2 - Another thing that irk me with inventory, when I currently have an inventory item on my cursor, if I click on another inventory item, it's because I want to use them together, not because I want to select a different item. If I want to select a different item, I'll first discard the one on my cursor. You may think you're doing me a favor by not requiring me to discard every item on my cursor but the truth is I'm gonna waste more time scrolling up and down and reselecting the item I was currently holding before.
In BASS and Interplay's Star Trek games it's even worse. Not only I wasted time reselecting items, but for the rest of the game I wondered if it was actually possible to combine two items together, and I went back in the manual 3 or 4 times just in case I missed an important detail about items.
3 - Under no circumstances I should use an item on itself. I don't care the reason, whether it's to use the item or because the item can be separated in 2 inventory items, I should never have to USE CELLPHONE ON CELLPHONE to use it, or USE FISHING ROD ON FISHING ROD to take it apart. If your game feature such situation, put a HAND icon in your inventory window, like most Sierra games do.
4 - Last but not least, I want to see as many items as possible on screen at the same time.
If you go for an inventory window, like Curse Of Monkey Island, Sam & Max or most Sierra games, I want it to show all items at all time, I don't want to waste my time using scrolling arrows. Scrolling arrows have reasons to exist on an on-screen inventory, since it's impossible to show 20+ items without hogging half of the screen with the GUI or making items icons incredibly small, but when you got a window which sole purpose is to show inventory items, it should show them all and not waste my time with scrolling arrows.
If you go for an on-screen inventory like BASS or MI2, it got to show at least 8 inventory items at all time. Nothing piss me off more than those games which feature tons of items and items related puzzles but gives you only a tiny window in the corner, that shows only 4 items, to manage your inventory. What is that?! You want me to USE ITEM ON ITEM ON ITEM my way through your entire game but you only give me a tiny window to manage the 20+ items and gizmos I collected so far?!
Worst offenders are games that feature not only tiny inventory window but deselect the selected item after every use, so anytime you're stuck and want to use an item on all items, you got to scroll up and down after every combination.
Though it's not point-and-click, my favourite UI is the parser (as long as it's reasonably well implemented). The reason for this is that it allows more precise commands, often resulting in more interesting puzzles and better immersion. Some things which work well with a parser interface may not work as well in P&C. In the original King's Quest 1, for example, you simply have to type "DIVE" to dive while swimming in a lake, but in the AGS remake you must click yourself with the hand icon (IIRC), which seems rather awkward to me. Also, there is the possible effect of the character doing something unexpected with point&click - in Duty and Beyond, I randomly clicked on a table and voila! :o the character moved it to reveal a trapdoor.
On the other hand, it has its problems, too. Programming the parser to interpret all user input properly takes time, and typing simple stuff like "take hammer" gets repetitive. I'm able to live with a small amount of "guess-the-word", but too much of it is too much for me.
Yes, me too actually (I know, it's again about parsers, but in most AGI games you could at least move the characters with the mouse and navigate through the pull down menus, so it's not completely OT :=).
A good example was LSL1. In the VGA SCI remade version, the way they treated the "password to get through a certain door" puzzle was completely rubbish (well, the remade version was inferior to the original in EVERY aspect anyway, even in the graphics department).
However, as mentioned, there are a lot of difficulties in designing parser games (that's why few people made them anymore). The "guess-the-word" is truly a problem, especially when the player is not a native speaker or have limited knowledge in words, like a younger child (say, how on earth could I know the word "hitchhike" when I played "Search for the King"? :P). This makes the games more difficult to be translated to other languages too.
Also, as parsers are quite complex for them to interpret the input of the player accurately it is easier to have more hard-to-discover bugs. One classic example is the bug (http://www.allowe.com/Larry/cluescheats.htm#Larry2) in LSL2 that affected only the very last command in the game. That bug alone made me unable to complete the game for a whole 10-year-period (not kidding)...
This applies to IF games also and I know that a number of IF require the player to do some obscure actions or enter some obscure words, making the games impossible to complete without knowing some in-jokes say, for example.
I've always liked the idea of parsers but never the implementation. Due to time and money constraints, there has yet to been a truly humanistic parser in any game I'm aware of, where each character is unique and doesn't make generic repetitive responses to things they don't know/are unable to learn and react later on to things you have said in a meaningful way. The severely limited nature of parsers conflicting with the artificial sense that you have more 'control' just ruins the whole thing for me, especially when I type a common word to perform an action and it's ignored or I get the usual 'I don't understand' bullshit.
Well, it's the same with point and click interfaces. There are a lot of p&c games with only very limited generic responses. The problem with p&c is, most of the games could be completed just by trial-and-error clicking and in order to lengthen the games or make them harder they just threw in terrible pixel hunting or mind-teasing puzzles that had no connection to the story (not that pixel hunting and puzzles aren't always good, but they're good only if they're not overdone).
The main issue here is, as you mentioned already, the implementation, which is up to the designers. It's extremely difficult to develop parser games, as it's quite hard to make balanced and reasonably smart responses due to the complexity of the possible input (maybe due to limited computing power and memory at that time too), but that doesn't mean it cannot be done properly, provided the designers have the patient and talent. On the other hand, while it's easier to design definitive responses in p&c games many designers still fail to implement the system well, like even in many commercial games, there are only one or two hotspot in some rooms making them empty and boring (mainly due to laziness IMO). AQ was a bit overdone in its extremely comprehensive responses though (sorry Mills :=).
So, games made with either form of interface could be both good, provided the designers have put enough effort in them.
Well you're forgetting the difference between parsers and 'choose an option': the fact that parsers lull you into a totally false sense of freedom with respect to replies, while even the simplest 'choose an option' interface lets you know what you can talk about at any given time. This greatly decreases frustration even if it feels a bit limiting. At least I'm not wasting 10 minutes typing to get something approaching the response I was after.
Well, that actually depends on one's own taste (as the topic of this thread suggests, 'your favourite' sort of things). Everyone can agree or disagree with whether one interface is good or not, as long as it's mainly one's own preference, so I was just saying that I like the parser, not necessarily implying that everyone will find it good. In fact, as I mentioned I was actually not good at playing parser games but I still like it as it provides a form of immersion that hardly many p&c games would provide.
IMO there's nothing wrong with 'totally false sense of freedom', and we all know that whatever you can do are supposed to be programmed into the game (so, it's not AI or free roaming games or whatever which I don't like in general), but it does feel more like the player is involved. With choosable options there're still many occasions that made me feel 'Why option x isn't here? Why can't I do this?'. There's nothing wrong with either form of interfaces themselves. Often times it's just a choice in presentation so hopefully it will give the player an intended feeling on the gameplay.
For the 'wasting 10 minutes typing to get something" thingie I think we have mentioned about it already when we talked about the 'guess-the-word' problem.
One of the good things about Tunguska is the 'search scene' icon. I've come across it in a few games but I wish more games would implement it. When you click on the icon, the location of every clickable item in the scene is highlighted with a little magnifying glass. This eliminates pixel-hunting and saves having to sweep your cursor all over the place looking for something to click on. Very handy.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 13/04/2010 03:20:03
I've always liked the idea of parsers but never the implementation.
I can recommend several games by Infocom, as well as by Legend Entertainment. They're one of the few companies that actually developed a good text parser. Sierra's parser can only rarely handle more complex input than "<verb> <noun>", whereas Infocom can deal with "eat all fruits except the strawberry, then put it in the large box".
Quote from: Radiant on Tue 13/04/2010 16:47:25
Infocom can deal with "eat all fruits except the strawberry, then put it in the large box".
Whether it's a good idea to make a game that relies on actions like that is a different question...
Quote from: Snarky on Tue 13/04/2010 19:55:26
Quote from: Radiant on Tue 13/04/2010 16:47:25
Infocom can deal with "eat all fruits except the strawberry, then put it in the large box".
Whether it's a good idea to make a game that relies on actions like that is a different question...
Awwww... :(
* blueskirt puts Strawberry Quest: The Search For A Large Box on indefinite hold
I'm not sure, but is ProgZmax talking about parsers in conversations? He mentions things like "what you can talk about at any given time" and "where each character is unique and doesn't make generic repetitive responses to things they don't know/are unable to learn and react later on to things you have said in a meaningful way".
With all the respect to ProgZ, but indeed options are less frustrating, but you're wrong on parsers. If they;re done properly it's like a heaven sent gift. We're not talking about the sense of freedom only, but the immersion values boost to tremendous, replay value increases. It's a thing that requires good design and good beta-testing. Concerning Sierra's parsers I agree, they kind of sucked in a way. Infocom did it really good at some games.
I'm a fan of the Sierra icon bar.
If I'm wrong prove it, don't just make a wild claim. I have yet to use a parser (infocom included) that wasn't a gussied up exercise in frustration with a few moments of 'that's neat'. Point me to the best parser game you know of and I will be sure to try it, but nothing I have said is 'untrue', leaving burden of proof on you to provide me with a fleshed out parser that realizes its potential instead of only the potential of what the game author cared about/had time for (like ignoring various synonyms and basic sentences and/or concepts that are in common usage). Do this and I'll take your statements more seriously, Dualnames. Otherwise it's just 'you're wrong because I say so' and that means nothing to me but words.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 16/04/2010 03:16:10
If I'm wrong prove it, don't just make a wild claim. I have yet to use a parser (infocom included) that wasn't a gussied up exercise in frustration with a few moments of 'that's neat'. Point me to the best parser game you know of and I will be sure to try it, but nothing I have said is 'untrue', leaving burden of proof on you to provide me with a fleshed out parser that realizes its potential instead of only the potential of what the game author cared about/had time for (like ignoring various synonyms and basic sentences and/or concepts that are in common usage). Do this and I'll take your statements more seriously, Dualnames. Otherwise it's just 'you're wrong because I say so' and that means nothing to me but words.
I don't play too many interactive fiction games, but here's a good, short one that I found delightful to play, having a very robust parser, and very lifelike NPCs: Lost Pig (http://www.grunk.org/lostpig/)
I've seen Lost Pig before and it's cute in a way, but it doesn't take long to find an example of what I'm talking about:
Spoiler
when faced with the rustling in the northeast bush, your options are limited to burning down the forest, trudging ahead (and falling through the pit) or not going that way. My option was, at first, to move aside the bushes (Grunk doesn't understand), then to step around the bushes( Grunk doesn't understand) then to tread lightly (Grunk doesn't understand) then to eat the bush (oddly it says he picks up the forest and says he can't carry it). Basically it hedges me into a very very narrow solution of falling down the hole (unless I missed a synonym it recognizes). Also, while the game understands 'save' it does not understand 'load' (but it knows what restore is). It's basic synonyms like this that are missing from parsers that provide an unnecessary added layer of abstraction and frustration to the experience.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 16/04/2010 03:16:10
If I'm wrong prove it, don't just make a wild claim. I have yet to use a parser (infocom included) that wasn't a gussied up exercise in frustration with a few moments of 'that's neat'. Point me to the best parser game you know of and I will be sure to try it, but nothing I have said is 'untrue', leaving burden of proof on you to provide me with a fleshed out parser that realizes its potential instead of only the potential of what the game author cared about/had time for (like ignoring various synonyms and basic sentences and/or concepts that are in common usage). Do this and I'll take your statements more seriously, Dualnames. Otherwise it's just 'you're wrong because I say so' and that means nothing to me but words.
Here's one to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatea_(computer_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photopia
I like the overall simplicity of the system Telltale uses in their Sam & Max and Strong Bad games; left click to move and interact in whatever way is appropriate for the object, right click to examine, inventory opens up with the click of a button at the top of the screen. It makes it a lot less annoying having to guess what particular verb you need to use in certain situations. It saves a lot of space too, considering all the near-useless verbs that early Lucasarts games loaded half the bottom of the screen with. I'm certain there had to be games that had the "push" and "pull verbs" where you never actually used them...
If we can mention interfaces we disliked, I have to say the The Secret of Monkey Island SE annoyed me to no end. Having to press a button to open up the inventory and verb menu felt like a step back from the original game, which just boggles the mind. I can only imagine they must've thought something like: "Hey, you know how we have all the verbs and the inventory at the bottom of the screen where they're easy to see and click on? They need to go! We need more space to show off all the pretty pictures we've drawn."
Quote from: EnoRed on Fri 16/04/2010 20:23:01
I like the overall simplicity of the system Telltale uses in their Sam & Max and Strong Bad games.
I haven't played these titles yet, but I've played Tales of Monkey Island, and I must say I don't much like the system they've got going there. To walk, you have to hold the left mouse button down and drag the cursor in the direction you want Guybrush to go (or just use the arrow keys, which is ten times easier and I can't imagine anyone doing it the other way).
To open the inventory you have to click on the right hand side of the screen and wait for the inevntory scroll to appear with a rather repetetive and time-consuming animation. And to make things worse, this game is guilty of what I mentioned in an above post. Unselecting things every time you use it. So if you want to try an item of several things, you have to keep re-selecting it, which means opening up the clunky inventory scroll again (and of course closing it aswell, which is equally as time-consuming).
This is all very petty of course. I'm enjoying ToMI and will get round to finishing the series, but there is one feature of the interface which really gets on my nerves, and then I'll stop moaning:
Combining items! I'm assuming many of you have played this game. What did you think? If one thing is almost universal in adventure games, it is the method of combining items... you select one item, and with it selected you click on another item, right?... Wrong... in ToMI, you have you select one item, drag it to a special 'combine' window, then select the second item, and drag that to the second 'combine' window, and then finally, if you ave any energy left, click on a special 'combine' button. Which is hella annoying if you're a bit stuck and want to try combining several items to see if anything happens.
So yeh, moral of the story... don't copy Tales o' Monkey Island :-P
Yeah, while new Sam&Max has a "simple" interface (left mouse default function (talk to character, move to ground, pick object up) and right mouse descripition), I think it seemed a bit to simplified cause there wasn't a lot to interact with in some places. Overall in principle though, I think it was a clean and simple solution, especially for a comedy.
Broken sword 1/2 also had a rather simple mouse command system and it too was rather stingy on things to interact with at times but the graphics were full of details so I didn't mind it as much as in simplified 3d world of Telltales' Sam&Max. Plus the story was engaging and there were some moments where you had to do something quickly or you'd die, so it helped in reaction time.
I agree with you, Stupot, in ToMI, it's like they went a step back (in Special SoMI it seemed like they went a step back from the old interface as well by some extent). That combining was interesting, although they added more steps to do something, which is just ilogical from design standpoint. The "move while dragging a mouse" is just awful, more than often Guybrush didn't go where I wanted him to go and sometimes I couldn't even get him to move, thank god for the arrow keys (which I didn't mind even that much in Grim Fandango because it was optimized and I got used to it by the end of the 1st chapter).
Lots of games today offer mouse or keyboard interface, but lots make it so it's easier when you use a combination of the two. Like in ToMI it was easier to press a button for use, look, pick up etc. than to move my mouse around (especially when working in inventory).
Gotta say, the 'modern' incarnation of the point+click interface on the iPhone is nasty. BASS is fairly playable without becoming too annoying but when your gestures are not recognised until the second or third attempt it really alienates you from the virtual world you are playing. The MI:SE for iPhone is shite to the point where i can no longer play it, the hi-res bg's actually look better on the iPhone but the original graphics are stretched creating a tonne of double pixels. Also that bloody mouse curser that needs to be dragged around the screen is beyond me!
Quote from: anian on Sat 17/04/2010 12:24:01
Yeah, while new Sam&Max has a "simple" interface (left mouse default function (talk to character, move to ground, pick object up, and right mouse descripition)
Not true. The new Sam & Max games have a one-button interface - the left mouse button does everything.
Quote from: Ascovel on Sat 17/04/2010 12:46:54
Not true. The new Sam & Max games have a one-button interface - the left mouse button does everything.
Really? Don't remember it like that, might be wrong though. If that's the case, that's far too simplistic.
Keeping it simple, I love the left and right click only interface. You don't get as distracted with all the other stuff imho.
Dual, I'll get to those games eventually. I'm just a bit busy right now ._.
I like the interface in the Secret Files and Art of Murder series. It looks good and it's easy to use.