What is your favourite point 'n' click interface?

[Questionable]

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."

[blueskirt]

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.

It'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.

[Ali]

It'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?

[Tenacious Stu]

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,

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.

[Iliya]

I don't like Lucasarts style. My favorite is old sierra agi style (with typing).

[Radiant]

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.

[TheRoger]

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.

[Questionable]

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:

-edit-
What Questionable said.

=D   Good elaboration, however. Much more eloquent than I was capable of mustering (at the time.)

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[Anian]

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.

[InCreator]

* 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.

[Knox]

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!! 

[Igor Hardy]

Didn't Vince write a whole article on something similar?

As far as I know he wrote at least 3. Two recent ones are at my site, one was posted in this thread, and I think there are even more to be found at xiigames.

[Jasmine]

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?

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.

[Stupot]

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.

[Babar]

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.

[NsMn]

I don't like Lucasarts style. My favorite is old sierra agi style (with typing).

Hehehehe... thread title reading fail.

[blueskirt]

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.

[Laukku]

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.

[Gilbert]

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"? ). 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 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.