I remember this coming up a bit in discussions about two-button and one-button interface systems, but I could do with a refresher.
In my perspective:
There are very few adventure game puzzles that make use of the exact location of the player on screen
Player characters moving about can block stuff in the background and cause complications when you want the player character to be clickable
It can make interfaces more complicated than the need be (as evidenced by those aforementioned interface system discussions
Unfortunately, all those cons are balanced out by a very important pro:
Being able to control the player character gives the player a greater amount of connection to the player character, and reduces the layers between the player and the character on screen (I feel direct control with arrow/WASD keys would actually increase that connection)
I can think of a few games where the character was not walkable on screen. I mean, aside from the obvious first person perspective games like Myst. They were very often investigative games, where the player character stood outside of the frame of the screen, and "shared" the world with the player/viewer.
I think Dreamweb works like this and because there was a large amount of stuff to click on and not much floor, I think some people probably wouldn't notice that you cannot click the floor. Maybe the largest difference is how you handle scrolling areas and the camera/viewport. It might restrict you to just using screen sized rooms unless you have a mechanic that allows you to handle screen edges but also integrates with the layout (i.e. something that isn't a door but acts like a door).
Yes, agree that it's annoying when the character is blocking the hotspot you want to click on. Some devs take great care to avoid the character being placed in a spot where he'll be blocking the hotspot, others don't bother with it. I try to make sure that the character will be placed where we he's not blocking the hotspot, so that if you click a hotspot and he walks there he will be placed in the less blocking position possessive, but still in arms reach.
But what exactly are you asking for? Are you suggesting stoping the player from walking around, so he can't block anything, like First person perspective games? Or something else?
Simply asking if it is necessary. The con of not having a walk interaction is pretty big, but maybe there's another way to overcome it that is not coming to my mind right now. Or maybe there are way more cons than I am thinking of.
So, you can click an object at the other end of the room and take it without walking there?
The Darkside Detective does not use a "walk" interaction, the characters just stay in place while they talk. It works really well because the sprites take up a lot of the screen, so they're always quite close to each other.
(Large image under spoiler tag)
Spoiler
(https://www.mobygames.com/images/promo/original/a2daadf7dd4a4afa832807c905c706f8.jpg)
Quote from: Slasher on Tue 31/03/2020 10:07:32
So, you can click an object at the other end of the room and take it without walking there?
Depends on the game, but even in the most traditional style of Point and Click adventure games, that wouldn't happen. You'd click an object at the other end of the room, the character would walk there, and then take it. However, there would be no interaction to click WALK on the object on the other end of the room, and have the player just walk to the object and do nothing else.
PS: You can post a smaller version of a screenshot using img width and height tags. e.g. to get your image scaled to 800px, you can do [ img width=800 ] ...
(https://www.mobygames.com/images/promo/original/a2daadf7dd4a4afa832807c905c706f8.jpg)
Quote from: Babar on Tue 31/03/2020 11:20:16
Quote from: Slasher on Tue 31/03/2020 10:07:32
So, you can click an object at the other end of the room and take it without walking there?
Depends on the game, but even in the most traditional style of Point and Click adventure games, that wouldn't happen. You'd click an object at the other end of the room, the character would walk there, and then take it. However, there would be no interaction to click WALK on the object on the other end of the room, and have the player just walk to the object and do nothing else.
Yeah that's kind of the way the game I'm working on works... You are still free to walk anywhere if you want (not a separate "interaction type", just click and the character walks there), but in theory you could also not need to walk at all, except to leave a room. If an object can be picked up or it makes sense for the character to walk up to it, then that interaction is triggered by the object itself. And if not, the character will simply say their lines from a distance ("It's a bed", or whatever).
Quote from: Babar on Tue 31/03/2020 11:20:16
PS: You can post a smaller version of a screenshot using img width and height tags. e.g. to get your image scaled to 800px, you can do [ img width=800 ] ...
Ahhh thanks! Very useful :)
Uhm, but doesn't only Sierra template use a walk interaction? Otherwise, most other systems are just processing the walk when nothing else is clicked on.
Quote from: Cassiebsg on Tue 31/03/2020 17:32:33
Uhm, but doesn't only Sierra template use a walk interaction? Otherwise, most other systems are just processing the walk when nothing else is clicked on.
Yeah, re-reading the thread I'm not really sure if Babar wants to do away with the "walk" interaction available in some templates next to others such as "look", "examine", "push", etc because it's redundant, or if he wants to get rid of the idea of "walking" in point-and-click games altogether ???
Someone was making an adventure game where the character fades out and reappears next to the hotspot, which is stylish and saves doing walking animations, but I wouldn't do that for my own games as a preference.
I was thinking, if I did decide to make another game, doing it first person would cut a lot of corners, not having to draw or animate the main character.
The scenario I'm talking about is in the context of traditional adventure games (i.e. the vast majority of what people here on AGS make), where the player controls a character on the screen.
What I'm questioning is the necessity of a "walk mode"- whether as a separate walk interaction (like in the Sierra interface), or a walk interaction integrated into the the system (like the default action in a LucasArts verblist or verbcoin system, or what happens in the 2 button interface when you click an area of the screen with nothing to interact)
Essentially, there would be no way for the player to intentionally decide "I don't want to interact with anything right now, or talk with anyone, or move to another screen, but I want to change the position of the player character from this position on the screen to that position on the screen". If the player interacted with an object, or clicked on the edge of the screen, it is possible that the player character would walk over (or maybe even not then, but that's not what I'm emphasising on), but other than that, there would be no way for the player to cause the player character to move within the same screen (and do nothing else).
The only GAMEPLAY reason to have a walk interaction I can think of is for screen-position related puzzles (e.g. an early puzzle in the first KQ game had it so that if you PUSH BOULDER while standing downhill from the boulder, you would be crushed and die, but if you do it while standing on the other side, it would roll away and you would be safe). However, most games don't have screen-position related puzzles.
The only "GAME DESIGN" reason to have a walk interaction I can think of is that being able to control the character makes you associate and inhabit the character and make them "feel" more related to the player character.
It's also good for scrolling rooms (which can reveal new things as you walk around in the space), and as a way to trigger events naturally in the course of gameplay. Apart from the player identification and sense of interactivity, I'd say those are the biggest reasons.
There are also a bunch of puzzle types that, although they're not exactly position-based, wouldn't really work without the ability to walk around. For example many mazes, and following-puzzles. Or the "walk around the table three times to complete the magic ritual" puzzle suggested here (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=57878.0). And while pure position-based puzzles are maybe not that common, I think there are quite a few that incorporate a position-based element, whether that's the "get the dog leash to wrap around the lightpole" in Blackwell Legacy or "hiding" puzzles in many games.
I'm sure you could make a game without it, but I think it has quite a bit of value.
Quote from: Babar on Wed 01/04/2020 12:11:48
Essentially, there would be no way for the player to intentionally decide "I don't want to interact with anything right now, or talk with anyone, or move to another screen, but I want to change the position of the player character from this position on the screen to that position on the screen". If the player interacted with an object, or clicked on the edge of the screen, it is possible that the player character would walk over (or maybe even not then, but that's not what I'm emphasising on), but other than that, there would be no way for the player to cause the player character to move within the same screen (and do nothing else).
You definitely have a point here. I've spent SO much time in my game painstakingly drawing walkable areas, walkbehinds and setting object baselines so that there's no clipping or characters walking through stuff, etc etc, just to realize, like I mentioned above, what you just said: most of the time, players aren't going to simply walk around doing nothing. They're going to click on hotspots and objects, and whether they walk up to those hotpots and objects will depend on whether I've coded that behaviour for that interaction or not.
Still, Snarky has some good points: scrolling rooms, positional puzzles, event triggers, player identification, etc. In the end, the Walk interaction is just another tool in your belt, and there are lots of ways in which it can be used with a purpose. I don't think it's ready for retirement just yet :)
(My biggest "this crap is overused and overrated and it should disappear forever" pet peeve is in fact the 2-button "left-look/right-interact" interface, but let's not open that can of worms here :-D)
Quote from: Laura Hunt on Wed 01/04/2020 13:13:02
You definitely have a point here. I've spent SO much time in my game painstakingly drawing walkable areas, walkbehinds and setting object baselines so that there's no clipping or characters walking through stuff, etc etc, just to realize, like I mentioned above, what you just said: most of the time, players aren't going to simply walk around doing nothing. They're going to click on hotspots and objects, and whether they walk up to those hotpots and objects will depend on whether I've coded that behaviour for that interaction or not.
Still, Snarky has some good points: scrolling rooms, positional puzzles, event triggers, player identification, etc. In the end, the Walk interaction is just another tool in your belt, and there are lots of ways in which it can be used with a purpose. I don't think it's ready for retirement just yet :)
On the one hand, most people usually just click on things to interact, rather than simply walk around with no purpose.
On the other hand, being able to walk around, is very immersive for me. I've played a few adventure games which didn't have the ability to walk around, and you just clicked on things in the room, and the character would walk over, interact with it, and maybe walk back. It felt very static and simplistic, like I was simply staring at a screen full of clickable things rather than playing an actual game.
Immersion to me, is being able to do the little things that serve little to no purpose. The ability to open and close doors was only helpful on one puzzle in Day of the Tentacle, and to my knowledge, wasn't useful in any other LucasArts adventure game. Yet, I love being able to do that. (It's how I solved that puzzle to start with.)
It's like putting the hamster in the microwave. Sure, it's useless, and most people aren't going to do it. But that's why it's there, for the people who do, so they can enjoy the extra bit of freedom that they sought out. :-D
Adventure games have slowly become more and more streamlined in an attempt to make them more accessible. In other words, reduce the complexity in order to help the player. But this loss of actions in turn makes everything less immersive. If you go back to Zork and look at the sheer number of things you could do in that game, and compare it to a modern graphic adventure game, you can clearly see how everything has become more simplistic. What's surprising though, is that this is in stark contrast to other genres, which have become more complex as technology has developed, not more simplistic.
In the original GTA, you couldn't store cars. But in GTA III you can. Like walking in an adventure game, it's not the most useful feature in the world (especially with how likely your car was to break in GTA III), but it added to the immersion. It gave you something else to do. Why would you take away something so simplistic, just to streamline the game further, when the only people who are likely to notice it missing are the ones who appreciated it the most?
Yeah, one reason I avoid first person adventure games, is the lack of a character walking around. I enjoy controlling it and being able to move. Not say I woudn't enjoy playing the game, but I wouldn't be as emersed in it. And like Snarky pointed out, being able to walk around gives the dev the option to trigger actions and puzzles based on where the player is currently standing.
Quote from: Cassiebsg on Wed 01/04/2020 16:36:31
Yeah, one reason I avoid first person adventure games, is the lack of a character walking around. I enjoy controlling it and being able to move. Not say I woudn't enjoy playing the game, but I wouldn't be as emersed in it.
Would first person movement solve this? Visual Novels often have scenes shown from a pretty generic angle, but what if the view moved around between scenes as if it was from the character's perspective? One example that comes to mind is "Last Express" where you only see your character during cutscenes. Also - "Myst" and similar games, where you never see your character iirc, but still sort of look through the eyes.
In terms of character movement, I found keyboard controls give much more immersion and worked well in the "Cat Lady" for example, because having to keep hold keys to move character around gave more connection with her. I never tried playing adventure game with joystick or gamepad, so cannot tell about that.
Quote from: Danvzare on Wed 01/04/2020 15:32:27
Immersion to me, is being able to do the little things that serve little to no purpose. The ability to open and close doors was only helpful on one puzzle in Day of the Tentacle, and to my knowledge, wasn't useful in any other LucasArts adventure game. Yet, I love being able to do that. (It's how I solved that puzzle to start with.)
It's like putting the hamster in the microwave. Sure, it's useless, and most people aren't going to do it. But that's why it's there, for the people who do, so they can enjoy the extra bit of freedom that they sought out. :-D
Well, it's great to know that at least
one person will get to see every tiny line of dialogue/look at/descriptions I've painstakingly added to every single interaction in our game :-D
No, "first person movement" does not solve this. I like playing my games just like I enjoy watching my favorite TV show. I doubt I would connect to a character I can't see in a tv show, just like I don't connect in a game. Keep in mind that I do like Myst, but more cause the scenery is so beautiful and the puzzles are great, and I played my fair share of first person adventures. But in general, I enjoy being that character that is walking in the screen, and don't want to be "me". Watching the character walking around and being able to control it gives me what I want in that department.
As for mouse/keyboard... these days I rather be able to use the mouse for everything, so I can relax far away from the screen, the keyboard and the likes. But I like options, so I say give the player options to choose what they prefer to use. ;)
Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Fri 03/04/2020 16:19:10
In terms of character movement, I found keyboard controls give much more immersion and worked well in the "Cat Lady" for example, because having to keep hold keys to move character around gave more connection with her. I never tried playing adventure game with joystick or gamepad, so cannot tell about that.
I actually remember someone telling me that the only adventure game they liked, was Escape from Monkey Island, because it had those type of controls. The guy felt a disconnect from the character in most adventure games due to having to point and click to move, and as such preferred even the tank controls over it.
While I don't share his opinions, I did find it quite interesting. Perhaps direct control of the character could be the future for adventure games?
QuoteQuote from: Crimson Wizard on Yesterday at 17:19
In terms of character movement, I found keyboard controls give much more immersion and worked well in the "Cat Lady" for example, because having to keep hold keys to move character around gave more connection with her. I never tried playing adventure game with joystick or gamepad, so cannot tell about that.
I actually remember someone telling me that the only adventure game they liked, was Escape from Monkey Island, because it had those type of controls. The guy felt a disconnect from the character in most adventure games due to having to point and click to move, and as such preferred even the tank controls over it.
While I don't share his opinions, I did find it quite interesting. Perhaps direct control of the character could be the future for adventure games?
Personally I didn't enjoy the controls in
Monkey Island 4 or
Broken Sword 3. I found them cumbersome and more suited to action games.
An interesting alternative is to have an onscreen character that you can't move, like in The adventures of Valdo and Marie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SQymg_6dU) or more recently An eternity reflecting (https://gamejolt.com/games/AER/421186). When done right, being immobile doesn't bother me that much and it allows for more varied camera angles.
Quote from: Creamy on Sat 04/04/2020 22:23:10
QuoteQuote from: Crimson Wizard on Yesterday at 17:19
In terms of character movement, I found keyboard controls give much more immersion and worked well in the "Cat Lady" for example, because having to keep hold keys to move character around gave more connection with her. I never tried playing adventure game with joystick or gamepad, so cannot tell about that.
I actually remember someone telling me that the only adventure game they liked, was Escape from Monkey Island, because it had those type of controls. The guy felt a disconnect from the character in most adventure games due to having to point and click to move, and as such preferred even the tank controls over it.
While I don't share his opinions, I did find it quite interesting. Perhaps direct control of the character could be the future for adventure games?
Personally I didn't enjoy the controls in Monkey Island 4 or Broken Sword 3. I found them cumbersome and more suited to action games.
An interesting alternative is to have an onscreen character that you can't move, like in The adventures of Valdo and Marie (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SQymg_6dU) or more recently An eternity reflecting (https://gamejolt.com/games/AER/421186). When done right, being immobile doesn't bother me that much and it allows for more varied camera angles.
Agreed, I'm not too fond the controls in those games either. But the fact that some people do, is at least worth thinking about.
As for games with a static onscreen character... yeah, I can't stand those.
The adventure game controls I like the most to the ones I hate the most:
1. Point and click to move
2. Direct control
3. Text parser
4. Tank controls
5. First person adventure games
6. That weird thing Monkey Island 5 did
7. Static onscreen character
Just out of curiosity, what do y'all first-person-adventure-game haters here think about the Rusty Lake and Deep Sleep series?
Don't know then, so don't think anything about them? (laugh) Hate is a strong word, I don't hate them I just prefer 3rd person. ;)
Quote from: Cassiebsg on Sun 05/04/2020 14:45:21
Don't know then, so don't think anything about them? (laugh) Hate is a strong word, I don't hate them I just prefer 3rd person. ;)
Haha yeah, but since Danvzare said "The adventure game controls I like the most to the ones I hate the most" I went with "haters" too :-D
The Rusty Lake / Cube Escape games are awesome! But then again, I'm an absolute Twin Peaks fangirl and so are these guys, so I was sold from the start :-D Still, I think they have a pretty unique vibe/aesthetic and most of them are free, so I'd encourage everybody to check them out, especially
Seasons,
Theatre and
Birthday!
Being nitpicky, but:
scrolling rooms don't really need walking player characters, there are other ways (e.g. moving mouse to edge of screen)
almost every adventure game maze I've seen (the stuff near the end of Fate of Atlantis wasn't really a maze to solve) involved the entire screen being a room/step in the maze, not the entire maze on the screen
some position based puzzles could do with being better designed ("you're not close enough to push the button" is useless in the non-text parser age)
But yeah, I agree, some games do incorporate position-based puzzles. I'd still maintain they're rarer than games that don't.
Quote from: Laura Hunt on Wed 01/04/2020 13:13:02
(My biggest "this crap is overused and overrated and it should disappear forever" pet peeve is in fact the 2-button "left-look/right-interact" interface, but let's not open that can of worms here :-D)
I want (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=54144.0;all)
you (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=53144)
to, (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51421)
please contribute (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=48893.0;all) :grin:
(personally I hate the verbcoin way more)
And I haven't heard of any of those games, sorry! I can't actually think of a "traditional" (puzzles, combining stuff, talking to people, inventory items, etc.) adventure game in first person, but there are lots of first person games with heavy adventure elements.
And Danvzare, yes, I listed immersion as one of the few cons including a walking interaction had. That's my question in this thread- is it worth it? I mean, if we're talking immersion, as already mentioned, a good (non-tanky) direct control system is even more immersive.
PS: I don't know what Monkey Island 5 is, but if you meant Tales of Monkey Island, yeah, the first episode was designed with the Wii in mind or something, so it had very weird controls.
Quote from: Babar on Sun 05/04/2020 16:33:29
I want (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=54144.0;all)
you (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=53144)
to, (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51421)
please contribute (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=48893.0;all) :grin:
(personally I hate the verbcoin way more)
lmao I'll be sure to jump on any such future discussions :-D
Quote from: Babar on Sun 05/04/2020 16:33:29
And I haven't heard of any of those games, sorry! I can't actually think of a "traditional" (puzzles, combining stuff, talking to people, inventory items, etc.) adventure game in first person, but there are lots of first person games with heavy adventure elements.
Then let me insist because I think you'll find the Cube Escape games to be a very pleasant surprise in that regard! They're all about inventory, puzzles, finding keys to locks that open other locks that require you to decipher a numeric key to open a safe that will give you a fish that when combined with a bottle will give you another puzzle that will give you a piece of a photo you need in order to trigger a memory that will help you travel to the past where you can plant a seed that will turn into a tree when you go back to the future that will open a cupboard door that was previously closed and... you get the drill. They're 100% classic point-and-clicks, but without the movement (and admittedly, without the "talking to people" part). I think you might enjoy them!
PS. In Cat Lady the character only moves horizontally, so the keyboard controls were basically just left & right + action button.
PPS. What is "tank controls"?
Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Sun 05/04/2020 17:51:10
PPS. What is "tank controls"?
Instead of moving left, right, up, down, your character rotates in place with left and right and walks in the direction you're facing with "up/forward". It's clunky af.
For examples of tank controls in action, see the original Resident Evil trilogy or the original Grim Fandango release (although the remastered version gives you option to switch to the classic tank controls).
Quote from: Laura Hunt on Sun 05/04/2020 14:12:42
Just out of curiosity, what do y'all first-person-adventure-game haters here think about the Rusty Lake and Deep Sleep series?
I've never played Rusty Lake, but I thought Deep Sleep was pretty great.
Quote from: Babar on Sun 05/04/2020 16:33:29
I don't know what Monkey Island 5 is, but if you meant Tales of Monkey Island, yeah, the first episode was designed with the Wii in mind or something, so it had very weird controls.
Yes, I meant Tales of Monkey Island. It's the fifth game isn't it? Therefore it's Monkey Island 5. If I say Monkey Island 3, you know I'm talking about Curse of Monkey Island, right?
Also, I don't care what their excuse is, the Wii has nothing to do with that click-and-drag control scheme. There's a perfectly usable nunchuk with an analog stick on the Wii.
Quote from: Babar on Sun 05/04/2020 16:33:29
Quote from: Laura Hunt on Wed 01/04/2020 13:13:02
(My biggest "this crap is overused and overrated and it should disappear forever" pet peeve is in fact the 2-button "left-look/right-interact" interface, but let's not open that can of worms here :-D)
I want (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=54144.0;all)
you (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=53144)
to, (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51421)
please contribute (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=48893.0;all) :grin:
(personally I hate the verbcoin way more)
And I haven't heard of any of those games, sorry! I can't actually think of a "traditional" (puzzles, combining stuff, talking to people, inventory items, etc.) adventure game in first person, but there are lots of first person games with heavy adventure elements.
The problem is, what's the alternative?
The single click interface is bad because it simplifies interactions too much, allowing brute-force-click-on-everything gameplay.
The two click interface is bad because no one ever presses the right mouse button, therefore being exactly like the single click interface, but without the character giving context to anything.
Half of adventure game creators (like you) hate the verbcoin for seemingly no good reason. (And I've heard the arguments, none of them are compelling.)
No one ever talks about the Sierra interface (and personally, I don't like it).
The 9-verb interface has been declared "old" and "outdated".
No one in their right mind would use a text parser.
Apparently direct control is considered too "action adventure".
And no one seems willing to come up with an entirely new and original way of playing adventure games.
Everyone is always willing to complain about the interfaces that are available, but no one is willing to improve them or make their own.
Quote from: Danvzare on Mon 06/04/2020 16:07:57
And no one seems willing to come up with an entirely new and original way of playing adventure games.
VR + gloves. :)
Quote from: Danvzare on Mon 06/04/2020 16:07:57
The problem is, what's the alternative?
The single click interface is bad because it simplifies interactions too much, allowing brute-force-click-on-everything gameplay.
What? No? You still need to solve puzzles, you still need to use the right inventory item on the right spot or combine items, you can have numerical puzzles, positional puzzles, figure-matching puzzles, find-a-word-to-open-a-safe puzzles (the Rusty Lake games I mentioned earlier are basically one puzzle after another, and they use just one click). The only gameplay that gets thrown out of the window with the 1-click interface is the kind that depends on you specifically choosing to
push this item rather than
interacting with it, and I personally hate those. It's basically having to guess what verb the game creator thought of.
Quote from: Danvzare on Mon 06/04/2020 16:07:57
Everyone is always willing to complain about the interfaces that are available, but no one is willing to improve them or make their own.
Because there's nothing to improve: the 1-click interface is already perfect :-D
Quote from: Danvzare on Mon 06/04/2020 16:07:57
Yes, I meant Tales of Monkey Island. It's the fifth game isn't it? Therefore it's Monkey Island 5. If I say Monkey Island 3, you know I'm talking about Curse of Monkey Island, right?
Also, I don't care what their excuse is, the Wii has nothing to do with that click-and-drag control scheme. There's a perfectly usable nunchuk with an analog stick on the Wii.
It's the 5th game, but it isn't "Monkey Island 5", the same way Telltale's Sam & Max games aren't "Sam and Max 2" (and 3 and 4...), or Telltale's Borderlands game isn't called Borderlands 3. And I'm not sure what you mean that the Wii had nothing to do with it. Obviously the control scheme wasn't the same on the Wii, the drag system was TellTales' conversion of the system from the Wii to the PC.
Quote from: Danvzare on Mon 06/04/2020 16:07:57
The problem is, what's the alternative?
The single click interface is bad because it simplifies interactions too much, allowing brute-force-click-on-everything gameplay.
The two click interface is bad because no one ever presses the right mouse button, therefore being exactly like the single click interface, but without the character giving context to anything.
Half of adventure game creators (like you) hate the verbcoin for seemingly no good reason. (And I've heard the arguments, none of them are compelling.)
No one ever talks about the Sierra interface (and personally, I don't like it).
The 9-verb interface has been declared "old" and "outdated".
No one in their right mind would use a text parser.
Apparently direct control is considered too "action adventure".
And no one seems willing to come up with an entirely new and original way of playing adventure games.
Everyone is always willing to complain about the interfaces that are available, but no one is willing to improve them or make their own.
You've listed problems with each interaction system, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where each of them are appropriate- except the verbcoin, of course, that is just universally (and AGS-Forumly) proven by science to universally suck :=.
There are use-cases (even today) of each of those interaction systems (including the text parser too).
Actually I hate the 1-click, and it's not a strong word in this case. (laugh)
I always end up right clicking everything anyway and be disappointed that it just results in the same action as the left click. I use the 2-click by choice, and cause it's convenient for MAGS, but I like the VerbCoin (not in it's original incarnation though, but I like to be able to get verb specific for each spot with the right click).
I guess we're all different in one way or another. The Sierra interface is annoying because you need to select the walk action, and then I always fast right past the verb I want and have to start the cycle again (or use the above menu... plus one needs to grad the inventory from a second GUI. Rather either open the Inventory GUI with one button/key or have it always visible.
I know that AGD Interactive allows players to choose interface style in their game (for example, "Mage Initiation").
I guess the form of verb presentation may be implemented in various ways, and also depending on what system you are, and what input device you use.
The real question is, which verbs to use in your game, and why.
1-click is fine for pure escape the room games (I've used it for exactly that) and visual novels (or maybe a combination of both) but for adventure games it is too dumbed down for me and lacks interactivity.
I want more interaction with the surrounding, be it inspecting objects with right click or walking somewhere. And I love position based puzzles.
Quote from: Babar on Mon 06/04/2020 16:53:58
You've listed problems with each interaction system, but that doesn't mean there aren't situations where each of them are appropriate
I think you've perfectly summarized everything there.
Barring our preferences (I hate the Seirra interface and you hate the Verb coin, we don't need to justify why, we just hate them), you need to choose the best interaction system for the game you want to make, and utilize it to it's fullest. While keeping in mind it's weaknesses and how to overcome them.
Also, unrelated rant.
Spoiler
Quote from: Babar on Mon 06/04/2020 16:53:58
Quote from: Danvzare on Mon 06/04/2020 16:07:57
Yes, I meant Tales of Monkey Island. It's the fifth game isn't it? Therefore it's Monkey Island 5. If I say Monkey Island 3, you know I'm talking about Curse of Monkey Island, right?
Also, I don't care what their excuse is, the Wii has nothing to do with that click-and-drag control scheme. There's a perfectly usable nunchuk with an analog stick on the Wii.
It's the 5th game, but it isn't "Monkey Island 5", the same way Telltale's Sam & Max games aren't "Sam and Max 2" (and 3 and 4...), or Telltale's Borderlands game isn't called Borderlands 3. And I'm not sure what you mean that the Wii had nothing to do with it. Obviously the control scheme wasn't the same on the Wii, the drag system was TellTales' conversion of the system from the Wii to the PC.
Look, if Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories was the last Kingdom Hearts game to ever be made, and the whole franchise had been cancelled after that. I would call it Kingdom Hearts 2, simply because the story continues from where the previous game left off, and the gameplay isn't too dissimilar. Telltale's Borderlands has completely different gameplay to the rest of the series, so it's clearly distinguished as a spinoff. The Telltale Sam and Max games make no reference to the other Sam and Max game, distinguishing it as more of a reboot than a sequel. Meanwhile, Tales of Monkey Island has gameplay that's exactly like the previous games and also makes it clear that it's a sequel to those games. The only reason I can think of why you wouldn't call it Monkey Island 5, is because the developers said so. But I'm a firm believer of "the death of the author" so screw what they say. Show me an actual Monkey Island 5 (one which is actually named that, or completely ignores everything that happens in Tales of), and I'll stop calling Tales of Monkey Island that.
Also if the control scheme on the Wii wasn't the same, and the drag system was from the conversion, then that literally proves my point that the Wii had nothing to do with the click-and-drag system. Since they could've very easily just put in a normal point and click during the conversion.
I was under the assumption that both versions had the same system, and that you were arguing that they were too lazy to change it. In which case, I was trying to point out that there was no reason to have a click-and-drag system for the Wii. But you've just said that the Wii didn't have the click-and-drag system, meaning they weren't too lazy to change it, as they actually did change it. Which means, they came up with that click-and-drag system because... I don't know... they wanted to try something new and stupid I guess.
In either case, you can't blame the Wii for that click-and-drag system.
Quote from: Danvzare on Mon 06/04/2020 16:07:57
Quote from: Babar on Sun 05/04/2020 16:33:29
Quote from: Laura Hunt on Wed 01/04/2020 13:13:02
(My biggest "this crap is overused and overrated and it should disappear forever" pet peeve is in fact the 2-button "left-look/right-interact" interface, but let's not open that can of worms here :-D)
I want (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=54144.0;all)
you (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=53144)
to, (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51421)
please contribute (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=48893.0;all) :grin:
(personally I hate the verbcoin way more)
And I haven't heard of any of those games, sorry! I can't actually think of a "traditional" (puzzles, combining stuff, talking to people, inventory items, etc.) adventure game in first person, but there are lots of first person games with heavy adventure elements.
The problem is, what's the alternative?
The single click interface is bad because it simplifies interactions too much, allowing brute-force-click-on-everything gameplay.
The two click interface is bad because no one ever presses the right mouse button, therefore being exactly like the single click interface, but without the character giving context to anything.
Half of adventure game creators (like you) hate the verbcoin for seemingly no good reason. (And I've heard the arguments, none of them are compelling.)
No one ever talks about the Sierra interface (and personally, I don't like it).
The 9-verb interface has been declared "old" and "outdated".
No one in their right mind would use a text parser.
Apparently direct control is considered too "action adventure".
And no one seems willing to come up with an entirely new and original way of playing adventure games.
Everyone is always willing to complain about the interfaces that are available, but no one is willing to improve them or make their own.
I personally prefer the action adventure direct control method, but only with controller support. It's just more intuitive for me, and I would really like to make games using this control method.
Aside from that, I prefer either a one-button or two-button method. I understand that one-button can be limiting, but if the puzzles don't rely on multiple different verb interactions I think it can work well. Also, the over-simplification argument can be overturned when there are inventory, dialogue, or positional puzzles, or other puzzles that take you into a separate UI. Most of all, one-button is user friendly and can be ported easily to other devices. The two-button method is a good alternative if there are no plans to port to other devices, or if there is an easy way to port (like using a tap and double-tap method), but the extra flavor of the right-click look interaction can be provided in other ways and is rarely used by a lot of players.
I can see how a limited verb-coin interface could be more suitable for a particular game that wants to allow for more interaction choices, as long as it is implemented well (no click-hold, doesn't cover the object).
I've always had a soft spot for the Sierra interface. I know a lot of people dislike it, so I won't be using it, but I grew up with this and the text parser so I will always love them for that.
I never liked the LucasArts 9-verb interface.
All interfaces can have the issue of new players not understanding how to play, but all can be overcome with a simple tutorial that shows the player how to interact with the world around them.
To answer the thread's title question of "Do we need a walk interaction?" I would say you aren't asking the right question. You should be asking "what interactions are necessary for our game, and what interface makes for the most ergonomic and enjoyable experience for the player?"
If we're talking about whether to allow walking at all (and not just the interaction option), then I think Snarky sums it up best with this:
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 01/04/2020 12:59:48
It's also good for scrolling rooms (which can reveal new things as you walk around in the space), and as a way to trigger events naturally in the course of gameplay. Apart from the player identification and sense of interactivity, I'd say those are the biggest reasons.
There are also a bunch of puzzle types that, although they're not exactly position-based, wouldn't really work without the ability to walk around. For example many mazes, and following-puzzles. Or the "walk around the table three times to complete the magic ritual" puzzle suggested here (https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=57878.0). And while pure position-based puzzles are maybe not that common, I think there are quite a few that incorporate a position-based element, whether that's the "get the dog leash to wrap around the lightpole" in Blackwell Legacy or "hiding" puzzles in many games.
I'm sure you could make a game without it, but I think it has quite a bit of value.
Add to this Danvzare's comments on immersion, and I think there is a strong case to be made for allowing the player to manipulate the character's position on screen.
Cassiebsg also makes a case against first-person that I agree with:
Quote from: Cassiebsg on Fri 03/04/2020 16:35:59
No, "first person movement" does not solve this. I like playing my games just like I enjoy watching my favorite TV show. I doubt I would connect to a character I can't see in a tv show, just like I don't connect in a game. Keep in mind that I do like Myst, but more cause the scenery is so beautiful and the puzzles are great, and I played my fair share of first person adventures. But in general, I enjoy being that character that is walking in the screen, and don't want to be "me". Watching the character walking around and being able to control it gives me what I want in that department.
I loved Myst (and Riven), but would still have preferred to have a controllable character on the screen.
For immersion, I too prefer direct control if it is in 3D, with keyboard and mouse, though: I think intuitiveness of a controller depends on what you're used to, and I much prefer KBM.
As I said before, it may be a bit nitpicky, but most of the examples of puzzles given as reasons to have walking be a separate interaction are very easily (without any extra complexity in terms of development or playability) be implemented without walking. There definitely ARE some position based puzzles that WOULD require walking, but the vast majority of adventure games (especially those made with AGS) don't have such puzzles. If your game did, then of course, you'd have a walk interaction, but if you didn't, then my question follows: is it still meaningful to have a walk interaction?
I wasn't expecting this turning into an interface system discussion, as the question would apply equally and irrespective of all the interaction methods, but as I said, the the implementation of the interface depends on its usage and situation- One and two button interfaces seem universally understandable, if you need more, then it seems we get diversity of opinion (LucasArts permenantly visible verblists, Sierra pop-down Verblists, Verbcoins, etc.)- I've had a bit of a hate-hate relationship with verbcoin, even though I'd like to think I gave it a fair shake- I even tried designing my own here a while back with the help of the community to get the best practices down, but that failed dismally, because each choice lead to two possible (both bad) results:
- Can't have the verbcoin be covering the clicked spot, so make it hollow- Need to have each interaction equidistant to the click point with predictable and expected button positions, so made it radial, making it radial means you can't reach corners. If you want to reach corners, then you have to offset the radial menu, which eliminates its usefulness.
- Aimed for a single button interface for simplicity and portability- walking if there's nothing to interact with, and opening interface if something interactable. That caused problems with opening inventory when you wanted to interact with it irrespective of something on the screen. could be bypassed by having inventory as a pop-down menu, but then that messed things up for being in the corner of the screen, and since inventory usually has a different interaction system, it becomes inconsistent.
- Closing the interface was also a problem- for desktops I eventually had to allow right-click to close (even though it was a single button interface), because the other options- moving the mouse out of range or clicking an X made it worse
So I'm only being a LITTLE facetious when I say it is the worst interface ever :=
Quote from: Cassiebsg on Mon 30/03/2020 20:19:15
Yes, agree that it's annoying when the character is blocking the hotspot you want to click on. Some devs take great care to avoid the character being placed in a spot where he'll be blocking the hotspot
Throwing this in about that point that has been made in the beginning, that is not an actual problem though. You don't have to go to such lengths to avoid characters walking in front of hotspots, because you can simply turn characters unclickable whenever the mouse is over a hotspot:
in repeatedly execute you write:
function repeatedly_execute_always()
{
if(Hotspot.GetAtRoomXY(mouse.x,mouse.y)!=hotspot[0])
character[N].Clickable=false;
else
character[N].Clickable=true;
}
This way the character of your choice is not clickable whenever the mouse is hoovering over a hotspot.
And you can loop through all background characters if you want.
Edit: Did your reply to that just dissappear, Crimson Wizard?
EDIT: realized this is not a tech thread, so removed the script example, as this is not scriptlystrictly bound to AGS.
I just wanted to mention that there are multiple solutions for characters blocking hotspots. One of which, I've seen in several games, is making player character non-clickable and translucent when mouse is above them in any case. Of course that means that player character cannot be interacted. If you wish character to be still interactable at all times, there may be other means to accomplish this, like hinting that something is behind. This is mostly a question of visual design, something that has to be thought through when you plan your gameplay.
Oh ok. I thought my script part made clearer what I meant.
Babar, if you mind my script part in your thread, let me know, I can remove it.
Yeah, for example having the outlines of the object/hotspot drawn on top of the character can be great when a character stands in front of the object/hotspot or when the mouse is over the object/hspt. at the same time. Or the object/hotspot shines through translucently, without that the character changes transparency.
Or have all objects etc. behind shine through characters in front when pressing a key.
The benefit of checking every game loop is that you can also change the label name appropriately in the status line when you display what the mouse is hoovering above, as opposed to you programming it to respond when the mouse is clicked.
Those screen hints you're talking about, how would you imagine them to look like?
A tiny message that appears?
Lol did you actually write "scriptly bound" to begin with, that's funny (laugh)
Quote from: TheManInBoots on Mon 13/04/2020 14:52:00
Lol did you actually write "scriptly bound" to begin with, that's funny (laugh)
Yes, this was a typo, then I fixed it and then realized it's a nice pun, so put it back :p
I have no issue with the code being in this thread, but I feel it is answering the wrong question. If the character is clickable/interactable in the game, that would be for a reason (at some points(s) the player would have to interact with them), and then having code that makes the player uninteractable in those situations wouldn't be helpful. The only way around this situation (other than having very weird and unintuitive, situation-dependant interactability of the player character) would be to always check if the walkto location is in front of a hotspot, and then move the player nearby where they wouldn't be in front of a hotspot. In this situation you'd always have to make sure your BGs don't have clusters of hotspots that would result in the player having to walkto a point too far away.
It depends on the scenario obviously.
I was referring to a situation where background characters walk around and occasionally pass by a hotspot.
Which in many cases are smaller than the character, or cover only a part of the character, so the character will remain constantly clickable anyways.
I feel like you are referring to a very specific situation, where there are plenty of hotspots spread around the room, and Characters are covered by them.
Even then, simply adding one more bool to the function I proposed for when the situation rises that the characters need to be clickable is , how is that not intuitive?
Or generally making background elements clickable on keypress.
And if the hotspots are bigger than the character, the characters can stay clickable anyways, because they'll never cover the entire hotspot.
It all works totally fine. I see no problem with it.
Can you give an example of where there would be a big problem with this?
Quote from: TheManInBoots on Mon 13/04/2020 19:22:25
I feel like you are referring to a very specific situation, where there are plenty of hotspots spread around the room, and Characters are covered by them.
Even then, simply adding one more bool to the function I proposed for when the situation rises that the characters need to be clickable is , how is that not intuitive?
Or generally making background elements clickable on keypress.
And if the hotspots are bigger than the character, the characters can stay clickable anyways, because they'll never cover the entire hotspot.
It all works totally fine. I see no problem with it.
It's a question of UI design, and whether that would be convenient for players, whether they will have a fluid game experience. Things like this are difficult to predict by using solely imagination, especially if you don't have larger experience with released games. Developer's eyes do not match player's eyes, players don't know all specifics about your game, and developers often subconsciously play in certain way because they guess about potential issues within their games. Implementing your idea in game and giving out to people to try out is the best, if not only, way to find if the solution is good or not.
Usually there has to be a "proof of concept", like a game that demonstrates certain UI solution. Abstract proposals are only good for ideas generation, but they have to be tried in practice, then people can see how it actually works, it's good side and flaws.
Quote from: TheManInBoots on Mon 13/04/2020 19:22:25
Can you give an example of where there would be a big problem with this?
To ammend the above, if we are discussing the idea where character is either clickable or not depending on where it stands, this is without doubt will be causing annoyance to players, because they have to realize and remember this rule.
Say there's currently the problem that character may cover the hotspot and not letting players click on hotspot when they want to. With the above suggestion, won't there be an opposite situation, when players won't be able to click on character when they want to?
I believe, this is what Babar meant by
"weird and unintuitive, situation-dependant interactability of the player character" (not the code).
Even if you will have some kind of an indication, like a glow, or tooltip, showing when you may or may not interact with character, players would have to be paying attention to that, and remember to move the character away from the "bad place" in order to click on character. Such things may seem like a triffle problem, but in reality they quickly make players irritated.
Making background elements clickable with a keypress is a better solution, in my opinion, but only because it's consistent. But it's also not ideal, because it's forcing player to use particular control device, which is not always justified with P&C games.
Indeed, as CrimsonWizard said, I have nothing against the code, I was more referring to the very concept of situationally changing the interactivity of a character being problematic, and not really a good solution to the problem quoted from Cassiebsg.
I tend to think the best way to solve this is to design the game so that it will not be a problem in the first place (make the player character unclickable if possible; and if they must be clickable, make sure that walk-to points are positioned so that they don't cover up any "hotspots"; and don't have NPCs walking around covering up other clickable elements).
Because if you have various elements that cover each other, and all of them are things you may want/need to click on, I don't see how you can elegantly accommodate that in a 2D UI, whatever you do.
… Which suggests that another solution is to go beyond 2D. What if, for example, you design the game with parallax, and give players an option to move the camera left/right or up/down in order to uncover things that may be hidden behind other objects? (I'm also reminded of The World Is Weird, where you can drag-and-drop pretty much every interactive element, rearranging the background to your heart's content.) Or use the scroll wheel to control the z-depth of the cursor?