Do we like non-interactive hotspots?

[tamper]

Quick game design opinion time!

I've noticed that in a number of AGS games that background items are often 'named', even when they don't actually play any part in the game. I've seen various examples, but strangely the only one that comes to mind as I write this is the water leak in Apocalypse:Vel.

It's something that doesn't seem to happen in commercial games. I replayed FoA recently and noticed that while the backgrounds were full of details, only 'workable' items had names. I found it a timesaver in solving puzzles, as you aren't wasting time trying to use every object in your inventory with a non-functional background item.

Perhaps it happens in AGS games due to the way it works (in defining hotspots etc.) or maybe people like to explain just what the object is that they've drawn in the background.

So the question is, do we like this practice of assigning names to apparent objects that are never used, or not?

t

PS - I'm excluding deliberate 'red herring' items in this - they're fine in moderation!

[Mr_Frisby]

No.  









(only if hunting is part of the fun, otherwise no - I know a book is a book without beingtold it's a book)

(edit: I originally had a frowny face after no but I really don't feel that strongly, why o why is there not a grimacing face or a slightly frowning  whilst smirking smiley)

[Layabout]

I feel if one is going to go to the trouble of making something a hotspot, they shoudl at least do interactions, even if they just give a message.

[BOYD1981]

the only way you'd know it didn't do anything was by testing every single inventory item you had on it, and some hotspots only do something if you click on them enough times...

[Ytterbium]

I don't think non-interactive hotspots help the game at all. It just makes the game more confusing to stupid people like me who can't even finish Larry Vales without a walkthrough.

By the way, I'm sure somebody's asked how to make hotspot names appear next to the cursor when you mouse over them. I don't want to start a new thread about it, so can anyone tell me the name of a thread in which this question was answered?

[Nellie]

What, completely and utterly non-interactive?  You don't even get a response for looking at the hotspot?

[tamper]

Well even if you get a "It's a rock" kind of response, I think it's at best useless and at worst confusing, UNLESS the 'rock' has some purpose in the game.

I guess my lament is focused on people using hotspots to identify the set-dressing...

[Quintaros]

I've been thinking about this subject a fair amount lately.    I think that if one's graphics are well drawn enough that hotspots are identifiable than having a look interaction is kind of redundant.  However will a player know to use the radio if he got no interaction when he looked at the radio?  

In a way I don't like it when all hotspots are identified by name when the cursor is over it, especially if only hotspots that play a role in solving the game are identified.  To me it makes it a little too obvious that something is important.  A player need not know why something is important but just goes into trial and error mode with his inventory.  

[Timosity]

Personally I think every click should have some response, naming hotspots for unhandled events is important I think. I think it's pure laziness in game making not to go to the effort. (not necessarily a name on screen on mouse over hotspot)

I think people seem to want adventures that are too easy and logical these days, aren't these games about thought, it's what seperates adventures from other genres.

well that's my opinion

so to answer your question, I like non-interactive hotspots, too many AGS games have too few interactions which makes it quite boring a lot of the time, and makes me think Laziness.

[jannar85]

No, I prefer to be able to interact fully with the object/sprite, so it's a bummer AGS-users just creates the *actions* needed.

[big brother]

I think it adds depth to the game if you include hotspots that have no bearing on the game. They can enhance the atmosphere and give you insight to the main character's personality, especially if you have original comments when you try to interact with them.

[Mats Berglinn]

Well, if hotspots makes the character says something funny about them I think then they are ok. Like: In The Curse of Monkey Island, Guybrush looks at a porcelaine vase, he says: "More porcelaine! When will this nightmare end?". Don't guys agree that THAT is funny?

[Evil]

Speaking of Elaine, m girlfriend looks exactly like Elaine. I noticed it when she dressed up like a pirate for Halloween. I was like, "OH MY GOD! ITS LIKE MONKEY ISLAND!!!" She had no idea what I was talking about. I'll get a picture asap, its almost scary! Sorry about being off topic.

I like it when people make things hotspots in their games and have what they are at the bottomin text. Having hotspots like that are good but I dont like them as much when they have unhelpful interactions.

[Quintaros]

Most games seem to use the interacting with hotspots as comic relief.  But if you're not making a comedy then it can upset the tone of the game to put in zany descriptions of hotspots.  

[Squinky]

I am a hotspot freak when I make my games. I try to cover all interactions for all hotspots possible usaully and feel that a room is empty unless you can check it out....

So yeah, I like hotspots that aren't vital to the game, I think of it as finishing touches instead of an annoyance, because it bothers me to be in a room and not be able to interact with it...

[tamper]

What an interesting and surprising set of responses!

Coming off the heels of the previous AGS discussion about our love/hate relationship with puzzles, I'm surprised that many of us prefer a game mechanism that could make many puzzles more drawn-out and torturous.

I agree that descriptions of scenery items add texture to the game world, but I (for one) prefer efficiency in puzzle-solving so as to maintain an overall suspension of disbelief in the game.

As I say, these thoughts were initially prompted by replaying FoA. I tend to think LucasArts' decision to only label pertinent items was deliberate (rather than laziness) and I certainly wouldn't call the puzzles obvious...

But each to their own!

t

PS  - While I think of it Big Brother, the forest in Apprentice was another example of what I'm on about. Hands up how many people were trying to get into the forest?

Oh, just me then...

[Squinky]

I did try to get into that damned forest....I just figured that when they were making it they intended to use it for some puzzle, then changed their minds....but I enjoyed the fact that I was trying to get into it and then found out I couldn't ....Somehow thats entertainment to me...

[Nellie]

Oh right, if we're talking about hotspots that aren't directly related to solving puzzles, then yeah I want loads of them.  I love all that extra interaction stuff.

[Ytterbium]

Well, I thought you meant hotspots that have absolutely no possible interaction. Hotspots like the porcelain vases in Monkey Island are good.

By the way, I never played the first two Monkey Island games. What was the whole porcelain thing?

[Timosity]

By the way, I never played the first two Monkey Island games.

You lucky bastard, I'd give anything to play those 2 games fresh again. I'll just have to wait until I get dimentia and then I hope I remember to play them.

As I say, these thoughts were initially prompted by replaying FoA. I tend to think LucasArts' decision to only label pertinent items was deliberate (rather than laziness) and I certainly wouldn't call the puzzles obvious...

Yeah I know what you mean, I was thinking more on the lines of Amateur games that we make. At least FOA had thought behind the interactions rather than have none at all (not even look) until you happen to use the right object on the spot.

But all I'm saying is from a game making perspective, not having interactions is just easier to do, but to have the right one's is crucial.