Verb Coin vs two buttons

[migrator]

Hi everyone,

I know it is a common question, but i started to write all the basic routines (cursor changes and sprites, hotspot manageing, custom save/load, and so on) for a game based on a two buttons interface, but now, when i have  the main part of the work done, the main artist suggests me to use a verb coin interface instead. 'The two buttons is so easy and not inmersive, a guided trip without the freedom to experiment', he said.

The game is a classic adventure about story-based quest with a great central puzzle that encompasses it completely. A mixture between Broken Sword and Gabriel Knight 3.

I always thought it is necessary to eliminate superfluous verbs but i could addapt the script to a verb coin with 5 or 6 verbs.

What interface do you feel could be better for than kind of game?

I am open to any suggestion that help me to decide.

Thanks.

[Radiant]

Don't use verb coins. They get in the way of gameplay.

[CaptainD]

I agree with Radiant.  Also disagree with your artist - it's all about how you design the game.  Verb coins are immensely frustrating to use.

[Crimson Wizard]

That was discussed before, but in a nutshell I agree with opinion that it all depends on how often are you going to have sensible multiple actions for the same object.

This is same problem as with multi-verb interface (either classic Sierra or classic 9-verb Lucas Arts style): there are lots of available verbs, but in usual case only 2 are usable per object ("Look" and something else).

I do not have big experience designing games, but if I were in doubts I would go with "extended 2 buttons" mechanics: use 2-button interface as a base, and when you really need more verbs for some case, then display several icons upon left click to let player choose alternate action, or use another way to present these extra verbs.

[Radiant]

That was discussed before, but in a nutshell I agree with opinion that it all depends on how often are you going to have sensible multiple actions for the same object.

Actually, there's two distinct questions here.

Using more than two verbs is a matter of story design, and this depends on what kind of story you're writing.

Using a verb coin is a matter of interface design, and verb coins are a frustrating interface (and that's because they're not designed with the user in mind).

[Gurok]

Using more than two verbs is a matter of story design, and this depends on what kind of story you're writing.

I don't agree at all. At Sierra, they didn't write stories that could only be told with a parser or with point-and-click, and they frequently published the same title with both interfaces.

Using a verb coin is a matter of interface design, and verb coins are a frustrating interface (and that's because they're not designed with the user in mind).

What did you mean by the part I've highlighted? Can you elaborate?

I do not have big experience designing games, but if I were in doubts I would go with "extended 2 buttons" mechanics: use 2-button interface as a base, and when you really need more verbs for some case, then display several icons upon left click to let player choose alternate action, or use another way to present these extra verbs.

I like this approach and this is what I'm using for my current project. It has the up-shot that, if properly designed, it can also just flat-out be a verb coin interface. In fact, in my game, I have a "one button mode" that just leaves "Look at" in the list of verbs available for objects and disables the normal right-click action.

[migrator]

Thanks everybody,

I will continue with my two buttons UI with the posibility to extend it if necessary, as Crimson Wizard said,

All the adventure plot is designed for a two buttons UI then, why change it for one that most players do not like?

Thanks a lot.

[Snarky]

Using a verb coin is a matter of interface design, and verb coins are a frustrating interface (and that's because they're not designed with the user in mind).

What did you mean by the part I've highlighted? Can you elaborate?

At least some versions of the verb coin are objectively terrible, notably those where you can't just click, but have to hold down a button to bring up the coin. This is very user-unfriendly because someone who doesn't already know how to use it won't be able to figure it out using just the normal mouse operations, and because having to hold the button down puts more strain on your wrists. Some people with certain disabilities won't be able to control a game with such a UI, either. I'm also not a fan of verb coins that cover up the object you're supposed to be interacting with.

I do not have big experience designing games, but if I were in doubts I would go with "extended 2 buttons" mechanics: use 2-button interface as a base, and when you really need more verbs for some case, then display several icons upon left click to let player choose alternate action, or use another way to present these extra verbs.

Oftentimes, an inventory item can act as a special verb. For special interactions, it can also be quite satisfying to use a direct manipulation interface (e.g. where in order to cut a rope you have to "saw" at it with the mouse â€" an example from Resonance, which has a number of these), though that might also be a problem for people with physical disabilities to play.

[Radiant]

they frequently published the same title with both interfaces.

No they didn't. Wherever did you get that idea?

[cat]

If you consider porting the game to mobile devices, you can't have a two button UI, though...

[CaptainD]

If you consider porting the game to mobile devices, you can't have a two button UI, though...

AFAIK there are two realistic ways to emulate a 2-click interface on handheld devices - click / click and hold, or click / double click.  (I have no idea how well they actually work.)  For a game whose team I'm on we looked at a few different ideas and I have to admit that we've opted for a sort of hybrid one-click system for portability though.

[Gurok]

they frequently published the same title with both interfaces.

No they didn't. Wherever did you get that idea?

Police Quest 1, Leisure Suit Larry 1, Space Quest 1 and Quest for Glory 1.

[Radiant]

Police Quest 1, Leisure Suit Larry 1, Space Quest 1 and Quest for Glory 1.

Oh, you meant the remakes. That's quite different from publishing a game with two interfaces.

The thing is, Sierra didn't arbitrarily switch to an interface they found somewhere. Sierra designed that interface, to match with the kind of games they were writing. That is why it works for them; it wouldn't have worked for the average Infocom parser game, for example.

But if you're not in a position to popularize a new kind of interface (and let's face it, most of us don't have that amount of market penetration), then it doesn't make sense to publish a game with two interfaces. It will either lead to one of them feeling "tacked on" and being ignored by players, or to both of them feeling awkward.

[Gurok]

Police Quest 1, Leisure Suit Larry 1, Space Quest 1 and Quest for Glory 1.

Oh, you meant the remakes. That's quite different from publishing a game with two interfaces.

It is quite different, but I never meant they published one game where you could switch between interfaces, if that's what you're getting at.

Sierra designed that interface, to match with the kind of games they were writing.

In the sense that they designed an interface that would work with adventure games, yes.

That is why it works for them; it wouldn't have worked for the average Infocom parser game, for example.

Could you have the nuances of interaction that a parser allowed? Maybe not.
Could you tell one of Infocom's stories? I think so, certainly.
There was an AGS adaptation of H2G2 published a while ago. To me, verb count doesn't factor into it.

[Radiant]

In the sense that they designed an interface that would work with adventure games, yes.

That's circular reasoning.

There was an AGS adaptation of H2G2 published a while ago.

Right. It has poor to mediocre ratings, whereas the Infocom original is a widely-praised bestseller with two anniversary editions. If anything that underlines my point. To you personally, it doesn't factor; to the audience at large, it clearly does.

[Gurok]

In the sense that they designed an interface that would work with adventure games, yes.

That's circular reasoning.

I was agreeing with you in part. So if you think so, fine. And regarding H2G2 or Infocom adaptations, "worked" can mean a variety of things. It won't necessarily result in a surefire hit, but it is possible.

Radiant, you sound very confrontational.

I initially quoted your post because I thought you might have some verb coin research you could point to. I am always open to new ideas and I hadn't heard someone describe a verb coin that way before. My qualifications tell me that they ARE designed with the user in mind. Snarky answered as I would have -- that certain design choices can make them bad. I hadn't heard people describe verb coins in general being bad. I have heard people comparing radial menus favourably to lists, but nothing insurmountable against them.

You seem to jump from point to point, never answering my question. So yes, I "give up". I wasn't here to have a multi-post argument with you.

Feel free to rebut this. I won't continue. I don't think it's worth the two of us discussing this further.

[Danvzare]

Here my two cents on the subject.
Two buttons are much easier to code for, and streamlines the game much more thus adding focus in my opinion.
But you can do so much more with a Verb Coin.

Let me give you an example. On Day of the Tentacle, there's a puzzle where you have to push Nurse Edna down the stairs. How would you do that with a two button system? Left click would talk to her, and right click would look at her. But with a verb coin with a mouth, hand, and eyeball, you could easily have the player either talk to her, look at her, OR push her. In short, Day of the Tentacle could never be converted to a two button system.

Personally, for this reason I prefer Verb Coins. You're much more open to making more engaging and unique puzzles.
But like I said before, Verb Coins are a nightmare to program. And I feel as though the age old argument about a two button system making the game too easy, is stupid. The Broken Sword games were far from being easy.
And besides, each inventory item you have is basically a potential verb action.
For these reasons I would choose the two button system over a Verb Coin, despite preferring the Verb Coin.

If you were to go with a Verb Coin though, I'd recommend looking at Zak McKracken: Between Time and Space, which had a context sensitive verb coin, where only the actions you can use would be highlighted.

[Radiant]

Well, what did you mean by "worked" exactly? It was certainly possible. I didn't say it was the path to a surefire hit.

But that's precisely the catch. Yes, a mismatched interface can "work" with any game. The point is that a fitting interface works better.

There are so many games available online that players can and will discard a game almost instantly it if they find the interface awkward. It's certainly possible to make a game like that, but using a fitting interface will get you a much bigger audience.

Let me give you an example. On Day of the Tentacle, there's a puzzle where you have to push Nurse Edna down the stairs. How would you do that with a two button system?

What you're actually saying here is that you prefer a game with more than two verbs. Not that you prefer a game with a verb coin. That's an important distinction.

[cat]

Using more than two verbs is a matter of story design, and this depends on what kind of story you're writing.

I have to agree with Gurok that this is not true. It is not a matter of story design. It does not matter if the story is about pirates, dragons or laser swords, funny or serious or scary. What matters indeed, is the game and puzzle design. Want it casual, more story driven? Use less verbs. Want it more difficult or interactive? Use more verbs or better yet, a text parser.

Ideally, game/puzzle/interface design should go hand in hand. You think about the possible puzzles and gameplay then decide on an interface. And with the interface in mind, you can come up with more puzzles taking advantage of the interface.

[Radiant]

It does not matter if the story is about pirates, dragons or laser swords, funny or serious or scary.

Indeed, the design of the story is unrelated to the subject of the story.

Want it casual, more story driven? Use less verbs. Want it more difficult or interactive? Use more verbs

That is precisely what I mean by story design.

[Crimson Wizard]

Let me give you an example. On Day of the Tentacle, there's a puzzle where you have to push Nurse Edna down the stairs. How would you do that with a two button system?

Idea: have different hotspots for Edna and chair. Clicking on Edna will talk to her, clicking on the chair will push the chair.
You can make player push into particular direction depending on character relative position, or cursor position.

Use dynamic cursor change to indicate different actions (or text hint) as player hovers mouse over Edna and chair.

[Danvzare]

Let me give you an example. On Day of the Tentacle, there's a puzzle where you have to push Nurse Edna down the stairs. How would you do that with a two button system?

What you're actually saying here is that you prefer a game with more than two verbs. Not that you prefer a game with a verb coin. That's an important distinction.

Not exactly, you see Verb Coins rarely if ever have actual verbs. They usually have icons that can represent any number of possible verbs related to those icons. Unlike most other systems (I'm aware that some games used icons rather than words without using a Verb Coin, look to my next point for why I still like Verb Coins).
Also, Verb Coins usually don't take any screen space until you're interacting with something, unlike similar interfaces such as the 9-Verb System.
They also allow you to just click on a thing and interact with it straight away, much like a two button system. There's no need to go to one end of the screen and then to the other.

In my opinion, Verb Coins are the perfect balance to give you full screen space, while giving you the option to do more than two actions. Of course there's other ways to do that, but I feel as though the Verb Coin perfected it.

Also, I love that idea CW. I suppose it is possible with a two button system. The only question is, is it better?
Personally, I don't know. I think that depends on the person.

[ThreeOhFour]

I don't like static verb coins, like Curse of Monkey Island or Full Throttle, especially when you have to hold the mouse button down.

I do like context sensitive dynamic "verb coins", like in The Sims and Windows OS right click menus.

Having static verb selections feels like a limiting choice to me in games about environmental exploration, which some adventure games like to focus on. I prefer the idea of a list of unique verbs per object, as we often expect from character interactions.

[migrator]

What a debate!!

The two buttons UI i coded and seems my artist partner do not likes was an object-sensitive like one.
With the RMB you always «look at» and with LMB you always walk. But, when over a hotspot/object/character the cursor automatically changes to the action you can perform over it (take/examine/talk/interact) just in that moment. Some time you can examine an item and later the action you perform could be to take it.

This is what my main artist doesn't like. He prefers an interface that offers the player several actions to choose instead of being the game the one who do it. He wants to give the player rhe option to be wrong.

[cat]

But what happens if the player chooses the wrong option? Will something game relevant happen? Or is there just a message like "I can't do that". In the second case, the player does not have more options, just more work to do (by clicking useless GUI buttons). But the reason I use computers is, that I want THEM to do my work...

[Radiant]

But what happens if the player chooses the wrong option? Will something game relevant happen? Or is there just a message like "I can't do that". In the second case, the player does not have more options, just more work to do (by clicking useless GUI buttons). But the reason I use computers is, that I want THEM to do my work...

Precisely. "Giving the player the option to be wrong" is just frustrating to the player, and doesn't make your game any better. Giving the player more room to explore is a good idea, but you don't accomplish that by simply adding more verbs.

[Crimson Wizard]

My opinion is aligned with the two above .

I would say, it may be better variant to give player an alternate path of walking through the game, possibly with "less good" ending, or missing some interesting parts if they are not attentive enough.

With more verbs but not more sensible results that will be similar to making a 3d action level with 100 paths, 99 of which are leading to quick dead-end. It's pretending that the game has more options, while it does not.

[ThreeOhFour]

Giving the player more room to explore is a good idea, but you don't accomplish that by simply adding more verbs.

Simply speaking, perhaps not, but surely you can appreciate that it's one method by which it can be achieved.

In this case, though, while I appreciate the sentiment of your artist, I think the choice should be the designer's. I agree that adding random "wrong" things won't make a game more satisfying, you should really only add more verbs if you know you're going to be using them for gameplay things. It shouldn't be something you add lightly, on some ideal, but something you add with specific design in mind. Your ideas should be enabled by your interface, rather than having them conform to one, I think.

[Radiant]

Simply speaking, perhaps not, but surely you can appreciate that it's one method by which it can be achieved.

Actually, no I don't. In order to actually add to gameplay, a verb needs to (1) meaningfully contribute to a number of puzzles, (2) get a non-trivial response from a large number of hotspots, and (3) be convenient to the player (which on a verbcoin it won't be). Otherwise you're just adding complexity for its own sake.

[ThreeOhFour]

Sure, hence why I promote dynamic, unique sets of verbs per hotspot.

[Danvzare]

In order to actually add to gameplay, a verb needs to (1) meaningfully contribute to a number of puzzles, (2) get a non-trivial response from a large number of hotspots, and (3) be convenient to the player (which on a verbcoin it won't be). Otherwise you're just adding complexity for its own sake.

I completely agree here. Well except for the part where it isn't convenient on a verbcoin. After all, it's just one extra click. Sure it's not quite as convenient as the two button system, but it's the second closest thing to convenient in my opinion.
It's certainly more convenient than having to go to the corner of the screen to choose from a list of 9 verbs, or having to right click to scroll through a list of possible actions until you get the correct one, or even having to type in the action.
Please name an interface other than the two button system, that's more convenient than a verb coin.

This is what my main artist doesn't like. He prefers an interface that offers the player several actions to choose instead of being the game the one who do it. He wants to give the player rhe option to be wrong.

Well considering almost everyone here, (including me to an extent) are all recommending the two button system (mostly for different reasons), and we're all very experienced adventure gamers here, I think it's safe to say that the reasons your artist think a two button system is bad, are not true.
What's the point of being able to choose the wrong option? You're not going to try to talk to a door or pick up a person. So unless you've got puzzles planned around a verbcoin (which it doesn't sound like it, since you've started with a two button system), then I think it's clear putting in a verbcoin will be superfluous.

But if you really want to make your artist happy, and don't mind the ton of extra work. You could add an option to the menu that allows you to switch between a sensible two button system, or an effectively useless verbcoin, a bit like Randal's Monday did.
I don't recommend it though. I'm just putting it out there.

[Jared]

Simply speaking, perhaps not, but surely you can appreciate that it's one method by which it can be achieved.

Actually, no I don't. In order to actually add to gameplay, a verb needs to (1) meaningfully contribute to a number of puzzles, (2) get a non-trivial response from a large number of hotspots, and (3) be convenient to the player (which on a verbcoin it won't be). Otherwise you're just adding complexity for its own sake.

This is the aspect of the two-button argument I don't get, speaking as somebody who likes verb coins and other older interfaces that offer choices. To me, complexity for it's own sake sums up the classic adventure game experience in a way. I mean, most people who talk about liking adventure games will talk about the backstory, the setting, and the characters. The puzzles will come up obviously (especially in games like Day of the Tentacle) but most of the plot is fluff from a technical standpoint, because it isn't related to the gameplay. Being able to go through 30 lines of dialogue with some random guy in a bar is complexity for the sake of complexity. But that conversation, while extraneous, could be several peoples' favourite part of the whole game.

I don't see the verbcoin as inconvenient at all, either. It's a quarter-of-a-second click versus holding LMB for a half second.

[Babar]

I think the point that is being misunderstood is that people are framing this as a 'simplicity of the 2 button interface vs the complexity of the verbcoin' argument, when in fact, as I understand it, Radiant (and my) opinion is more that people might (according to the story they're constructing) prefer the simplicity of 2 button, or they may opt for something more complex, but totally OUTSIDE of that discussion, and not related to it, the verbcoin is simply a bad method of interaction, to the point where I'd personally even say having a permanent onscreen verb list (like the early Monkey Island games) is preferable if you want to go for something with a little more interactive complexity.

[cat]

Honestly, I don't think the verbcoin per se is bad. It is terrible if you have to hold down the mouse button to activate the verbcoin but it's okay if you just have to click once to show the verbcoin and click once more to select the option.
Verbcoin also does not say anything about what verbs to be shown. They can be even context sensitive.

I think with the increasing popularity of mobile gaming, left-right-click will soon be rather obsolete.

[Radiant]

I don't see the verbcoin as inconvenient at all, either. It's a quarter-of-a-second click versus holding LMB for a half second.

But many people do. Case in point,

the verbcoin is simply a bad method of interaction, to the point where I'd personally even say having a permanent onscreen verb list (like the early Monkey Island games)

It is terrible if you have to hold down the mouse button to activate the verbcoin

This is what UX and interface design is about. Programmers always like and understand their own interface, but if numerous other people don't like it, then the reality is that you either change it or you lose your audience. It's not just adventure games; for example, if you design a platform game and people dislike your jump physics (e.g. because you haven't considered subpixels or inertia) then they're going to play something else. There's plenty of games in the bit bucket that are forgotten merely because the programmer didn't account for user feedback.

[cat]

I'd still be interested in hearing what you don't like about verb coins (and I don't mean those where you have to hold down the mouse button) and what other input method you would suggest that doesn't rely on having a right mouse button.

[Babar]

I'd still be interested in hearing what you don't like about verb coins (and I don't mean those where you have to hold down the mouse button) and what other input method you would suggest that doesn't rely on having a right mouse button.

It isn't just the having to hold down the mouse. A verbcoin usually hides whatever you want to interact with, which I think is ridiculous. And having it stay on screen without holding down the mouse brings it's own issues- for example, accidentally clicking it open means you have to close it before being able to do anything else. And if you have to do this all with only 1 button (as you are suggesting, to cater to mobile- which I think really should have its own separate interface, and not a shared one), that makes things even more complicated.

[Radiant]

I'd still be interested in hearing what you don't like about verb coins (and I don't mean those where you have to hold down the mouse button)

Fair point. The main issue is that they overlap the game screen, which is your connection with the game world. On the one hand, a permanently visible menu on the side of the screen is more immersive than a temporary menu that appears whenever you're trying to do something (and on top of the thing you wanted to do). On the other hand, a button with a fixed location on the screen is more convenient to the player than a button relative to where the cursor currently is.

Aside from that, almost every verbcoin I've seen is badly implemented, in that it (1) requires the awkward click-hold-drag-release sequence, and/or (2) doesn't have hotkeys, and/or (3) is designed with no regard for visual clarity, and/or (4) gives no meaningful reactions for most verb/hotspot combinations.

and what other input method you would suggest that doesn't rely on having a right mouse button.

You can go a long way by having just left click (for basic action) and having lots of items that are effectively verb substitutes. Bear in mind that in most Sierra interfaces, easily 95% of all "hand icon" and "mouth icon" interactions are just vaguely-joking variations of "you cannot take / talk to that".

[cat]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, guys!

[Danvzare]

I don't see the verbcoin as inconvenient at all, either. It's a quarter-of-a-second click versus holding LMB for a half second.

But many people do. Case in point,

But how on earth is it inconvenient?
It's about as inconvenient as having to pick up a remote control. Sure everyone complains about it being inconvenient, but in actual fact it's actually a very convenient device to have. Not as convenient as mind control, but still pretty convenient.
And I once again raise you the question, name me an adventure game interface that isn't the Two-Button System, that's more convenient than the verbcoin.
I think I've already explained why the verbcoin is at least the second most convenient interface for adventure games.

It isn't just the having to hold down the mouse. A verbcoin usually hides whatever you want to interact with, which I think is ridiculous.

True, but if you've clicked on it, you probably already know what you're interacting with. So why would you need to see it?
Plus the verbcoin could be made transparent, or have a huge hole in the middle. I guess I kind of get your point though, even though I don't see it as a problem.

[Snarky]

A verbcoin usually hides whatever you want to interact with, which I think is ridiculous.

This isn't a necessary part of the design, though. Some games do a better job of avoiding it than others â€" The Longest Journey, for example, has a "verb coin" that is a curved menu above left of where you clicked, so it at least doesn't cover up the whole hotspot. Full Throttle does a pretty good job actually "framing" the hotspot with the verb coin, giving an almost focus-like effect, as long as it's not off to the edge of the screen so that the menu has to be offset (or the hotspot is too big to fit in the center region, so you only see some unidentifiable detail). Both of them also show the hotspot label while the verb coin is up, which also helps tremendously.

One of my big complaints about verb coins is that they tend to be visually very busy and imposing. Curse of Monkey Island and Full Throttle are both at fault here (The Longest Journey is much more discreet), and there are even worse examples, like Normality. Again, it's not a necessary part of the design, but it does seem to be very common.

When not tastefully designed, the verbcoin UI is very much "in your face": it draws too much attention to itself and breaks the "flow" and immersion in the game world. The two-button UI, on the other hand, is entirely transparent: once you've learned it, you can almost forget about the fact that you're interacting via specific mouse controls and not just willing events to happen. Even the old LucasArts GUI has something of the same. Yeah, it takes up a chunk of the screen, but you don't have to pay it any attention because it just sits there quietly.

[Radiant]

I think I've already explained why the verbcoin is at least the second most convenient interface for adventure games.

No, you haven't. The point you're missing is that design isn't about what's convenient to you personally, but about what's convenient to your players. As before, there's plenty of games in the bit bucket that are forgotten merely because the programmer didn't account for user feedback.

[Snarky]

To be fair, no one here has established what is most convenient to players in general. Some criticisms are objective but avoidable (need to hold down button), while others are subjective trade-offs which some of us dislike while others think they are better than the alternatives.

[Danvzare]

I think I've already explained why the verbcoin is at least the second most convenient interface for adventure games.

No, you haven't.

I have!

Verb Coins usually don't take any screen space until you're interacting with something, unlike similar interfaces such as the 9-Verb System.
They also allow you to just click on a thing and interact with it straight away, much like a two button system. There's no need to go to one end of the screen and then to the other.

In my opinion, Verb Coins are the perfect balance to give you full screen space, while giving you the option to do more than two actions. Of course there's other ways to do that, but I feel as though the Verb Coin perfected it.

It's you who haven't explained why the verbcoin is so inconvenient, or why what I've said is incorrect.

The point you're missing is that design isn't about what's convenient to you personally, but about what's convenient to your players.

Exactly. And it seems very clear to me that the verbcoin is merely inconvenient to you and not to players.
Hardly anyone has ever complained about the verbcoin in Curse of Monkey Island or Full Throttle, both of which are considered masterpieces and cemented the verbcoin as a standard interface in adventure games. People even wanted a verbcoin implemented on Grim Fandango when they heard it was getting a remaster!

[Radiant]

It's you who haven't explained why the verbcoin is so inconvenient, or why what I've said is incorrect.

You're funny. Please read the last dozen posts in this thread.

[Danvzare]

It's you who haven't explained why the verbcoin is so inconvenient, or why what I've said is incorrect.

You're funny. Please read the last dozen posts in this thread.

Alright then, let's agree to disagree.
Clearly I'm not going to ever convince you that the verbcoin is overall a pretty decent interface, and you're never going to convince me (although you've not really been trying) that the verbcoin is a horrible interface.

It seems that whether you like or dislike the interface, is entirely subjective and down to the individual.
It also seems as though half the people in this thread are on one side, while the other half is on the other side.

Something we all seem to agree on though, is that the two-button system is better. Although our reasons for that seem to vary greatly.

[cat]

Something we all seem to agree on though, is that the two-button system is better. Although our reasons for that seem to vary greatly.

No, we don't.

Edit: I just want add, I love the discussion here - so much valuable input to consider.

[Snarky]

Something we all seem to agree on though, is that the two-button system is better. Although our reasons for that seem to vary greatly.

I'd like to add to cat's point that I don't buy the reasons you've given:

Here my two cents on the subject.
Two buttons are much easier to code for, and streamlines the game much more thus adding focus in my opinion.
But you can do so much more with a Verb Coin.

Personally, for this reason I prefer Verb Coins. You're much more open to making more engaging and unique puzzles.
But like I said before, Verb Coins are a nightmare to program.

Verb coins are not that difficult to program, and AGS comes with a ready-made template: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=32745.0

[Cassiebsg]

Guess that depends if you like the ready-made template... I didn't and then changed to monkey's, but it still wasn't acting like I wanted it to, so I ended up using monkey's code to understand how to make my own. Mine has a still a few issues I have yet to solve, so still a bit room to improve.

And if you wondering why I changed the verbcoin, was actually cause of all the stuff ppl have mentioned here, about their dislike for the verbcoin. I hated to have to continue pressing the mouse and then hit the verb (and master not no exit the GUI or is would close), so I made mine a 2 click-verbcoin combo. Left mouse = walk, right mouse = open verbcoin. Made it so that is only shows up actions that available to that hotspot/object/character to avoid having all the annoying "I can't do that." default reply. To close the verbcoin, you can either click away somewhere else, or right click again. I think it's working pretty decently and haven't heard any complains about it from the testers (those that gave feedback, anyway).

Personally I for one, don't particularly like the 2 button, mostly cause you only have 2 options... walk or do something else which normally give easy games... though good puzzles and game design can overcome this problem, that you won't even notice what interface you're using.

[Crimson Wizard]

I frankly would not compare controls by how easy it is to script them, because that's lazy programming. Controls are for players, so usability should be on first place (invent good idea first, think about how to program it later).

[Snarky]

Personally I for one, don't particularly like the 2 button, mostly cause you only have 2 options... walk or do something else which normally give easy games... though good puzzles and game design can overcome this problem, that you won't even notice what interface you're using.

To be precise, the standard 2-button UI supports four different types of actions:

-Walk (click on an exit or anywhere that's not a hotspot)
-Look (right-click on a hotspot)
-Context-sensitive action (left-click on a hotspot)
-Use inventory item (left-click on a hotspot while equipped with inventory item)

Compared to the most common set of verbs for either the Sierra multi-cursor UI or static verb coins, the only real difference in expressivity is that the two-button UI combines the "Hand" (physical interaction) and "Mouth" (speak) actions into a single verb. In other words, it only makes a gameplay difference if it's not obvious from context whether talk or interact is the right verb for some hotspot, or if you can do both. In reality, puzzles where this is done well are rare enough that we're still citing the same couple of examples (Push Edna/Sophia â€" both from games that use an entirely different UI, BTW) twenty years later.

[Radiant]

I frankly would not compare controls by how easy it is to script them, because that's lazy programming. Controls are for players, so usability should be on first place (invent good idea first, think about how to program it later).

Indeed. Furthermore, with interface design, you shouldn't pick the interface that most people like. Rather, pick the one that the least people dislike. Why? Because if people see an interface they like, they're not even going to comment on it; whereas if they see an interface they'll dislike, they'll go play something else almost immediately.

[cat]

The thing is, it also differs what people like/dislike. I, for example, dislike the old sierra GUI. I find it very inconvenient.

The two button interface is very convenient but unusable for mobile and you have to add a description or tutorial on how to use it because people not used to it (i.e. almost everyone who does not frequently play recent AGS games) don't understand that they can even use the right mouse button. Despite the name, people don't read readmes.
Same for the hold-down-mouse-for-verbcoin GUI. I once rage-quit a game because I didn't understand how the GUI is supposed to work. And when finally finding out, I was so angry I couldn't be bothered to try it again.
The single-click verbcoin and LA onscreen verbs on the other hand are rather self-explanatory.

[CaesarCub]

The thing is, it also differs what people like/dislike. I, for example, dislike the old sierra GUI. I find it very inconvenient.

I always hated on the Sierra GUI the fact that the items were on a different window, making it cumbersome to select an item to use, but I like the hidden menu that gives more game screen. This is why the AGS games I have made use something like the Sierra GUI but with the items next to the verbs, just like Lucas did.

When it comes to Two Buttons, I always feel that it takes away from the posibilites of interaction. On one hand it takes away the plethora of "You cannot do that" messages the user get. On the other hand, I feel it takes away form the exploration, since items suddenly have only two interactions possible, and it can encourage users to just click on everything in hopes of making the story advance instead of trying to reason what makes sense to do.

I have also my issues with the verb coin, several already listed here. It can get in the way of the user, hiding what you are clicking on, or use the mouse in ways most users are not expecting in this kind of games (dragging, double clicks, or timed pressing).

I'm actually toying around with a proof of concept, to see if I can find a way of making verb coins that I would like to use myself.
I found interesting the idea of having them on a right click as a list, showing to the side of the hotspot, with a contextualised list of verbs, and have it close by itself if the mouse gets too far away from it or if the users clicks outside.

One way or the other, I'm really enjoying this topic and all the valuable information that comes from it.

[cat]

I'm actually toying around with a proof of concept, to see if I can find a way of making verb coins that I would like to use myself.
I found interesting the idea of having them on a right click as a list, showing to the side of the hotspot, with a contextualised list of verbs, and have it close by itself if the mouse gets too far away from it or if the users clicks outside.

I once made a game with a context sensitive verb list (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/1359/) and people seemed to like it. I'd love to see what you come up with. Maybe you could try it in a new MAGS game - I'd play it

[Danvzare]

One way or the other, I'm really enjoying this topic and all the valuable information that comes from it.

Same here.

[migrator]

Now I have more doubts than I had at the beginning of this topic.

I really understand what my partner means, but I do not want a gui that only serves to difficult the progress, I want a gui that suits the needs of the game. The gui is a tool and has to be there to serve the player who does not have to notice about it.

I have two options: to leave the two buttons or to rethink the gui so that the game does not "think" for the player, to give him more freedom but without being uncomfortable, which is what most think of verb coin.

Difficult task I have ahead.

Thank you all for this very interesting conversation.

[Gurok]

To be fair, no one here has established what is most convenient to players in general. Some criticisms are objective but avoidable (need to hold down button), while others are subjective trade-offs which some of us dislike while others think they are better than the alternatives.

I don't think criticism of a button needing to be held down is objective. We're in consensus, but it's still people saying it feels bad.

If you want to look at what is objectively convenient, you could perhaps start with Fitts' law. It would give very high marks to the verb coin (due to proximity), reasonably high marks to the Sierra UI (because screen edges have infinite width), and poor marks to the Lucasarts verb menu. There are other things working in favour of the verb coin. The items are arranged in a fairly equidistant fashion. Studies have shown that this arrangement is faster to use than a linear one. Most verb coins make good use of spatial memory -- the look verb is always in the same position. Also, the shorter the total distance a UI covers, the fewer saccades are necessary to scan it. i.e. The less work your eyes have to do.

It's not really applicable to the two-button UI, but we could say it has zero impedance when it comes to Fitts' law. Spatial memory is again, avoided entirely. The memory load is much smaller overall. The limitations of the UI actually work in its favour too -- a limited number of choices makes it exponentially faster to use. Assuming normal discoverability of the secondary click and normal operation, it is the frontrunner when it comes to convenience.

I don't have a personal interest in saying that two-button is the best, or that verb coin is the second best. This is just how I've found it to be. I'm a Sierra guy through and through. I would love it if research showed their UI to be somehow superior.

Before people pull me up on "studies have shown", this is a really good study on radial v/s linear:
https://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/papers/Callahan1988empirical.pdf
The key name in the list of authors is Ben Shneiderman, who went on to devise the rather famous 8 golden rules of user interface design.

I have two options: to leave the two buttons or to rethink the gui so that the game does not "think" for the player, to give him more freedom but without being uncomfortable, which is what most think of verb coin.

My advice would be to leave it for now. It's ideal to do things like puzzle and UI design in parallel, but it's not a requirement. If you find that the UI poses problems, redesigning things at a late stage would be bothersome, but not impossible. Space Quest 4, for instance, was a parser-based game for about half its life.

More to the point, I think you are right and your artist isn't.

[Snarky]

I don't think criticism of a button needing to be held down is objective. We're in consensus, but it's still people saying it feels bad.

There are at least four objective criticisms of the requirement to hold down the mouse button (effectively a drag operation):

- Dragging is more effortful than pointing and clicking, and increases carpal tunnel strain (Keir et al., 1999)
- Dragging is slower and has a higher error rate than pointing and clicking (MacKenzie, Sellen & Buxton, 1991)
- Dragging is particularly difficult (sometimes impossible) for users with motor impairments - it ruins the game's accessibility for such players (Trewin & Pain, 1996)
- Holding down a mouse button to make a menu appear is a non-standard (and hence unintuitive) interaction on the desktop; a similar gesture is relatively standard on touch screens, but has often been criticized for its poor discoverability (Norman & Tognazzini, 2015) and for high difficulty and error rates (e.g. McKnight & Fitton, 2010)

The benefit of predictable positioning is negated if, as is quite often the case, the verb coin has to be shifted when interacting with items on the edge of the screen.

The LucasArts UI has poorer Fitts' Law performance (though it can be improved by placing frequently-used actions on the screen edge), but excellent discoverability and feedback. Expert users are expected to use the keyboard shortcuts, anyway. Also, some verb coins (though I think usually the click-to-open kind) disappear if the cursor moves outside the menu, a Fitts' Law nightmare.

[Radiant]

The gui is a tool and has to be there to serve the player who does not have to notice about it.

Precisely. And that's the most important law of GUI design.

Oh, here's another interesting angle. The way the English language works is that the verb comes before the object (noun). So to players, it feels more natural to construct a command by clicking "look" and then "tree" (to have their character look at the tree), instead of the inverse ("tree" then "look"). Most players won't consciously note this, but will feel that the former is intuitive and the latter is not.

Note how the Sierra GUI enforces the natural sentence, how the LucasArts GUI allows both the natural sentence and its inverse, and how the verbcoin forces the inverse and does not allow the natural.

[Gurok]

I don't think criticism of a button needing to be held down is objective. We're in consensus, but it's still people saying it feels bad.

There are at least four objective criticisms of the requirement to hold down the mouse button (effectively a drag operation):

Right, I should have said the criticism up until now, in this thread. Those are objective, but "it feels bad" or "I don't like it" isn't.

[Radiant]

Right, I should have said the criticism up until now, in this thread. Those are objective, but "it feels bad" or "I don't like it" isn't.

Bear in mind that this goes both ways. Most of the praise of verb coins doesn't go any further than "I like it" or "It looks pretty", neither of which is objective.

(conversely, there have been numerous objective objections as early as the first page. But you don't like them )

[Danvzare]

Oh, here's another interesting angle. The way the English language works is that the verb comes before the object (noun). So to players, it feels more natural to construct a command by clicking "look" and then "tree" (to have their character look at the tree), instead of the inverse ("tree" then "look"). Most players won't consciously note this, but will feel that the former is intuitive and the latter is not.

Note how the Sierra GUI enforces the natural sentence, how the LucasArts GUI allows both the natural sentence and its inverse, and how the verbcoin forces the inverse and does not allow the natural.

That... is a very good point.
Although now it makes me question how unintuitive the LucasArts GUI is in other languages.
And thus also how intuitive the Verbcoin must feel in other languages.

[CaesarCub]

Oh, here's another interesting angle. The way the English language works is that the verb comes before the object (noun). So to players, it feels more natural to construct a command by clicking "look" and then "tree" (to have their character look at the tree), instead of the inverse ("tree" then "look"). Most players won't consciously note this, but will feel that the former is intuitive and the latter is not.

Note how the Sierra GUI enforces the natural sentence, how the LucasArts GUI allows both the natural sentence and its inverse, and how the verbcoin forces the inverse and does not allow the natural.

That... is a very good point.
Although now it makes me question how unintuitive the LucasArts GUI is in other languages.
And thus also how intuitive the Verbcoin must feel in other languages.

Unless I'm forgetting anything, all Latin based languages do have the basic [subject][verb][noun] logic. And if I'm not mistaken so does German and even Chinese.
A quick Google translate session shows me that Japanese on the other hand uses a less common [subject][noun][verb] configuration.
So the LA GUI seems to be quite intuitive for most western languages at least, with exceptions showing up as we go east.

[Cassiebsg]

Honestly, don't see it as intuitive or not-intuitive. At least my brain doesn't make up a sentence but associates ideas... I can see at a tree and then decide I want to lay behind it, climb it or just look closer at it. I don't immediate think "I want to look at..." and then scan to see decide what I want to look at... This is at least how my brain works.
When I'm playing any game, I scan with eyes the BG, then decide I want to look at X, thus find the appropriate action before I choose the action. So don't know how this is even remotely a point.
I actually find my self cursing slightly, to not be able to select the noun before I go find the verb in the 9 verb LA UI... because I've already decided that I want to look at that, and often is the mouse closer to where I want to look or interact with than it is with the verb.

[Radiant]

I actually find my self cursing slightly, to not be able to select the noun before I go find the verb in the 9 verb LA UI...

A number of Lucasarts games allow you to do precisely that, supporting both word orders.

[Snarky]

Only, as far as I can tell, the early ones (Maniac Mansion, Zak, Last Crusade, maybe early versions of Monkey Island), before they eliminated the "Walk" verb.

[cat]

I can see at a tree and then decide I want to lay behind it, climb it or just look closer at it. I don't immediate think "I want to look at..." and then scan to see decide what I want to look at... This is at least how my brain works.

This is a very interesting aspect that I think is very true and is probably language independent.


I was at AdventureX last weekend and saw and tried many different new and upcoming games that were showcased.
Guess what, none of them used either left-right click or LA-verbs (let alone that terrible Sierra GUI). They were all using either single click interface or verb coin (and I think those two were distributed about 50:50 for point and click adventures. Of course, most of them were also showcased on mobile devices.

My conclusion: Single click or verb coin is the way to go for the next years.

[CaesarCub]

Guess what, none of them used either left-right click or LA-verbs (let alone that terrible Sierra GUI). They were all using either single click interface or verb coin (and I think those two were distributed about 50:50 for point and click adventures. Of course, most of them were also showcased on mobile devices.

I think that is the main reason. With mobile gaming support becoming a must, creating interfaces that can be dealt with only one button (be it with double taps, holds, or hold and drag) become more common.
But honestly I think this is a mistake. If your game is going to be published in different platforms, you should give each the best UI controls they can have, instead of going for a lower common denominator.
That is, take advantage of keyboard shortcuts and mouses with two (three) buttons (and a wheel) in the platforms you have them.
Then again this does mean an overhead of thinking your game through with several UIs in mind.

[Radiant]

But honestly I think this is a mistake. If your game is going to be published in different platforms, you should give each the best UI controls they can have, instead of going for a lower common denominator.
That is, take advantage of keyboard shortcuts and mouses with two (three) buttons (and a wheel) in the platforms you have them.

Precisely. For example, on any platform that has a keyboard, there is no excuse for omitting keyboard shortcuts (and it's not like they're hard to implement or anything). It keeps surprising me how many developers overlook that.

[Andail]

Unless I'm forgetting anything, all Latin based languages do have the basic [subject][verb][noun] logic. And if I'm not mistaken so does German and even Chinese.
A quick Google translate session shows me that Japanese on the other hand uses a less common [subject][noun][verb] configuration.

Just to nit-pick: Don't use 'subject' and 'noun' in the same context; the former is a clause element and the latter a word class, which in turn can be both objects and subjects. It's like saying your cart was drawn by both horses and animals.

On-topic:
For WOAM, we're going for just a single click for everything. We're not even using right-click to look; instead things that cannot be interacted with are automatically looked at, and things that are ambiguous or need special warning or some kind of prompting ("you can kick the mule if you wish to") will give that first and then the interaction on the second click.

I've found it kind of boring to routinely click "look" at every single hotspot in a room, just to read/listen to the author's attempt at dressing all these objects in interesting or humorous descriptions.

And also because it will be easy to port it to mobiles.

[cat]

But honestly I think this is a mistake. If your game is going to be published in different platforms, you should give each the best UI controls they can have, instead of going for a lower common denominator.

I can only partly agree. The interface is not only a mean of communication with the game, it has also a big impact on the game design itself. So, while of course it is reasonable to do some adjustments for touch application (larger hotspots and buttons, verbcoin instead of sierra style verbs,...) or M&K (keyboard shortcuts, use right mousebutton to deselect inventory,...) there HAS to be a common denominator.

For example, the number of verbs/actions has a huge impact on gameplay. If you have a left-right click interface on M&K and switch to touch using only single click, you will loose a lot of content. Of course you could go one step further and also make different gameplay for different devices, but at one point the question will arise: How much effort is this worth to put into?

[cat]

I've found it kind of boring to routinely click "look" at every single hotspot in a room, just to read/listen to the author's attempt at dressing all these objects in interesting or humorous descriptions.

This makes me think about another option: what about not making the character look at an object and then telling what he saw to the player, but instead have the PLAYER take a closer look by providing closeups? I've seen this in various games and it is very exiting. Of course, this also means a lot more work for the artist...

[Danvzare]

I've found it kind of boring to routinely click "look" at every single hotspot in a room, just to read/listen to the author's attempt at dressing all these objects in interesting or humorous descriptions.

Looking can be a solution to a puzzle as well you know.
That's not an excuse to use a two button system over a one button system. I just wanted to point out that the look command can and has been used for more than just useless descriptions.

[Andail]

I've found it kind of boring to routinely click "look" at every single hotspot in a room, just to read/listen to the author's attempt at dressing all these objects in interesting or humorous descriptions.

Looking can be a solution to a puzzle as well you know.
That's not an excuse to use a two button system over a one button system. I just wanted to point out that the look command can and has been used for more than just useless descriptions.

Definitely! I meant the tedious "that's a door." or worse yet the various comedic "never seen a door before?" iterations.

If looking at something is important, for solving a puzzle or understanding the plot, then obviously our one-click will do just that for you.

[CaesarCub]

Just to nit-pick: Don't use 'subject' and 'noun' in the same context; the former is a clause element and the latter a word class, which in turn can be both objects and subjects. It's like saying your cart was drawn by both horses and animals.

Yeah, I should have checked the right translations for the words I was aiming at, but at the moment I was busier looking at translations of different languages of the same phrases to see if I could find some exceptions.

For example, the number of verbs/actions has a huge impact on gameplay. If you have a left-right click interface on M&K and switch to touch using only single click, you will loose a lot of content. Of course you could go one step further and also make different gameplay for different devices, but at one point the question will arise: How much effort is this worth to put into?

The only example I can think of right now (and is by far not a perfect one) is the DOTT Remastered, where you can switch from classic SCUMM to a dial UI. The UIs are wildly different, but they both retain the same basic functionality. You already have an impact on gameplay when suddenly you lose the keyboard and the second click, and any hover functionality you could have.

I've found it kind of boring to routinely click "look" at every single hotspot in a room, just to read/listen to the author's attempt at dressing all these objects in interesting or humorous descriptions.

This makes me think about another option: what about not making the character look at an object and then telling what he saw to the player, but instead have the PLAYER take a closer look by providing closeups? I've seen this in various games and it is very exiting. Of course, this also means a lot more work for the artist...

Closeups sound like a nice idea when it comes to important objects.
Personally I believe that the art should tell you all you need about for any puzzle solving and the LOOK verb should mainly be used for things like reading or when you need more detail.
I mean, if you have to look at everything to advance int he game, then why not stick to text adventures?
I have a friend that once proposed that the LOOK verb to trigger on hover, so you could read all descriptions and leave the clicking for the actions. I'm not crazy about that, but it's an interesting concept.

[Radiant]

That's not an excuse to use a two button system over a one button system. I just wanted to point out that the look command can and has been used for more than just useless descriptions.

Indeed. As pointed out before, it's not the amount of verbs that has a "huge impact on gameplay", but the amount of meaningful interactions.

[cat]

As pointed out before, it's not the amount of verbs that has a "huge impact on gameplay", but the amount of meaningful interactions.

Absolutely. However, the GUI you are using has to -in one way or another- support those interactions. If your gameplay mechanics make good use of the look AND use interactions, it could be hard to implement a one-click interface.

The point I want to make: The UI should not only depend on the input device and how convenient it is to use, but ideally should be closely wired to the game mechanics.

Basically, you have two opposing UI goals:

• Make the UI fit to your gameplay
• Make the UI fit the device

I think it's difficult to fulfill both, you have to make some concessions.

For example, you can limit the number of platforms you support. By going PC only you immediately remove all issues caused by touch devices. Or you focus on touch and e.g. make stronger use of gestures in puzzles.
On the other hand, you can make the gameplay simpler. When a hotspot only has one meaningful interaction, it does not matter what device you use, it can be easily implemented in a UI.

A third option would be, to make several versions of a game. A touch version could use gesture based puzzles, while a PC version might require you to input text with a keyboard. Of course, this immensely increases development effort...

After all, there might be strong economical reasons for a lower common denominator.

You already have an impact on gameplay when suddenly you lose the keyboard and the second click, and any hover functionality you could have.

That's what I meant with my earlier post.

I have a friend that once proposed that the LOOK verb to trigger on hover, so you could read all descriptions and leave the clicking for the actions. I'm not crazy about that, but it's an interesting concept.

Again, please have a look at http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/1359/ which uses something similar.

[CaesarCub]

I have a friend that once proposed that the LOOK verb to trigger on hover, so you could read all descriptions and leave the clicking for the actions. I'm not crazy about that, but it's an interesting concept.

Again, please have a look at http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/1359/ which uses something similar.

I did, I found it interesting to add the Look action into the verb coin.
I was also remembering LSL7 where the verb coin is a drop down menu that has access to the inventory as well for quick "use with" interactions.

[cat]

I was also remembering LSL7 where the verb coin is a drop down menu that has access to the inventory as well for quick "use with" interactions.

Interesting. I only found this screenshot here, is this what you mean?

I think that cascading context menus are hard to use (even in a windows environment).

[Ali]

I'm co-writing an adventure game at the moment, and the lead writer/developer decided on single-click before I came on board. I'm writing most of the room interactions, and I thought that the lack of a look-at would be creatively limiting.

It isn't. What we have ended up doing is writing (at least) 2 lines of dialogue for each hotspot. The first one is usually a description that adds more detail than the artwork, and the second is an observation, musing, or joke off the back of the first. Maybe no one will click on the hospots twice... but I've watched people playing Nelly Cootalot: The Fowl Fleet (2-click interface) and people DO NOT right-click. Apart from hard-core adventure gamers, they just never right-click. So they miss out on loads of good* jokes, and get stuck when they need to know something contained in a look-at.


*I think.

[CaesarCub]

Interesting. I only found this screenshot here, is this what you mean?

I think that cascading context menus are hard to use (even in a windows environment).

Oh LSL7 has a lot of issues in usability.
They had this weird idea where you only get the most basic verbs, and by clicking on that "Other..." you type new verbs and if they are recognised, they get added to your verb list (like Break or Screw there).
The Use tab would let you pick from your items.

I agree that cascading menus can be bothersome, but I am curious on how good/bad would be to have a verb coin expand to show an inventory window in a more friendly manner (that is, better than having the menu disappear if you don't hover exactly where required).

[Mr Underhill]

Well, in our case a verb coin was a no-brainer because there's a special action for both our main characters, so we have three main possible interactions (look, use/pick up, special action), but I'm partial to verb coins either way. The main reason is what Alasdair mentioned - people forget they have a right click if left click does 99% of the "useful" stuff. Hell, I played through almost half of Primordia not realizing I could right click, I was convinced I was playing a single-action adventure game. We're also making a game where you can look at every single hotspot or item at least twice, and we use it heavily as a vehicle for hints, so discoverability is much higher on our priorities list.

I'm a big proponent of examining in adventure games, and the lack of this feature sometimes really cuts into my enjoyment of the game (best example would be Broken Age). I would think twice before removing an interaction that can give hints, contribute hugely to world building and - depending on the game, of course - make everything a lot funnier and enjoyable. And, last but not least - and this is something that's always left out, and I don't understand why, since it's enormously important - it's a great way to provide characterization for your protagonist. Manny will never describe a door the way Bernard or Indie would - everything they say about the environment around them lets us know who they are, what their motivations are and how they're feeling at the moment. It's a very powerful tool to have in your inventory when you're trying to create a connection between the player and the character they control on screen.

In conclusion, it really depends on the type of game and the vibe it's going for, but I personally would rather slightly inconvenience the player from an ergonomic perspective - emphasis on "slightly" - than have them miss out on good characterization, hints or humour. That's my two eurocents thrown into the mix.

[Crimson Wizard]

This is a problem when verbs are non-visible, that they may be missed by player. When there is a list of verbs on screen you cannot miss any, but when you are using 1/2 click, or verb coin that needs certain action to be displayed, you have to teach player and/or indicate the availability of those actions somehow.

It seems that a lot of users never read manual until they are really stuck (and in that case they'd rather ask on forums) .

I can remember when playing Gemini Rue I did not realize I could drag&drop items in notes/phone menu, because there was no visual indication that I could, and I ended up typing them into the parser by hand.

[Radiant]

It seems that a lot of users never read manual until they are really stuck (and in that case they'd rather ask on forums) .

Indeed. An important rule of interface design is that you should not assume anyone reads manuals.

there's a special action for both our main characters, so we have three main possible interactions (look, use/pick up, special action)

All of the GUIs mentioned in this thread would easily allow a special action per character; that's no reason to favor any one of them in particular.

[Mr Underhill]

All of the GUIs mentioned in this thread would easily allow a special action per character; that's no reason to favor any one of them in particular.

Hm? How do you do three interactions with just left and right click, without holding down any of the buttons? I'm not being facetious, just curious what you meant.

[Radiant]

Hm? How do you do three interactions with just left and right click, without holding down any of the buttons? I'm not being facetious, just curious what you meant.

You use the mousewheel or the middle mouse button. Any mouse made in the past decade has at least one of those.

[ThreeOhFour]

Relying on the presence of a mouse wheel or middle mouse button is not great for those who play on laptops with their track pads, something I often do when I travel.

[Radiant]

Relying on the presence of a mouse wheel or middle mouse button is not great for those who play on laptops with their track pads, something I often do when I travel.

Sure. But if your argument against it is that it's awkward to control for a sizeable group of people, well, that's what numerous people have also been pointing out about verbcoins. That means that if you want a smooth and intuitive interface for look/use/special, you should use neither of the two.

[cat]

But if your argument against it is that it's awkward to control for a sizeable group of people, well, that's what numerous people have also been pointing out about verbcoins.

To be honest, besides you, hardly anyone in this thread said that they don't like verb coins. People just said that they don't want to hold down the mouse button to activate them.

And using the middle mouse button as input is 100 times more obscure and unintuitive than using the right mouse button.

[Radiant]

hardly anyone in this thread said

You have evidently overlooked the third post in this thread, among others. Really, you should carefully read the thread before making sweeping statements like that.

[Snarky]

You use the mousewheel or the middle mouse button. Any mouse made in the past decade has at least one of those.

That's a terrible idea. I'm not a fan of verb coins, but this is clearly worse.

Depending on what the "special action" is and how frequent it is, I might devote a special on-screen icon to it (either always-present or as a pop-up menu near the top or bottom of the screen, as part of the inventory), the way Rosa's notebook and Joey's tie are used in the Blackwell series.

[Danvzare]

Hm? How do you do three interactions with just left and right click, without holding down any of the buttons? I'm not being facetious, just curious what you meant.

Easy, inventory item. Just have the special ability be a inventory item, such as "Brute Force" or "Mind Control" or whatever.
It even works with a single click interface.

[Radiant]

That's a terrible idea. I'm not a fan of verb coins, but this is clearly worse.

While I agree that the 'inventory' solution (noted by you and Danvzare) is better, I fail to see what's so bad about using the wheel or middle button on a mouse. Plenty of games and applications use it, after all.

For example, in Heroine's Quest, you can use the mouse wheel to select inventory items. We've had precisely zero complaints about how 'terrible' that is.

[Snarky]

Presumably because everyone uses one of the alternative interactions also provided.

[CaesarCub]

While I agree that the 'inventory' solution (noted by you and Danvzare) is better, I fail to see what's so bad about using the wheel or middle button on a mouse. Plenty of games and applications use it, after all.

Middle buttons are great for shortcuts. But they should not be the only way to access a feature, because some laptops cannot access that input easily.
So, it's great if the mouse wheel let's you pick verbs or inventory faster, but if that is the only way to perform an action, you are making your game unusable for anyone using the laptop's pad.
(Or with a mouse with a faulty wheel, for some reason that is the first thing that breaks for a lot of people at my office).

[Snarky]

Also (though this applies to scrolling, not pressing the wheel to click), I've never gotten the mouse wheel to work properly in AGS. It won't respond to a small roll, and then suddenly make a big jump on a bigger roll.

[ThreeOhFour]

Sure. But if your argument against it is that it's awkward to control for a sizeable group of people, well, that's what numerous people have also been pointing out about verbcoins. That means that if you want a smooth and intuitive interface for look/use/special, you should use neither of the two.

My point was that reliance on the mouse wheel or middle mouse button is exclusive of a common method of input, one that using a verb coin is inclusive of.

[Danvzare]

I fail to see what's so bad about using the wheel or middle button on a mouse. Plenty of games and applications use it, after all.

Name ten games (no matter how popular or unpopular) which requires you to press the middle mouse button to do something and that can't be done another way (IE: it isn't a handy shortcut).
...
That's why.

[Ali]

I agree. The only piece of software I use regularly that has functions which are hard to replicate without a middle-mouse button is Blender. And Blender is not famous for it's user-friendly interface.