Verb Coin vs two buttons

[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.