Verb Coin vs two buttons

[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.