Do we need a walk interaction?

Started by Babar, Mon 30/03/2020 17:21:16

Previous topic - Next topic

Babar

I remember this coming up a bit in discussions about two-button and one-button interface systems, but I could do with a refresher.

In my perspective:
There are very few adventure game puzzles that make use of the exact location of the player on screen
Player characters moving about can block stuff in the background and cause complications when you want the player character to be clickable
It can make interfaces more complicated than the need be (as evidenced by those aforementioned interface system discussions

Unfortunately, all those cons are balanced out by a very important pro:
Being able to control the player character gives the player a greater amount of connection to the player character, and reduces the layers between the player and the character on screen (I feel direct control with arrow/WASD keys would actually increase that connection)

I can think of a few games where the character was not walkable on screen. I mean, aside from the obvious first person perspective games like Myst. They were very often investigative games, where the player character stood outside of the frame of the screen, and "shared" the world with the player/viewer.
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

morganw

I think Dreamweb works like this and because there was a large amount of stuff to click on and not much floor, I think some people probably wouldn't notice that you cannot click the floor. Maybe the largest difference is how you handle scrolling areas and the camera/viewport. It might restrict you to just using screen sized rooms unless you have a mechanic that allows you to handle screen edges but also integrates with the layout (i.e. something that isn't a door but acts like a door).

Cassiebsg

Yes, agree that it's annoying when the character is blocking the hotspot you want to click on. Some devs take great care to avoid the character being placed in a spot where he'll be blocking the hotspot, others don't bother with it. I try to make sure that the character will be placed where we he's not blocking the hotspot, so that if you click a hotspot and he walks there he will be placed in the less blocking position possessive, but still in arms reach.

But what exactly are you asking for? Are you suggesting stoping the player from walking around, so he can't block anything, like First person perspective games? Or something else?
There are those who believe that life here began out there...

Babar

Simply asking if it is necessary. The con of not having a walk interaction is pretty big, but maybe there's another way to overcome it that is not coming to my mind right now. Or maybe there are way more cons than I am thinking of.
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Slasher

So, you can click an object at the other end of the room and take it without walking there?

Laura Hunt

The Darkside Detective does not use a "walk" interaction, the characters just stay in place while they talk. It works really well because the sprites take up a lot of the screen, so they're always quite close to each other.

(Large image under spoiler tag)

Spoiler
[close]

Babar

#6
Quote from: Slasher on Tue 31/03/2020 10:07:32
So, you can click an object at the other end of the room and take it without walking there?
Depends on the game, but even in the most traditional style of Point and Click adventure games, that wouldn't happen. You'd click an object at the other end of the room, the character would walk there, and then take it. However, there would be no interaction to click WALK on the object on the other end of the room, and have the player just walk to the object and do nothing else.

PS: You can post a smaller version of a screenshot using img width and height tags. e.g. to get your image scaled to 800px, you can do [ img width=800 ] ...
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Laura Hunt

Quote from: Babar on Tue 31/03/2020 11:20:16
Quote from: Slasher on Tue 31/03/2020 10:07:32
So, you can click an object at the other end of the room and take it without walking there?
Depends on the game, but even in the most traditional style of Point and Click adventure games, that wouldn't happen. You'd click an object at the other end of the room, the character would walk there, and then take it. However, there would be no interaction to click WALK on the object on the other end of the room, and have the player just walk to the object and do nothing else.

Yeah that's kind of the way the game I'm working on works... You are still free to walk anywhere if you want (not a separate "interaction type", just click and the character walks there), but in theory you could also not need to walk at all, except to leave a room. If an object can be picked up or it makes sense for the character to walk up to it, then that interaction is triggered by the object itself. And if not, the character will simply say their lines from a distance ("It's a bed", or whatever).

Quote from: Babar on Tue 31/03/2020 11:20:16
PS: You can post a smaller version of a screenshot using img width and height tags. e.g. to get your image scaled to 800px, you can do [ img width=800 ] ...

Ahhh thanks! Very useful :)

Cassiebsg

Uhm, but doesn't only Sierra template use a walk interaction? Otherwise, most other systems are just processing the walk when nothing else is clicked on.
There are those who believe that life here began out there...

Laura Hunt

Quote from: Cassiebsg on Tue 31/03/2020 17:32:33
Uhm, but doesn't only Sierra template use a walk interaction? Otherwise, most other systems are just processing the walk when nothing else is clicked on.

Yeah, re-reading the thread I'm not really sure if Babar wants to do away with the "walk" interaction available in some templates next to others such as "look", "examine", "push", etc because it's redundant, or if he wants to get rid of the idea of "walking" in point-and-click games altogether ???

ManicMatt

Someone was making an adventure game where the character fades out and reappears next to the hotspot, which is stylish and saves doing walking animations, but I wouldn't do that for my own games as a preference.

I was thinking, if I did decide to make another game, doing it first person would cut a lot of corners, not having to draw or animate the main character.

Babar

The scenario I'm talking about is in the context of traditional adventure games (i.e. the vast majority of what people here on AGS make), where the player controls a character on the screen.
What I'm questioning is the necessity of a "walk mode"- whether as a separate walk interaction (like in the Sierra interface), or a walk interaction integrated into the the system (like the default action in a LucasArts verblist or verbcoin system, or what happens in the 2 button interface when you click an area of the screen with nothing to interact)

Essentially, there would be no way for the player to intentionally decide "I don't want to interact with anything right now, or talk with anyone, or move to another screen, but I want to change the position of the player character from this position on the screen to that position on the screen". If the player interacted with an object, or clicked on the edge of the screen, it is possible that the player character would walk over (or maybe even not then, but that's not what I'm emphasising on), but other than that, there would be no way for the player to cause the player character to move within the same screen (and do nothing else).

The only GAMEPLAY reason to have a walk interaction I can think of is for screen-position related puzzles (e.g. an early puzzle in the first KQ game had it so that if you PUSH BOULDER while standing downhill from the boulder, you would be crushed and die, but if you do it while standing on the other side, it would roll away and you would be safe). However, most games don't have screen-position related puzzles.

The only "GAME DESIGN" reason to have a walk interaction I can think of is that being able to control the character makes you associate and inhabit the character and make them "feel" more related to the player character.
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Snarky

It's also good for scrolling rooms (which can reveal new things as you walk around in the space), and as a way to trigger events naturally in the course of gameplay. Apart from the player identification and sense of interactivity, I'd say those are the biggest reasons.

There are also a bunch of puzzle types that, although they're not exactly position-based, wouldn't really work without the ability to walk around. For example many mazes, and following-puzzles. Or the "walk around the table three times to complete the magic ritual" puzzle suggested here. And while pure position-based puzzles are maybe not that common, I think there are quite a few that incorporate a position-based element, whether that's the "get the dog leash to wrap around the lightpole" in Blackwell Legacy or "hiding" puzzles in many games.

I'm sure you could make a game without it, but I think it has quite a bit of value.

Laura Hunt

Quote from: Babar on Wed 01/04/2020 12:11:48
Essentially, there would be no way for the player to intentionally decide "I don't want to interact with anything right now, or talk with anyone, or move to another screen, but I want to change the position of the player character from this position on the screen to that position on the screen". If the player interacted with an object, or clicked on the edge of the screen, it is possible that the player character would walk over (or maybe even not then, but that's not what I'm emphasising on), but other than that, there would be no way for the player to cause the player character to move within the same screen (and do nothing else).

You definitely have a point here. I've spent SO much time in my game painstakingly drawing walkable areas, walkbehinds and setting object baselines so that there's no clipping or characters walking through stuff, etc etc, just to realize, like I mentioned above, what you just said: most of the time, players aren't going to simply walk around doing nothing. They're going to click on hotspots and objects, and whether they walk up to those hotpots and objects will depend on whether I've coded that behaviour for that interaction or not.

Still, Snarky has some good points: scrolling rooms, positional puzzles, event triggers, player identification, etc. In the end, the Walk interaction is just another tool in your belt, and there are lots of ways in which it can be used with a purpose. I don't think it's ready for retirement just yet :)

(My biggest "this crap is overused and overrated and it should disappear forever" pet peeve is in fact the 2-button "left-look/right-interact" interface, but let's not open that can of worms here :-D)


Danvzare

#14
Quote from: Laura Hunt on Wed 01/04/2020 13:13:02
You definitely have a point here. I've spent SO much time in my game painstakingly drawing walkable areas, walkbehinds and setting object baselines so that there's no clipping or characters walking through stuff, etc etc, just to realize, like I mentioned above, what you just said: most of the time, players aren't going to simply walk around doing nothing. They're going to click on hotspots and objects, and whether they walk up to those hotpots and objects will depend on whether I've coded that behaviour for that interaction or not.

Still, Snarky has some good points: scrolling rooms, positional puzzles, event triggers, player identification, etc. In the end, the Walk interaction is just another tool in your belt, and there are lots of ways in which it can be used with a purpose. I don't think it's ready for retirement just yet :)
On the one hand, most people usually just click on things to interact, rather than simply walk around with no purpose.
On the other hand, being able to walk around, is very immersive for me. I've played a few adventure games which didn't have the ability to walk around, and you just clicked on things in the room, and the character would walk over, interact with it, and maybe walk back. It felt very static and simplistic, like I was simply staring at a screen full of clickable things rather than playing an actual game.

Immersion to me, is being able to do the little things that serve little to no purpose. The ability to open and close doors was only helpful on one puzzle in Day of the Tentacle, and to my knowledge, wasn't useful in any other LucasArts adventure game. Yet, I love being able to do that. (It's how I solved that puzzle to start with.)
It's like putting the hamster in the microwave. Sure, it's useless, and most people aren't going to do it. But that's why it's there, for the people who do, so they can enjoy the extra bit of freedom that they sought out.  :-D

Adventure games have slowly become more and more streamlined in an attempt to make them more accessible. In other words, reduce the complexity in order to help the player. But this loss of actions in turn makes everything less immersive. If you go back to Zork and look at the sheer number of things you could do in that game, and compare it to a modern graphic adventure game, you can clearly see how everything has become more simplistic. What's surprising though, is that this is in stark contrast to other genres, which have become more complex as technology has developed, not more simplistic.
In the original GTA, you couldn't store cars. But in GTA III you can. Like walking in an adventure game, it's not the most useful feature in the world (especially with how likely your car was to break in GTA III), but it added to the immersion. It gave you something else to do. Why would you take away something so simplistic, just to streamline the game further, when the only people who are likely to notice it missing are the ones who appreciated it the most?

Cassiebsg

Yeah, one reason I avoid first person adventure games, is the lack of a character walking around. I enjoy controlling it and being able to move. Not say I woudn't enjoy playing the game, but I wouldn't be as emersed in it. And like Snarky pointed out, being able to walk around gives the dev the option to trigger actions and puzzles based on where the player is currently standing.
There are those who believe that life here began out there...

Crimson Wizard

#16
Quote from: Cassiebsg on Wed 01/04/2020 16:36:31
Yeah, one reason I avoid first person adventure games, is the lack of a character walking around. I enjoy controlling it and being able to move. Not say I woudn't enjoy playing the game, but I wouldn't be as emersed in it.

Would first person movement solve this? Visual Novels often have scenes shown from a pretty generic angle, but what if the view moved around between scenes as if it was from the character's perspective? One example that comes to mind is "Last Express" where you only see your character during cutscenes. Also - "Myst" and similar games, where you never see your character iirc, but still sort of look through the eyes.


In terms of character movement, I found keyboard controls give much more immersion and worked well in the "Cat Lady" for example, because having to keep hold keys to move character around gave more connection with her. I never tried playing adventure game with joystick or gamepad, so cannot tell about that.

Laura Hunt

Quote from: Danvzare on Wed 01/04/2020 15:32:27
Immersion to me, is being able to do the little things that serve little to no purpose. The ability to open and close doors was only helpful on one puzzle in Day of the Tentacle, and to my knowledge, wasn't useful in any other LucasArts adventure game. Yet, I love being able to do that. (It's how I solved that puzzle to start with.)
It's like putting the hamster in the microwave. Sure, it's useless, and most people aren't going to do it. But that's why it's there, for the people who do, so they can enjoy the extra bit of freedom that they sought out.  :-D

Well, it's great to know that at least one person will get to see every tiny line of dialogue/look at/descriptions I've painstakingly added to every single interaction in our game :-D

Cassiebsg

No, "first person movement" does not solve this. I like playing my games just like I enjoy watching my favorite TV show. I doubt I would connect to a character I can't see in a tv show, just like I don't connect in a game. Keep in mind that I do like Myst, but more cause the scenery is so beautiful and the puzzles are great, and I played my fair share of first person adventures. But in general, I enjoy being that character that is walking in the screen, and don't want to be "me". Watching the character walking around and being able to control it gives me what I want in that department.

As for mouse/keyboard... these days I rather be able to use the mouse for everything, so I can relax far away from the screen, the keyboard and the likes. But I like options, so I say give the player options to choose what they prefer to use.  ;)
There are those who believe that life here began out there...

Danvzare

Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Fri 03/04/2020 16:19:10
In terms of character movement, I found keyboard controls give much more immersion and worked well in the "Cat Lady" for example, because having to keep hold keys to move character around gave more connection with her. I never tried playing adventure game with joystick or gamepad, so cannot tell about that.
I actually remember someone telling me that the only adventure game they liked, was Escape from Monkey Island, because it had those type of controls. The guy felt a disconnect from the character in most adventure games due to having to point and click to move, and as such preferred even the tank controls over it.
While I don't share his opinions, I did find it quite interesting. Perhaps direct control of the character could be the future for adventure games?

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk