Messages

Sorry, I understood that you were putting the USA in the discussion because you were paranoid or something.

Now I see the truth! You are not paranoid... It is just that you are confussion, GEORGIA, capital TBLISI with GEORGIA, capital Atlanta! 

Heh.  I was actually not paranoid or confused.  Just joking!  Hence the "</stereotypical american>" bit.

This is awful!  I have friends in Atlanta.  I hope they're ok!

</stereotypical American>

[Edit:]

Testing out the fancy 640x480 native resolution, but having something weird go on with GUI coordinates.

I have a gui (gInventory) following the mouse around using the following code:


    gInventory.X=max(0, min(639, mouse.x+15));
    gInventory.Y=max(0, min(479, mouse.y+15));

However, when I mouse below 385 the game closes and the editor pops up and highlights the second of those two lines of code with a little error window:

"GUI.Y: co-ordinates specified are out of range.  Remember to use 320-res coordinates."

First off, I shouldn't be using 320 res coordinates right?  I assume this error has snuck past the upgrade.

Second of all, why is it doing this if the GUI is moving to a y>400?  If I change the 479 in the code to 400, it works fine, but the inventory box will no longer follow the cursor to the bottom 80 pixels of the screen...

It seems that setting a GUI to a y coordinate higher than 400 before the game runs (in the GUI's editor panel) works fine, but doing it in code using gInventory.Y while running the game produces an error.

And yes, the game is set to 640x480, not 640x400.

Bug?


Edit:  One other apparent bug.  I spent about 30 minutes trying to figure out why my characters were suddenly becoming non-solid.  But I just noticed that they apparently are only non-solid on the right half of the screen.  Characters don't block anything x>320.  Another bug from the upgrade?

Radiant, I so considered that at one point a few years ago!

Good topic, Rocco.  Looking forward to playing the entries.

And to think, 15 years ago my parents left the Unitarian church we had attended for years because it wasn't liberal enough.  (I had stopped going to church all together a few years earlier because it wasn't atheist enough.) They changed to a Unity church where they had a gay pastor.  And of course protesters were outside that church every Sunday.  I went sometimes just to sneer at them as I entered.  Didn't they have... like... church to go to or something?

Don't bother with the Japanese.  AGS doesn't support enough font characters to make this possible.

Yay!  Happy B-Day, J!

Windows Media has an annoying habit of messing with your SW Synth volume.  Open your computer's volume controls and check it.  If it's not there, you might have to go into options to make sure it shows up.  This had me stuck for about four hours once when Nanobots' music suddenly stopped playing and I couldn't figure out what was happening.  Turns out it was because I accidentally opened a MIDI in Windows Media Player.

Gwargle, I'm always on my way to bed... no time to post today.  Just wanted to say that I also get really annoyed at verb-coins that you have to hold and wait for.  Usually when a game uses one of these, I can't figure out how to play the game, clicking around with no success until I finally read the manual and realize that I need to hold the button down for a while.

Definitely left or right click to bring up a verb coin seems like the way to go to me.  I've never made a game with a verb coin (En Passant never got off the ground...) but I definitely don't think making the player click and hold for a second before each action is the best way to go.  I'd have to experiment with it.

Snarky, that was an excellent and well argued post!  Thank you!  As I mentioned at the start of the first article, I'm no HCI expert, only having worked along side several for nine months.  I really appreciate someone with the proper training coming in here to set me straight on some points.

With the operating system, I was trying to demonstrate how annoying I feel the interfaces are by placing them out of the context of games.  I wanted to do this because of the nostalgia-tinted glasses that I mentioned.  However, you are exactly correct.  The usability concerns that apply to a computer, which aim to simplify tasks, do not apply to games, where tasks should be more complex.

The usual joke is that the optimal usability solution for any computer game is a button marked "WIN".

So, so true!  I'm considering adding one of those to Resonance!

As I said, I do think that the annoyance that I feel when I play most games with these interfaces takes a back seat to the second issue about misuse, where the OS example still applies.  I've mentioned up thread, but need to make it clearer in the article, that this issue is primarily due to the developer's misuse, which apart from many of the classic Lucas/Sierra games and a handful of amateur games is extremely widespread.  The annoyance issue is subjective and the OS example doesn't apply very well for the reasons you mentioned.  But I maintain that if your game doesn't have some instances where the usage of "Talk" and "Use" are some how shuffled up, diverting from the norm, then the verbs are redundant and should be combined.  This goes for the Lucas interface as well.

I think the OS comparison does apply, if only loosely, here.  The example where I combine all the fake Resonance documents/video/music, into one master file and then use the verbs on that instead of having each of the files separate demonstrates a way to use the interface's potential in a way that your commands have more meaning without being redundant.  Doing otherwise isn't complicating the interface in the interest of creating gameplay.  To me, that's squandering the potential of your interface.

I'm mainly saying that if you're not going to take the special attributes of your chosen interface into consideration when designing your game and your game comes out resembling one of my worst-case Venn diagrams, you would be better off with a less obtrusive GUI which wouldn't sacrifice gameplay at all.  Ok, maybe it would sacrifice some illusion of gameplay, but fake gameplay made up of unnecessary clicking isn't what attracts me to the genre.

And, yeah, the article is made up of a lot of exaggerations and too-strong statements (none of these games are actually "broken") to try and get the point across and spur some discussion.  I know there are some games who use these interfaces to great effect, especially the old classics around which the interfaces were designed.  I mainly want to make sure amateur devs like me are keeping in mind the full potential of their chosen interface when they design their game.

I'm definitely going to use some of these points in the rewrite before posting the final article to the blog.  Thanks a bunch!  Looking forward to hearing what's so great about the interfaces!  (D'oh!  You posted it while I was writing this.  Reading now, post back in a bit)  Edit: Actually, I'll post back tomorrow.  It's way late.  But it's another great post! Thanks!

[Za_Uvek:]

First off, I just want to say thanks for all the great feedback so far!  I love this discussion! 

Secondly, I do agree that the flaws here are mostly the game makers' fault for under-utilizing the potential of the interfaces rather than an inherrent flaw with the interface itself.  I tried to get this across in the article.  However, since the Sierra interface I was discussing uses mostly "Talk" and "Use" for the puzzles, I think it is really hard to design a game that uses these two verbs in enough ways as to justify them.  I ballparked the number 90% for games that don't fully utilize this interface, but really I was just trying to cover my back.  If anyone can name one game, classic Sierra, commercial, amateur, whatever, that fully utilizes this interface to it's potential and list a few puzzles from that game where you had to use both verbs on the same item, or use the verbs in clever ways, let me know.  Otherwise I'm still going to put some of the blame on the interface.

Thirdly, definitely the word "broken" is an exaggeration to be more eye catching or controversial or whatever.  The games are hardly broken if I can still play through them.  I'm just trying to point out some fundemental flaws that are propagated through numerous AGS games, and calling them broken is kind of my catch phrase.  Hope no one takes it to harshly.

I think those replies cover a number of the complaints people had.  I'll still do some direct responses here.

Za_Uvek:

If applied correctly the Sierra interface can form some of the most clever, challenging and logical puzzles to be found. The verbcoin, bah, leaves no challenge and can be tedious most of the times.

See, but I still can't think of any examples of when the Sierra interface was applied correctly to form challenging and logical puzzles that couldn't otherwise be implemented in a less frustrating manner.  Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can say that the verbcoin leaves no challenge when it's fundamentally the same as Sierra, only changing the order of your command input.  Most Verbcoins that I've seen have "Look" "Use" "Talk" and "Inventory"  This is exactly the same as Sierra except that you select the verb after the item instead of the other way around.  What impact does this have on puzzles?

Note also that in the article, I'm not advocating for the verb-coin, just showing it as an alternative with it's own drawbacks.

MashPotato:

Keep the articles comin', Vince!  Reading this one made me think of the default-walk-thingy I just described, which is what I will probably use in my next game unless I can think of something better--these articles have been very timely, I must say Wink

Thanks Mash!  I like that "default-walk-thingy".  Anything that makes cycling the cursors less of a headache!  As it stands now, it's definitely unneccessary to have it as it's own cursor except in cases where there are hotspots all over the place and it becomes hard to click anywhere but on a hotspot.  I had this problem in one room of Resonance where there's a big car in the middle of the screen, and you have to use to choose strategic places to click to walk to the other side of it.  Still trying to figure out how to remedy this.

Stupot

I'm tempted to think there is something satisfying in trying lots of different combinations of actions; the more you are clicking on the mouse, the more you feel as though you are doing something rather than simply watching an interactive movie.

I see what you're saying here, but I have to believe that there are better ways to add complexity to a game than making them try multiple combinations.  With the Sierra system you get "Ooh, it's a person!  I know, I'll try to Talk to him!  Haha!  Solved that puzzle!"  And with more verbs (LA) you get "Ooh, it's an item!  Let's systematically try every verb on it!  Aha!  The developer meant for me to Push the thing!  Solved that puzzle!"  Neither of those satisfy me, but maybe some players enjoy those small victories. 

Edmundo and JBurger  I quite agreed with your posts!  Thanks!

ProgZMax  What happened to our unified voice?    I apologize for the blanket statements.  Part of it was me trying to ruffle some feathers in order to generate discussion.  Both of these system's faults usually lie in the under utilization by the designer.  Really, if AGS didn't exist to bring adventure design to the masses, I probably wouldn't have any problem with these interfaces.  However, I do think that both interfaces are really hard to design for because properly utilizing all those verbs takes care and planning.

I'd still like to hear more examples of games that do utilize the full potential of these interfaces.

LimpingFish and ProgZMax

We know you can't talk to grass, but to use the talk verb on it with no feedback is just as annoying as being told you can't talk to the grass.

Ha!  I agree!  The grass probably shouldn't be a hotspot at all, actually, unless there's some puzzle in which you need to use it.  And ProgZ' point regarding this is interesting.  On one hand, I don't like not getting feedback for my actions, but on the other hand, having no response helps me filter useless "I can't do that" statements from useful clues.

One thing that I did in Nanobots was to remove mouseover indications for things that couldn't be interacted with using the active verb.  So if you were using Chembot's "Mix" ability, the mouseover text only appears when the cursor is over something with liquid.  Clicking anywhere else results in nothing.  Better, I thought, than having her say "I can't mix that, dummy!" all the time.  Similarly, you can try to push most things on the desk, including bots, but things that are nailed down, like the shelf connected to the back wall, don't produce a mouseover effect.  That shelf only produces a mouseover for Brainbot's "Analyze" action, because you can gain some useful knowledge from doing that.

The problem with this is that, for example with the grass, if I mouseover it with the talk cursor and get no mouseover indication, or try to click on it and get no response as ProgZ suggested, I assume it is not interactable.  So when a later puzzle involves using the scissors on the grass to get some grass clippings, I don't think of it, because I'm under the assumption that the grass is not interactable.

Makeout Patrol A good post.  Thanks.

Babar

The designer of the game views that specific character as an obstacle in the game, and the solution to the puzzle is to push him off the cliff. I just got there. I don't know anything about a puzzle, so I attempt to talk to the character. He gets pushed off the cliff. Just an example. Hell, flip it over. I wanted to push the character off the cliff (a fairly simple and easy way to solve the puzzle), but I am only able to talk to him.

An excellent point!  And this is a situation where having the choices would make the game excellent.  Two ways to solve the puzzle, talk to the guy, or just go the easy, evil route.  Here, if the developer were so inclined, clicking on the character with the two-button system could make the character think to himself 'How do I want to go about this?' and then give some options (via a dialog choice or something) "Threaten him."  "Sweet talk him."  "Push him off the cliff." etc.  However, having these choices worked into the verb system of a Sierra/Lucas Arts interface would be much more elegant than having to choose the choices from a list.  Use the hand to push him, the talk to talk to him, or give him that cake from your inventory to try to sweet talk him.  That would be an example of a well-implemented Sierra interface.  Now just keep that up through the rest of the game...

Also, having a contextual verb coin would work here well.  A contextual verb coin doesn't have "Talk" "Look" "Use" on it, it has a different set of commands for each object you click on.  So, a potted plant might have "Look" "Break off a leaf"  "Push to the left"  "Push to the right" "Hide behind".  Not all of those would be needed in the game, but adding them can add that complexity and sense that you still have to figure out what you're going to do with it yourself.  And it's a choice that requires more thought than "Hmm... should I use 'Use' or 'Talk' on this plant... Duh."

blueskirt  I also see your point, but I have to agree with Makeout Patrol.  Perhaps it's just a semantics argument, but I think the interface should be designed around the gameplay, not the other way around.


Also, the necessity (or lack thereof) of the "look" verb is an interesting discussion.  It likely depends on the way you design your game.  I'm kind of wishing that I had left it out of Resonance because there's so much to write! 

Part one has been moved to my blog with a little addendum based on some of the good feedback from this thread.

I put Part two into the first post in this thread.  Instead of posting it on my blog at the same time, I'm going to modify it based on the discussion here (if there's any to be had) and then post the final version to my blog later.

So please read and give me feedback!  Down with the Sierra and Lucas Arts interfaces!

[on]

on my scoreboard.

Ooh, I've definitely been lacking in the updates lately.  Got busy with Nanobots for a while.  Now gearing up for my move from Japan to America.

As for the timeframe, it depends on a lot of things.  It's a free time project for everyone involved since I can't pay enough for full-time dedication.  I'd love to have it done by Christmas, but I don't think that's realistic.  Unless I win the lottery or something!  When I get close enough to estimate a date, I'll do so, but all I can say for sure at this point is that it's not going to be very soon!  Sorry!

I can see that I'd better get to work on Part Two which is all about the inherent flaws in both the Sierra and Lucas Arts standard interfaces before you guys bring up everything I was going to discuss!

My personal quibble is keyboard shortcuts.

Oh, I'm gettin' to that one!

I specifically remember loving the slick cursors for Heartland, even in it's original OROW version.  Though, yeah, having the inventory cursors match the others would have been nice.  If AGS allowed two sprite slots to be defined for each inventory item, one for the inventory, one for the cursor, it would be easier for people to make sure they had well-defined hotspots on their inventory cursors.

Found this tracker entry.  Wish I could bump it.

I think it would be nice for inventory items to have an optional second sprite number that you could assign so that one sprite would be used when viewing the item in the inventory, and another would be used when the item becomes a cursor.

This way, you would have more options than just the few built in options for adding a well-defined hotspot to the inventory cursors.  For example, in LimpingFish' Heartland, he could have easily made fancy new cursors for his inventory items without rescripting the inventory system.

Oh, just found it on the tracker.  I support this!

Also, though maybe I'm pushing it, a separate setting for animate-on-mouseover for each inventory item so you can do the same as above, but also define an loop to use on mouseover of a hotspot/character/object?

Sometimes it hurts your game more to be arty than it does to be unoriginal; sometimes, grandiose and pretty icons are harder to use and more unwieldy than just using a crosshair, so it definitely pays to consider function while making cursor designs.

Definitely.  I couldn't agree with this statement more!!!  Our voices are as one.   

And I completely agree with your statement about this being needed more for oddly shaped cursors.  A pair of scissors has a natural point.  A pencil could be a good cursor.  A basketball... not so much.  If your cursor is a basketball, you need a little arrowy thing.

Vince: Could you give an example of some good mouse cursors? (or anybody else if you know any)

That's a good idea!

In Nanobots, Erin started with a the same bunch of cursors you see in the final except without the arrows.  After some pressure from me, she changed them to the nicely standardized set you see here:



The text on the right of the cursors only appears when you mouse over something usable.  For example, the shelf on the wall is analyzable, so the analyze text pops up while mousing over it.  But the shelf wouldn't be realistically pushable because it's mounted on the wall, so the push text won't pop up.  This slightly and subtly simplifies the huge number of things the player has to mess around with right off the bat.

I could name lots of other games with good cursors.  Like I said, the majority of games that really break these rules are first games or low-quality in most other areas as well. 

One recent game that I remembered that had nice cursors was Ben There Done That.  Each cursor has a little wedge in the top-right corner.  Very simple, very clean, and the cursors are attractive.  The one weird thing about BTDT's cursors, though, is that the inventory items all have the little wedge up there too when they're sitting in the inventory.  The authors should have used one of the few methods available to make the wedges invisible in the inventory, but visible when they become cursors.  A very minor complaint though!  I'd rather have the wedges in both places than not at all.

Yup, I definitely should have added in something about making the room hotspots easy to click on.  In the example, Fluxworld, half of the problem is the size of the dinky little guys.  Really, three things should be considered in every game:

1) Well-defined cursor hotspots
2) Mouse over indication
3) Large and easily spotted room hotspots.

In the absence of number 1, numbers 2 and 3 will suffice.  I'd still rather see all three.

Mash: I think all of those are fine except for the interact one which would be something that I'd probably complain about!

With walk cursors, rules I discussed above aren't all that important really, since you're rarely need the character to walk exactly to a specific pixel.  Yours is well defined, and having it in the middle isn't a big deal.

The examine cursor being in the middle of the circle means that you won't be able to see exactly where you're clicking, but the icon is small, so you always know it's in the neighborhood.  Having large room hotspots will negate any problem I might have had to moan about.

The talk cursor is well defined.  The upper-left consistency isn't a hard rule, just a matter of comfort and personal taste.

But yeah, I would advise some kind of redesign on the interact cursor.  Maybe flip the image horizontally and vertically to put the small cog in the top-right corner, then fill in the center of the large cog and make the hole in the small cog the hotspot.  Just an idea.


Thanks for the feedback.  I should make an amendment about the big hotspot thing.  Thanks LeChuck.