Quote from: Danvzare on Mon 06/04/2020 16:07:57I personally prefer the action adventure direct control method, but only with controller support. It's just more intuitive for me, and I would really like to make games using this control method.Quote from: Babar on Sun 05/04/2020 16:33:29The problem is, what's the alternative?Quote from: Laura Hunt on Wed 01/04/2020 13:13:02I want
(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)
you
to,
please contribute
(personally I hate the verbcoin way more)
And I haven't heard of any of those games, sorry! I can't actually think of a "traditional" (puzzles, combining stuff, talking to people, inventory items, etc.) adventure game in first person, but there are lots of first person games with heavy adventure elements.
The single click interface is bad because it simplifies interactions too much, allowing brute-force-click-on-everything gameplay.
The two click interface is bad because no one ever presses the right mouse button, therefore being exactly like the single click interface, but without the character giving context to anything.
Half of adventure game creators (like you) hate the verbcoin for seemingly no good reason. (And I've heard the arguments, none of them are compelling.)
No one ever talks about the Sierra interface (and personally, I don't like it).
The 9-verb interface has been declared "old" and "outdated".
No one in their right mind would use a text parser.
Apparently direct control is considered too "action adventure".
And no one seems willing to come up with an entirely new and original way of playing adventure games.
Everyone is always willing to complain about the interfaces that are available, but no one is willing to improve them or make their own.
Aside from that, I prefer either a one-button or two-button method. I understand that one-button can be limiting, but if the puzzles don't rely on multiple different verb interactions I think it can work well. Also, the over-simplification argument can be overturned when there are inventory, dialogue, or positional puzzles, or other puzzles that take you into a separate UI. Most of all, one-button is user friendly and can be ported easily to other devices. The two-button method is a good alternative if there are no plans to port to other devices, or if there is an easy way to port (like using a tap and double-tap method), but the extra flavor of the right-click look interaction can be provided in other ways and is rarely used by a lot of players.
I can see how a limited verb-coin interface could be more suitable for a particular game that wants to allow for more interaction choices, as long as it is implemented well (no click-hold, doesn't cover the object).
I've always had a soft spot for the Sierra interface. I know a lot of people dislike it, so I won't be using it, but I grew up with this and the text parser so I will always love them for that.
I never liked the LucasArts 9-verb interface.
All interfaces can have the issue of new players not understanding how to play, but all can be overcome with a simple tutorial that shows the player how to interact with the world around them.
To answer the thread's title question of "Do we need a walk interaction?" I would say you aren't asking the right question. You should be asking "what interactions are necessary for our game, and what interface makes for the most ergonomic and enjoyable experience for the player?"
If we're talking about whether to allow walking at all (and not just the interaction option), then I think Snarky sums it up best with this:
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 01/04/2020 12:59:48Add to this Danvzare's comments on immersion, and I think there is a strong case to be made for allowing the player to manipulate the character's position on screen.
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.
Cassiebsg also makes a case against first-person that I agree with:
Quote from: Cassiebsg on Fri 03/04/2020 16:35:59I loved Myst (and Riven), but would still have preferred to have a controllable character on the screen.
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.
Actually I'm not much into music in the first place :/
Dact, thanks for the intros. Honey Dijon reminds me of that unmistakable 90's New Age style, like Deep Forest, Enigma, etc, 2000-era dot com nerds all the way! 