Sign in to follow this  
iprigg

What type of interface you prefer?

What type of interface you prefer?  

334 members have voted

  1. 1. What type of interface you prefer?

    • Oversimplified (one click does everything)
      22
    • Simple (basic actions like talk, use, look, pick up) integrated to the mouse cursor (like enhanced edition of Monkeys)
      136
    • Simple (as previous option) but selecting from menu like in Edna and Harvey
      14
    • Like old classics used to be (select from a menu with several option), like original monkeys, DOT
      29
    • What Tim Schaffer’s mind will invent. Tim we have faith that you will choose the best UI for your best game!
      133


Recommended Posts

A critical factor for the success of a point and click adventure is its user interface. In other words how the player will interact with the game. Taking as granted that the interface will be mouse based (after all that is point and click), what do you think is the best option for the interface to be used in DFA?

Most contemporary adventures use very simplistic interfaces (a single click does everything), which I think takes away much of the fun from such games. Do you want something like that, or something more sophisticated?Please do not hesitate to vote!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the Special Edition version of Monkey Island should be the new gold standard of Adventure games interface. The way they simplified it down just seemed very intuitive and felt right on my playthroughs. I really liked their setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, the Special Edition version of Monkey Island should be the new gold standard of Adventure games interface. The way they simplified it down just seemed very intuitive and felt right on my playthroughs. I really liked their setup.

I agree completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure whatever they come up with will be easy to use, it'll have to be as it'll be for touchscreen and mouse control, making one control system that works on both input interfaces seems a logical choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually i find the UI of Black Mirror, Secret Files and so on best, and it's hard to beat it when it comes to simplicity and comfort, but it doesn't work on touchscreens though, since it works with right and left clicks. Well, i'm fully convinced that they will do what's good and right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to adventure games, simplicity (but not over-simplicity) is the key. The controls or your dexterity are never supposed to be part of the challenge.

Having said that I’m worried that Reds PC controls will be compromised in sake of the touch screen functionality for the mobile platforms. Revolution seemed to have heeded player concerns regarding the interface (for BS5), and will add the option to choose oldschool controls, I’m not sure what DF has in mind, they haven’t been very forthcoming with what direction they taking with the UI besides any random sneak peeks we got during episodes.

I’ll go with the rest and agree that the MI:SE controls are probably the more balanced choice, but I’d settle for anything that doesn’t make me feel like I’m playing on a phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure whatever they come up with will be easy to use, it'll have to be as it'll be for touchscreen and mouse control, making one control system that works on both input interfaces seems a logical choice.

There were a couple of times I had to move to the old interface, like when you move the grog between glasses.

My general reply is: I trust Tim.

For preference, I'm not sure. The classic interface has a few things going for it. It can encourage more interaction (trying all verbs on all objects, which can result in fun responses) and it can actually be quicker for some things (choose 'look at' then touch anything you want to look at).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they don't have the annoying touchscreeen 'ripple effect' i.e. Sword and Sorcery and Puzzle Agent, then I'm fine with whatever Tim comes up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they don't make one control system, that just means that the mouse interface will be terrible. They're radically different hardware interfaces, they need two separate approaches. We don't get that many ports from iOS and Android yet, they often lack right click functionality and have massive boxes everywhere telling you what things are instead of hover tooltips. I'm dreading the future when general software is going to be developed for Win 8 or some other touch screen nonsense and ported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote for Simple integrated to the mouse cursor, though having played recently Edna And Harvey: The breakout I found the mimimized scumm like inteface (using just 4 or five actions), extremely good. Note also that left clicking should perform the most appropriate regarding the object you interact with. For example talk if another person, or look ( possibly pick up) for other objects.

I would also like to have the possibility of interacting with inventory items so that all actions available to environment objects (look, talk, use, except perhaps pick up) be available for inventory items. This could result to some interesting puzzles as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my all time favories is actually how it was done in Full Throttle, it was simple and easy to understand, but not to simple and dumbed down like the whole 1 click does everything, that just ruins adventure game for me. because there is no finding out and doing stuff in funny ways when 1 click does it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my all time favories is actually how it was done in Full Throttle, it was simple and easy to understand, but not to simple and dumbed down like the whole 1 click does everything, that just ruins adventure game for me. because there is no finding out and doing stuff in funny ways when 1 click does it all.

I completely agree! The 1-click for everything interface, is by far, the worst interface that an adventure can use. It eliminates all the magic this genre has to offer! Makes also the game extremely easy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my all time favories is actually how it was done in Full Throttle, it was simple and easy to understand, but not to simple and dumbed down like the whole 1 click does everything, that just ruins adventure game for me. because there is no finding out and doing stuff in funny ways when 1 click does it all.

Yeah, that was a brilliant command-thing. Speaking of which, what ever happened to Verb Coins (that the name, right?) anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fond of what's become known as the verb coin. Stays out of the way when you want it, then you can include as many verbs as the game needs.

I don't think a one-verb-for everything is necessarily bad though. Puzzles can be difficult no matter what the method of interaction is, they just have to be designed well - and there's an argument that obscuring the answer behind a lot of verbs is a 'cheap' form of difficulty anyway. But I like having more than one verb because I like that different verbs can provide different responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rading the game informer's preview, it is evident that, in the end, they opted the simple click interface :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rading the game informer's preview, it is evident that, in the end, they opted the simple click interface :-(

It's not surprising. Or even necessarily bad - I mean, how many times did you need to use 'Push' or 'Pull' in the Monkey Island games anyway? Maybe during that safecracking puzzle, and the boulder contraption on Monkey Island, but those could easily be redesigned to suit a one click interface.

Even if you narrow it down to the basic verbs in later games:

Look / Use or pick up / Talk or use Mouth it starts to look like overkill. Talk and Use clearly can be one command without compromising anything, and as for 'use mouth' well, just don't write any puzzles that require that specific verb (in Curse of Monkey Island and Full Throttle I can only think of one specific example that NEEDED the 'use mouth with' and only a few examples of Full Throttle's kicking). It's no big deal, you write puzzles for the interface you've chosen. It has no impact on difficulty, and a minimal impact on interactivity because it just saves lots of 'I can't pick that up.' 'I don't see anything special about it' 'I can't push that.'

Which leaves 'Look'. Look is fun, it's cool to look at everything, because you can write funny responses, but it's not really involved very much in puzzle solving, and where it is, again, the puzzles can just be redesigned to fit the one click interface.

The other thing about verbs is remember inventory items are a kind of verb. In fact, they're the main one in adventure games. when you say 'Use bucket with door' in Monkey Island 2, what you're REALLY doing is saying 'Bucket that door!' every object in the game is like a verb, and most puzzles are based around using one object with something else. All of that is still intact with the one-click interface. In comparison, what you lose is 8 verbs which were almost-useless anyway. I'm surprised it took them so long to get to this point!

Even Ron Gilbert, who I view as quite a purist, is saying 'get rid of all the verbs!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rading the game informer's preview, it is evident that, in the end, they opted the simple click interface :-(

It's not surprising. Or even necessarily bad - I mean, how many times did you need to use 'Push' or 'Pull' in the Monkey Island games anyway? Maybe during that safecracking puzzle, and the boulder contraption on Monkey Island, but those could easily be redesigned to suit a one click interface.

Even if you narrow it down to the basic verbs in later games:

Look / Use or pick up / Talk or use Mouth it starts to look like overkill. Talk and Use clearly can be one command without compromising anything, and as for 'use mouth' well, just don't write any puzzles that require that specific verb (in Curse of Monkey Island and Full Throttle I can only think of one specific example that NEEDED the 'use mouth with' and only a few examples of Full Throttle's kicking). It's no big deal, you write puzzles for the interface you've chosen. It has no impact on difficulty, and a minimal impact on interactivity because it just saves lots of 'I can't pick that up.' 'I don't see anything special about it' 'I can't push that.'

Which leaves 'Look'. Look is fun, it's cool to look at everything, because you can write funny responses, but it's not really involved very much in puzzle solving, and where it is, again, the puzzles can just be redesigned to fit the one click interface.

The other thing about verbs is remember inventory items are a kind of verb. In fact, they're the main one in adventure games. when you say 'Use bucket with door' in Monkey Island 2, what you're REALLY doing is saying 'Bucket that door!' every object in the game is like a verb, and most puzzles are based around using one object with something else. All of that is still intact with the one-click interface. In comparison, what you lose is 8 verbs which were almost-useless anyway. I'm surprised it took them so long to get to this point!

Even Ron Gilbert, who I view as quite a purist, is saying 'get rid of all the verbs!'

I was not in favor of so many verbs like in monkey island. However, I think that one click is oversimplification. For me a context sensitive interface with the following verbs would be perfect: Look, use (could integrate PICK/GIVE), talk . The reason? Because otherwise you limit the options of actions that can be used to solve a puzzle, which in turn means you have the AI of the game decide for the necessary action depedning on the situation, which in turn makes puzzles easier.

For example, imagine a very simplistic puzzle, where you find a dog somehwere in the game scenery. Now you have to PICK this dog up and carry it in your inventory for using it in a later puzzle. If you have the verbs I mentioned before available, you can:

1) try to USE(PICK) it up and get barked, or bitten, which gives you the clue that you have to try something else

2)TALK to it to allure it then try to and PICK it up, which again does not provide the correct solution

3)USE(GIVE) a bone to the dog whch makes it available for finally PICKing it up in your inventory.

Now If you have a context sensitive one click interface (assuming that right click stands for LOOK, impossible to imagine that you won't have a LOOK possibility) it is the interface that navigates you to the correct sequence of actions to solve this puzzle, since for example action 2 cannot be selected! So you have lost an option and probably a very good animation, which may have been created to support it!

Now this is a very simple example, of what I mean that an oversimplified interface may harsh puzzles, but I think you do understand what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rading the game informer's preview, it is evident that, in the end, they opted the simple click interface :-(

It's not surprising. Or even necessarily bad - I mean, how many times did you need to use 'Push' or 'Pull' in the Monkey Island games anyway? Maybe during that safecracking puzzle, and the boulder contraption on Monkey Island, but those could easily be redesigned to suit a one click interface.

Even if you narrow it down to the basic verbs in later games:

Look / Use or pick up / Talk or use Mouth it starts to look like overkill. Talk and Use clearly can be one command without compromising anything, and as for 'use mouth' well, just don't write any puzzles that require that specific verb (in Curse of Monkey Island and Full Throttle I can only think of one specific example that NEEDED the 'use mouth with' and only a few examples of Full Throttle's kicking). It's no big deal, you write puzzles for the interface you've chosen. It has no impact on difficulty, and a minimal impact on interactivity because it just saves lots of 'I can't pick that up.' 'I don't see anything special about it' 'I can't push that.'

Which leaves 'Look'. Look is fun, it's cool to look at everything, because you can write funny responses, but it's not really involved very much in puzzle solving, and where it is, again, the puzzles can just be redesigned to fit the one click interface.

The other thing about verbs is remember inventory items are a kind of verb. In fact, they're the main one in adventure games. when you say 'Use bucket with door' in Monkey Island 2, what you're REALLY doing is saying 'Bucket that door!' every object in the game is like a verb, and most puzzles are based around using one object with something else. All of that is still intact with the one-click interface. In comparison, what you lose is 8 verbs which were almost-useless anyway. I'm surprised it took them so long to get to this point!

Even Ron Gilbert, who I view as quite a purist, is saying 'get rid of all the verbs!'

I was not in favor of so many verbs like in monkey island. However, I think that one click is oversimplification. For me a context sensitive interface with the following verbs would be perfect: Look, use (could integrate PICK/GIVE), talk . The reason? Because otherwise you limit the options of actions that can be used to solve a puzzle, which in turn means you have the AI of the game decide for the necessary action depedning on the situation, which in turn makes puzzles easier.

For example, imagine a very simplistic puzzle, where you find a dog somehwere in the game scenery. Now you have to PICK this dog up and carry it in your inventory for using it in a later puzzle. If you have the verbs I mentioned before available, you can:

1) try to USE(PICK) it up and get barked, or bitten, which gives you the clue that you have to try something else

2)TALK to it to allure it then try to and PICK it up, which again does not provide the correct solution

3)USE(GIVE) a bone to the dog whch makes it available for finally PICKing it up in your inventory.

Now If you have a context sensitive one click interface (assuming that right click stands for LOOK, impossible to imagine that you won't have a LOOK possibility) it is the interface that navigates you to the correct sequence of actions to solve this puzzle, since for example action 2 cannot be selected! So you have lost an option and probably a very good animation, which may have been created to support it!

Now this is a very simple example, of what I mean that an oversimplified interface may harsh puzzles, but I think you do understand what I mean.

Okay but my point was that designers design and balance puzzles to work well with their chosen interface. It doesn't matter that there could be puzzles that used a greater number of verbs, because there are still an infinite number of great puzzles that don't need to do that, and so the game will be designed with that in mind. If the game ends up being easy, it won't be because there weren't enough verbs

To unpick your dog-bone example a little bit. It's true, you would be denied the chance to try other verbs on the dog. BUT, you wouldn't be denied the chance to use other objects on the dog, and as I said in my last post about this, MOST of the 'verbs' in adventured games are in fact the objects you use on things. So, yeah. You can't try to 'talk' to it or 'push' it or whatever... but, you can:

*Try to use the hammer you have in your inventory to knock the dog out

*Try to use the whistle you have to call the dog over to you

*Try to use some food you have to lure the dog

and so on and so forth. The 3, 4, 9 verbs you can use in some adventure games is really only a tiny fraction of the interaction, most of the time when you're really stuck in an adventure game, what's the thing you end up doing? Probably trying to use different objects on things. And inventory is still very much a thing in this game. Use is the only REALLY important verb in adventure games, because all the others (except for give, which is really just another type of use) are just simple: push thing. Talk to guy. Pick up stuff. But use is where the complexity is at, because you get both 'Use thing.' type interaction, but also the much richer 'Use thing with other thing' kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think designers saying "no more verbs!!" are trying to expand the market for adventure games by catering to the tastes of people that have no patience. Just about all the adventure game fans I know don't mind hear "I can't pick that up" a whole lot, as long as they get a funny response occasionally, like trying to lick an alligator's tongue. It adds to the mystique and the fun of exploration.

It's just a bit disappointing with this game, when it was marketed towards "old school adventure fans". I'm sure the game will be amazing regardless, and I guess I'm happy they're trying to expand the genre's fanbase, but it still feels like appealling to the lowest common denominator to me. "Those non-adventure fans won't have the patience for a verb coin! Let's 'streeeeeaaaamline' it". For the record, the word "streamline" is now my least favourite word. It just feels like a snazzy way to say "make it dumb and easy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think designers saying "no more verbs!!" are trying to expand the market for adventure games by catering to the tastes of people that have no patience. Just about all the adventure game fans I know don't mind hear "I can't pick that up" a whole lot, as long as they get a funny response occasionally, like trying to lick an alligator's tongue. It adds to the mystique and the fun of exploration..

Speaking as a designer, that's not why I agree with no more verbs. I'm not in a position to make very much money (or indeed any money, yet) out of my games, so the only concern I have is making the games the best they can be. And in my book, having a one-verb interface plus inventory sacrifices VERY little (yes, it's a shame to lose some of the custom responses, but again, you still can have those with all the inventory items in the game, so it seems strange to me to pick on verbs as something that should be kept for that), in exchange for providing a much cleaner interface that facilitates solving puzzles rather than providing artificial choices to provide artificial difficulty.

The only verb I think is worth keeping on top of 'use' is 'look', and that's because looking at stuff in adventure games is pretty funny sometimes. But even losing that is a pretty small price to pay, and besides, that's lines of dialogue that can be put elsewhere - if they needed the main characters to record a line for looking at lots of things, they'd have to account for that in their budget. Seems better to just cut it out and record more dialogue that people are likely to encounter.

And, in fact, streamlining is very rarely a codeword for dumbing down. Most designers want to make the games smarter. Sometimes the best way to do that is to take stuff out. Sometimes the stuff they take out is something people feel nostalgic about, but the last thing a game designer ought to trust is nostalgia - it's a very poor guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rading the game informer's preview, it is evident that, in the end, they opted the simple click interface :-(

It's not surprising. Or even necessarily bad - I mean, how many times did you need to use 'Push' or 'Pull' in the Monkey Island games anyway? Maybe during that safecracking puzzle, and the boulder contraption on Monkey Island, but those could easily be redesigned to suit a one click interface.

Even if you narrow it down to the basic verbs in later games:

Look / Use or pick up / Talk or use Mouth it starts to look like overkill. Talk and Use clearly can be one command without compromising anything, and as for 'use mouth' well, just don't write any puzzles that require that specific verb (in Curse of Monkey Island and Full Throttle I can only think of one specific example that NEEDED the 'use mouth with' and only a few examples of Full Throttle's kicking). It's no big deal, you write puzzles for the interface you've chosen. It has no impact on difficulty, and a minimal impact on interactivity because it just saves lots of 'I can't pick that up.' 'I don't see anything special about it' 'I can't push that.'

Which leaves 'Look'. Look is fun, it's cool to look at everything, because you can write funny responses, but it's not really involved very much in puzzle solving, and where it is, again, the puzzles can just be redesigned to fit the one click interface.

The other thing about verbs is remember inventory items are a kind of verb. In fact, they're the main one in adventure games. when you say 'Use bucket with door' in Monkey Island 2, what you're REALLY doing is saying 'Bucket that door!' every object in the game is like a verb, and most puzzles are based around using one object with something else. All of that is still intact with the one-click interface. In comparison, what you lose is 8 verbs which were almost-useless anyway. I'm surprised it took them so long to get to this point!

Even Ron Gilbert, who I view as quite a purist, is saying 'get rid of all the verbs!'

I was not in favor of so many verbs like in monkey island. However, I think that one click is oversimplification. For me a context sensitive interface with the following verbs would be perfect: Look, use (could integrate PICK/GIVE), talk . The reason? Because otherwise you limit the options of actions that can be used to solve a puzzle, which in turn means you have the AI of the game decide for the necessary action depedning on the situation, which in turn makes puzzles easier.

For example, imagine a very simplistic puzzle, where you find a dog somehwere in the game scenery. Now you have to PICK this dog up and carry it in your inventory for using it in a later puzzle. If you have the verbs I mentioned before available, you can:

1) try to USE(PICK) it up and get barked, or bitten, which gives you the clue that you have to try something else

2)TALK to it to allure it then try to and PICK it up, which again does not provide the correct solution

3)USE(GIVE) a bone to the dog whch makes it available for finally PICKing it up in your inventory.

Now If you have a context sensitive one click interface (assuming that right click stands for LOOK, impossible to imagine that you won't have a LOOK possibility) it is the interface that navigates you to the correct sequence of actions to solve this puzzle, since for example action 2 cannot be selected! So you have lost an option and probably a very good animation, which may have been created to support it!

Now this is a very simple example, of what I mean that an oversimplified interface may harsh puzzles, but I think you do understand what I mean.

Okay but my point was that designers design and balance puzzles to work well with their chosen interface. It doesn't matter that there could be puzzles that used a greater number of verbs, because there are still an infinite number of great puzzles that don't need to do that, and so the game will be designed with that in mind. If the game ends up being easy, it won't be because there weren't enough verbs

To unpick your dog-bone example a little bit. It's true, you would be denied the chance to try other verbs on the dog. BUT, you wouldn't be denied the chance to use other objects on the dog, and as I said in my last post about this, MOST of the 'verbs' in adventured games are in fact the objects you use on things. So, yeah. You can't try to 'talk' to it or 'push' it or whatever... but, you can:

*Try to use the hammer you have in your inventory to knock the dog out

*Try to use the whistle you have to call the dog over to you

*Try to use some food you have to lure the dog

and so on and so forth. The 3, 4, 9 verbs you can use in some adventure games is really only a tiny fraction of the interaction, most of the time when you're really stuck in an adventure game, what's the thing you end up doing? Probably trying to use different objects on things. And inventory is still very much a thing in this game. Use is the only REALLY important verb in adventure games, because all the others (except for give, which is really just another type of use) are just simple: push thing. Talk to guy. Pick up stuff. But use is where the complexity is at, because you get both 'Use thing.' type interaction, but also the much richer 'Use thing with other thing' kind.

Of course I do not argue that you can use every item in your inventory on the dog, as you can do the same for every person, item you meet during you course of playing. But, in the end, I think this becomes a mechanically process where you use everything with everything, just to have a puzzle solved. Verbs, in my opinion, provide a much more shopisticated approach to puzzle deisgn and solving, but then perhaps that's just me thinking like that1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i haven't seen the perfect interface in an adventure game yet.

What i like about the verbs is that they give you a feeling of complexity, playing around with possible solutions in your mind and that they are available at the same time as the scene is there, best combined with an inventory which is visible at the same time. But i'm also fine with icons if they really speak for themselves. You would have to invest a little bit of time, do some research and play through a couple of adventures to get a feeling for what the best possible solution for an adventure is and what to avoid but without doing so i already can tell that i don't like the verb coins the way they have been done yet, looking weird, being too big and covering a too large part of the scene, feeling too technical like you're in Maya/Modo, sometimes feeling weird to activate or exhausting/hard to navigate by holding down a key constantly.

What i also dislike are inventories which are too small and inventories which are too big. With the small ones you can't do anything reasonable, combining a few objects can be a pain already, scrolling through your inventory. The big ones are often in your way when they cover a large part of the screen and this makes thinking of possible solutions and how to utalise your inventory in a given scene less enjoyable. An inventory should either be placed beside the scene so that you can both inspect the scene and the inventory or it should be transparent, so that you can look through on the scene between the inventory items. I enjoy collecting stuff, combining it and looking at it in my inventory.

Beside of the actions and the content of your inventory i don't want to see the interface. Those walking arrows in the Monkey Island Second Editions were terrible and it felt like an interface designed for not this clever children. Adventures are also about exploration, right?! When Columbus discovered America there also were no walking arrows giving advices where he could go. Less is definitely more here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somehow think that it is important to see your inventory and also the items.

I'm not a professional psychologist but I think it helps the subconscious mind trying to find a solution for the puzzles

when having the items in front of you all the time.

I want to use my brain, that's why I decide to play an adventure game. If anything is solveable with just one click I feel like playing one of these games (on consoles) where an event is triggered by repeatingly pressing the same button all over again. To me that is pseudo interaction for bringing a "movie" forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't we just use Tim Schafer AS the interface?

timschaefer.gif

I think a one touch/ simple interface hybrid will do. It will work on phones and tablets just fine as well as the pc .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I do not argue that you can use every item in your inventory on the dog, as you can do the same for every person, item you meet during you course of playing. But, in the end, I think this becomes a mechanically process where you use everything with everything, just to have a puzzle solved. Verbs, in my opinion, provide a much more shopisticated approach to puzzle deisgn and solving, but then perhaps that's just me thinking like that1

As someone who has designed puzzles in the past, I know that it's very common to think that you need a more complex interface than you really do. But in reality as far as I can tell, more verbs doesn't add to the sophistication of the puzzles you can design (I'm currently working on this massive adventure puzzle design which is really sophisticated, I think, and at least as complex as anything attempted in any of the old LucasArts adventures, but only needs a one verb interface to work just fine). What it does mean that as a designer you have to account for more things, to make sure the game responds intelligently to all the different verbs, so on. Puzzles are easier to design when you have only one verb + inventory, but they're not necessarily easier to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The capabilities of an interface can/should influence the puzzle design. The more flexible it is, the more options it offers, the more complex it can turn out to be. This is about math and the number of possible (reasonable) combinations to choose from. A fact you should keep in mind and taking your advantage of whilst designing your puzzles.

Reduced interfaces have a tendency feeling a little bit like playing in a strait jacket. At least you want to talk to someone, look at the world and interact with it. For some "use" interpreted context related might be good enough already but whilst doing so it takes away a part of the fun. There is a difference if i want go give someone an item, if i want to place something somewhere, maybe i want to push an artifact into a hole, maybe i want to pull it more towards me, ... the more reduced an interface is the more depth and detail it takes away, the more auto completed it will be. You can compensate this lack by designing puzzles accordingly but somehow i prefer having a wise selection of actions instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The capabilities of an interface can/should influence the puzzle design. The more flexible it is, the more options it offers, the more complex it can turn out to be. This is about math and the number of possible (reasonable) combinations to choose from. A fact you should keep in mind and taking your advantage of whilst designing your puzzles.

Reduced interfaces have a tendency feeling a little bit like playing in a strait jacket. At least you want to talk to someone, look at the world and interact with it. For some "use" interpreted context related might be good enough already but whilst doing so it takes away a part of the fun. There is a difference if i want go give someone an item, if i want to place something somewhere, maybe i want to push an artifact into a hole, maybe i want to pull it out, ... the more reduced an interface is the more depth and detail it takes away, the more auto completed it will be. You can compensate this lack by designing puzzles accordingly but somehow i prefer having a wise selection of actions instead.

Actually the maths doesn't really work out in your favour for a couple of reasons. First, no matter how many verbs you have you can always have any amount of inventory items to make up the numbers. But also, except for picking stuff up (which isn't really a puzzle) nearly all adventure game puzzles are solved by using something with something else. So the other verbs don't really add much value to the puzzle solving at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Math works out pretty well here if you want to keep things more balanced. It might sound less sexy than design philosophy, nonetheless it's a valid science/art. Secondly as i wrote before the more generalised the "use" action is the less depth it offers on a certain level. This is less about picking something up, it's about how you interact with an item with the world, like a greater vocabulary enables you to articulate yourself more precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For fun I just went into a walkthrough of Day of the Tentacle and found all the things you have to do to solve puzzles which require extra verbs above and beyond 'use' (not including picking stuff up, and dialogue tree puzzles, which this game has)

As in these are all the actions where it's not obvious from context what 'use' would do, so you have to work out which verb to use on which thing as a puzzle:

open grandfather clock (first puzzle in the game, granted! the 'Open' verb is important for this puzzle, because the secret passage isn't obvious)

push the speaker (makes sense to have 'push' here as ordinarily you wouldn't think to push over a speaker, so it's a puzzle to figure that out)

Amazingly, that's it. Unless I missed one or two because I was reading quickly, I couldn't find ANY other examples of puzzles in that whole game where the inclusion of verbs other than Walk to or Interact/use with, actually has any puzzle solving value. Nearly every other action you have to do in the game is Use X with Y (or give X to Y) and walking around.

There are a couple of edge cases I found:

-you have to open the grate to chase the teeth into them, but grates are things you'd expect to be able to open - the puzzle here is the chasing the teeth, not how you get the grate open.

-After you put the battery in the kite, you have to push it when the guy says now to launch it. But you're told to do that, so it's not really a puzzle. And use would work just as well any way, in that case.

but apart from that, nothing. The idea that collapsing the verbs into one single Interact verb is seriously limiting on the types of puzzles that can be designed just doesn't hold up, even when you look at the old games. The amount that it limits your ability to create puzzles it absolutely tiny compared to the advantages of a cleaner interface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? As i wrote before if you construct your puzzles wise enough you can do many things, move the focus of a puzzle on a higher/different layer, serialise the execution or design it in a way that the context makes sense but that doesn't change a thing about the fact that there are less options, things can feel more artifical, more casual and shortcut too. Obviously you can construct examples how tedious a more simplified approach can be as well. So, no, i prefer the former as much as i prefer not only screaming hungry when i want something to eat anymore. The question more is if you're also willing to use the potential more options offer to you. But no matter which approach you prefer both can result into good as well as bad puzzles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this