This may be atypical for adventure games but wearing a hat is actually the default use of hats. 
Team Fortress 2 players know that.
3 Likes
this cracked me up
Let the main character say: âIf I only could listen to the discussion.â Or something like this. Another possibility: If the player is trying to âuseâ the door with the corresponding icon, let the hero say: âI canât open the door. But maybe I could hear what they sayâŚâ
These lines are far from perfect (and neither subtle) but I think you got the point.
(And a better solution depends on the scene. Why are A and B walking in the room? What happens next? Which objects are here? Do I have to hold a glass on the door? etc.)
Play Larry 7 and find out yourself
Yes. You gave the example:
The problem with the Sierra interface was, that it hides the icons. You have to cycle through the actions with the right mouse button or open the panel at the top. When you play the game you focus on the icons you need the most time. And AFAIR the ear was some of the last icons in the cycle. So eventually you âforgetâ the ear icon.
Yes and no: Itâs his fault because he forgot the verb/action. But the developer isnât innocent: He made the interface more complex than necessary. (He âforcedâ the player to forget the verb.)
The good news: The developer could prevent that. Just present the player all options. In TWP the player sees all verbs and thus all possible options.
Yeah, I get that - it really depends on the style of game. IMO itâd fit great in that âchoose your own adventureâ mold, more focused on decisions and narrative than puzzles, where perhaps the player that missed picking up the saw only has the compliment option. Seems more interesting to me than âclick on peg legâ â unknown action.
I see. So the only problem is that the AGI interface hides the ear icon, so you almost never see it and forget it exists.
Ok, but Larry 7 does not hide the âotherâ verb. You see it each time you click any object. So the player cannot forget it exists. So after all, itâs ok?
Play Larry 7.
The Larry UI has the problem, that it âhidesâ the input field. You have to open it explicitly (via âsomething elseâ in the âcoinâ interface if I remember correct) and it is used in very rare situations.
Yes⌠and no:
That doesnât seem to work.
Because we want to make the game interesting for the player⌠why is this so hard to understand? We donât go to extremes to simplify the interface because nobody would feel challenged at just clicking a button without doing anything.
Why are some of you taking such extreme positions? Are you seriously saying that we can only have contrived and complicated puzzles or just one button? That there is no room to explore simplicity without going silly?
Wow.
Because I am trying to explore the implications of your idea that we can trust the player.
Your idea is a radical one. It is an extreme one. So it has extreme implications. If we took it literally, we should infer that itâs perfectly ok to do what I said. And you know what? I find it convincing. You convinced me
No, itâs not a radical one â except perhaps in this little bubble of a forum thread. Check out Mr. Gilbertâs postings on the subject, including his âsinsâ of design.
You are in partnership with the player, for a ride in which both will have fun. Starting from an antagonistic point will NEVER be fair to the player since, as a designer, you hold all the cards. It wonât be fun for the player, and the player will pay in retribution: he will cheat, try to work around your limitations, or just leave.
-dZ.
Ok, itâs a non-radical one with radical implications. Anyway, letâs not argue about adjectives please.
What I was implying earlier was a system where you swipe certain directions/symbols to perform actions for objects on the screen (less sure how it would work for items in oneâs inventory). Straight lines could be used for pull and push, with a straight line away from an object indicating a pull and toward an object a push. A semi-circle could act as open. A full circle could act as look. A cross could act as talk. A double tap could act as pick up. On phones youâd just swipe and make forms immediately and elsewhere youâd initiate with a mouse click before then drawing actions.
But that isnât intuitive: The player has to learn several âmovesâ or swipes. Especially when he uses the mouse.
It should take one very little time to learn the moves and it might be much better suited to mobile devices. Itâs all I can think of thatâs potentially interesting but different given that Ron claims to have an idea that would revolutionise the PnC genre â itâs hard to think what that might be.
I donât understand why you think the âsolve puzzleâ button would make the game uninteresting. Itâs not that he canât solve the puzzle himself if he wants to. So why?
You only gave this short line of explanation and then went mad⌠So I donât really understand.
OK, go ahead, by all means, implement your fabulous game with a single button and see who plays it. 
I, on the other hand, would not be interested in making a game with some neat interface that makes sense to me; I would be more inclined to make an experience that will satisfy the player, because making the game fun and interesting for players is what gives me satisfaction.
You want to deal in absolutes (âoh, you want to simplify the interface, that means remove all interactionâ; âyou think you should trust the player? then letâs not give him anything at all because heâll know what to do every timeâŚâ). I am trying to suggest a more nuanced approach.
Players are human, even if some programmers think like machines.
-dZ.
That was my initial question, but then I changed it. Here is what I said:
left click to act on an object, right click to look, ⌠so we have also preserved interactivity
Let me repeat: the âsolve puzzleâ button does not mean that you need to give up interactivity. (You could also have the inventory as well, if you wish.)
Look, Iâm not here to argue with you. Feel free to implement your game as you desire.
The topic of this thread is an alternative to verbs and people were talking about the coin UI and raising some concerns. I only offered my opinion: that a lot of the problems and concerns raised have to do with an inherent flaw in approach: trying to keep one step ahead of the player, as if it were a competition or a struggle against him.
I suggested that perhaps they should trust that the player is in it for the fun of the experience, and not to fight the designer; and that based on this premise we could construct a fun and enjoyable experience for him, by guiding him and nudging him in the natural direction he is already keen and predisposed to follow â rather than trying to make him guess our intent from fridge logic.
Some of you treated this suggestion as if I were from Mars and I said the Moon was made of chocolate, preferring to ridicule my idea and continue discussing how to better contrive the UI in order to prevent the player from âdoing the wrong thing.â 
Oh well. I wish you the best of luck in your game making enterprise.
dZ.
Ok, there is a misunderstanding. When you find an interesting idea like yours, in order to understand if itâs correct, what do you do? You try to attack it in any way possible, to contradict it in any way possible. If the idea survives this process, then itâs probably correct. Your idea survived. So you should be proud. Instead you seem offended that I tried to contradict it. But I had clearly said âdonât take this the wrong way, I need to do this to understand if itâs rightâ. I think you are right. How else must I say this?