Alternatives to verbs in UI of adventure games

Or you could try to apply reason and consider why treating the player as a partner and not an antagonist is a good idea.

I get no satisfaction from arguing what should be a fundamental game design principle (“trust your player, work with him and not against him to provide a fun experience”) as if it were some bizarre radical concept. I’m not offended by it, just surprised and more than a little disappointed. :disappointed_relieved:

-dZ.

I’ve thought some more about this. This “the player can forget” issue is really problematic: we have a catch-22. If you have a button (like the ear icon) that needs to be used only once in the game, where do you put the ear icon? If you put it always on screen, the user might try to use it in all sorts of silly ways, and be frustrated. If you hide it in a secondary menu, the user will “forget it exists”, and according to you this is a design flaw. So we are screwed both ways :slight_smile:

but I think it’s a false problem. The user must first solve the puzzle in his mind. If he has solved it in his mind, then he already knows he needs to “listen”. (otherwise it’s a bad puzzle). But if he already knows he needs to listen, he will remember that somewhere in a secondary menu there is a ear icon.

If you’re going to go that way, you have to define your vocabulary for the entire game and ensure the player is aware of it. You shouldn’t have a single puzzle that uses the “Ear” icon then, because it would mean that the rest of the world in your game is not being described with your vocabulary. Essentially you have a “one off” verb applicable to a single situation. How could that ever make sense to the player when his own world does not work like that?

If an “Ear” icon has utility to describe one thing, then surely that one thing cannot be unique in the world. And if it is (for which you may have good reasons), then you better make sure the player understands this. This can be problematic for sure.

You see, the vocabulary you select describes your world, which revolves around the story or premise you are trying to convey. The puzzles then exist within this world. You don’t create random puzzles and then figure out how to make them fit within your world. If you’re doing that, you’ll run into many intrinsic issues of logic, continuity, etc. In essence, you’re puzzles were not borne of your world, so how can you expect them to fit?

Think of your vocabulary of interaction and the logic of your world like your 5 senses and the laws of physics and physical objects. My 5 senses are the way in which I perceive the world around me, and I can move and live within this physical world because it makes sense to me by virtue of it following certain patterns and observable behaviors.

-dZ.

2 Likes

That depends on the story and the UI. :slight_smile: @DZ-Jay sums that perfectly up.

If you use a coin UI, you could show a nose, a mouth, an ear, etc for the five senses. Then the player is responsible to chose the right action - and he has to figure out what he can do with the mouth. :slight_smile:

Another possibility is to show the ear only when it’s needed. But then you make the puzzles easier because the player knows that he as to use the ear in that situation.

But if you have only one puzzle in the whole game that needs the ear, then you should redesign the UI - or the puzzles. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

wait. If this is true, it applies to the inventory too. Take any inventory object, like the bottle in thimbleweed park. You only need to use it once in the game. Does it mean I should redesign the puzzle/remove the bottle?

I mean, the ear icon is just like any other inventory object. So I don’t see what sense it makes to say “if it’s used only once, you should redesign/remove it”.

And the inventory objects are always on screen as well. So why don’t we complain “the user could start using them in all sorts of silly ways, and be frustrated?”

Yes and no. If you hide the inventory, then you risk that the player forget (some) of the objects. (And I admit that in some few adventures I forgot that I had a particular object in the inventory. :slight_smile:)

But usually the player tries to combine the objects with several other objects, so he interacts frequently with the objects. Beside that, most games presents the player the whole inventory at once (or like in TWP). So the player sees the objects most of the time.

And also important: The player knows that he needs the bottle only once in a later part of the game when it makes sense. The verbs are used frequently in different situations.

Let’s assume that the player sees the ear the whole time. Then he tries to use it in different situations. But that doesn’t work because the ear is only used once in the whole game. The player gets frustrated and thinks: “I don’t need that ear in the whole game!”. But not the object in the inventory: The player knows that he needs this object only once, somewhere in the future.

So we have different situations here.

There are adventures that force the player to do that. I had that experience with Broken Age and Broken Sword 5. So, yes: If a (test-)player is trying to use all objects with all other objects, you should redesign your puzzles.

1 Like

I think you are onto something… Let me be sure I understand:

Any inventory object can only be used once in the game. Except that one time, you’ll get generic error messages. But this is not a problem, because the player knows they are only needed once. For the ear icon, he does not know. And this causes problems if you put the ear icon always on screen. Problems that do not happen if you put inventory objects always on screen.

Ok, but if this is the only difference, then if we find a way to let the user know that the ear is only used once, there would be no problem?

This is important. But can I assume that, in that case, you hadn’t already solved the puzzle in your mind? You did not know you needed that object.

I mean: I can’t imagine someone solves a puzzle in his mind, (and therefore knows what object he needs to use), but then gets stuck because he does not remember to have that object :slight_smile:

You would like to create the perfect adventure game UI - am I right? :slight_smile: Unfortunately there is not a “perfect UI”. Otherwise someone had used it already. Every UI has it flaws and was designed for a specific game.

But back to your question: That depends on the story, the UI and the puzzles. But let’s assume we have this one puzzle and the coin UI. You could show but deactivate the ear (i.e. painting the symbol grey) and activate it only in that situation it makes sense. But then you help the player. Without knowing the story and the puzzle I haven’t another solution for that “problem” at the moment.

(Another weird possibility would be to allow the player only 10 times to use the mouth, only 7 times the eye and only 1 time the ear. And then note the remaining tries on the symbol for the corresponding verb.)

1 Like

Why? One doesn’t follow the other. The verbs are the vocabulary for interaction. The objects in your inventory are the things that populate the world. One has little to do with the other.

However, it is true that if an object is not useful for interactions or for solving puzzles, then why is it in the world at all? Perhaps it should be part of the scenery and not an object that can be collected. Red herrings are fine, but a world full of red herrings is not very useful to a player and will lead to frustration.

-dZ.

There are situations where a player forget an object. One example is a bottle that you pick up early in the game but that is needed at the end of the game. If you have an inventory UI that is showing only some of your inventory items at once, the chances are high that the player will forget the bottle. In that case you should think about redesigning the puzzle.

There are two trivial reasons:

  1. It populates the world to make it less sterile and more dynamic/livelier. Think about a carpenters workshop where are several tools that you could pick up - but only one of the tools is useful.

  2. As you said: To be a red herring. These red herrings could be funny and force the player to think. (Of course I agree that you have to be very careful with that because red herrings could be very frustrating for the player.)

I also agree that inventory objects and verbs have two different meanings for the player. The player knows that objects mostly have a single use throughout the whole game, while verbs are used extensively on everything, even just to see what the character says.

If you have a puzzle, and only ONE puzzle where you need to listen, then I’d probably redesign the puzzles so that the ear verb is used for other things, even minor, in order to remind the player he can use them, or I’d find another way, like having a small puzzle where you have to steal an ear trumpet from an old man (but that would work for humorous games).

In that case, I’d say it’s a bad design. If you get an object early that is vital for the endgame, it doesn’t cost much to give an alternative use to that in the middle of the game. In your example, you have a bottle. Make a small puzzle where you need water so you can fill it up. There, you used the bottle, after the puzzle it’s still there back to its empty state, and as a player you know now that it’s not just garbage. In the endgame you’ll surely remember you have a bottle.

1 Like

wait! you solved it :slight_smile: You misled me with the last sentence, but you solved it.

You can activate the ear only where it makes sense. And this does not help the player. Why? because you see the ear activated on all doors. Not only on the one door that you actually need to listen.

So, conjecture: “all verbs can be made context sensitive, and this does not spoil puzzles.”

Yes, now it makes sense. Thanks.

I felt there was a solution without redesigning the puzzle, and finally I found it, with the help of Someone. You only show the “listen” verb where it makes sense. (Not only on that one door where you need it, but on all doors in the game).

This is a general solution that applies to everything :slight_smile: . You have a puzzle where you need to hide behind a tree? Then you put a “hide behind” verb, that only appears when you click a tree. (Any tree, not only on the one tree you actually need to hide behind). (of course, you need to have lots of trees in your game. Which you should have anyway :slight_smile: )

And so on.

Yep. That’s why I wrote, that you should redesign the puzzle. …

… or just let the bottle appear later in the game. :slight_smile:

The “best” solution to this depends on the puzzle and the story.

And what if you have only one door? Or one tree? Or just one bottle that you can blow a melody on? :slight_smile:

As you can see again: The UI depends on the story and especially the puzzles (and vice versa).

…then it means your world is not detailed enough.

So we can call it bad design, it seems to me.

And everything falls into place, finally :slight_smile:

How many details would you add? Some more bottles? Then you have more red herrings. If you add more trees you have a forest. :wink: In any way you frustrate the player with too much red herrings and too much objects. (And you would end up with a hidden object game…)

Like Ultima 7. You have hundreds of bottles, hundreds of trees. (but even if you have only a dozen, it’s ok). Nothing wrong with this, as far as I can see. They are not red herrings, they are part of the environment. I don’t see the problem here. I mean, if the player assumes that everything must have a purpose, there might be a problem. But I figure the player would very soon stop assuming that, if he sees a world with a lot of detail.

I like the idea of listening (listen verb or otherwise) being an integral part of an adventure because a thorough integration would produce an extra layer to dialogue puzzles and would greatly increase the immersion of the game world because of the extra layer of interactions between NPC’s (who you would often have to listen to rather than talk to).