Favorite adventure game interface style

I remember I got stuck badly on Loom at least twice. (only once for language problems – I did not know the difference between close and closed. ). and stuck not badly a few times.

Loom is a game that allows try everything with everything, but not one that bases its gameplay on this, like Walking Dead. (there are so few options there, at each given time, that you are supposed to play like that).

I don’t see the word “die”, however I can see that in non-comedy game it can be a flaw if you can’t die. e.g. the Kathy Rain scene with the father worked fantastically because I thought I could die. It would have been a flaw if I could not.

Moriarty also said “graphic adventures [suck because] you can only show what you can afford to show. And you can’t afford anything”. I think he was spectacularly right there.

The quote didn’t have the word “die”, but it did have the word “killed”.

sorry I had missed that.

The ABC murder uses a “new” interface too, for example you have to “spot” and combine the clues.

I see. But ABC murder is a very atipical Christie novel. It is possibly the only one that has “action” in it. (possibly my least favorite)

In And Then There Were None and other typical Christie novels, this “clue combining phase” would only take place in the end. But on what would you base the rest of the game? basically they are often romances. My 3 favourite books of hers, Appointment with Death, Sad Cypress, and Five Little Pigs, are actually very compelling romance stories or psychological stories, until the end…

Ok, maybe this is how we can turn And Then There Were None and other Christie novels into games (without, of course, adding puzzles, which would seem forced and wouldn’t end well)

We need to scan the whole book, and, for each paragraph of dialogue, we have to annotate it with the objective that the character has while he or she is speaking that line. These objective must exist. The characters must have some reason why they are speaking each line. You don’t speak without purpose. Then you take the most interesting objectives and make them clickable objects in your game. And then you allow to combine these objectives with ordinary objects and characters (not only visible objects, but also objects that have only been mentioned in dialogues) and informations. If you combine them correctly, the dialogue (or the story) goes forward. It is not clear to me if the result would be interesting to play.

Make a prototype and you will see if it works. :slight_smile:

I’m doing it. (my pet project :))

I could make it into a point & click text adventure engine, where you play by combining one “objective” with one object (or person, or information) (you have an inventory of informations).

Does anyone know what good mystery novels are in the public domain?

For who is interested: the first problem in this system is that sometimes the speakers in these novels have very dull objectives. Sometimes the only reason they say something is “to gossip” :slight_smile: But of course I can’t have “gossip” as an objective. So in this case it’s better to just have a normal dialogue.

Another problem is when the only purpose of the speaker is to inform someone else of something. It is uninteresting to create the objective “inform X of Y”. and then expect the player to combine it with X. Better to have this as a non-interactive dialog.

But, in most cases, it seems to works well. For example, if in the book someone says “it’s hot here. how about we go to the beach?”, you implement this in the game as follows. You give the character an objective: “defeat the heat” or something like that. Then the game stops, and you need to combine that objective with the concept of “beach”. (you had that concept in your “mind inventory” because the beach was mentioned previously in another dialogue). And the story goes on.

other example: if a character in the book says “hey we have something in common: we like the same cocktails”, you can implement it like this: you give a character the objective “find something in common with her”, and the player needs to combine this with the cocktails (which are on the table). and the dialog goes on.

This way, we have a mechanical way to turn almost any story into an interactive story, adding quasi-puzzles (puzzles induced by the story itself), without adding new puzzles or changing the dynamics and focus of the story.

Another interesting thing is that this UI idea (you play by combining objective and object) subsumes everything. i.e any ordinary puzzles can be implemented like this. Example: instead of combining “the leaflet with Kate’s face + the wanted poster with guybrush’s face”, you need to combine the objective “have kate jailed” + “wanted poster with guybrush’s face”. (no need to click on the leaflet, you have already proved to have solved the puzzle).

An interesting feature is that, now, if you need to pick up something, you need to have already understood what you need to do with it. To pickup the pen, you need to combine an objective with the pen. You need to declare what you want to do with it. (because there is no pickup verb: there are only two verbs: “look at” and “use for”. if you choose “use for”, you are required to click an objective)

Thanks, I’ll have a look at their solution. I wasn’t interested in purchasing that game, because I didn’t like the graphics style very much and because, later, some reviews weren’t extremely positive, but I think that I’ll watch a “let’s play” to see that interface in action.

Why not? Just choose a type of character who is stereotypically associated with gossiping around and design a story in which gossiping is one of the goals or at least a medium. A doorkeeper in a condominium in which a murder was committed sounds like a possible candidate.

well, the problem is in the mechanics. You play by combining an objective with something else. It must not be obvious what to combine the objective with, in order to move on. If the objective is “gossip”, what do you combine it with? There must not be many things you can combine it with, but only one or two.

See above the examples that work, like the beach example. the objective is “defeat the heat”, and to go forward you need to understand what to combine it with. There are only two things that make sense: beach, and window.

edit: Maybe I am missing something… maybe some of these requirements are not necessary?

Maybe if the objective is “find the recipe book”, it can be ok if there are many objects with which you combine it (the drawer, the chest, the cabinet, …). The output would simply be “you don’t find it here” except when you combine it with the correct object. So maybe the same holds for the “gossip” objective…

Have a look at Project Gutenberg. They are collecting free books:

Especially (old) tales are working very well as an adventure… :wink:

Why? In most adventures you have to inform someone else about something.

Please report. :slight_smile: I found it interesting, but very repetitive and somewhat complicated.

1 Like

Thank you man. It seems I’ll be busy reading for a while :slight_smile:

Hmmm. Instinctively I would reply “because, if you have “inform X” as objective, it would be too obvious how to reach that objective. There’s no puzzle there”. But maybe I am starting from a wrong assumption: that any interaction must be a puzzle. I don’t want to make unnecessary assumptions.

Also, it makes total sense to have an objective “inform X of Y” when the objective is optional. In this case, you want to leave the player free not to inform X.

Since everything by Edgar Allen Poe and H.P. Lovecraft is in the public domain, I would say: pretty much everything you´ll need to know. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Ok, here is how to render gossip interesting (maybe). The user needs to combine the objective “gossip” with the topic he wants to gossip about. (And not with the person he wants to talk to). This way, it is not an obvious action.

Similarly, if in the original book the character warns someone of something, the way to implement this is to combine the “warn of danger” objective with the object you want to warn about. (not with the person you want to warn —which would not be a puzzle).

The only (minor) problem is that, if the user tries to combine the “gossip” objective with a person, the game needs to respond “you should choose a specific topic”.

There’s a better choice - Dreamweb. This game has plenty of objects everywhere that you can pick up. Most of them are trash, so player very quickly has to adapt to a new style. You only pick up what actually makes sense. I’m not sure but I think the inventory space is limited. It was an interesting take on the genre.

1 Like

Pinging @Someone @Sushi @tasse-tee

3 Likes

I’m now really curious about @seguso’s UI. :slight_smile: (@seguso: Any progress with the prototype?)

Maybe it’s not the “perfect” interface, but when it comes to being intuitive, I still think the verb interface is very intuitive. My 3yo daughter learned to use it in one minute, she just needed a hint because she couldn’t read very well.

I mean, what’s NOT intuitive in a list of actions on the screen? You see a whole lot of things like “open” and “close” and “talk”… it doesn’t take a 3-digit QI to think that clicking “open” makes the character open something, does it? And after you click “open”, you’ll be probably thinking “open what?” and you move the cursor and see that it begins to form a sentence like “open rock” and “open lightbulb” and you think “ooh, that’s how it works”. Time needed to learn it: 1 minute if you’re slow.

4 Likes

You are curious about the SEGUSUM?

You invite me to illustrate it? Are you sure?

Ok, I’LL BE BRIEF.


(come back in a few hours)

(oh, you will play the prototype — which is the game completed at 40% – as soon as i translate it…)

(btw, you were right about many things. like that verbs are spoilers in some cases)

3 Likes