Never knew that! 
1 Like
Imagine you would have instead of âfixâ the verbs âstripâ and âtwistâ.
It would make for some interesting other uses too. Or set you off on the wrong foot.
1 Like
I donât think you can have a SCUMM interface without âuseâ. How would you , say, play the trumpet in monkey2? (Of course you can add a âblowâ or âplayâ verb, but then youâd also need to add a lot more verbs: dig, fish, and so on [edit: WRONG. it does not follow. âdigâ, âfishâ can be expressed by combining two objects. âBlowâ cannot.]). The number of âunaryâ verbs would explode.
The problem occurs because scumm is a verb-first, object-second interface. If OTOH you have an object-first, verb-second interface, you can do without the âuseâ verb, without exploding the number of verbs.
(An other way to remove âuseâ is, of course, switch to a verb-less interface, but then you lose puzzles which consist in push, pickup and open. )
1 Like
But donât you âspoilâ with this interface some of the puzzles? For example if you click on the trumpet and you show the verbs âlook atâ, âtakeâ and âblowâ, itâs clear, that you have to blow the trumpet.
If implemented that way, it gives away puzzles.
But not if you implement like this:
you click the trumpet, and the verb menu pops up, containing two sections: 1) the fixed verbs; 2) the context-sensitive verbs.
so you would see: play (context-sensitive) , and then the list of fixed verbs, those that are always the same: look, open, close, pickup, push, pull, give, talk, combine with.
This way I donât think you would give away any monkey 2 puzzle, and yet you have implemented monkey2 without the use verb, keeping gameplay unchanged.
Also note that the puzzle in monkey2 is not to understand that you need to blow the trumpet, but where to blow the trumpet. So you wouldnât lose anything. In general, the obvious usage of an object is never the puzzle.
Well, if we want to take the Checkhovâs gun approach, thatâs the same for everything in the game. By adding an item in the game youâre basically telling the player âyou might want to use this to solve a puzzle in the futureâ.
The only way to reduce this feeling is to add âred herringsâ, just like all the objects you find in TWP. And so goes for verbs:
By adding play to a trumpet, Iâm not spoiling anything. Itâs just the most basic use of an object. In fact, playing a trumpet in my game might be useless for the puzzles, because maybe you have to trade it instead of playing it, but if you have the obvious verb for every object in the game, youâre not spoiling anything.
1 Like
The only red herring objects in TWP (besides the trash on the highway) are the backer created objects we couldnât find a use for. Thatâs something I will never do again in a Kickstarter.
1 Like
Btw. since you are likely eager to create another type of build:
Have you considered putting the Android version on Humble as APK? Iâd buy it! (Hey, it might not even need a special build?)
You could also use an interface without text-verbs similar to the CMI or FT coin, having various body parts and you just put the trumpet to your mouth/lips.
In the future we will all have VR and motion controllers anyway! Youâll pick up the trumpet and move the controller to your actual mouthâŚ
Yes but typically they donât get that much praise. No wait, there are still a lot of Sierra fans out there! 
I was talking about this specific puzzle in Maniac Mansion:
Opening the envelope by putting it in the microwave with a glas of water, preferable non-toxic/non-radioactive water.
They cannot be combined in the inventory, Iâve just tried it to be sure
Of course you can put both in the microwave at the same time when you know what you are doing. But I was talking about the case when you forget it at first, the door is already closed and want to reopen it.
You shouldnât need to go through a microwaving cycle to do this, itâs just not how anyone would operate in the real world.
1 Like
Right. But this way you would lose puzzles based on push-pickup-open.
Now, for open, you can argue that this verb either does not make sense on a given object, or is the obvious usage of that object. So it is not needed: âuseâ or âthe handâ would replace it without losing puzzles. And thatâs true. But for pickup and especially push, thatâs a loss.
Was it not a fun challenge to try and incorporate them all? (âNo.â)
Maybe we discussed this in the past but I donât remember the conclusion.
My question is : why are 30 verbs overwhelming, but 30 objects in the inventory are not overwhelming? why is the first thing inacceptable but the second is?
Possible response: because the player assumes that the objects are used only once, but verbs are used frequently.
but thatâs not true. If I have 30 verbs, most of them will only be used once: listen, climb, throw, hide behind, kiss, enterâŚ
So I donât see any difference between objects and verbs. I would actually put them in the same list.
more precisely, you could put the frequent verbs, like âpickupâ and âlookâ and âtalkâ, pinned to the top, and then all other verbs merged together with the inventory objects: climb, push, pull, open, listen, kiss, hide behind, enter, knife, magazine, scissors âŚ
they are used the same way after all. All of them are supposed to be used once or twice.
I think that would be confusing. Youâd have to trawl through the verbs looking for inventory items, and vice versa.
Plus some could be confused with the other:
I think the difference is that with the verbs the player has to think about which one to use, so having 30 to wade through is a bit tedious.
ok but why is traveling through 40 inventory objects acceptable, but traveling through 20 verbs is not?
we are talking about verbs that you will be looking for only once or twice in the game. same for objects.
Because it doesnât reflect real life. In everyday life you just âactâ, you donât explicitly think about what you want to do, while it is true that you have memory of what objects you carry with you or where you put them.
Same goes in games. Iâd find acceptable to look in my inventory for the object I want to use, because it mimics something I actually do every day, while Iâd be frustrated if I had to search for a verb to make my character âactâ. From the interface point of view itâs the very same thing, but itâs not if you think about immersion. Verbs should be as immediate as possible.
interesting. but I donât agree that scanning a list of objects reflects real life.
I think neither scanning a list of objects, nor scanning a list of verbs, in the hope to get an idea, is what you do in real life to solve a problem
in real life, first you need to solve the problem in your mind. you will only scan the room when you know what you are looking for.
this is not what happens in the game. we accept that the player will scan the objects in the hope to get the idea what to do next. this is unrealistic, but we accept it. but then, we can do the same concession for verbs.
Because nouns tend to be less ambiguous than verbs. Some verbs can be interpreted in different ways (such as put, activate, attach).
Hm⌠sorry, I donât get the relevance. why is scanning a list of things that are somewhat ambiguous inacceptable?
moreover, the objects must be ambiguous too. they must have some secondary nonobvious usage. otherwise that wouldnât be a puzzle. in adventure games, it is all about nonobvious/unusual actions.
The sense you use the most, are your eyes and the human brain (throuhgout the evolution) has been optimized for image recognition. Images for items only stand for an object. Verbs (are harder to read) and if theyâre represented by an image, they still need to learned/well done in order to understand their meaning.
I suggest:
a) Imagine a small scene.
b) Populate it with some objects and people.
c) Test your theories within the scenario.
d) If you have a candidate which feels good after these tests, implement it and see how it feels.
e) Expand your scene and test if it still works.
f) Share it with other people and compare it to possible alternatives.
g) Iterate and find a good solution.
2 Likes