How many verbs are perfect?

Good point, but we can have the verbs in iconic form.

It’s not difficult to give icons to “kiss”, “hide”, “kick”, “blow in”, “climb”, “enter”, “listen”, isn’t it?

This works for a limited amount and well known set of icons. As soon you introduce more of them, you’ll have to learn them and they need to be good in order to reduce the number of misinterpretations. I think they could operate well in a defined (target audience, puzzle design) sweet spot. If you use too many of them, it will turn into work and being the wrong solution.

we already have 40 icons for the inventory objects, and we accept this. (I mean nobody seems to complain)

But for me that would be too specific, and basically tell you what to do. E.g. If ‘enter’ was a picture of a door you’d know you use it exactly like that instead of, say, for entering a code. So my middle ground would be to keep the ambiguity of the verbs but have fewer of them. That way they can be used in different ways more than once, but with fewer of them to consider.

Which are image representations of concrete objects. On the other hand, icons for verbs would be an abstract representation. That’s an enormous difference in my opinion.

Moreover:

We don’t actually “accept” it. We all know that this is the last resort of the stuck player. Usually scanning through the inventory happens because you understood what to do and you’re just searching for the object. If you want to use the “we do it with objects” justification you’re just saying “I want my players to be able to try all verbs at random”.

And don’t tell me you never had to open your purse / backpack saying “I’m sure I have something that might turn useful now” :stuck_out_tongue: but you never do “I’m sure I can perform some action, but which?”, you just do it.

1 Like

The icon for “enter” shows a person go through a door. But it also has the subtitle “enter” in text form, which makes you understand that it is representing the generic concept of “enter” (or “go inside” if you prefer), not the concept of “entering doors”.

I mean, come on, let’s not assume the player to be stupid. If he’s stupid, he won’t play this game anyway.

An icon for an item, representing a passive object, can be easier to understand than an icon for an action which can be misinterpreted. Now if you make really good self-explanatory items, browsing through a, at least linear or somehow grouped, list of verb-icons can still feel somehow more cumbersome than browsing through a list of item-icons. Maybe its also due to the complexity of considering each verb with each item (some neural net brute force into your face factor).

I suggest you test your ideas vs. the steps I wrote before. This way you can seperate ideas from solutions.

Actually this would be a point where the forum could collaborate in an interesting way, like a group of people discussing different ideas, testing them and implementing the good ones.

1 Like

I’m not sure you’re getting what I’m saying… I’m saying it’s better to keep verbs ambiguous - I’m not assuming the player is stupid, rather the opposite.

Anyway these are just my personal preferences - there’s no right or wrong.

1 Like

Sorry, actually I might have misunderstood. I now see in your view “enter” should work also for entering combinations, not only for entering windows-doors-holes-wardrobes. What to say? Entering a combination can already be accomplished by combining two objects: the code with the safe. You don’t need a verb for that. in this context, we are talking about unary verbs. Verbs that require one object, not two. Those that involve two objects are not needed because already handled another way.

I would do it if I were interested in developing a traditional UI for adventures. But these days I am trying to solve different problems. Traditional UI only allow puzzles where you need to “do something”. But I am interested in puzzles where you need to “understand why” something happened. For example: the puzzle is to understand that someone did something because he wrongly believed something else. or because he was protecting someone else. This is the kind of puzzle I find interesting. (I am an Agatha Christie fan) It is clear that neither SCUMM nor any variation can express this.

I disagree. First, have you ever played a game where inventory objects are actually magic spells? They are abstract concepts. Example: Loom, or the recent Thaumistry by Bob Bates.

It works wonderfully. Your inventory is made of generic concepts, and you need to recognize that they apply to the specific situation. Often in a funny, nonobvious way. (example: “make faster”; “make hotter”; even “summon alpaca” :))

Second: icons for verbs are abstract, but the player is capable of abstracting. I mean: suppose the icon for “hide” shows a person hidind behind a boulder. Then , below, you have the subtitle “hide” in text form, that makes it clear that the icon represents the generic concept of hiding, and not the concept of hiding behind rocks. So I’m sure the player would have no problem using that verb to hide behind a door, or a column. (Unless we are assuming the player to be stupid)

Hmm, sounds vague to me or I didn’t get it.

Stuff happened (certain actions within timespans), you need to understand the given information (happens in your brain: done or [at least partly] failed) and then you act accordingly (where in realtime scenarios taking no action is an action too) and so need to interact via an interface.

How do you act accordingly? What possible act is there that you would do if and only if you have understood why someone did something?

And what about Doug? (Yeah, I tried hours to get the shovel from him. :wink: ) And the cross in the wood? And the rests of the deleted betamax puzzle chain? And the clock in the bank?

btw: I would love to read a “post mortem”! (Maybe you can write a short blog post?)

Me too!

Yes, that’s right. If you only remove all other verbs in MM then you can’t solve the puzzle. But a “use only” interface would be possible.

Say this to the people who are developing adventure games with a one-click-interface. :wink:

When I backed the Kickstarter I thought he had some objects and each backer can choose one of those (and name that object). I was surprised that each backer could choose a random object …

Others gave you already the answer: verbs are abstract (even as an icon), the objects create instantly images in your head. That’s a common trick of “memory artists”: They transfer numbers, letters, etc into images of objects.

Beside that, there is of course a limit of objects too - at least I don’t want 40 or more objects in my inventory. :slight_smile: This is the reason why I never use(ed) the object list in Gateway.

Yes and no: Labyrinth had such an interface where you had to “roll” through the available verbs and then the available objects. It worked well (but wasn’t perfect):

I haven’t played Thaumistry (yet) but Loom: In Loom the spells are actions and not objects. The notes are “icons” for the actions. And I had to look up each spell in my book (or notes if you pirated the game :wink: ) to know which spell represents the corresponding action.

That’s a problem because you use objects (a person and a boulder) to visualize an abstract concept/verb (to pick something up). Your brain needs to translate these representation into the verb. If I write the word “car” you instantly imagine a car in your head. That’s not the case if I show you a man that stands behind a boulder: You brain doesn’t tell you instantly the corresponding verb. Beside that, such pictures could be ambiguous: Your picture could also mean that the man pushes the boulder. Your brain has to sort out these ambiguities first.

1 Like

I act accordingly by taking the appropriate steps based on the given information within a given situation.

Or are you talking about how a character could know something, which you as a player are already aware of and it’s about how to transfer this knowledge to the character (which could be a game/puzzle design thing)?

You are stuck with a problem. You play like this: you scan a list of abstract concepts (hide, corrupt, seduce, make hotter, make faster, make light, jump, cut, show magazine…) and ask yourself “could this somehow apply to the current situation?”.

What is wrong with this play mechanics? Why does the fact that the concepts that you scan are abstract constitute a problem at all?

It is important to understand we already play like this, relatively to the inventory objects. When we are stuck, we scan the inventory objects, and we ask ourselves: could this object be usued in some unusual-nonobvious way to solve the current problem? We consider the object in an abstract way, to understand if, abstracting away some property of the object, but keeping some other properties, it can be useful. For example, if you have the green radioactive liquid, you abstract away the fact that it’s radioactive, you keep only the fact that it’s green, and you ask yourself “can it be useful here?”. This is already how we play.

So, if we were scanning verbs, instead of objects, it would be exactly the same mental process and the same mechanics at work. you scan them, and you ask yourself “can hiding somehow be useful here?” “can enter somehow help me here?” and so on.

What I mean is: suppose the puzzle is to understand that John killed himself because he believed that the cop, that he saw through the window arriving at his house, was coming to arrest him (when in fact he was only coming to tell him his strayed dog had been found).

Now, what “action” can you as a designer require from the player, that proves that the player has understood all the above?

That would be true if you only have the verbs. But in most cases objects are involved. So you have to connect one of the 40 verbs and one of the 40 objects with an object in the room or a person. The possible actions (and your head) would explode.

Beside that it’s easier for the brain to look at a (familiar) object and to deduce the possible actions (“what can I do with the car?”) as to have an (abstract) action and think about which objects could fit to that action (“which objects can I push?”).

It’s the same in your example with the green liquid: You see that you have a liquid that is green and radioactive. Your brains knows instantly that you can pour that liquid. But what if you just read the verb “pour”?

1 Like

we are talking about unary verbs. verbs that behave like objects. = they can be combined with one object, not two.

they do not cause combinatorial explosion. Adding one more unary verb does not cause any more combinatorial explosion than adding one more object.

You have 40 verbs and 40 objects. How many possible combinations do you have?