How do you feel about blank or empty interaction points?

[Frostyfirefly]

What I mean is this: in all rpgs, there are places your character can check or examine, you know, statues, bushes, jars, desks, etc. Sometimes, you get a message that says something like "It's just a statue", other times, you get a message in the line of "omg you found an item!!!", and yet, there are other times when you simply cannot examine an element you thought you could examine; turns out the statue was just there for decoration and you cannot interact with it in any way.

In case something is just there for background decoration, do you prefer it to always read something when you click it? ("it's an old chair", "it's a bed, it looks new") or do you like it better when you click on it and, if the object is not relevant to the story or game progression, it doesn't say anything. 

Thanks in advance for your replies.

 

[EtphTheElephant]

Personally, no. It seems pointless to me.

EDIT: 100th post suckas!!

 

[Ellie Jane]

When you're a team of one it's probably a lot of effort for very little reward. It doesn't add much to the game, it's just a nice easter egg in some projects.

 

[Jesse - PVGames]

I tend to follow what Ultima creator Richard Garriot says: if it looks like it can be interacted with, and is something you can interact with in the real world, then you should be able to interact with it in-game.

 

[Tsukihime]

I would find it inconsistent if I can examine some chairs but not other chairs.


If you want only plot-specific objects to be interactable (ie: one specific chair), then it should be pretty obvious.


Otherwise, some people might end up examining every pixel and then say the dev sucks for designing a game like that.

 

[Yato]

The key element here is consistency. If one pot is examinable, every pot should be examinable. If the majority of the items are not examinable, there should not be a potion hidden in pot #236 unless there is something different looking about that pot (a sparkle for example).

 

[Hollow]

I think, if used properly, interactive objects with short descriptions can provide a great opportunity to teach the player about the game's setting and characters without a giant exposition dump elsewhere. It's also pretty fun and rewarding for me as a player to find hidden items in otherwise nondescript places just because I examined them. Though, all in all, it seems to be of personal preference: some people hate to have to explore every single thing to find items, while others love it (like me).

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@EtphtTheElephant & Amy Pond: Yes, that's what I'm thinking as well; but as Amy said, it does sound interesting to sprinkle some easter eggs here and there.

@PVGames: I see the logic behind that, but to me it does sound a bit of a pain, because then every object would need a small description; I'm thinking placing and designing good sprites should take priority, so the player doesn't have to click on the red box just so that it reads "hey, it's a box, and it's red".

@Tsukihime & Racheal: Yes, that makes sense. If you are going to mix examinable elements with non-examinables, the examinable ones should look a bit different.

@Hollow: I'm like that as well, but only at certain points of the game, otherwise, it may feel repetitive or monotonous to me.

 

[Andar]

Hidden interaction points should always be optional - if there is something that the player needs to interact with, then it should be obvious.

One example that I plan to implement in my games: Books with important info and books with background info.

But the important hint-books will always be on a table (often open), while the optional background-books will be in bookshelves.

That way you can attract both player types: those who would like to learn the entire background and those who only want to follow the plot.

Other than that, it should be consistent that every same opject has the same result - for example bookcases should always give a message if they're interactable, even if it's only "nothing new" or "already searched through".

 

[cabfe]

It depends on the kind of game you're making.

For a RPG, that may not be necessary if the focus is on combat and most loots are in chests.

As for me, I'm making an adventure game so in this case, this is almost a requirement

Actually, I love writing those lines. It can be trivial descriptions, but it can also have deep meaning for the protagonist.

 

[amerk]

Use shiny stars or some such to indicate when something is interactive. Some minor things like books, boards, signs, and plaques on the wall don't need them, as these are typically obvious, but when searching for the one hidden loot in the bush of a thousand bushes, it gets very annoying.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@ Andar: That's a pretty clever way of separating both types of books, nice!

@ Cabfe: True, it depends on the kind of game; adventure games thrive on short descriptions.

@ Amerk: Yes, there must be a way to set interactable things apart; I'll have to be careful on not giving too much away though, I like those "eureka" moments when you finally find the missing thing for a puzzle or something.

 

[deilin]

What I've started doing some various things:

For the most part, unless it's a chest, you wont get an item.

If there is something to find in an area, then make it obvious.

>Have dialogue saying to look in a room

>Have a twinkle effect over the object to show it can be interacted with.

>Some stuff might only be pertinent to a specific actor, though.

Only try to read bookshelves in the Library, or a specified Diary.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

>Have dialogue saying to look in a room

That's a good idea, and you can reinforce it with something like "quick, look for anything that looks like a container in that room".

 

[kj3400]

As I see it, if you want someone to notice something, either point it out, make it obvious, or guide the player to it in a subtle way. Making something that is so abundant that no one would think to check more than once or 10 times something that has importance is going to make the player wonder what else they missed.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

As I see it, if you want someone to notice something, either point it out, make it obvious, or guide the player to it in a subtle way. Making something that is so abundant that no one would think to check more than once or 10 times something that has importance is going to wonder what else they missed.

That's a good point, no pun intended.

 

[OM3GA-Z3RO]

I am not entirely fond of it but you can make some things have interactions for like some lols and such, I personally enjoy those, which I am implementing on my project to give of a comedic feeling and hey it might effect the Karma system that I am also implementing.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

I am not entirely fond of it but you can make some things have interactions for like some lols and such, I personally enjoy those, which I am implementing on my project to give of a comedic feeling and hey it might effect the Karma system that I am also implementing.

That sounds cool, if they have an effect on Karma, that gives them greater meaning as long as they are presented right.

 

[hian]

I don't mind very much either way.

There is a danger of causing frustration if you do add messages for all objects though.

Players that recognize that certain objects might be important among all the non-important ones end up clicking everything just in case, which means you're forcing them to waste time reading text boxes filled with needless info.

As for consistency - I think that's relative as well.

While I think items and events that are imperative to plot or gameplay development should stand out, there is nothing wrong with having optional or secret items and events blend with the environment.

Personally, I think that's a valid way of rewarding players who explore or are patient by giving them something for doing something that comes natural to them. Furthermore, it makes these secrets less obvious, and therefore adds to tge feeling of the world always having something more to give, if you just bother looking.

In my game, all quest points, item interaction points, and otherwise difficult to perceive exits and interaction points are clearly identified by various glowing icons.

That being said, there are certain points that break the pattern, either because it's completely obvious - such as regular NPCs - or because I want it to be an easter egg for hard-core explorers.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

As for consistency - I think that's relative as well.

While I think items and events that are imperative to plot or gameplay development should stand out, there is nothing wrong with having optional or secret items and events blend with the environment.

Personally, I think that's a valid way of rewarding players who explore or are patient by giving them something for doing something that comes natural to them. Furthermore, it makes these secrets less obvious, and therefore adds to tge feeling of the world always having something more to give, if you just bother looking.

Yes, I think those are important points to consider.