How do you feel about blank or empty interaction points?

[Frostyfirefly]

I actually lampshade the 'obvious object is obvious' by putting a sparkle there but not having an item there. Mind you, I don't know if it's really lampshading, since later in the game, the hint to 'generic key item' is said sparkle.

That's good, subtle indicators seem very practical, at least for non-old school type games.

 

[Sharm]

Some people here don't seem to know this rule.  The first instance of an object the player encounters decides how they will react to that object for the rest of the game.  So if he tries a pot and nothing happens they'll never check a pot again unless it is blatantly pointed out that there's something in that specific pot.  If the first pot has flavor text then it's a toss up.  They'll only check the ones that seem different somehow (placement or coloring or whatever), act like it was empty or compulsively check every pot in the game depending on the player.  If the pot has something in it they will check every pot in the game regardless of if they find stuff in other pots later.

I happen to like a bit of flavor text to random objects, especially if makes sense to find flavor text there and if it's somehow interesting and not just "it's a pot".  I'm a big point and click adventure game fan where this is the norm.  They can be a tool to characterize the MC, the NPC who lives in this house your raiding, used for worldbuilding and add a little depth to the overall feel of the game itself.  These are used to best effect in games where there aren't a lot of maps, I can't imagine doing more than a few obvious ones in a 30+ hour epic.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

Some people here don't seem to know this rule.  The first instance of an object the player encounters decides how they will react to that object for the rest of the game.  So if he tries a pot and nothing happens they'll never check a pot again unless it is blatantly pointed out that there's something in that specific pot.  If the first pot has flavor text then it's a toss up.  They'll only check the ones that seem different somehow (placement or coloring or whatever), act like it was empty or compulsively check every pot in the game depending on the player.  If the pot has something in it they will check every pot in the game regardless of if they find stuff in other pots later.

I happen to like a bit of flavor text to random objects, especially if makes sense to find flavor text there and if it's somehow interesting and not just "it's a pot".  I'm a big point and click adventure game fan where this is the norm.  They can be a tool to characterize the MC, the NPC who lives in this house your raiding, used for worldbuilding and add a little depth to the overall feel of the game itself.  These are used to best effect in games where there aren't a lot of maps, I can't imagine doing more than a few obvious ones in a 30+ hour epic.

Yes, I see. That last part is very important too, when handling blank interaction points, you must consider it's direct relation to game length.

 

[deaddrift]

dang, another great game making thread discussion!  it takes me a long time to read these, but i feel like i get so much good info, thanks to all those who post in these discussions!

so my personal take on it is, more is better! a world that you can interact with is more alive to me, a description of the object can add life to a dull world....

maybe change your descriptions!!!!, instead of the description: "its a cooking pan" and nothing else, why not personalize it a bit? 

Say you are in a NPC's house, and the NPC is named Melda, the description of the cooking pan could say: "It's Melda's favorite cooking pan!"

that way its a bit more personal to the game world..

*edit: NINJA'd! i take a long time to type LOL

ALSO!!!

the idea of multiple descriptors is a good one, the first time you click on an object you get one response, and each time you click on it you get a different response about the same item, eventually the responses will loop back to the first description.

so the first time it sould say: ""It's Melda's favorite cooking pan!"

the next time you click on it, it could say "The pan is filthy from burning hamburgers"

the next time it could say "Someone really should clean this pan"

and finally, the responses would loop back to the beginning : "It's Melda's favorite cooking pan!"

***a fun thing also to do for easter eggs, if you can keep track of how many times a player clicks on an object, after 10 times of getting the same response, the 10th time the game description could say "Wow, you really like clicking on this cooking pan...are you hungry?

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@ Deaddrift: I like personalization and multiple descriptors too; from a designer perspective, you can really put a lot of peronal touches thanks to them, but I can see how it's more practical to use them in shorter games unless you want to spend too much time on each stage.

 

[Omnimental]

A good rule of thumb is that interaction points should only have a single panel of text.  If the player needs to click through multiple frames of text every time they click on a flower pot, they'll quickly get frustrated and just mash through it.

I'd highly suggest sprinkling hints in your descriptive text.  Little Chekhov's Guns, information on various side quests, stuff like that.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

A good rule of thumb is that interaction points should only have a single panel of text.  If the player needs to click through multiple frames of text every time they click on a flower pot, they'll quickly get frustrated and just mash through it.

I'd highly suggest sprinkling hints in your descriptive text.  Little Chekhov's Guns, information on various side quests, stuff like that.

Yes, that could get tedious! I usually like short descriptions and to the point.

 

[deaddrift]

hi!

just wanted to clarify what i was describing would be if you clicked it once, walked away, then came back and clicked the same thing again- (each with only a single panel description) ... i'd be pleasantly surprised if i played a more dynamic game world as opposed to one that repeatedly told me the same thing over and over

as a game maker, i understand maybe that is too much writing for alot of people...i guess its just as deep as you want it to be!

and im only talking about useless background objects, not anything that is needed to progress the storyline

cheers

 

[Another Ned]

Personally, I like clicking on everything (and getting a reaction even if it isn't a free potion). But if the first few maps/areas I can run around don't have anything indicating that the game is encouraging this kind of exploration (meaning no reaction, no text boxes, nothing), I usually stop trying.

Games with sparkles or icons to indicate interactable objects on the other hand make me totally lazy. If they ever had a hidden item somewhere and didn't indicate it the same way, I'd surely miss it. Also, sometimes it feels a little immersion-breaking and, I don't know, it takes the fun out of exploring/compulsively clicking on everything remotely container-y. D:

And this topic reminds me of myself several years back, must have been my second project ever. Everything was interactable. Fit with one of the main characters' personality as he was a bit greedy and a semi-compulsive collector. And I did write every text from scratch. No copypasting. Did result in some interesting remarks I otherwise would have never thought about and helped with characterization. Also, having the player stop to collect yet another common yellow mushroom could even trigger a heated discussion between this character and another (impatient) one if she's in the party. Also had one event in a random NPC's kitchen where when the player interacted with it, the main character took the reigns over the frying pan much to the annoyance of the impatient character. Was pretty fun but I wouldn't exactly do it again or even recommend it. Definitely not on this scale at least (most probably one of the reasons I canceled the project back then), though it's nice to reward curious players with items, xp, sometimes money (main character was even happy when he found one single coin between some logs). Even had a "collection points" system in place to further encourage players clicking on everything.

Thinking about this also makes me realize that back then, I've never hidden anything important in/at/on/preposition such "interaction points", important meaning relevant to the story/main quest and I also tend to expect this from games I play (the exception being of course when the story makes it clear that I have to search).

Some people also mentioned "conditioning" the player by placing something in a container early on which I think is pretty good practice. Lots of interesting points in this thread, actually. Makes me think about how I'll treat this topic in my current project.

 

[Frostyfirefly]

@ Chiara: I agree, I'm glad we are all benefitting from a topic that basically just came out on a whim, but turned out to be one of the most significant discussions of video game fundamentals I have ever read.

 

[deaddrift]

@Chiara: great first post! obviously you have some history making games!

the situation you described with how the characters interacted and the special interaction with the cooking event are what made me love rpgs when i was a kid, situations just like that.. i think i remember the goofy story elements more than any battles from all my time playing..

i understand about time limitations though!

ive got lots of new things to consider about making my first game, you should see my list of things i want to accomplish/add!

 

[Another Ned]

@Frostyfirefly: Those on a whim (learned a new word, yay!) seem to be the best sometimes. Glad you opened the topic.
@deaddrift: Haha, more a history cancelling game projects. Thanks though. And be careful not to let the list grow too much, especially with Nice-To-Haves like flavor text and hidden items in decorations (there's a reason I never finished a game yet x"D). Except it's part of the main mechanic:

@Topic: I suddenly remembered playing a German RPG-Maker game a few years back where interacting with everything was basically the main mechanic both during exploration as well as in battles. So they always were meaningful (even if sometimes it still would "only" yield a comment by one of the characters). Some things also only worked if the other character (there were two of them) were to interact with them.

Its also something to think about, although it seems mostly to be about prioritizing things (if interaction with everything is of high priority, just make it a core mechanic, or something like that).

 

[Wtf1555]

Really sad about that,is just annoying and kill your curiosity about the game.

 

[Dark Messiah]

In every project I have worked on, I have hid random **** all around my maps. Fireplaces, jars, bookshelves, you name it, there might be something there. But the thing is, it's never anything essential. It's always just random extra goodies. I think that's when its acceptable. Hiding plot-essential things in places that give no indication of an item, especially when the game hasn't established that as a mechanic, is just annoying and frustrating. Think of that part in Castlevania 2 when you randomly use that tornado thing at that one wall, how is anybody supposed to know that?

 

[Frostyfirefly]

In every project I have worked on, I have hid random **** all around my maps. Fireplaces, jars, bookshelves, you name it, there might be something there. But the thing is, it's never anything essential. It's always just random extra goodies. I think that's when its acceptable. Hiding plot-essential things in places that give no indication of an item, especially when the game hasn't established that as a mechanic, is just annoying and frustrating. Think of that part in Castlevania 2 when you randomly use that tornado thing at that one wall, how is anybody supposed to know that?

Arg! I hated that part in Castlevania 2, I only learned that secret thanks to good old gamefaqs a few years later.

 

[kerbonklin]

Old school castlevania games, once you learn there's a Leg of Meat or a Double-Trouble inside an unnoticeable breakable wall, you start doing it for EVERY wall!  That kind of OCD checking still carries onto the newer Castlevania games too, except they usually have REALLY good rewards for finding.

However there's a specific enemy that drops a super weak-stated helmet that shows all breakable walls in a map, called the Eye of Decay. Risk taking a lot of extra damage but gain very precious secrets in exchange. (Unless you found them before in a previous playthrough and memorize all the breakable wall locations, or let your OCD wall-checkings guide you)

 

[Frostyfirefly]

Old school castlevania games, once you learn there's a Leg of Meat or a Double-Trouble inside an unnoticeable breakable wall, you start doing it for EVERY wall!  That kind of OCD checking still carries onto the newer Castlevania games too, except they usually have REALLY good rewards for finding.

However there's a specific enemy that drops a super weak-stated helmet that shows all breakable walls in a map, called the Eye of Decay. Risk taking a lot of extra damage but gain very precious secrets in exchange. (Unless you found them before in a previous playthrough and memorize all the breakable wall locations, or let your OCD wall-checkings guide you)

Castlevania is a good example of how to handle interaction points, I remember in C:SOTN there was this chapel with a confession room, where if you went inside the booth, a ghostly priest would "listen to your sins" and could even stab you through the screen. That was awesome!