Im not saying they should only use point click, im saying/asking/imploring they include point and click as well so people can choose the control they'd like to use and not getting rid of one of them in favor of another scheme.
Point´n click would not work well imho. The occasional change of perspective to a close-up of Guybrush and certainbackground elements would make it hard to navigate out of that screen again.
What about hotspots?, for example a hotspot on De singe's bridge that you can click and it takes you to the lower part, same with club 41, a hotspot that takes you from the bar to the foreground, a hotspot that takes you down in the queen mermaid’s room in lair's etc.
Point´n click would not work well imho. The occasional change of perspective to a close-up of Guybrush and certainbackground elements would make it hard to navigate out of that screen again.
Meeh, people have two hands for a reason. And I find it more enjoying to control the character instead of clicking all over the landscape like a mad chicken.
I don't think that using one hand automatically makes things adventures nor do I believe that using two hands automatically makes things an action game. If you want to use one hand just use the click & drag control scheme and stop whining. It really is better than point & click would be, which we would have found out had they included it. Everyone would have complained about bad camera angles or obscure hotspots or something.
They would need to be placed manually for every camera in every scene (and moved for moving cameras), and logic would need to be wired up to determine which hotspot should be active. It creates a dependency hierarchy in which a change to a camera means somebody has to change the hotspots in that scene. Since cameras in different scenes are set up at different times and cameras can change throughout development, this is not a good solution.
There solutions that work from a programmer's perspective, but are no good from an engineering or production perspective. This is one of them.
What's everyone's problem with WASD controls anyway?
When I want to move across a large space (Flotsom's waterfront, for instance), I have to take my hand off the mouse to hold down the SHIFT key. If I just had to run forwards, I could do that with one hand, but steering is always required.
The control system's not great if I have to move my hands around that much.
The only complain i got to the WASD is that you cant just press one button to go forward. Its not very intuitive for me, and i keep messing up things a little with that.
When I want to move across a large space (Flotsom's waterfront, for instance), I have to take my hand off the mouse to hold down the SHIFT key. If I just had to run forwards, I could do that with one hand, but steering is always required.
The control system's not great if I have to move my hands around that much.
You can run with the mouse holding the right button.
edit:
If I just had to run forwards, I could do that with one hand, but steering is always required.
They would need to be placed manually for every camera in every scene (and moved for moving cameras), and logic would need to be wired up to determine which hotspot should be active. It creates a dependency hierarchy in which a change to a camera means somebody has to change the hotspots in that scene. Since cameras in different scenes are set up at different times and cameras can change throughout development, this is not a good solution.
There solutions that work from a programmer's perspective, but are no good from an engineering or production perspective. This is one of them.
I dont think the hotspots need to be attached to the camera, i was thinking about lets say, an invisible mesh that works like any other object in the scene (lets say a door) when clicked it sends the character to a specified location, so for example, on De singe's house in front of the bridge an invisible box when clicked it sends the character to the lower scene in front of the glass maker's house. (just like you would when you click a door or interactive area that sends the character to that spot). on mouse over the hotspot could say go back down.
unless you are attaching every interactive object to the camera which would be quite odd.
If I just try to run forwards, Guybrush will get hung up on objects, curves in the path, or run down paths I don't want to go. I need to steer. Two hands.
I dont know exactly cause i use the WASD, but i belive you can just click and drag to make Guybrush move and direct him and at the same time press the right button to make him run, and by moving the mouse (still draggin with the two buttons) you will direct him.
But i though you know this and you were saying its difficult or something.
I dont think the hotspots need to be attached to the camera, i was thinking about lets say, an invisible mesh that works like any other object in the scene (lets say a door) when clicked it sends the character to a specified location, so for example, on De singe's house in front of the bridge an invisible box when clicked it sends the character to the lower scene in front of the glass maker's house. (just like you would when you click a door or interactive area that sends the character to that spot). on mouse over the hotspot could say go back down.
unless you are attaching every interactive object to the camera which would be quite odd.
You still have to ensure that the hotspot is visible from any camera where you would care to click it, and the entire system would require a lot of manual set-up that direct control does not. The hot-spots cost time and money in implementation and testing any time a scene's cameras are set up, direct control (as with point and click) only had to be implemented and tested one time.
I dont see the problem with implementing hotspot objects that are quite similar to things like the signs next to club41, or the picture frame with the bees in W&G.
I dont believe you guys spent huge amounts of time just to make a clickable sign.
I dont see the problem with implementing hotspot objects that are quite similar to things like the signs next to club41, or the picture frame with the bees in W&G.
I dont believe you guys spent huge amounts of time just to make a clickable sign.
Certainly not for a single object. Regardless, hotspots don't solve the problem of needing to walk toward the camera when you can't see what's behind it.
Your question was what was wrong with the WASD controls.
If I just try to run forwards, Guybrush will get hung up on objects, curves in the path, or run down paths I don't want to go. I need to steer. Two hands.
You don't have a shift key on the left-hand side of your keyboard? I can steer and run at the same time with my left hand only and still have my right hand free to roam over hotspots. If I was just walking I'd just be using my left hand......that's one hand.
Point & click is the ideal control scheme for an adventure game, but I think click & drag also works very well.
I'm very glad they included it as I would hate having to use the keyboard.
Certainly not for a single object. Regardless, hotspots don't solve the problem of needing to walk toward the camera when you can't see what's behind it.
I know it doesnt work on everything nor everywhere, but It can be set to send the character to a specific zone in many areas.
One example is the De Singe's house, there can be a hotspot that sends the character to an area in front of the glass maker's house. In the clu41's bar in front of the stairs there could be a hotspot that sends the character to the lower foreground floor.
I see you really dont want to implement a clickable floor at all and there will allways be 100+infinity objections about it, but having some hotspots could make a huge difference.
If you want to talk about tradition then using the keyboard is the traditional form of control in adventure games.
early DOS games used keyboard (no mouse at the time) and then it evolved into mouse point click... now it devolved to keyboard again ^^ funny how it works. (and not telling there are far more mouse adventure games than there where for keyboard)
Click and Drag is awesome for those that eat at the computer and have just one free hand. However it often gets me stuck and doesn't always work, but I just have to use the keyboard when it does.
No, No, I'm not referring to your starved imaginations and sexual appetites either.
One example is the De Singe's house, there can be a hotspot that sends the character to an area in front of the glass maker's house. In the clu41's bar in front of the stairs there could be a hotspot that sends the character to the lower foreground floor.
I'll admit I was a bit nervous about not having traditional "point & click" in ToMI, but honestly I think the "click & drag" works pretty well. No, it's not perfect, but frankly the point & click wasn't perfect in S&M either. On some occasions, I'd click on the far side of a screen and Sam would walk in the complete opposite direction and 'interact' with something on said opposite side of the screen. I also got "stuck" in certain places on some occasions. I also accidentally opened my inventory several times when I wasn't paying attention and was trying to click my way across a room.
I am not complaining.... I'm just saying that while people can argue that click & drag isn't perfect, I say neither is point & click. Monkey 3 did it pretty well, but I seem to recall a couple glitchy areas in that game as well.
I can certainly deal with the click & drag, and while I may have my preferences for how I interact with my games & characters, ultimately it's the plot, voice acting, graphics & sound that are most important to me. For that reason, ToMI is a winner in my book, along with W&G and S&M (haven't played the others.... sorry).
Edit: I would like to add that for adventure games, I do prefer mouse-only controls, and I am very grateful for click & drag. While I was able to deal with WASD in W&G, I do prefer just the mouse so I can kick back and relax & enjoy the game.
Or how about the character just controls itself and we just try to click on things as it goes by..... or maybe the game could just click on things for us .......
I like the idea of being able to control the game with neural impulses... let's start a petition thread! All Telltale would have to do would be to make a time machine, (or borrow the one from Sam and Max) then go to the future, steal the technology and come back.
It may alter the laws of casuality but who cares if I get to play Monkey Island while also playing my guitar or other two handed hobby.
Or how about the character just controls itself and we just try to click on things as it goes by..... or maybe the game could just click on things for us .......
I got a question:
The movement perspective of the WASD control (from the gamer perspective and not from the character perspective) was chosen because of some technical limition, or because it was too hard to put both into the game?
I know the gamer perspective is the best choise for consoles, so i understand that if you got to chose only one its gonna be that, but there was some kind of problem with the character perspective?
Or how about the character just controls itself and we just try to click on things as it goes by..... or maybe the game could just click on things for us .......
Sounds like that new LucasArts game where you can't control the girl and she moves across the screen on her own.
I think the changing camera views relative to Guybrush makes the system confusing no matter WHAT system to activate the movement is used. You just don't know when to expect right to suddenly be left or down or forward because it's all relative to a camera you have zero control over. Sam & Max clearly doesn't have that problem and they don't go all crazy with camera views. I don't see why there couldn't be an OPTION to allow movement by clicking. I don't really see too many areas where you couldn't get somewhere regardless. After all, I can click on the door to the doctor's house and Guybrush will automatically find his way there, but I cannot click 3 feet away from me and have him move over there? It's utterly ridiculous, especially when you've played Sam & Max and the system is completely different by the same company as if they cannot make up their own minds how to play a flipping game already. In other words, they lure you in with one game and you like it and then change the control system on another game and your first reaction is always WTF!? Why won't he move?
Regardless, the problem with click/drag is that it simply doesn't activate MOST of the time because you have to click somewhere not relative to the game and that's often harder than it sounds with objects all crowded together like. It just seemed too unreliable and I cannot help but wonder why there's no option to make say the middle mouse button (oh wait, that's the handy inventory shortcut) so OK the (hint) UNUSED right mouse button to activate the movement mode 100% of the time so that I don't have to worry about the select button interfering with a simple desire to move. I gave up on it as soon as I realized I could use the keyboard. At least the controls mirror 3D shooters and the like so they felt relatively natural.
I also thought some modes like clicking on a magnifying glass to examine things was a step backwards from the simple Lucasfilm system used in CMI and the original Sam & Max to simply rotate through actions. In this case, there's only two possible actions EVER (click and examine) so why add more mouse motion than is needed? For that matter, why can't I just get information on the item by right clicking on it (again, that button seems to do nothing in TMI so why not make use of it?) As for the combine item setup, again it's OVERKILL. Why not just be able to pick up the object from inventory and then click it onto another object to try combining them? That's what you do if you want to interact the object with something on the actual game screen, so why force a different method inside inventory? It's completely counter-intuitive, IMO.
A lot of this is nit-picking to some degree. Once I discovered I could use the 3D shooter movement controls and bring up inventory with a middle mouse click, it was all pretty straight forward. Still, some simple old-school "F5" type controls for load/save game or the like would have been welcome instead of having to escape out of the game entirely just to do a quick save. Really, no saving is even needed since it'll just continue where you left off, but sometimes it's nice to explore other dialogue options. Sadly, some of those were a bit of a disappointing as it draws you in with funny sounding things to say and then Guybrush simply does NOT say any of them and instead says whatever he's going to say regardless...so why offer any options at all and just let us watch the cut-scene already??? Really, it's kind of stupid. More to the point, it would be much funnier if he DID say things like "This isn't going to involve a sheep is it?" instead of then just saying "Okay....." or whatever stupid unfunny response instead.
These are basically the bulk of my complaints about the game other than the usual "it's just too darn short" complaint that most games get these days other than Dungeons and Dragons type games (those are usually good for weeks if not months of gameplay). Well that and the fact that not a SINGLE Lucasfilm (or licensed one) game since the original Maniac Mansion has offered MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS to puzzles. I mean I don't get it. That was *THE* *BEST* thing about Maniac Mansion. It offered a LOT of replayability in that you could go back and explore different endings. You could even get funny different endings if someone got killed at the last minute, etc. I don't understand how the creators of the Scumm system could get it right the very first time and then totally ABANDON the idea of multiple puzzle solutions thereafter. Zak McKracken was great for not requiring all the puzzles to be solved in order (again, something you just don't see much of these days), but even it gave up on multiple puzzle solving methods and alternate endings. I've always thought that was a great shame with these lines of games. It would be SO MUCH MORE ENTERTAINING if you could arrive at different endings or at least solve various puzzles in different creative ways. The latter really wouldn't require too much more work, just a little brainstorming for more creative solutions (preferably funny ones).
I think one reason click and drag has problems is that is was introduced on a relative small moving ground.It would have probable more acceptance if it was introduced on a island.
I like the combination interface because it discourages random combination and causes me to think before i combine stuff.
I didn't have a problem with the keyboard-only movement in Wallace and Gromit, but I am glad they added the click and drag mode as an additional alternative. I like it better than using the keyboard for movement and in fact haven't used the keyboard at all for the whole Tales of Monkey Island series.
I also don't seem to have any problems with character-oriented camera switching. This isn't the first game I've seen using it, and I haven't had problems with others. Doesn't Escape from Monkey Island also have this type of camera? If you don't know what I mean, it's when you make Guybrush move forwards for example and then the camera switches to another one, maybe a side view, and Guybrush is still moving in the direction of the old camera until you let go of the keyboard and start moving in a new direction relative to the new camera.
I don't have any problems with that. It's the way I expect it to work. I don't expect Guybrush to suddenly start going in a crazy new direction each time the camera changes and my finger is still on the control for walking.
I don't want point and click just for the sake of it and I don't believe that "it's a tried and tested golden age of adventure gaming perfected method". The game interface is not what my primary concern is - it's playing the adventure itself whatever the interface is. As long as it works (and click and drag does work!) and I can complete the game using that interface then it's successful.
Comments
Read a thread.
Not everything is solved with clickable floors.
Can be solved with hotspots
Ease of use, you only need one hand, preference, tradition, joy, makes it feel like an interactive adventure and not an action game.
They would need to be placed manually for every camera in every scene (and moved for moving cameras), and logic would need to be wired up to determine which hotspot should be active. It creates a dependency hierarchy in which a change to a camera means somebody has to change the hotspots in that scene. Since cameras in different scenes are set up at different times and cameras can change throughout development, this is not a good solution.
There solutions that work from a programmer's perspective, but are no good from an engineering or production perspective. This is one of them.
When I want to move across a large space (Flotsom's waterfront, for instance), I have to take my hand off the mouse to hold down the SHIFT key. If I just had to run forwards, I could do that with one hand, but steering is always required.
The control system's not great if I have to move my hands around that much.
edit: I say nothing
I dont think the hotspots need to be attached to the camera, i was thinking about lets say, an invisible mesh that works like any other object in the scene (lets say a door) when clicked it sends the character to a specified location, so for example, on De singe's house in front of the bridge an invisible box when clicked it sends the character to the lower scene in front of the glass maker's house. (just like you would when you click a door or interactive area that sends the character to that spot). on mouse over the hotspot could say go back down.
unless you are attaching every interactive object to the camera which would be quite odd.
Your question was what was wrong with the WASD controls.
I don't comprehend.
If I just try to run forwards, Guybrush will get hung up on objects, curves in the path, or run down paths I don't want to go. I need to steer. Two hands.
But i though you know this and you were saying its difficult or something.
You still have to ensure that the hotspot is visible from any camera where you would care to click it, and the entire system would require a lot of manual set-up that direct control does not. The hot-spots cost time and money in implementation and testing any time a scene's cameras are set up, direct control (as with point and click) only had to be implemented and tested one time.
I dont believe you guys spent huge amounts of time just to make a clickable sign.
Certainly not for a single object. Regardless, hotspots don't solve the problem of needing to walk toward the camera when you can't see what's behind it.
You don't have a shift key on the left-hand side of your keyboard? I can steer and run at the same time with my left hand only and still have my right hand free to roam over hotspots. If I was just walking I'd just be using my left hand......that's one hand.
If you want to talk about tradition then using the keyboard is the traditional form of control in adventure games.
I'm very glad they included it as I would hate having to use the keyboard.
I know it doesnt work on everything nor everywhere, but It can be set to send the character to a specific zone in many areas.
One example is the De Singe's house, there can be a hotspot that sends the character to an area in front of the glass maker's house. In the clu41's bar in front of the stairs there could be a hotspot that sends the character to the lower foreground floor.
I see you really dont want to implement a clickable floor at all and there will allways be 100+infinity objections about it, but having some hotspots could make a huge difference.
early DOS games used keyboard (no mouse at the time) and then it evolved into mouse point click... now it devolved to keyboard again ^^ funny how it works. (and not telling there are far more mouse adventure games than there where for keyboard)
No, No, I'm not referring to your starved imaginations and sexual appetites either.
That sounds really unintuitive.
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
I am not complaining.... I'm just saying that while people can argue that click & drag isn't perfect, I say neither is point & click. Monkey 3 did it pretty well, but I seem to recall a couple glitchy areas in that game as well.
I can certainly deal with the click & drag, and while I may have my preferences for how I interact with my games & characters, ultimately it's the plot, voice acting, graphics & sound that are most important to me. For that reason, ToMI is a winner in my book, along with W&G and S&M (haven't played the others.... sorry).
Edit: I would like to add that for adventure games, I do prefer mouse-only controls, and I am very grateful for click & drag. While I was able to deal with WASD in W&G, I do prefer just the mouse so I can kick back and relax & enjoy the game.
open mailbox
>The Shambling Corporate Presence jumps at you out of the mailbox and painfully devours you with a nasty sound.
You are dead.
You have scored 0 out of a possible 90 points.
Or how about the character just controls itself and we just try to click on things as it goes by..... or maybe the game could just click on things for us .......
remove sarcasm goggles ~OO~ now
It may alter the laws of casuality but who cares if I get to play Monkey Island while also playing my guitar or other two handed hobby.
That's actually brilliant! A rail-adventure game!
The movement perspective of the WASD control (from the gamer perspective and not from the character perspective) was chosen because of some technical limition, or because it was too hard to put both into the game?
I know the gamer perspective is the best choise for consoles, so i understand that if you got to chose only one its gonna be that, but there was some kind of problem with the character perspective?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man_2:_The_New_Adventures
Sounds like that new LucasArts game where you can't control the girl and she moves across the screen on her own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Rebel_Assault
Regardless, the problem with click/drag is that it simply doesn't activate MOST of the time because you have to click somewhere not relative to the game and that's often harder than it sounds with objects all crowded together like. It just seemed too unreliable and I cannot help but wonder why there's no option to make say the middle mouse button (oh wait, that's the handy inventory shortcut) so OK the (hint) UNUSED right mouse button to activate the movement mode 100% of the time so that I don't have to worry about the select button interfering with a simple desire to move. I gave up on it as soon as I realized I could use the keyboard. At least the controls mirror 3D shooters and the like so they felt relatively natural.
I also thought some modes like clicking on a magnifying glass to examine things was a step backwards from the simple Lucasfilm system used in CMI and the original Sam & Max to simply rotate through actions. In this case, there's only two possible actions EVER (click and examine) so why add more mouse motion than is needed? For that matter, why can't I just get information on the item by right clicking on it (again, that button seems to do nothing in TMI so why not make use of it?) As for the combine item setup, again it's OVERKILL. Why not just be able to pick up the object from inventory and then click it onto another object to try combining them? That's what you do if you want to interact the object with something on the actual game screen, so why force a different method inside inventory? It's completely counter-intuitive, IMO.
A lot of this is nit-picking to some degree. Once I discovered I could use the 3D shooter movement controls and bring up inventory with a middle mouse click, it was all pretty straight forward. Still, some simple old-school "F5" type controls for load/save game or the like would have been welcome instead of having to escape out of the game entirely just to do a quick save. Really, no saving is even needed since it'll just continue where you left off, but sometimes it's nice to explore other dialogue options. Sadly, some of those were a bit of a disappointing as it draws you in with funny sounding things to say and then Guybrush simply does NOT say any of them and instead says whatever he's going to say regardless...so why offer any options at all and just let us watch the cut-scene already??? Really, it's kind of stupid. More to the point, it would be much funnier if he DID say things like "This isn't going to involve a sheep is it?" instead of then just saying "Okay....." or whatever stupid unfunny response instead.
These are basically the bulk of my complaints about the game other than the usual "it's just too darn short" complaint that most games get these days other than Dungeons and Dragons type games (those are usually good for weeks if not months of gameplay). Well that and the fact that not a SINGLE Lucasfilm (or licensed one) game since the original Maniac Mansion has offered MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS to puzzles. I mean I don't get it. That was *THE* *BEST* thing about Maniac Mansion. It offered a LOT of replayability in that you could go back and explore different endings. You could even get funny different endings if someone got killed at the last minute, etc. I don't understand how the creators of the Scumm system could get it right the very first time and then totally ABANDON the idea of multiple puzzle solutions thereafter. Zak McKracken was great for not requiring all the puzzles to be solved in order (again, something you just don't see much of these days), but even it gave up on multiple puzzle solving methods and alternate endings. I've always thought that was a great shame with these lines of games. It would be SO MUCH MORE ENTERTAINING if you could arrive at different endings or at least solve various puzzles in different creative ways. The latter really wouldn't require too much more work, just a little brainstorming for more creative solutions (preferably funny ones).
I like the combination interface because it discourages random combination and causes me to think before i combine stuff.
I also don't seem to have any problems with character-oriented camera switching. This isn't the first game I've seen using it, and I haven't had problems with others. Doesn't Escape from Monkey Island also have this type of camera? If you don't know what I mean, it's when you make Guybrush move forwards for example and then the camera switches to another one, maybe a side view, and Guybrush is still moving in the direction of the old camera until you let go of the keyboard and start moving in a new direction relative to the new camera.
I don't have any problems with that. It's the way I expect it to work. I don't expect Guybrush to suddenly start going in a crazy new direction each time the camera changes and my finger is still on the control for walking.
I don't want point and click just for the sake of it and I don't believe that "it's a tried and tested golden age of adventure gaming perfected method". The game interface is not what my primary concern is - it's playing the adventure itself whatever the interface is. As long as it works (and click and drag does work!) and I can complete the game using that interface then it's successful.
Both Grim and Escape had as default the character perspective (always forward with the W) but you could change it if you like from the menu.