direct control vs. point and click
Emily
Telltale Alumni
Some discussion about a direct control interface vs. point and click sprouted up in this thread and it made me wonder which direct control adventure games you guys have played, and what your experience was with them.
The first one I remember playing was Gabriel Knight 3 (well, not counting the old King's Quest games where you walked around using the arrow keys
), and I had a terrible time with it because I don't have a very good sense of direction and had a hard time figuring out where the camera was pointing and which way to walk to make Gabe go where I wanted him to go. In that game you can actually set the cameras to behave in different ways and I finally figured out some settings that worked a lot better for me.
It's funny though, because right around the same time I played Final Fantasy 8 on PC -- which had a very complicated keyboard system -- and it wasn't so bad. It may have helped that you could remap the keys. I don't remember if GK3 allowed this. Shadow of Destiny is another one where I got the hang of the controls pretty quickly, although I do remember the cameras behaved differently when you were inside than when you were outside, which was confusing.
A few years ago I got a gamepad and I was amazed at how much more fun it made direct control games for me. It also seems like people who are more comfortable with action games have an easier time than people who aren't. I usually play adventures with the occasional RPG thrown in, so I think that's why it took me a while to get the hang of direct control.
Anyway - that's my (longer than originally intended) story. I'm curious to hear some other opinions...?
The first one I remember playing was Gabriel Knight 3 (well, not counting the old King's Quest games where you walked around using the arrow keys
), and I had a terrible time with it because I don't have a very good sense of direction and had a hard time figuring out where the camera was pointing and which way to walk to make Gabe go where I wanted him to go. In that game you can actually set the cameras to behave in different ways and I finally figured out some settings that worked a lot better for me.It's funny though, because right around the same time I played Final Fantasy 8 on PC -- which had a very complicated keyboard system -- and it wasn't so bad. It may have helped that you could remap the keys. I don't remember if GK3 allowed this. Shadow of Destiny is another one where I got the hang of the controls pretty quickly, although I do remember the cameras behaved differently when you were inside than when you were outside, which was confusing.
A few years ago I got a gamepad and I was amazed at how much more fun it made direct control games for me. It also seems like people who are more comfortable with action games have an easier time than people who aren't. I usually play adventures with the occasional RPG thrown in, so I think that's why it took me a while to get the hang of direct control.
Anyway - that's my (longer than originally intended) story. I'm curious to hear some other opinions...?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Of course, if you guys did move on to direct control, I wouldn't be any less devoted a fan. (Outside of some kvetching on the forums
So, to sum it up: Pointy Clickery = Win. Direct Control = Begrudging Acceptance. Mind Control = I'll Bow Before Thee.
And it's much more relaxing to sit back and play using the mouse.
If you ARE going to make a direct control adventure game, make sure that it doesn't involve too much walking around finding things that you might be able to use/get. That just feels messy because it's the equivalent to pointing and clicking just anywhere because there wouldn't be an indication of what's interactable (though I guess you could add indications).
Finally, I think that it'd be nice to see a more old-style/sophisticated point and click adventure game, like in Full throttle: don't just "use" item 1 on item 2, but become able to "use", "get", "look at" things. Just a few key phrases to keep it simple enough, of course. But I digress.
Obviously, Point and click works for adventure games, like Maniac Mansion. (NO, NOT RUNESCAPE!!!)
Direct control works for games like FPSs and Platformers. So, that is my very generic opinion on controls.
"!@#$% can't jump over to the next platform!!"
Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's say the capable team over here came up with some good reasons that a particular game had to be direct control.
Also, for those who don't like it - have you ever tried using a gamepad for an adventure game? Did you find that this changed the experience, or did you still not like it?
I'm not going to dislike Wallace & Gromit anymore because of the new control scheme (I hope...), it's just a shame it isn't retaining the clicking and the pointing. Although, I'm not sure how I'd feel with Sam & Max moving into a different control scheme.
But putting that aside, I still think it's much more relaxing for most people to sit back and navigate with the mouse, rather than having to press (and hold) keys to move around, etc.
I think people immediately assume Grim Fandango (or MI4) when people say 'direct control' in the context of adventure games, which I think is probably a mistake. I don't think the scheme those games used was completely (or in some cases at all) successful, but it's certainly not the only way. I've played some adventures that were direct control that I think worked pretty nicely. I actually thought Broken Sword controlled pretty well in 3D for example, with the exception of forcing me to watch an 'ouch' animation whenever a character ran into a wall
Personally, I'm neutral on the topic. I've played games that were point and click and loved them and direct control games too-- although, the direct control games mostly had fighting in them. For some reason, I hated Escape From Monkey Island, but it's probably not the controls that I hated, even though it was hard to get used to them.
If you do decide to go with the direct control, I reccommend that there be an option to change the keys so that they're easier to get used to.
Well, there's my opinion. Hope it helps somewhat.
While I have had no real qualms with direct control, there are some issues with it. When not using a gamepad, it is not quite as intuitive (the gamepad's extra degrees of freedom over a keyboard are immediately useful). Also, character interaction with in-game objects needs to be handled well (sometimes it is hard to position the character well enough to interact with an object). Also, it takes more time to run around the screen to see if objects are interactable or not than it does to sweep a cursor over them.
There are some positives to direct control, however. It does add an extra layer of immersion. It also helps navigate around objects easier than in point and click games where the path-AI sometimes goes bonkers. Further, it is worthless to try and implement point and click on anything other than the PC and Wii currently.
One could argue that if the controls are implemented well, you shouldn't be running into so many walls.
Now that you mention BS3, I'm remembering that's the game that made me go out and buy a gamepad in the first place. I really wanted to play it but had seen a lot of complaints about the keyboard controls, so I decided to use a gamepad instead. Indigo Prophecy is another game that got a lot of complaints for its keyboard controls, but I only ever used the gamepad and it was smooth sailing.
I haven't played Monkey Island 4. I did play some of Grim Fandango and remember finding the controls challenging, but the thing I remember most about that game was having to scroll through inventory items. I could never remember which slot each thing was in and Manny would take out and replace just about everything before I could find what I was looking for. Ahh, the memories...
I'm very used to 3D platform games and action-adventures since the N64 era, and realistically, there's no reason why that kind of engine couldn't work for an adventure game. Dialog trees work exactly the same way, and picking up or using items is generally as simple as walking up to something and pressing a button... it's really only in the cases of inventory management and dealing with multiple items in the same rough location that Point and Click has a particular advantage, and I think as long as the game designers are smart about it, it can work fine.
That said, if you're going to make a PC version, make good use of the mouse. Don't let it go to waste just for the sake of being consistent with the console version.
Very good point.
I'm not sure how this works? Well, it might be true for some people but I don't feel more immersed by having to keep keys pressed to make my character walk around.. it only adds unneccesary stress, in my opinion.
That's true, but this is very rarely a problem.
I really dont like dirct control. It's great for Halflife and Portal; action games, but I really dont like it in adventure games...
That's the part immersion plays, I guess - let me try to explain it. The point and click method places you outside the characters and the action, and the p&c adventure games with good stories always put me in a mind of a good storytelling movie where I get to do a lot more thinking and some meddling. Then, the closer you get to your character, the more you see the world through his eyes - direct control is a relatively small step into the direction where at the far end the first person perspective is.
Indigo Prophecy was mentioned earlier - it was definitely an interesting attempt to involve the player more in the actual mechanics of the character's actions. Going further down this road, I heartily recommend the Penumbra series - you may hate it, but if you don't, then you're in for one of the best immersion experiences in any computer game, ever. Play it in a dark room and a change of underclothing nearby
In the end, I think both control methods can fit a game - it's up to the game designers to implement the game in a way that the control method feels natural. However, for me, it's hard to get used to the thought of a keyboard controlled adventure game on the instinct level - after recently completing The Longest Journey, I was taking a look at Dreamfall, and was like "Oh no, not this s*** again", then I wondered why I was thinking that.
That, combined with developer inexperience and the newness of 3D at the time (over ten years ago, mind you!), is why I think a lot of adventure gamers have a negative impression of direct control (and of 3D games in general...).
I think what Pantagruel said (quoted below) is what I was trying to get at with my brief comment. It is a very subtle difference, but one I feel when playing a direct control game. In point and click, you TELL your character where to go. In direct control, you MAKE him go there. With point and click, I feel like I am watching a story, and there is always a barrier separating me from the character. Not always true with direct control.
I should add, though, that the level of immersion drops drastically when using a keyboard for input versus a gamepad. Telltale needs to realize that most of its core audience will probably use a keyboard for input, which (like you said) can sometimes add undue stress.
But I fully understand your point.
And yes - most PC gamers don't have gamepads and will end up having to either buy them (which I doubt a lot of people will bother to do) or play using the keyboard. And it's more "work" to play that way than to just use the mouse. I think mouse controls are near perfect for adventure games, so relaxing and easy to use.
That's called the wii pointer and it's much better than a mouse!
Hmmm... have any of those companies that design the "gaming keyboards" that consist only of a few keys ever tried pushing those products for the console. A wireless version could be matched with a wireless mouse, and would be comfortable for use in a chair or on a couch. This would open up not only point and click adventure games but also strategy games. In practice it may fail miserably, but I wonder if any of them have tried the console route.
I am not advocating using the keyboard for control of an adventure game, moreso just expanding on the poitn Armakuni brought up that mice should be used with consoles.
Example keyboard can be seen here: http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/gaming/pc_gaming/mice_keyboards/devices/5123&cl=us,en
Escape From Monkey Island (contextual menus made everything more bearable)
Fahrenheit (AKA Indigo Prophecy) - not a proper adventure game, though
BAD DIRECT CONTROL:
Grim Fandango (moving around was not intuitive)
Broken Sword 3 (plain irritating, I tend to prefer character-related controls when camera angles change so often)
That said, point & click is still the best wayto manouver an adventure game. In addition, using the mouse is absolutely natural for a PC user.
I can't be the only person who first grabbed Telltale's games due to an innate love of the point-and-click genre. In many ways, point and click games are claymation movies...they're few and far between, and the good ones are even further and farther.
But I suppose this thread is asking for more than a simple nostalgia, and WHY a point-and-click interface is not something that we necessarily must evolve beyond. Why direct control shouldn't replace point-and-click as a means of controlling our story-based gems.
There are innate benefits to direct control. The problem is that direct control's benefits are not necessarily applicable to adventure games, least of all, direct control doesn't necessarily benefit adventure games of a comical nature. "Accessibility" may make a product more PROFITABLE, but at what cost, exactly?
First, adventure games as a whole. "Direct control" would require a very extensive re-invention to work for an adventure game. Let us go over some solutions.
Perhaps few items could appear in a space at any time, limiting the number of puzzle possibilities within a room while making it easier to snag a specific item.
Or you could have a cycle button, which goes between all the items on-screen, leading to frustrating scrolling(which, by the way, breaks immersion).
Perhaps you could take away Adventure elements, and go for a more action-related game. By mainly dropping items, you could easily do a somewhat puzzle-based, direct control game. But then, is it still an Adventure game? Would, under this definition, Portal, Banjo-Kazooie, and Maw be adventure games?
Maybe Telltale has thought of an impressive new way to do this that I haven't considered yet. But then, what do we gain?
We go from having everything laid out for us, and being able to reach out and "touch" everything on screen to "driving around" the characters to everything we want to mess with. Our view will be decidedly character-based, keeping us from a full view of the scene. It's like putting together a Jigsaw, but you're only allowed to look at a small portion of your pieces at a time, which may be tossed around haphazardly from a direct view.
In Adventure games, you take more of a "director" role. How many adventure games have the characters talk back to you directly? The immersion here isn't in "being" who you're playing, but in being surrounded by the world. Even if it's in two dimensions, you reach out and touch everything. Combine things, mess with possibilities, and hopefully have fun with it. That's your immersion.
And the point of a humor-based game. Humor requires a lower level of "immersion" than a game that aims to be "serious". When you're dealing with a clay man and his clay dog, who are building decidedly ridiculous devices and dealing with ludicrous consequences, your belief is suspended higher than a steroid-pumped kangaroo on a trampoline. The simple matter of where your camera is positioned doesn't stand a chance against the environment.
There are things that contribute to immersion in such games. Adventure games FORCE you to THINK like the characters, to solve the puzzles. If you know the mind of Strong Bad, you're just going to do far better than someone who doesn't when playing SBCG4AP. Where your camera is, on the other hand, can contribute to getting lost. It contributes to breaking up each room into portions. This works for horror games. This works for shooters, and action games. But when you're playing a game that relies on puzzles, you don't want to miss something because your character is facing the wrong way.
Point and click is not outmoded, it is not a neanderthal's control scheme. There is still life in the system yet, and I say that it continues to be the best way to control a story-based game.
I'm not too fond of the way Dan seems to think that games now need to be built from the ground up to feel like every other game. "Not something that is a unique type of experience based on a control system". Then what makes it unique? What if we tried to make a shooter "not unique from a control standpoint" for the RPG crowd? A shooter "not unique from a control standpoint" for the point and click crowd?
"I think with Wallace & Gromit, we've got something that people can sit down and drive Wallace around and drive Gromit around and interact with the world in a whole new way that just feels completely different and it is a little bit more accessible and a little bit more immersive. We also went after the interface in a way that reflected the way a modern gamer thinks about gaming."
So it's a whole new way...in that it plays just like everything else. That's extremely exciting, I know. The modern gamer with his Halo and Call of Duty will now appreciate my games, because the differences are going to be fewer and farther between. The instant gratification masses will be happy to know that adventure games are now playable for them, because a cursor and a button were too hard before.
"We want to make it so that an average gamer can sit down and play Wallace & Gromit and enjoy the story and feel like they're playing their other games as well, not something that is a unique type of experience based on a control system."
The common thread I see throughout the interview is a very disturbing trend of thought that seems to have lead to the decision. It's not for us, it's not for the "game" per se, but to make sure people who "don't get it" suddenly will. That, when picked up, the game won't play like an adventure game at all. And how far do you go before you go from Adventure Game to Disney Interactive Storybook?
"That's a good question. I don't think so. I think those games are built around the control system and it's so at the core of the entire game from a presentation standpoint, from a gameplay stand point. So to go in and do that, it changes the product completely."
And this is the crux of the matter. To change the control scheme of an adventure game changes the presentation beyond recognition.
This, and the idea that point and click is out the door for purposes of making it one of countless "games for the masses"...
I don't like it.
666th post. I must have some dark forces on my side here.
Though the whole thread got me thinking.... If you really wanted to feel like the character, what if it had a Dance Dance Revolution type interface, so that if you wanted the character to walk somewhere, you really had to walk!
I'm worried about direct control since:
1. You can get stuck in-game because there is a bug/glitch in the collision detection or path finding algorithms
2. You can get stuck trying to perform an action because you need to be at a very specific angle/position
3. Point & Click is a proven technology for Telltale games. Whereas Direct control is something that, hopefully, will require only a few minor adjustments.
I fail to see where the "extra immersion" that direct control grants is something relevant. If the game has a good story, an adequate (or better) atmosphere and solid game play devices (puzzles, dialogs, etc.), the way you control the game is less relevant unless it plainly takes you out of the mood required to play an specific game (because they're awkward or plainly badly designed).
In simpler words: if you add a little immersion at the cost of other game areas or you start thinking that the little "extra" immersion gives the designers leeway to reduce the quality of the others, you'll lose big time.
Again, point and click is proven in adventure games, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I understand the point of innovating: innovation is a good thing but it adds risks where there were none and risks are things you try to reduce. If you need to innovate, do it but not for high profile games (high profile in the adventure games scene)
I know you (Telltale) have your own reasons on why you decided to try this change with Wallace & Gromit, but in my view (skewed and biased from years of software development) this change in direction should have had its own "Telltale Texas Poker Hold'em" equivalent: A game that if succeeds or fails means nothing compared to a failed known licensed IP game.
If the new way to "move things" in-game has positive feedback from that "lesser" game, then add it to bigger game (bonus: you won time fixing what was broken by the time you begin using the new technology in a more massive way)
My only suggestion: Default to "Direct Control" but allow a fallback mode to standard point and click.
And point & click adventure games is my favourite genre - and there are already so few good games using this system these days.
That's one of the things that initially drew me to Telltale.
As per the interview that sparked this entire conversation:
"I think [the Sam and Max] games are built around the control system and it's so at the core of the entire game from a presentation standpoint, from a gameplay stand point. So to go in and do that, it changes the product completely."
To clarify, I'm saying that designing the game from the ground-up for a controller to then just slap on point and click controls would give PC users a good majority of the faults design-wise of the console version, which does not have point and click at its heart...but rather, as a thin layer on the surface. Hopefully, this concern makes sense.
Obviously, the product we're talking about here seems to be built for consoles first and adapted for the PC crowd next, if this is the case. I'm afraid this could be the case even without intention, simply due to the fact that levels were built around the gamepad.
I'm trying to stay out of this conversation, but I just wanted to comment on this real quick.
Realistically, point and click has far more pathing concerns than direct control. With direct control, you simply create a bounding box around the walkable area and the player does all of the pathing themselves. In point and click, not only do you have the same bounding box issues, but the game also has to figure out how to get from where you currently are to where the pointer is. The game has to do all of the maneuvering for you.
Of course, this is all sort of moot since, as far as I'm aware, our pathing code hasn't changed in ages.
The main one is that direct control seems to promote aspects of twitch gaming and stealth gaming. Broken Sword 3 was ok, but I felt it reduced adventure and increased platforming - there's a reason I don't play Lara Croft Games. (I find stealth in adventure games ranks only slightly above slider puzzles).
The second one is - as others have mentioned in different words - point and click lets me direct the story without having to go through the tedium of navigating obstacles.
If it does have to be direct control, I much prefer the way the later (7+, don't remember much about the previous ones) final fantasy games where control is camera relative and when switching camera angles will continue in the previous direction if you are holding down a movement (I remember games that would be purely camera relative and get really fiddly whenever there was a drastic angle change)
I'd like to see multiple camera angles. I'd like to be able to pull back and see the whole room. If I could do that, a good amount of my direct control issues would feel more "at-ease".