The Video Game Revue

Quest Game UI: Mouse-Centric vs. Type-Written

My previous post touched on the issue of mouse-centric UI in quest games versus the old type-written method, but I didn't really say much about it. I'd just like to expand on a few ideas here.

Sierra quest games like King's Quest really got a lot out of the type-written interface of old because of the way in which that interface style enhances the puzzle-solving aspect of the game. Supposing you are in a dark dungeon in an old Sierra quest game and you see an apple on the ground, you might type such things as "look," "take apple," and "eat apple." This sort of interface forces the user to think about what they are doing, or rather asking to be done, since the response to "eat apple" could very well be "You aren't hungry," for instance. What is important to realise here is that the available options are not spelled out--the user has to brainstorm for ideas and figure out what works through trial and error.

In theory, the purpose of the mouse-centric interfacem is to make the user interface more seamless, which draws the user more into the game in the cinematic regard. In this scenerio, the user sees the apple the apple on the dungeon floor and simply clicks on it to pick it up. Then the user opens an inventory window and clicks on the apple again for options like "drop," "eat," and "give." The fact that the options are spelled out for the user removes any ambiguity as to what actions may be taken, which may help to avoid frustrating the user because they don't know "exactly what to type," but it also removes the need for the user to think as hard about what they intend to do.

Many would argue that the mouse-driven interface is superior because it takes the emphasis of the puzzle-solving aspect of the game off of simply figuring out "what to type" and places it more on actual "puzzles." I agree with that to an extent, but as I've already suggested, I think that figuring out what actions might be taken greatly enhances the creative process of puzzle solving, and the type-written interface more easily accomodates that. Mouse-oriented puzzle solving also has a dark side that I haven't touched on yet: "hunting for the magic pixel." Just as players might struggle to find the right thing to type in a type-oriented quest game interface, players also struggle to find the right place to click in a mouse-oriented quest game interface. When a user types "take apple" or "get apple," typically the apple is taken with little more fuss than that. However, if the apple is only a few pixels wide and the user can't quite tell where it is supposed to be on the messy dungeon floor, finding the "hotspot" to click on for that apple might be considerably annoying. Whether the interface is text-driven or mouse-driven, it is important to realise that game design ultimately determines how often players are frustrated by its shortcomings.

Both UI styles have advantages and disadvantages, and moreover, I would say that they result in different kinds of quest games. Unfortunately, quest games with type-written style user interfaces aren't being commercially produced anymore; not that I know of, at least. In today's market, such a quest game would also have to contend with the fact that most console gamers don't have a keyboard accessory for their PS2, GameCube, or XBox. I also find it interesting that at one point puzzle-oriented quest games seemed to dominate the game industry, and their prominence now pales in comparison.

posted by Parappa @ 10:52 AM