[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by mart

If you read my posting you will see I didn’t assert that the Scumm interface is the equivalent of the text parser interface. I said I would position it between the text parser and the point-and-click interface, but that I had no problem with calling it a verb/noun point-and-click interface.
And no, if you read my postings you will see that the multiple-icon interface that I was speaking about isn’t basically the same as the Scumm interface. You are referring to the window or bar in which the text icons (verbs and nouns) are replaced by object icons. And in this respect you are right. But I was referring to the multiple-icon cursor that the player used directly on (hidden) hotspots in the action window, and that is something different.
(...)
Of course, if one calls both the Scumm interface and the interface with the multiple-icon cursor “point-and-click interfaces,” one can assert that LucasArts made “point-an-click” adventures popular. But this is just based on definition, and describes the actual situation rather poorly. As we all know, the Scumm interface (and for instance Legend’s combination of the text parser and long list of given nouns and verbs) was a transition stage which resulted in today’s games with a multiple-icon or one-icon cursor. But if we distinguish, at least between to kinds of “point-and-click” interfaces, one with verbs/and nouns and one without verbs/nouns but with only a (multiple) mouse cursor to interact, the assertions about popularity and influence become quite different. And in terms of influence - which was the subject I was commenting upon – the Scumm interface didn’t have much influence and it didn’t last very long.

mart, have you actually played early SCUMM games? They all do feature interaction with hotspots in the main gameplay window, so I am not sure I understand where you put the distinction. I agree that some Legend's games could be called a middle ground between text parser and point'n'click, but not LucasArts'. SCUMM is pure point'n'click, just as much as King's Quest V. There is simply no practical difference between a list of verbs and a list of icons, or between a list of nouns and a graphically represented inventory.

[mart]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

mart, have you actually played early SCUMM games? They all do feature interaction with hotspots in the main gameplay window, so I am not sure I understand where you put the distinction. I agree that some Legend's games could be called a middle ground between text parser and point'n'click, but not LucasArts'. SCUMM is pure point'n'click, just as much as King's Quest V. There is simply no practical difference between a list of verbs and a list of icons, or between a list of nouns and a graphically represented inventory.

Speaking about misunderstandings. I thought I had already explained the misunderstanding about the difference between text and object icons and the multiple icon cursor, and why it was in my opinion important to distinguish between kinds of point-and-click interfaces (if one intends to give an adequate description of the influence of a company on game design).

As we both know, using the Scumm interface in Monkey Island 1 for instance, the player points to a list of words in an interface window and selects an action, and then he or she points to (and clicks on) a character or object in the action window. Same goes for the object icons in the hidden toolbar in KQ V. So it is double point-and-click so to speak. No difference there, except that the text icons are replaced by the object icons and that they were hidden.

But King’s Quest V offers an alternative, which was new in the series. One could play the game without the object icons, so in fact the object icons in the hidden toolbar were superfluous. Sierra offered the player “the old way” and “the new way” so to speak (though the object icons were already new compared to KQ 4). With this new method, a special text or object interface window is no longer needed, which - like a hidden action interface - allows for a bigger action window. The player could use the mouse cursor directly in the action window to interact with characters and objects, and by right clicking the player could cycle through the (four) actions that were offered by the interface. The new cursor in the Curse of Monkey Island – the gold coin - was more or less based on the same principle, except for the fact that all action options were present at once.
The “practical difference” is of course this (multiple) icon cursor, which avoids special windows with text or object icons, and which foreshadowed the interface that is used in modern adventures. But I had said I would pass on this subject and I think I should stick with it now, for I fear I become a bit or even quite boring.

[AFGNCAAP]

Oh, you meant the right-click-to-cycle makes the difference! I understand now.

But this was a really a minor improvement, not a major interface overhaul (and, in games like Gabriel Knight, which had eight actions, I suppose many players still preferred choosing from the - superfluous, in theory - upper menu of object actions than cycling through them). There is no way you can call KQV's interface different that MI's, and yet at the same time refer to the coin menu in CMI or Full Throttle as "based on the same principle" as right-click-to-cycle thing. The way I see it, they are all slight variations of the same point'n'click principle. Just like, perhaps the most popular today, "intelligent cursor" variant.

[CrimsonBlue]

Well, I see what you're saying now, but I don't see a reason to differentiate still. By not cycling through the different icons, you force yourself to use the "old method" by moving the pointer up to the hidden toolbar and clicking the icon manually. But if you DO cycle through the different icons, it could take a lot more clicks than the "old" method. This feature is so small and irrelevant, and I don't really see how that feature makes the Scumm interface a "middle ground". And the interface used in Curse of Monkey Island and Full Throttle were both using the Scumm engine.

Oh, I forgot. The right mouse button was used in Scumm games as well, and was much more intuitive than using the right button to cycle through the different icons. If you moved the pointer over an object, like a door or a lever, one of the verbs was highlighted. This meant that if you clicked the right mouse button, the action would be that hightlighted option. So instead of two clicks or scrolling for the icons, you could just click the right button to open a door, for example. This is also one of the most used systems in adventure games today, much more so than the "right button to cycle icons" system.

EDIT: INTELLIGENT CURSOR! That's the word I was looking for. Monkey Island 1 had that, and I think Zak McKracken had that too.

[mart]

LOL, sorry to say AFGNCAAP, but some must be awarded for bad reading.

I wasn’t speaking about minor or major improvements, but only mentioned the interface as one of the examples of the influences of Sierra on the genre, and said the (verb/noun) Scumm interface didn’t gain much influence. The step from text parser to a kind of point-and-click interface was indeed a major step, but as was mentioned it can’t be contributed to LucasArts.

There’s no contradiction between my assertion that King’s Quest V has a different and more modern interface than the one of Monkey Island 1, and that the (multiple-icon) cursor of Curse of Monkey Island is more or less based on the same principle as KQ V.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by mart

LOL, sorry to say AFGNCAAP, but some must be awarded for bad reading.

No problem, don't be so harsh on yourself.

But seriously. The point I'm trying to make is exactly the same as Crimson's, so if you think he is making sense, so am I. I know what you said. But because the improvement was minor, it's erroneous to say that LucasArts' interface didn't gain much influence on the genre, but Sierra's did - because they were, for all intents and purposes, the same! You could make an argument like this if the first SCUMM games weren't popular, but Maniac Mansion or The Last Crusade were huge hits, and Sierra was clearly aware of their success when introducing the point'n'click into their games.

To use an analogy, it would be like saying that Toy Story 2 was more influential in the world of animation than Toy Story 1. Sure, the second film could have been a better example of CGI animation, due to four additional years of technical progress, and the creators being more experienced with the medium. But it was the original that was a qualitative difference compared to everything that came before. After that there was "only" fine-tuning.

[MdaG]

To relight another comment in this thread. Wouldn't it be better to compare Monkey Island with Simon the Sorcerer instead?

[Solid Snake]

No.

[DEMON]

Originally Posted by MdaG

To relight another comment in this thread. Wouldn't it be better to compare Monkey Island with Simon the Sorcerer instead?

nah, Solid Snake prefers it to be this incomparable way

[Elisabetta611]

Tough comparison. I think that comparing GK to Broken Sword or the likes would make more sense. They're just too different.

[Melanie68]

Welcome Elisabetta!

fov will like your avatar - that's one of her favorite games.

[Elisabetta611]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

Welcome Elisabetta!

fov will like your avatar - that's one of her favorite games.

Thanks! :-) I've been lurking for a long time. Finally had the guts to sign up.

[[toj.cc]Phantom]

I like them both a lot, but MI was the first adventure I remember playing and finishing, so I voted for Guybrush.

Its good to meet you Elisabetta, don' be nervous we're a good bunch of people.

[marshal99]

Very different type of games , i personally liked the old school 2d Monkey island games. When they went 3d animation , it turned me off.

[D.C.]

Definately GK for me. I was always a Sierra fanboy and GK3 stands as one of my all-time favourite games. (MI is awesome, though. )

[Andromus]

Both are great in their different ways, it's hard to say one is better than the other. But if I could only have one series, I'd have to go with the Gabriel Knight games. Possibly the most well rounded set of adventure games ever in how they balanced out storytelling vs. puzzles.

[crabapple]

Isn't this poll like asking whether you like playing a well-done humorous game better than a well-done serious game? Maybe comparing Gabriel Knight with Tex Murphy would be more interesting -- both top-of-the-line serious-themed games.

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by crabapple

Isn't this poll like asking whether you like playing a well-done humorous game better than a well-done serious game? Maybe comparing Gabriel Knight with Tex Murphy would be more interesting -- both top-of-the-line serious-themed games.

Exactly,asking that way like comparing Jerry Lewis with Harrison Ford~~

[CrimsonBlue]

Originally Posted by crabapple

Isn't this poll like asking whether you like playing a well-done humorous game better than a well-done serious game? Maybe comparing Gabriel Knight with Tex Murphy would be more interesting -- both top-of-the-line serious-themed games.

Not really, 'cause you can very well like well-done humorous games better than well-done serious games, and still prefer Gabriel. You don't HAVE to like Gabriel, just because you like serious games. Same with Monkey, you don't HAVE to like Monkey Island just because you like humorous games. That's why some* people enjoy the Sierra quest series over LucasArts adventure games.

*me not included

Gabe: I'm a bigger fan of music than I am of movies, but that doesn't mean I prefer Jerry Lee Lewis over Harrison Ford. I'm much more of a Harrison Ford fan than JLL fan.

[Dasilva]

I have Gabriel Knight 1, but never tried it because of the hassle getting it to work with XP. And I never owned GK2 or GK3. But I played Monkey Island 1-4. and enjoyed them all.