[Oscar]

Does anyone feel that clicking the mouse to "look at" something is overused in modern games?

I was playing Keepsake yesterday (a 3rd person adventure from 2005) and I suddenly realised there was no option to look at anything. It took some getting used to but after a while I realised I was actually using my own eyes to look around! I wasn't clicking the magnifying glass on the refrigerator and getting a stupefying response of "It's a refrigerator" from my character. I wasn't waving my mouse around the room for pixels to "look at" when I first entered a new room. I wasn't pressing TAB to show all the hotspots of things I could make my character look at.

I always thought it was silly to ask my character to look at something I can see perfectly well, but it does have some uses. In early adventures you got important information, for example if you looked at a note your character read what was written on it. This was partly because the pixels were too large, but it was also clever design to provide an interactive way of puzzle-solving. Now we have games like Black Mirror (which I love) where the screen is covered in magnifying glasses, most of which give information like "This bridge looks really old". That would be fine if I had a choice of actions but I don't - to find out whether something is interactive I have to look at it, which means I'm looking at everything just to exhaust the option.

This seems to be less of a problem in 1st person games where you are the character. I really do think the look button is a good idea, just not all the time. I would not want Space Quest without those hilarious comments when you look at (or taste or smell) something. I'm just glad games like Myst and Keepsake exist when my nerves are shot from too much vicarious looking.

[rayvio]

there's a few factors. even in recent adventure games the graphics are often behind those of other modern games (not that I'm complaining, story and gameplay are by fare more important) so "look at" can be very important in informing the player of detail that can't be seen normally
also subtle hints can be slipped into the description, or jokes. even non-comedy games can sometimes benefit from a little humour here and there
but if all "look at" tells you is things you can already see then yes, it's rather redundant

[Guyra]

I like the "look at" function in adventure games, because it usually gives you the main character's personal view of things, which again can help develop the character or the world. TLJ is a good example of this done correctly.

[jhetfield21]

Originally Posted by Guyra

I like the "look at" function in adventure games, because it usually gives you the main character's personal view of things, which again can help develop the character or the world. TLJ is a good example of this done correctly.

second that!!and like rayvio said it's a graphics thing.it was really important in old adventure games that a pixel could be an object(exaggerating here but you get my point)......but sometimes there are some comments on the objects rather than a plain description of the item which makes things more interesting.also it can be used to reveal hints about how the object could be used in the story.

[kate me]

Hmm... I think I's my time to second second that!

I like the "look at" too, especially because in the 90's games you probablly get a funny line on some things or items that just crack me up! , but I am annoyed if it's only a stupid description of an obvious thing in some modern games.

[Weare6]

I think its important to have some kind of interactive function like
look, examine, use , operate or just a general manipulation of ones environment.
But I completely agree it needs to be a function that will give you some kind of positive result that will either give a hint or engage your interests in the story rather than giving you pointless feedback. When I look at something I like to get a constructive response not a Banal insignificant description.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Weare6

When I look at something I like to get a constructive response not a Banal insignificant description.

I think Monkey Island and the two Indiana Jones games are to blame for this. A lot of things you looked at had Guybrush saying "nice table" or "it's a chair". This influenced many later games without them realising this was part of the game's humor, and that it was Guybrush's personality to make sarcastic comments. Indy too - you knew he was a clever guy and him saying straight up "it's a rock" was like him telling you "well what do you expect me to do with that"?

I think the Sierra games had much better descriptions, giving a paragraph to almost everything. Space Quest was probably the ultimate description game, making it fun to look at everything.

[diego]

Nice theme to discuss, and it really comes to the mood of the game and what it is trying to achieve. I certainly love "look" option in general, and many, many greatest games wouldn't be that without it.

As Guyra perfectly said, it can reveal character's personality, his thoughts, emotions... along with the general idea that player becomes more immersed and informed about the surroundings. And maybe one of the just as important things about it - "look" option not seldom serves sort as a getaway to the related puzzle, giving you some insights, hints... or acts as a puzzle itself.

Originally Posted by Oscar

I was playing Keepsake yesterday (a 3rd person adventure from 2005) and I suddenly realised there was no option to look at anything.

Nice observation, and Keepsake is indeed "Myst-like" acting as a third-person game. Maybe we can also discuss that "look" option is more suited to traditional 3rd person titles than those in first person, especially when your character is nameless hero where idea is that the player is the main character.

Originally Posted by Oscar

I always thought it was silly to ask my character to look at something I can see perfectly well, but it does have some uses.

yes, but if you're "Guybrush", then you want to hear what he has to say about it, nevermind that it is obvious what it is

Originally Posted by Oscar

Now we have games like Black Mirror (which I love) where the screen is covered in magnifying glasses, most of which give information like "This bridge looks really old". That would be fine if I had a choice of actions but I don't - to find out whether something is interactive I have to look at it, which means I'm looking at everything just to exhaust the option.

but you don't have to look at it, unless you think it is critical for a puzzle and game progress. I agree many hot-spots can become tiresome, but then it also comes to how good game designers are, and that examining and exploration serves the game, and not become tiresome.

Originally Posted by Oscar

I would not want Space Quest without those hilarious comments when you look at (or taste or smell) something.

exactly, and that's one of the reason why i love Al Emmo where you can look at pretty much everything you see and get the narrator's response in the Sierra's vein. It may sound overhelming, but actually it was the reason i was immersed into surroundings and wanted to play more and more.

[Fantasysci5]

I'm throwing in with everybody else, that I do like the "look at" button, at least for 3rd person games. I love what it shows you about the cahracter, if they're snarky, if they're flat, etc.

[D.C.]

I really liked Heavy Rain's take on the 'look at' function, where you could hear the characters thoughts on a variety of subjects instead of just commentary on one particular object. It's the kind of thing I'd like to see find its way into non-adventures.

[terhardp]

Hm, it's a bit difficult for me to give a definite answer to this question. I agree with you who're mentioning funny lines and insights of the characters on things that surround them. That can sometimes be really refreshing. Not to mention, useful. On the other hand, it also makes some obvious things even more trivial and sometimes even lame. But I imagine that for most people, adventures without this kind of game aid would simply be too tiresome, even though there are certainly those who would welcome such a challenge.

[jhetfield21]

Originally Posted by terhardp

Hm, it's a bit difficult for me to give a definite answer to this question. I agree with you who're mentioning funny lines and insights of the characters on things that surround them. That can sometimes be really refreshing. Not to mention, useful. On the other hand, it also makes some obvious things even more trivial and sometimes even lame. But I imagine that for most people, adventures without this kind of game aid would simply be too tiresome, even though there are certainly those who would welcome such a challenge.

don't you think that depends on the game?in some games you can't go on without it whether that's because of the funny comments or the hints about what to do next(in the end you are trying to solve a puzzle that somebody else thought ....and that means trying to match the thought process which differs in everybody.sometimes without hints you can't do it.of course there are factors like experience or knowledge and stuff that come in handy but when you don't know ??)

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by jhetfield21

don't you think that depends on the game?in some games you can't go on without it whether that's because of the funny comments or the hints about what to do next(in the end you are trying to solve a puzzle that somebody else thought ....and that means trying to match the thought process which differs in everybody.sometimes without hints you can't do it.of course there are factors like experience or knowledge and stuff that come in handy but when you don't know ??)

Yes you're right it does depend on the game. With Myst it would ruin the game to look at something and have your character say something. For Longest Journey the game is about April so it's good to hear what she has to say. Hints don't have to come in the form of comments by your character.

[jhetfield21]

i haven't played Myst that much but isn't your "character" silent?

no they don't have to be comments by your character but i always liked the fact that i was hearing the character's thoughts and how it sounded like the character was thinking along with me on how to go on from there.

[terhardp]

Originally Posted by jhetfield21

don't you think that depends on the game?in some games you can't go on without it whether that's because of the funny comments or the hints about what to do next(in the end you are trying to solve a puzzle that somebody else thought ....and that means trying to match the thought process which differs in everybody.sometimes without hints you can't do it.of course there are factors like experience or knowledge and stuff that come in handy but when you don't know ??)

That's exactly why I've said I'm undecided on this matter. This feature has good as well as bad sides, and the ratio between them varies in different games. For instance, as you've mentioned, when dealing with a more complex puzzles, it's certainly helpful to hear some thoughts on it from the character. Also (I repeat), the witty remarks adds welcome spice to the game. But this also makes the player examining all the hotspots around them, only to hear lame comments about some obvious objects.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Oscar

I always thought it was silly to ask my character to look at something I can see perfectly well, but it does have some uses. In early adventures you got important information, for example if you looked at a note your character read what was written on it. This was partly because the pixels were too large, but it was also clever design to provide an interactive way of puzzle-solving. Now we have games like Black Mirror (which I love) where the screen is covered in magnifying glasses, most of which give information like "This bridge looks really old". That would be fine if I had a choice of actions but I don't - to find out whether something is interactive I have to look at it, which means I'm looking at everything just to exhaust the option.

That's an interesting observation. We got used to perceiving any bonus dialog lines in adventure games as something that increases the immersion of playing a game. The gameplay function of those dialogs and quality of writing have secondary meaning for a player who still remembers the pain of hearing/reading "That doesn't work" or "It looks as you thought it would" 10000 times in a single game.

However, personally I hated all the forced custom responses in A Vampyre Story and Edna and Harvey. I don't want to listen to long, trite monologues and dialogs every time I try out something - it slows down the game and feels messy.