Highlighting easy-to-miss items - thoughts?

[matdogpig]

Hi all, I was pondering this yesterday and thought it'd be interesting to ask other adventure game fans what they thought...

I'm making a game at the moment and was worried that a few of the items the player needs to pick up are so small they'll be easy to miss onscreen (a key on a table, that sort of thing). I can find it frustrating to get stuck in a game and start backtracking, only to realise that I'd missed something a handful of pixels wide. So, I started adding animations to the small items to make them flash in the light, and be easier to spot. But then I thought, half the fun of these games is exploring the screens and figuring out what you can interact with. If the player walks into a room and everything's already highlighted for them, that doesn't seem much fun either...

What do you think? Is it better to highlight hard-to-spot interactables for the player, or is finding them for yourself part of the experience??

[Crimson Wizard]

The games are not real world, and have their own rules. In real world I know that I can pick up any item around me, but I do not pick everything up, instead I am searching for items that match my purpose. But in the game that's not the case. Not only I cannot pick up any random visible object at will, but often I don't even know what's the purpose, for example, if I entered a location with a quest item without having a quest yet.

For that reason, I think that the good game should hint which items can be picked up, either using a visual cue (distinct positioning, animation, highlight, difference in colors, a label with item's name under the cursor), a cue in a dialog, or else. Otherwise a player will be forced to click every piece of the room trying to figure out what they are supposed to do.

But then I thought, half the fun of these games is exploring the screens and figuring out what you can interact with.

Hmmm.... that's very subjective. This may be a part of the gameplay in particular sort of games, but in general adventure game trying hard to find what you can interact with in every room quickly becomes a tedious experience. Especially if there are multiple extra verbs (push, pull, open, etc). But then, this is also a issue of "adventure game logic". In adventure games the logic is traditionally "inverted". In life we know the purpose first and look for solutions after. In adventure games it's often other way around, and I cannot say if that's a good thing.

EDIT:
I might add, that in case of very small items one approach is to provide a close-up view of a part of the room, like a table, where the items are located.
For example: let player "look at" table, which brings a close up view of that table. Again, in real life you may take a closer look at things, but in 2D games that's not a general mechanic unless you implement it in specific cases.

[heltenjon]

Like CW says, this is highly subjective. I don't know if I even can agree with myself from one game to another. As a rule of thumb, I don't feel pixel hunting is the fun part of adventure gaming.

Various solutions:
* The small item in the grass sparkles and gleams.
* Item description on mouseover. It should be clear what the active part of the mouse cursor is.
* Pressing a key show all hotspots. This solution lets the players decide what they want.

[cat]

Another option: Before leaving the apartment, you have to pick up the key. Otherwise the PC will refuse to leave. This way, you at least KNOW that you are still looking for something.

[Snarky]

In adventure games the logic is traditionally "inverted". In life we know the purpose first and look for solutions after. In adventure games it's often other way around, and I cannot say if that's a good thing.

I would disagree that "inverted logic" is traditional in adventure games. This sort of key-before-lock "backwards puzzles" have been widely considered bad game design at least since Ron Gilbert's classic 1989 article Why Adventure Games Suck, and most skilled designers make an effort to avoid them. (Though they can be hard to completely eliminate in very non-linear games.)

[heltenjon]

I would disagree that "inverted logic" is traditional in adventure games. This sort of key-before-lock "backwards puzzles" have been widely considered bad game design at least since Ron Gilbert's classic 1989 article Why Adventure Games Suck, and most skilled designers make an effort to avoid them. (Though they can be hard to completely eliminate in very non-linear games.)

Agreed to the key-before-lock thing, but picking up everything that isn't nailed down and carrying around strange collections of items in your inventory in the hope of needing it later is quite common. Rubber chicken? Though some (most?) modern games avoid this.

[NickyNyce]

A key on the table does not need to be small. The hotspot itself can be larger. Pixel hunting for tiny items is something nobody wants to do, but there's easy work arounds for that. You don't even need to see the key, if the hotspot says table, or patch of grass.

When it comes to picking up items, some sort of goal would be nice. If a player is trapped, they will pick up the most insane things, and that makes sense. If not trapped, even a hint of dialog can help solve this if a goal isn't yet established. Character says.."I have large pockets, why not use them." This isn't the greatest way to make games, but at least it gives the player something. Also, maybe the character says right away, I need these things before I can move on. 

[matdogpig]

Hey, thanks for all the replies. I absolutely agree pixel hunting is never fun, but I started worriying that making interactables *too* obvious would feel like hand-holding. But it sounds like the general consensus is no-one enjoys missing an item they could/should have taken!

Thanks for the suggestions of ways to make items more obvious, too - I think a visual 'glint' animation will work best in my case but definitely some ideas to save for the future there!

[Snarky]

See also this article: https://adventuregamers.com/articles/view/32579