Thoughts on interactivity in Twine

nowherecity24

Hi All,
I'm working on a game and would like to add a bit more character interactivity and was interested in peoples thoughts on how best to handle this in Twine (or maybe to accept Twine is not good for this kind of thing).

So for example: You are a Knight and you are about to do battle with some horrible Orcs (or vice-versa)

How best do you think to handle a battle scene?

At the moment I was considering two options:
1. Set up a text input system so the player can type attack orc, etc but understanding you have the difficulty of managing and matching all the text inputs.
or
2. Set up buttons the player can click on like ATTACK and then an ORC button -this has the benefit of defining the actions but I wonder if will it feel as interactive

Does anyone have any suggestions or experience to provide guidance, appreciate your thoughts
Thanks
nowherecity24

EcnelOvelam

Honestly, the whole reason I've avoided other interactive fiction mediums is because of the lack of hyperlinks and "clickable" zones. The idea of having to type every action in an interactive game (to me) is so over the top that it's comical.

Though, I understand I would be in the minority with this view, and I probably think it's due to the fact that I never played any of those old-school DOS style hypertext games, and thus have no nostalgia for it.

But, to answer your question - hyperlinks. Especially if your using Twine. Hyperlinks and seamless navigation through different blocks of text is really what makes Twine shine, and if your not using them, then in my opinion, you might as well use Quest, Inform, or Tads.

But that's just my two cents.

mykael

I tended to make combat deterministic rather than random.  If you've got the right stuff you can beat it, if you don't you can't.  Once you choose to fight it, the game determines whether you are victorious, flee for your life or perish (usually based on your previous choices).  It's a puzzle, you should be able to solve it with logic.  Relying on blind chance to overcome some obstacles defeats the purpose and just makes players repeat the combat until they either win or give up in disgust...

If you want the player to have more choice, you could go round based - each round you both get to attack, then buttons for fight on, flee or surrender.  Magic and special items as well, if you support it.  You do need to ensure they will live long enough to actually make some choices though...a miss in the first round and a single hit kill in the second isn't being fair to the player...

Real time button mashing? No thanks.

mth

nowherecity24 wrote:

1. Set up a text input system so the player can type attack orc, etc but understanding you have the difficulty of managing and matching all the text inputs.
or
2. Set up buttons the player can click on like ATTACK and then an ORC button -this has the benefit of defining the actions but I wonder if will it feel as interactive

Just typing "attack orc" doesn't really add a lot to the user experience over clicking a button. Plus a lot of people type really slowly, so even a short phrase is a considerable effort.

If you want to use more complex forms of text input processing, it's probably better to look at engines designed for that, such as TADS or Inform.

EcnelOvelam wrote:

Honestly, the whole reason I've avoided other interactive fiction mediums is because of the lack of hyperlinks and "clickable" zones. The idea of having to type every action in an interactive game (to me) is so over the top that it's comical.

Being able to type commands has two effects that are not present in games played by clicking links:
[list type=decimal]
The complete list of commands is not visible, so it is possible to have options that the player might not immediately think of.
Being able to type any command the player can think of makes it feel like anything is possible.

The downside is that it is a lot of effort to properly respond to typed user commands. If a player thinks of a solution the author didn't think of, with a multiple choice interface the player might think "it's a pity I can't choose that", but with a command interface the player will type the command and at best the "anything is possible" illusion is hurt, but at worst the player can get stuck trying variations of a solution that is just not implemented.

EcnelOvelam wrote:

Though, I understand I would be in the minority with this view, and I probably think it's due to the fact that I never played any of those old-school DOS style hypertext games, and thus have no nostalgia for it.

I think modern text adventures are quite different from the old-school ones: the parsers are much better, there are no more pointless mazes just to inflate the room count, the games are more forgiving and helpful to the player and there is more emphasis on story and characters. So I don't think nostalgia is the only reason to play them.

notnsane

Eh, both clicking on a link or writing is interaction.

You actually need to answer this questions: Why would I make the player type? Why would I make the player click? Is clicking a good way to use interaction on my game? My game's context is appropriate for clicking instead of typing? (say, typing "hacking computer" would feel better than clicking on "hack computer!".) Does the fantasy setting of my game benefits more from clicking, or from typing? Do I want to make the player feel like it's an old game and appeal for nostalgia, or do I want to make him feel a modern experience?

You're using HTML5. If you want, you can aim for tablets or phones, then make an interaction to shake the screen. Think on those things.