User Avatar Image

Click And Drag In Future Games...

posted by Teeth on - last edited - Viewed by 3.8K users

I've finally figured out that the only reason I find the click and drag system uncomfortable is because it's assigned to the left mouse button - this means that there's a danger of accidentally clicking something when you mean to move somewhere, or vice versa. Plus if I want to move across a room and interact with something, I have to hold the button down, let go, then press it again.

Would it be at all possible for the click and drag system to be re-assigned to the right mouse button in future? :D That way we could interact with objects while walking, and it would mean that the double left-click run could return.

239 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Pantagruel's Friend said: I still think this reasoning doesn't convince everyone (me, for example :) )

    Are you unconvinced by the mathematical impossibility, or the cinematography decision that lead us there? I can help you understand the former but not the latter.

    @Pantagruel's Friend said: Also, TTG-Yare, thanks for taking all the time sharing your thoughts about the control method, instead of just saying - "hey, live with it" (or not saying anything at all) :)

    Hey, glad to help! Also, thank you guys for keeping the number of "That guy who made the controls should be fired!" posts relatively low. :)

  • @[TTG said: Yare;248086']Hey, glad to help! Also, thank you guys for keeping the number of "That guy who made the controls should be fired!" posts relatively low. :)

    Well some of us know that even if you agreed with _US_ (that the controls were a bad idea) you were likely told "program it or else" by top brass. Also I'm willing to bet it acctually involved _MORE_ code than the original interface (since the original one could be called with a simple command akin to "onMouseClick:Walk(X,Y)" while the new one requires indipentant commands for each button as well as intervals and shifts in camera angels depending on which button is pressed, etc)

  • @Ashton said: Well some of us know that even if you agreed with _US_ (that the controls were a bad idea) you were likely told "program it or else" by top brass. Also I'm willing to bet it acctually involved _MORE_ code than the original interface (since the original one could be called with a simple command akin to "onMouseClick:Walk(X,Y)" while the new one requires indipentant commands for each button as well as intervals and shifts in camera angels depending on which button is pressed, etc)

    Very astute. Though it was less "program it or else" and more "here's the requirements your system needs to meet".

  • @The Commissioner said: It's functional but do I want to play games the same way forever? No, I want them to evolve and show me more.

    Yeah, I want them to evolve too, but this is no evolution.

    @The Commissioner said: Yare;247953']New cinematography direction says we want to have interesting camera angles, so we needed a way to move the character around without the ground plane being in the shot. That left us with WASD and Click/Drag.

    Well, I thought it would be simple to give priority to the ground, but what do I know... It seems 3D doesn't make things any simpler. Well, I hope some day you guys find a better solution.

  • How about, make the floor clickable if you can see it (and Sam or whatever character you're playing moves to where you clicked), and if you can't see the floor, moving the mouse to the edge of the screen changes the pointer icon to left, right, up, down, or turn around, which causes the view to shift so that hopefully some floor is visible somewhere?

    Just throwing out more ideas. An imaginary axis on the mouse would be nice, too.

  • @[TTG said: Yare;248095']Very astute. Though it was less "program it or else" and more "here's the requirements your system needs to meet".

    I tend to forget how nice the people at TTG are. In retrospect I suspect none of them would ever use thw words "or else"

  • @[TTG said: Yare;248086']Are you unconvinced by the mathematical impossibility, or the cinematography decision that lead us there? I can help you understand the former but not the latter.

    Heh, neither as such, actually :D I'm very happy with the cinematography decision, even though it feels more relevant in Wallace & Gromit than in Tales. But I think there's a lot of subtlety in Tales that will shine through only on the 2nd playthrough, so I'm not making final statements until then.

    About the intersection stuff, I do understand that it's impossible to calculate exactly. The question is, how accurately it can be estimated, and what kind of extra data is needed - I imagine it easily leads to an extra "click-map" for each shot. And even so, it may not feel accurate enough - I cannot tell without actually trying it. So, if the statement is "not feasible", I can easily believe that - but I'm very reluctant to accept the "impossible" :)

    @[TTG said: Yare;248086']
    Hey, glad to help! Also, thank you guys for keeping the number of "That guy who made the controls should be fired!" posts relatively low. :)

    After all the counter-hype (is there such a word? :) ), I was pleasantly surprised by the W&G controls, as they felt very handy. Sure, I missed p&c, but by the time Tales came, I got used to the arrows control, and after a few attempts, I stuck with them instead of click-and-drag. So there goes the disaster :D

  • WASD > Click to move. Playing P&C adventures feels really primitive after playing W&G and TMI extensively. It's like going back to Diablo 2 after playing WoW.

  • I really, really like click and drag. But I use the arrow keys (being left handed) and click and drag interchangeably.

    Notice how the amount of people upset vocally went down as the game extended through the plotline? People got over the change. (Well, the majority.) But you can't please everyone or harass Yare enough.

  • I don't really think some here understand it. I myself don't understand it, but I imagine Telltale actually means this. I could be wrong, but I imagine they use the following:

    Instead of actually clicking the floor, you click on the screen. There's an overlay over the main screen that acts like the clicking hotspot, which then maps to the ground position, as if you were clicking on a 2D plane in a 2D adventure game. The reason is because you don't click on the scene, you click on the screen, as if you were tapping your finger on a glass window. It's hard to actually point to a point on the ground from that glass window, because it not only requires you know the field of vision, but also the point of vision. However, if you were, for example, to draw a grid on the window, and draw that same grid (with perspective in mind) on the floor, you can actually say "my finger is at B20", and then the position on the floor, B20, can actually easily be accessed.

    That's how I figure it. Not only does it require a bit more maths, it also requires a bit more processing power, seeing as you are actually required to make the intersection line as wide as possible, not to mention you'd have to adjust the angle of said line to the screen.

    But any Telltale Games employee can correct me here.

Add Comment