Strategies to Eliminate Compass Directions from IF Narrative?

Yeah, this is the thing I’m interested in too! When I think about this problem, I primarily relate to it from an author’s point of view – as you say, it feels annoying and artificial to work this in, rather than just describing the landscape and what you see without taking the player out of the story. So I totally see the upsides there. On the other hand, when I’m playing a game, even one with GO TO LOCATION implemented, I usually just wind up typing the directions, since it’s typically many fewer keypresses, with fewer opportunities for typos – like, GO TO BEACH is equivalent to six one-letter movement commands, which is pretty far in most games! And if movement requires moving my hand off the keyboard to the trackpad or mouse, that adds even more friction.

I also recently introduced my wife to some IF, and was surprised that the directional movement system seemed to come really naturally to her. She’s basically played no video games of any kind previously, and doesn’t naturally use cardinal directions when navigating in real life, so I was expecting her to struggle. But after I explained it to her once, she easily was able to pick out the possible exits and move around the map (inside, outside, and enter were harder to figure out). And after thinking about it for a bit, I can see how despite the conventional wisdom that things like GO TO X are more newbie-friendly, it could be that for some people it’s the opposite way round: usually the problem with learning how to play a parser game is that you’re not sure what to type so that the game will understand, and while there are ways of instructing the player in the ABOUT text, and coding the GO TO command to be robust to synonyms, it’s still maybe less intimidating to know you just need to type a direction.

That’s just one anecdote of course, but I think there are many things like this that players experience differently from authors. Like, a similar thing that annoyed me when writing my IFComp entry for last year was the way significant items usually get broken out into their own line rather than being naturally included in the description paragraph. So I made most objects undescribed or wove them into the description, which felt much more aesthetically satisfying. But when I looked over transcripts, I think many players wound up struggling with that and the game was harder than intended, because the idea that the most obviously significant objects are going to get called out separately is a familiar convention, and also one that’s got some real ease-of-use even if you’re a new player completely unfamiliar with the convention.

I remember hearing that Blue Lacuna’s ease-of-use upgrades were based on watching a bunch of people try to play parser games, and implementing solutions that would remove some of the pain points. Having that kind of breadth of data on what works for players, especially newer players, would be super helpful, I think, because I feel like it’s easy to make assumptions, and then second-guess those assumptions. I’m curious whether IF events that might have a little more mainstream attention, like the various itch.io game jams, save transcripts and would be a place to look – the IF Comp ones I think are really helpful, but primarily reflect how experienced players tend to approach a game.

2 Likes

Those are exactly my motivations, although you’ve explained it better than I have; thank you.

Perhaps i am wrong, but my “feeling” about how someone, who has never played any IF before, would react to directional navigation. As it would seem completely artificial. I definitely feel that, even if they adapted to it, the story is made worse for it and it detracts from the entertainment.

Furthermore, I imagine the idea that they might have to make a map to play a game
a total dealbreaker for them.

Nevertheless you make some good points that, if faced with the “guess the word game”, they’d much prefer a N,E,S,W system, albeit bogus. But if that’s the case, the real problem is the input system instead.

I agree and also dislike the idea of objects being separate from the main text. I much prefer to have them mentioned “inline”, and only separate later - but only then if totally necessary (for example, do you really need to drop anything?)

I am trying to think from a blank page, rather than be tainted by preconceptions. I’m sure people on this forum feel quite at ease with the current way,

but what does the wider, more mainstream and less IF familiar, player want?

My gut feeling is that the traditional compass directions are preserved largely because they can be accessed with a single letter - or in the case of the intercardinals, two. And since up and down can be abbreviated to U and D…

If you’re familiar with the system, you can move about very efficiently. A more intuitive system, such as landmarks, requires much more typing.

4 Likes

True enough, but this sounds fundementally an interface problem not a conceptual one.

To me the big win for compass directions is that you can build a picture of where things are in relation to each other, on a larger scale than “this thing is next to that other thing”. And people seem to pick up on that pretty easily and it just works. I’ve seen a few games (maybe Zarf’s Bigger Than You Think?) which use like up/down/inward/outward instead of N/S/E/W, so I don’t think the names of the directions really matter (though NSEW aren’t very evocative), but having directions means you can think, OK, this place is a couple levels down and a couple rooms outward from where I am and navigate on a larger scale.

And I know there are people (notably Chandler Groover) who don’t seem to think directionally and spatially and somehow can build a picture of a place from just the connections, but I think that’s somewhat uncommon. And I think that even in a theoretical algorithmic sense it’s a more computationally intensive thing to do.

And I’ve also seen games where you don’t care at all about the spatial relationship of places and navigating by landmarks or place names is fine, and it’s often more convenient because you don’t have to keep the map in your head, even roughly, but as @Melendwyr said it’s often more typing. Skies Above is a good example of this IIRC, and has pretty good abbreviations too.

5 Likes

Uh, yeah. I have trouble with that. Big trouble with Capital T. So much so that if you do it that way, I will not play your game. I think many people think like you do, “why not pretty up the text?”, but what will happen is that players will get confused.

Then there are players who can do it just fine, but I think that we can all agree that @Warrigal is an expert player!

This is just one person’s opinion, of course, but if the form of fiction is very important to you, I suggest Choice games is a better fit. Room based Parser games heavily relies on compass direction convention. You may add to it, but replace it at your peril.

@JoshGrams Now this is interesting, because it might reveal different ways people’s heads are wired!

For example, in real life, i tend to navigate from point to point. So routing is basically a chain of locations.

When i talk to cabbies, they navigate a lot more spatially (ones that don’t use sat nav anyhow). So that helps them re-route a lot easier as they must essentially have a map-style or compass-style mental model.

What this is saying, is that there might be case for both styles.

2 Likes

I don’t see a problem with compass directions.

5 Likes

I’d like to note that those two things are completely separate. In, like…ADRIFT, where I think there’s usually an inbuilt map (though I’m not sure of that), so you have the traditional navigation directions but you don’t need to make the map. Unsure on if that actually helps out with a wide audience but it helps out me, at least.

I hate mapping, and can’t get through anything that requires it, so I set up an automapper, which is a huge bother if the game changes around room descriptions a bunch (Weight of a Soul specifically did a number on it). But if it were built into Inform that’d be swell and I’d love it forever.

I feel intuitively like the compass directions isn’t nearly as big a roadblock as the “argh I can’t remember how to get to the place with the shiny rock”. You run into the exact same roadblock if you have location names - “argh I can’t remember the name of the place with the shiny rock”. Pushing that memory into the system would be great.

Relative directions have been done, e.g. Battlestar, and were not very popular with players. You also have to make the room descriptions work for all supported player orientations.

1 Like

Well, I feel there are a couple of problems with the Blue Lacuna extensions themselves.

They’re very sensitive and notoriously bug-introducing for projects that aren’t Blue Lacuna. This one’s empirical.

The other one’s more conceptual. When you allow players to skip typing a verb (e.g. the go to function), you’re really altering the basic expectation of the parser, which is type an action, and maybe a noun. Skipping the action can work well for one game if that games teaches its rules, which is what Blue Lacuna does, but it’s not widely applicable enough to catch on because it’s too standard-breaking.

A good number of games now use GO TO as well as the compass, so GO TO has caught on, and the Approaching extension is a more general implementation of it.

-Wade

1 Like

For reference, there was a good discussion of this a while back. Here:

1 Like

Yes, absolutely. And it’s certainly possible to design a game that doesn’t need compass directions, but I think that’s a very specific kind of design. You need to build it in a way that it doesn’t matter how you get from one place to another, it doesn’t matter how the space is connected or what path you take, it only matters where you are. And certainly some games don’t want to fit in those design restrictions.

I think in a lot of cases you probably want compass/compassless to be options within the same game, if at all possible.

Yes, but as you also say, navigating more spatially helps a lot with re-routing. Especially if there’s branching or looping. And building a spatial layout when all you have is the chains and branches of connections is a hard computational problem. So I think if you leave out the directions you’re making it much worse for people who navigate spatially.

I’ve always been curious, if you think in terms of chains of locations, how do you build a feel for a bigger space (if you do)? Like, how did you navigate Eat Me, where the map sometimes changes as you play? How do you deal with, “oh no, this room (or connection) is destroyed and my route is blocked, now how do I get where I want to go?”

Or something like Sugarlawn, which has a lot of separate areas that are gated and looped together and there are often different ways to get to a particular place? I made an interactive graph of Sugarlawn’s locations and where the objects come from and go to, and even with color-coding for the regions, for me it’s nearly incomprehensible without dragging it into a shape that somewhat reflects the “physical” layout.


And on the “people’s heads are wired differently” subject, here’s a post from Chandler Groover in one of the most interesting old threads about compassless games. Lots of good points in that thread.

3 Likes

A lot of excellent points made in this thread, thanks to everyone for their input.

Just to reiterate, this isn’t about being against compass directions. Regardless of how the arrangement of locations is described to the player, there will inevitably be a layout, which constitutes a map and therefore places are going to be N,E,S,W of other places, and so compass directions should definitely work when used as input.

Here is what i understand from people’s responses:

  1. Players want a map and the system should draw it.

  2. You can click on map locations to move, possibly even for remote "go to"s.

  3. For a given place, if it doesn’t describe adjacent locations using compass directions, then there needs to be an easy way to learn this, possibly made obvious by the map. This reflects the idea that some people think more spatially than others.

  4. N,E,S,W,U,D, in and out, should work as input for games that need a map.

  5. When compass directions are not made explicit in text, there should be another, less directional, navigational input form. Ideas are; keywords, GO completion, landmarks.

  6. There could be a non-text-input, navigator “widget”. This could be a generalisation of the “compass rose” concept, but not necessarily be a compass. I don’t have a clear idea of what this might ideally look like, but obvious ideas are; a mini-map, a shortlist (popup?) of adjacent place names, or even a traditional compass rose with location names on it as well.

  7. From an authoring perspective, some styles of games “work” with NESW and some don’t.

  8. Some styles of game do not need a “map”, per se. or even directions! Particularly ones less object based and more situation based. These are often “hub” based, or an event flow. For example, when you play a choice game, you don’t (normally) start trying to figure out where things are spatially.

  9. The style of games which benefit from spatial mapping is related to the “game mechanic”. Those that are object based, ie where challenges are built from using objects in various ways, are usually the ones that require a spatial model. Alternatively, games based on situational flow, often do not, or at least very little navigation is needed and often hub based. Example: Sherlock Holmes gets in a cab for each location. ie You don’t expressly need to know where Hackney is in relation to Shoreditch.

6 Likes

Surely it is not the case that the game layout necessarily implies compass directions.

Several of the solutions you suggested (visual map, clickable choices, compass rose) would not be accessible for visually impaired players such as myself.
The only way to make games which implement such systems accessible is to make compass directions available as well, which negates the point of creating the system in the first place.

2 Likes

Clickable choices can be made screen-reader compatible (in the same way that choice-based games in general can be made that way). However, care needs to be taken that a game consistently is screen-reader compatible. I could imagine a compass rose also being made screen-reader compatible. Visual maps, on the other hand, are very difficult to make screen-reader compatible.

Of course, the screen-read experience is different to the visual experience. However, that’s OK provided neither experience is made second-class to the other.

1 Like

Rubbish! Making “compass directions available as well” is not the only way!

What you’re saying is there needs to be an accessible method for the UI. I totally agree, but don’t insist that N,E,S,W are set in stone forever.

1 Like

Compass directions for navigation are historical for parser games, though many have tried other solutions like “go to the boardwalk”.

If you’re using Inform 7 I made an extension in the public library called “Easy Doors” which essentially allows authors to place a door in a room as an object without using a compass direction.

While easy doors by default work like regular doors that can open and close, you can also declare them “open and unopenable” so they are just a a passage - like a teleport. This means you can place a door and call it “a route to the boardwalk” so the player can type ENTER BOARDWALK, GO BOARDWALK, (any synonym for ENTER) or even just BOARDWALK and it will transport the player there. You could technically write an entire I7 game with no compass directions in this manner.

I’m not experienced with screen-readers, but the door descriptions should show up like usual in the game transcript and can be interacted with normally without the compass directions.

1 Like

“Goto” location is available in Dialog.

1 Like