Originally Posted By TAS (9 SEP 2011 8:22pm)

Don't focus on the key or the locks, focus on your burning desire to see what's on the other side of the door.  

Originally Posted By Fnord (11 SEP 2011 5:55pm)
I would rather hear a "That doesn't work" rather than a forced joke,

Sometimes a standard "That doesn't work" lets me relax. It's short, I can click to skip it. I know the developer never considered it.

When I hear a case-sensitive line I think, "They spend time writing and recording that - it must be a hint - somehow that crazy inventory use is almost right?"

I think that best case scenario is that you never see such a message, but everything inside the world you'd expect to be interactive is interactive. A good example of this is Portal: It has a very limited amount of interactive objects, and the rooms are quite sterile, but as a consequence you never have to wonder what are the pieces you can interact with, and thus when exploring or puzzle-solving you can focus on the fun stuff.

Every time I try to use an object that looks like it could be interactive and it turns out to be just a dummy prop, I feel like the game is wasting my time. If a room is filled with things that look interactive but really aren't it can turn exploring a space into a long series of disappointments that hurts immersion.

It's all about consistency. If some boxes can be opened while other identical-looking ones can't, that sends a conflicting message about the nature of the virtual space to the player. It's like a reminder that this is just a scripted game and that I can only do what the developers have allowed me to do.

There could perhaps be some exceptions to this rule, though. Like maybe in a hidden picture kind of game the act of finding the interactive parts though experimentation could in itself be kind of a fun activity. But usually for me the fun derives from other elements.

In terms of repeated vs. unique messages, it's a tough call. Witty unique messages are better in the sense that then I could at least get something out of the experience, but if used too frequently they could quickly start just feeling frustrating. If the unique messages aren't that great I'd probably prefer just a small sound cue as it's more to the point and doesn't get in the way. Also oraxon's point rings true to me: a repeated sound cue or message is at least consistent, so you don't have to second guess what it is trying to tell you ("Move on. Nothing to see here").

Hmm...  Personally, I think that I might prefer a very brief "that doesn't work" message (perhaps ideally with variation in inflection, or a small set of such messages), and with special messages used where they might be particularly effective (perhaps ideally worded such that they clearly indicate that no more is to come of that combination).  In the case of trying various possibilities rather than trying something expected to work (since we're discussion repeated hearings of such lines), searching for an interaction useful in a given situation can thus be done more quickly, as one can likely identify the familiar "that doesn't work" line more quickly than an individual one, while interesting interactions may yet yield interesting results.

(To give an example: The Silver Lining does more or less what I describe above - a small set of standard "that doesn't work" messages with special messages for a few.  For myself, I feel that it works quite well there.)

As to stifling exploration of possibilities, for myself, at least, I don't feel that a "that doesn't work" message does overmuch, and I do feel that individuated messages only encourage me to explore those messages, rather than affecting my exploration of the world or interactions that I expect (or hope) to yield results.

There is, however, similarity to another case that does, I feel, stifle exploration (for me, at least): exploration systems that allow one to progress with a given set of pieces, but in which those found by exploration are optional.  An example might be magic systems that allow for experimentation with a set of components (such as runes or reagents) in order to find new spells or potions, but which give little to no feedback for failed attempts (perhaps especially in those cases in which spells or potions fail that seem to fit the pattern of previous cases that work).  (The case involving magic systems is perhaps a minor pet issue of mine. ^^; )

The difference, I think, is that in the adventure game situation one's progress generally depends on eventually finding the right combination, so one continues despite failure (presuming that one doesn't just turn to a  walkthrough or hint

"No need to go down there."

I do enjoy that from some of the older games..it is a lot of fun when they hid funny replies in the game dialog and it really makes those older titles shine. The worst part is a labyrinth with deadly traps..the best part are the funny hidden jokes.