To Verb or Not To Verb in Adventure Games

A while ago I put up a post showcasing adventure game GUIs, without really going into much details about them. But if you want to make your own adventure game, one of the first questions is how you want to control it. And that means, deciding how many Verbs there should be. If you ask “old-school” gamers, you will hear a lot of complaints that modern games are “dumbed down”, while game designers talk about “streamlining the experience” – both positions have some truth to them, because it is important to differentiate between complexity and depth.

Let me make a non-adventure game related example: The game of Chess. The game isn’t terribly complex – there are only 6 different pieces, and only a few special rules. However, the game possesses a great depth due to the many different options to play it. The game of Go is even simpler, but comparable to Chess in its depth.

Simple/Complex describes the amount of rules/actions to do, while shallow/deep describes the combinations you can achieve throughout the game. Which brings us back to adventure games. Have a look at Maniac Mansion:

There are fifteen verbs available. If you play the game, you will notice that you use verbs like “Use” and “Give” quite a few times, while “Fix” is used possibly only once or twice during a play-through, if at all. There is complexity, but do “Unlock Door with Key” or “Fix Phone with Tube” really add more depth than “Use Key on Door” and “Use Tube on Phone”?

I’d like to quote Goldmund from a thread on the AGS Wiki:

I click “use” on a furnace and I have no idea whether the protagonist will open it, push it, sit on it, piss on it, try to eat it… Of course, there are GUIs with more detailed actions, but still it’s nothing compared to the Richness of Interactive Fiction. In IF you really have to think, not just click everywhere with every item from your inventory. The solution could lie in the text input, like it was done in Police Quest II

The problem with that is that it’s not just a matter of thinking but also a matter of creating enough content. Having a lot of different verbs – or even the mentioned text parser – means that the game needs to have a lot of responses for invalid actions, or risk boring the audience. If I can “kick the door”, I should also be able to “kick the mailbox”, “kick the window”, “kick the man” and get a better response than I can’t kick that. Otherwise, you add complexity, but not any perceivable depth and the game is back in “guess the parser” mode.

LucasArts decided to trim down the verb list to nine in the nineties – then even changed the original Monkey Island from twelve Verbs on the Amiga to nine Verbs on DOS (removing Walk To, Turn On and Turn Off).

Removing Verbs removes complexity, but it doesn’t have to mean that it removes depth. Depth is created by meaningful interactions of the verbs you have. This means that you should create a lot of dialogue – if I push something I can’t push, having a more specialized message than “I can’t push that” goes a long way, but that’s still not actual depth. Actual depth stems from the ways I can solve the game. Do I have to solve the puzzles in order or can I pick which ones I solve when? And are there multiple solutions? Can I Use golfclub on Man to solve the puzzle by force, while also having Give golfclub to Man in order to bribe him as an alternative option?

A lot of games these days have a simple two verb system – “Interact” and “Look”.

These games work nicely with a mouse but also on a tablet (where “Look” is usually a long tap). A lot of the puzzles are inventory or dialogue puzzles, which may make these games more “realistic” (they mirror real world problem solving closer), but also are often shallower. Often, there is only one path through a dialogue tree, or one inventory item that works. I can use hammer on nail, but usually not use screwdriver on nail or use book on nail – even though these are valid real world options in a pinch. And for dialogues, often there are only two outcomes, “fail” and “pass”. The bouncer in Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis is one exception that I can think of, where dialogue can lead to him letting you in, him fighting with you, or him dismissing you.

In the end, it’s important to strike a balance between usability, immersion, and design complexity. Especially if you add translations and voice acting, having more responses and possible solutions increases the required time and money, just to create content players may never see. On the other hand, having more variety and truly different solutions makes the game feel a lot more alive and higher quality.

And that’s one of the reasons I still think that Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis is the perfect Point and Click Adventure.

A failed attempt of using a Tinkerboard or Raspberry Pi as a Backup Server

In my earlier post about my new file server, I talked about setting up a backup strategy. Now, my first attempt was to use a ASUS Tinkerboard or Raspberry Pi 3. This attempt failed, and I’d like to go over why, so that future readers don’t make the same mistake.

The Theory: Desired Setup

Here’s my desired backup strategy:

As you see, the Tinker Board was supposed to be the local backup server, that is, the server that holds backups of all the main data. From there, I want to upload to Backblaze’s B2 service.

Bottleneck 1: Multi-Core CPUs don’t really matter for SFTP

My initial plan was to use the SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). After all, the Tinker Board with its 1.8 GHz Quad Core CPU should do well, right? No, not really. The thing is that SFTP doesn’t seem to parallelize well – it uses one Core to the max, and no other.

Whether this is a limitation of the protocol, or a limit of OpenSSH, I don’t know, but I just couldn’t get good speed over SFTP.

Bottleneck 2: USB 2.0 is just not very fast

Now, this one is a bit of a “well, duh!” issue, but I initially didn’t really consider that USB 2.0 is capped at a theoretical max of 480 MBit/s, which is 60 MB/s. So even after switching from SFTP down to SMB or unencrypted FTP, I wasn’t reaching more than about 45 MB/s, even though the hard drive itself can do much more. This would mainly be a problem for the initial backup (~300 GB) and for restores though.

Bottleneck 3 (Raspberry Pi only): Slow Ethernet

On the Raspberry Pi, the Ethernet is only 100 MBit/s, and connected via USB, thus sharing bandwidth. On the ASUS Tinker Board, the Ethernet is a dedicated Gigabit Ethernet controller, and thus doesn’t share bandwidth.

A lot of boxes and cables, for a lot of money

This one is subjective, but my setup was 1 ASUS Tinkerboard with Power Supply, connecting to a USB Hard Drive which also has its own power supply. It looked messy, and also wasn’t really cheap. For $102 ($60 Tinker Board, $14 Case with Fan, $8 Power Supply and $20 USB Drive Case), it’s cheaper than most anything else. For example, a $55 Board with 10W CPU, $40 case, $20 Power Supply and $23 RAM would’ve been $140, but likely much faster.

Going with a Mini-ITX instead

I’ll have a bigger blog post about the actual implementation later, but in the end I re-used my previous Mini-ITX box which has proper SATA for full speed hard drives and performs much better.

I do want to say that both the Raspberry Pi 3 and the ASUS Tinker Board are awesome little boards – especially the Tinker Board impressed me. But in this case, I tried to use them for something they are just not good at, and ended up wasting a bunch of time and money.

TresorLib – a deterministic password generator library for .net

Tresor is a .net library (.net 4/netstandard 1.3 or newer) to generate passwords in a deterministic way, that is, the same inputs will yield the same outputs, but from simple inputs (Like the service name twitter and the passphrase I'm the best 17-year old ever.) you will get a strong password like c<q_!^~,'.KTbPV=9^mU.

This helps with the behavior of using the same passphrase for multiple sites, but is also not reliant on a password vault that you don’t always tend to have with you (e.g., because it’s a file on your computer and you’re on the road) or requires you to trust a cloud-service to securely keep your data.

Internet Websites get compromised all the time – so frequently that has been created for people to get notified whenever their email address shows up in a data breach. Troy Hunt has an amazing blog about web security issues and breaches, and explains why you should use a Password Manager.

Tresor is a port of Vault by James Coglan to .net. When I first discovered Vault, it immediately checked the boxes I was looking for: It works everywhere as long as I have internet access, but it doesn’t store any data that can be compromised. All I need to do is remember the service name and settings, and voila, there’s my password without having to store it in yet another online database that can be compromised.

For more information about Vault, check the FAQ on

Please note that this port is not endorsed or in any way associated with James Coglan.

TresorLib has been published to Nuget, and the source code is available on GitHub. It is licensed under the GNU General Public License Version 3 (GPLv3).

Example usage:

var service = "twitter";
var phrase = "I'm the best 17-year old ever.";
var password = Tresor.GeneratePassword(service, phrase, TresorConfig.Default);

// password => c;q- q}+&,KTbPVn9]mh

For more usage information and documentation, check the Readme in the GitHub repository.