next »

[J-Snake]

I might soon post a tutorial-demo of my game. I hope you will like it.

[J-Snake]

Everyone reading this thread needs to watch it[/i]. Conveyance is such an amazing technique in action games, and if you pull it off right, you absolutely do not need a tutorial.

Lol, that might be true in low points 2-button-platform-games or games with short attention-spans. Simply because there should not be much to teach. But for more serious games with long attention-spans I am rather all support for good tutorial-designs, especially when the game has decent sportive qualities.

[stevesan]

I might soon post a tutorial-demo of my game. I hope you will like it.

I think tutorial levels/demos are fine if done well, but somethings I would be aware of:
- Avoid walls of text. Conciseness is a virtue! This also applies to sequences where it's just one text box after another. You expect me to be taking notes? Yeah right..
- Allow me to try out each concept and move at my own pace. Tell me what you want to tell me and then let me try it out for a bit before moving on to the next thing. This allows me to immediately practice the skill and make sure that I get it. Or if I do immediately get it, let me move on immediately (unless you can make the activity fun).

And this may be personal preference, but: Put the text in the level itself. God I hate clicking text boxes..."click here to move on" or "next" just dumb.

[J-Snake]

Mate, all of what you said is actually how it is done:)

As example is this explanation concise and is the content well understood? (I intend to use those screens in the game)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2wegZx9raI&feature=channel_video_title

[vinheim3]

^ You know, you could actually spread everything you taught in those tutorials across less than 10 levels without ANY text, just pure experimentation, and you can do it without it seeming frustrating and mixing it with puzzles at the same time, like in Portal.

[J-Snake]

I can do that, and the tut-levels are designed for that purpose. But it is better to have few lines of confirmation. It is not like we have to design games and lower their quality for dead-boring people not being able to read few lines. At least I don't want to follow this philosophy to the rotten end.

[vinheim3]

You might not think it's better, but it makes the player feel smarter figuring things out by himself and does not lower quality. In fact, I think it heightens quality, it shows the designer knows how to entertain the player without requiring them to read basic instructions. A game that does these well? Portal and, slightly, Braid too (in Braid, they gave subtle hints in the story, but you only realized what it meant via experimentation anyways)

[J-Snake]

You can just skip the tutorial-levels-explanation if you think it will make you smart, but I don't think that is a smart idea. The tut-levels are still designed that you have to understand the lecture in order to solve them. But the game will offer enough challenges which will make you feel smart once you have mastered them anyway.

You cannot generalize it. If you want a game which explains everything by playing then you are factoring out rules which are better suited to be explicitely explained. For example you don't want to examine the rules in chess. It could take you forever to figure out. And most importantly, you will never be 100% sure about them. It shouldn't be physic-science. A good game should provide a compact explicit explanation of the rule-set, at least for relevant things.

[stevesan]

Mate, all of what you said is actually how it is done:)

As example is this explanation concise and is the content well understood? (I intend to use those screens in the game)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2wegZx9raI&feature=channel_video_title

OK, I apologize if my comments below come across as harsh, but you need honest feedback. But, before that, let me just say that your game looks cool and the video has charming music and presentation. Now...

The first two things could have been communicated by a simple level intro level. Just let me chomp around a level, and believe me, the two types of blocks and the physics of falling will become abundantly clear without a single word of text. Just take some time to design such a level to make that clear - don't be lazy. You explaining it to me explicitly feels a bit condescending, frankly. Like, "Oh this idea of two different types of blocks...you'll never figure that out on your own! Let me explain!"

I didn't even understand why there are multiple crystals in the same place?

Why are you using a white box as an exit? Why not just a door that's initially locked, and then when you collect all the crystals it opens up? Unless you have a good reason to use something special (like "The company of myself"), it comes across as lazy.

So, in short, I really don't think your game warrants a video or even a tutorial. Just a few well-thought levels would have sufficed. If you don't want to do that, just a few lines would suffice as well - no need for a video like this.

You say that you must explain the rules of chess, and I agree. But your game is not as complicated as chess (which is not a bad or a good thing - it is what it is).

[J-Snake]

Heh? I see no need for apologies.

You will be surprised how sophisticated the game actually is, no worries about that. The point is that without a text-explanation some people might still tend to miss something, or certain rules won't get clear that quickly. This game has also sophisticated controls and I try to make it clear how to take advantage of it in the second intro-vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfbDsXChSco&feature=channel_video_title
That thing is something good players wish to know.

Yeah, one can argue what is obvious and requires no explanation, I am not sure about this subject myself. But I decided to explain all the relevant things for the completeness, I think to strike the right balance in compact information.

As for why there can be multiple crystals on a field and why the exits are open: It will be clear in the following lectures.

I am using a white box as exit simply because everything is still spriteholders and graphics is not my main focus. However I want to collaborate with an artist for the final look. Btw. what do you think about the current visual style anyway?

[J-Snake]

You are really sending me on cross-roads guys. I hear more and more often that people prefer a tutorial with no text in them instead of having a solid explanation they can always refer to, if needed.

I can perfectly design the tutorial that way with only concise hints in the pause menu.
But then again I think the still many people will have difficulties to make clear how the
thief-enemy works, but some screens explain it pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Og5UyKtm8&feature=channel_video_title
What do you think about that after watching? (This is one of the more interesting intro-videos, those levels already teach you basic concepts in addition) Or do you think his movement pattern is easy to find out?

[Blodyavenger]

In old times, there was only way to learn:

- die often

And you know what? Everytime I've heard "ta-da-da-da-dan" sound of death I was like "Aha, so that's how it is!" and I was happy. Of course, I've died many time but I felt smart

I suggest you make those 10 maps that will teach you what you need to know and call over a friend that never heard for your game and let him play it. Watch him, observe his temper and moves. At the end, ask him how was it, if he did understand the point etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if I go off-topci from your game, I'll take one example of "modern game" which is well known - World of Warcraft.
6 (or was it 7?) years ago when it came out it wasn't nothing like that. No easy-peasy quest helpers and such but when I came into that game for the first time I knew what I have to do, it was easy and understandable. Everything was obvious even if there were no books of tutorial texts. That's why I think WoW is so succesful among other factors, because it's simple to learn and easy to understand how to play it.

[Gimym TILBERT]

There is also the option to keep expert routes for expert player to skip over the tuts, something noob won't be able to do or understand but made sure the expert see and actually test the skills he need to proceed. A hidden path that only expert can see and  go through.

It is also great for replayability as the player can now see them when he restart, it rubs him the right way because it tells him how far he as gone in competence.

[J-Snake]

In old times, there was only way to learn:
- die often

Hehe, In TrapThem you will die anyway, likely more often than in any game you have ever played:P The game is completely fair but it's trickery and repercussions will simply blow your mind and you will be amazed how the game manages to play tricks on you over and over despite you know how stuff works. It is just so much gameplay on tiny space. In some moments you will hate it to death and love it at the same time, those levels will give you a true feeling of accomplishment. The cool thing is that I am even not exxagerating;) Oh shit, I wanted to stay humble, calming down.

No worries, the tut-levels won't have much room for failure.

[Blodyavenger]

Ok, that's good but you must be carefull with "number of deaths" factor which can easily take player away from the game if it's set on too difficult level.

Player still needs to feel the power