next »

[J-Snake]

Yeah, I know. The rule-set allows me to have great control over level-design. I won't exxagerate. I just want to provide valuable moments for a large audience, there will be different types of challenges for everyone. There are of course some people who search a real challenge in a puzzle game. They will be pleased, too.

Btw:
There is actually a fun story: I provided some levels for testing for a certain audience: best computer-science students, there was a sceptical freak who thought TrapThem is as much as the tut-levels can get and could not believe to face a serious challenge. I gave him an extra challenging puzzle-level which only covers a small fraction of the screen. I wanted him to quickly gain respect. He struggled for several days and was quickly intimidated by the game ( I love those moments). He gave up and couldn't believe how much can go wrong just on few square-centimeters. He urgently wanted to see the solution so I showed him. He was amazed how he didn't manage to think about that because the game outsmarted him and invisibly encouraged dead ends but not the solution.

So hardcore puzzle-levels are not for everyone. I don't think to include them. But instead to still keep a challenge for hardcores there will be achievements if you manage to solve a level under certain conditions, so it is optional. I think that is a good idea.
For example you will get a ninja-achievement if you make it unnoticed or you will get higher score if you make it in less steps, things like that.

[stevesan]

Well if your game is good enough, people will put up with lecture-like tutorials (which seems to be what you're going towards here). I mean, look at SpaceChem. It's definitely not my taste, but I guess there are a lot of people that are OK with it. I personally would always prefer indirect learning, since that makes for a smoother, less jarring experience. I didn't really enjoy SpaceChem at all, and stopped playing after like the first three levels or so.

I watched some more vids, and there are some cool ideas in your game. I mean ultimately, you gotta play test your game. To be honest, I don't think it's really my type of game - there seems to be a lot of mechanics tossed in to complicate things. I like simplicity. But again - I didn't like SpaceChem, so maybe I'm not your audience. But maybe I will once I actually play the game! And having said all that, I would like to try your game (so maybe I'm intrigued after all?)

But hey, if you like it, and other people seem to like it to, then keep up the good work!

[J-Snake]

gotta play test your game. To be honest, I don't think it's really my type of game

You know, that is the fun thing and the actual problem why it might not get successful:  
All of the people who said that could not stop playing once they gave it a chance (implies to give it a chance in first place, that's the problem). There was a guy who spend 3 hours despite he only wanted to give it 5 minutes. He was just dragged in and couldn't stop trying to solve certain levels. I managed to record some of his actions here, unfortunately the best stuff was not recorded but it doesn't make it less awesome, If you don't have the patience to watch it all, you can skip to 2:40, I think it is a bit more fun to watch, imo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QOafYRE2to&feature=channel_video_title

[J-Snake]

there seems to be a lot of mechanics tossed in to complicate things. I like simplicity.

The mechanics are designed to maintain a certain quality of depth and variety with as simple rule-set as possible. The game-mechanic-elements tend to complement each other.

So what in particular seem to complicate things for you?

[stevesan]

there seems to be a lot of mechanics tossed in to complicate things. I like simplicity.

The mechanics are designed to maintain a certain quality of depth and variety with as simple rule-set as possible. The game-mechanic-elements tend to complement each other.

So what in particular seem to complicate things for you?

So are you sure you need to explicitly spell out every enemy? Braid had quite a bit of complexity, with the various enemy types and gadgets, but it never really needed to _explain_ everything. Basically, it was very complex, but it wasn't intimidating. Here, you're talking about "lectures" and making all these videos. It feels like I'm learning a new software program or something.

Like I said though, I will reserve judgment until I actually play the game. So you're doing something right.

[J-Snake]

Now that I hear about lectures that way I find it funny myself, lol. The videos are only that long because they teach you basic concepts how to solve certain problems in addition. So it looks more than it actually is to the rule-set.

I haven't played Braid so I cannot comment on that. But in contrary to many platformers and many other games in TrapThem you have to know exactly how the enemies work. All of their actions and routines are one fundamental part of the game-mechanics.

No, I am not sure I need to spell them all out. Likely the majority of players who will dedicate some time will figure out how the game-mechanics work. But I cannot guarantee it for everyone. If I spell out one enemy, isn't it better to be consistent and spell out all of them? In particular, I think only the thief requires a bit of explanation, all other enemies can be figured out quickly.

It sounds like spelling everything relevant out is potentially a bad thing, even when it is optional. Generally, do you perceive it as a bad thing in games?

[vinheim3]

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.

I understand that bit about chess, but games involving chess would put you into situations where you'd learn about it, and also I was judging YOUR tutorials. I know you could make the game in such a way that instructions won't be needed (btw it looks interesting, is it out?). Also I feel that tutorials kill immersion. You realize the game is a game with its set of rules rather than some alternate world you can experiment the mechanics of.

[stevesan]

Now that I hear about lectures that way I find it funny myself, lol. The videos are only that long because they teach you basic concepts how to solve certain problems in addition. So it looks more than it actually is to the rule-set.

I haven't played Braid so I cannot comment on that. But in contrary to many platformers and many other games in TrapThem you have to know exactly how the enemies work. All of their actions and routines are one fundamental part of the game-mechanics.

No, I am not sure I need to spell them all out. Likely the majority of players who will dedicate some time will figure out how the game-mechanics work. But I cannot guarantee it for everyone. If I spell out one enemy, isn't it better to be consistent and spell out all of them? In particular, I think only the thief requires a bit of explanation, all other enemies can be figured out quickly.

It sounds like spelling everything relevant out is potentially a bad thing, even when it is optional. Generally, do you perceive it as a bad thing in games?

One would think that spelling everything out is the "safe" thing to do... but here's the thing: one of the primary types of fun is DISCOVERY. When you suddenly "figure out" something by yourself - you "discover" it - that is pretty damn fun. I just had this experience with this game: http://jonathanwhiting.com/ld/22/  - There are NO instructions at all, and some people may get stuck. But for those who don't, figuring out how the game works is part of the fun.

Now, I'm not really sure how you're going to present the videos in the context of the game. It sounds like the videos will be optional, and I can refer to them if I need to? Again, I really need to play the game to give you much constructive feedback. It's the experience of the game that's important.

And....go play Braid right now

Let me also add that you are probably a more seasoned game designer than me. You're making this game, and I'm not nearly as far along with my game. So, take all this "advice" as from someone with probably less experience than you, and is trying to figure things out as well.

[J-Snake]

No the game isn't out yet. The videos are made just to give you a reason why to spend your money on the game. The whole rule-set is explained. But yeah, it likely turns out that people are not willing to spend their time on the vids because it is unlikely to think that that they are facing a brilliant game there.

I think we should better divide game genres/goals. There are games where discovering the rules might be a gameplay-element itself and adds to the exploration-value and experience, so nothing is explained.

Then there are games with a sportive-layer in them. Literally all my games will have a serious sportive-layer in them.
And it is my will to provide my vision of quality, even when it costs my life.

Anyway, I might come up with some types of the tutorial-demo and see how it is perceived.
Thanks for everyone willing to test, I will adress you then.

[stevesan]

No the game isn't out yet. The videos are made just to give you a reason why to spend your money on the game. The whole rule-set is explained. But yeah, it likely turns out that people are not willing to spend their time on the vids because it is unlikely to think that that they are facing a brilliant game there.

I think we should better divide game genres/goals. There are games where discovering the rules might be a gameplay-element itself and adds to the exploration-value and experience, so nothing is explained.

Then there are games with a sportive-layer in them. Literally all my games will have a serious sportive-layer in them.
And it is my will to provide my vision of quality, even when it costs my life.

Anyway, I might come up with some types of the tutorial-demo and see how it is perceived.
Thanks for everyone willing to test, I will adress you then.

Well keep playtesting and good luck Definitely post it up here when you're ready for some feedback on the actual game.

[J-Snake]

I will design the tutorial now without explanations. Every rule-piece will be discovered in a dedicated level through exploration. So when you have mastered all the tutorial levels you should know the rule-set, without reading anything.

I see the excitement in this way of approaching a game. But those who don't pass the tutorials should blame TigForums for that:P

[stevesan]

I will design the tutorial now without explanations. Every rule-piece will be discovered in a dedicated level through exploration. So when you have mastered all the tutorial levels you should know the rule-set, without reading anything.

I see the excitement in this way of approaching a game. But those who don't pass the tutorials should blame TigForums for that:P

Haha you shouldn't definitely play test those levels and make sure they're simple enough for people to "get."

And, if you really have a ton of mechanics, having an in-game reference is a good idea in case people forget. Plants vs. Zombies does this. They also just explain new plants to players, but they do it in a very spread out manner (each level they give you one new plant). And the explanations are very concise - one or two sentences. So, not really what I'm rallying against in this thread - I think that's an example of it being well done.

[Gimym TILBERT]

I think a problem of some game is that they are only fun when you have already mastered ALL control and nuance. They are not fun with just a basic set of action, so noob end up shaking their head. I mean mario 64 have 16 jumps but is fun with just moving around in an empty space.

[J-Snake]

Now that i am in this process a reward-concept came to mind:

If a rule-set manual is going to be included, how about that you have to unlock it in order to read it? It will be the reward for completing the tut-levels (since some seem to like such rewards). So in case you forgot some special details, you can look them up then.

What do you think about that? I really want to know ones personal perception. Does it add to rewarding experience or is it just annoying?

[DavidCaruso]

And it is my will to provide my vision of quality, even when it costs my life.

This summer, one man's quest to make a great game...even as the hitmen who killed his wife are closing in on his house.