next »

[C.A. Sinner]

j-snake IS steven seagal in "indie game the movie 2: camp of no return"

[DavidCaruso]

j-snake IS steven seagal in "indie game the movie 2: camp of no return"

There's only one way out.

The swimming pool.

[J-Snake]

Seagal > Chuck Norris

and I allow you to make games. So in all my mercy can you please answer my serious question?

[stevesan]

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?

Well many games do this. Plants vs. Zombies does it...a lot of RPGs have an "encyclopedia" type thing in them that get filled out as you explore and complete quests, so yeah, it's probably a good idea if there's a ton of stuff to remember in your game.

[stevesan]

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.

I think this is a very, very good point. If the game isn't fun with just a small subset of mechanics, then you pretty much are forced to overwhelm the player with a flood of tutorial dialog boxes. So, ideally, you figure out what subset of mechanics can be initially isolated and still be made fun.

I think Warcraft 2 is a great example. IIRC, the first level basically just had you chopping enough wood to build a farm - that was it. Sure, not the most exciting thing in the world, but at least you were doing something immediately, and it was still pretty fun ordering that poor little peasant around ("Wot is it? Okaay..."). It's a world of difference compared to, say, a flood of dialogue boxes explaining to you the resource mechanics and build orders and crap all at once. UGH.

I think immersive shooters could do this a lot better. Most recently for me, STALKER flooded you with text to explain the PDA. It would've been much more enjoyable if they introduced the PDA's systems one at a time with mini-missions that exercised their utility. The only reason STALKER still was enjoyable to me, despite its terrible intro tutorial, is because I pretty much knew what the PDA did anyway, having played games like System Shock and Deus Ex. But can you imagine what it'd be like for a new player? Chrissakes....

[Eye of the Oculus]

I definitely agree on the most part of your thoughts, though I'd say the method, and the need, for a tutorial being implemented should vary game to game. If you've played Minecraft (which I hardly expect anyone has not) for the first time with no knowledge of what the hell you're doing, then it can be a pain (fun for some I hear, but thats only a select few). If it had a tutorial, however, it'd make the game very much slow and boring. And thats why wikis were made! I think theres a certain fun of checking fan-made writings of a game and it's aspects on the internet, or if it's a new game just working on understanding the game with other random people on the internet can alone be a fun thing. For big games but small popularity no one ever does this though, so it's usually upto talking to developers with what means they give. I've played many very much smaller indie games which no one has heard of and worked with friends to discover all it's aspects, although it's rare to get intricate games like that. An example would be Ruthless Quest Online (it's gone from the internet now), and that was very fun wasting my summer finding out all the secret rooms and items and such.

As I said before, it should vary between type and purpose of game. If Spelunky had a big list of everything in it on it's tutorial, would it be as fun? A first time playing such a game should be played by the ignorant, as the idea of adventure really comes to play.

[stevesan]

I definitely agree on the most part of your thoughts, though I'd say the method, and the need, for a tutorial being implemented should vary game to game. If you've played Minecraft (which I hardly expect anyone has not) for the first time with no knowledge of what the hell you're doing, then it can be a pain (fun for some I hear, but thats only a select few). If it had a tutorial, however, it'd make the game very much slow and boring. And thats why wikis were made! I think theres a certain fun of checking fan-made writings of a game and it's aspects on the internet, or if it's a new game just working on understanding the game with other random people on the internet can alone be a fun thing. For big games but small popularity no one ever does this though, so it's usually upto talking to developers with what means they give. I've played many very much smaller indie games which no one has heard of and worked with friends to discover all it's aspects, although it's rare to get intricate games like that. An example would be Ruthless Quest Online (it's gone from the internet now), and that was very fun wasting my summer finding out all the secret rooms and items and such.

As I said before, it should vary between type and purpose of game. If Spelunky had a big list of everything in it on it's tutorial, would it be as fun? A first time playing such a game should be played by the ignorant, as the idea of adventure really comes to play.

I can totally relate, and I recently had this experience with Demon's Souls. There's a game that doesn't even tell you how to use frikkin magic. I had to look it up on the wiki! But ya know what? That was part of the fun, and I look forward to doing the same for Dark Souls! Learning and discovery are one of the joys of video games.

So I agree that some games actually over-tutorialize, when they could've just left it up to the player to figure some things out. The tutorial also just gets in the way of the game at first. Now, this is for a certain audience of course, so if you're going for mass market appeal I'm not sure you can assume they'll be as pro-active in figuring stuff out. But given how well Demon's Souls and Dark Souls actually sold, I'm gonna guess that the market for discovery-focused games is larger than we think, especially amongst indies. Looking at the recent success of, say, Binding of Isaac supports this.

[J-Snake]

If you've played Minecraft (which I hardly expect anyone has not)

No, I have never played minecraft, because there is nothing to play. 

Other than that I personally don't want to follow your road of philosophy. A game should be a closed entity in itself. Every intended information should be available in the game itself, especially the rule-set.

If one feels the need to discover the rule-set in order to have fun, then the game is likely low points. What one should discover oneself are concepts based on the rule-set (like in chess if it makes that clear). That is the real value and fun.

[mirosurabu]

Chess does not contain any information and it does not even come with a manual (at least, it didn't). Rather, you learn about the game from other people. I don't see problem with that.

[J-Snake]

Lol, so you think everything is good habit now?
I fail to see how having a manual right at your side is not beneficial when you forget a rule. For me a decent manual shows that the developer cares about the game-mechanics.

[mirosurabu]

A decent manual OUTSIDE of the game is cool, a manual or tutorial inside the game is usually not cool, unless you introduce the rules gradually and when necessary, but to do that you still have to make sure you don't ruin the earlier phase of the game. That solution is best used as an exploit i.e. when a lot of options in the game aren't required at all times, especially if they are not required during the early phase of the game. So it's doable, but there are times when it's not, and then - paper manuals are better option IMO.

The benefit over in-game manuals and tutorials is that you can skim through paper manuals quickly. In-game manuals are fiddly and slow because of all the UI navigation, whereas tutorials are slow mostly because they treat you like a kid, as they are made for kids anyways. They are best when you can skip them.

I still have to make up mind on whether games with too many rules/options are inherently bad though.

[J-Snake]

It is important to make the game you want to make. If it happens to be simple then so be it. If it happens to be complex then so be it, too.

Magicka devs were also told the game is too complex, no one would want to pick it up. But they were confident enough in making the game they wanted to make and it turned out successfull.

btw. Have a good kick-start into 2012 everyone

[stevesan]

It is important to make the game you want to make. If it happens to be simple then so be it. If it happens to be complex then so be it, too.

Magicka devs were also told the game is too complex, no one would want to pick it up. But they were confident enough in making the game they wanted to make and it turned out successfull.

btw. Have a good kick-start into 2012 everyone

Yeh I think complex vs. simple is just a matter of taste. Sometimes I'm in the mood for complex (turn based strategy games, like HOMM), but sometimes I want simple. I still think the hardest thing to do is simple but deep, like Braid, and those tend to be the most interesting to me. But nothing wrong with games of all types.

[J-Snake]

I think Heroes 4 is a lot more difficult to design properly than TrapThem or Braid. Of course it doesn't mean what I am doing is easy.

[C.A. Sinner]

i find action games harder to design than strategy games tho

never made a puzzle game so i wouldn't know