next »

[Graham.]

the optimal solution would be to have several different levels of hand-holding, and have the game itself intelligently figure out how experienced the player is, adapting the tutorial to the player in real-time. if the player seems to figure most things out without guidance, the game would simply stop giving guidance

Yeah. It's called "design." .

[Danmark]

I think clarity is a little more complicated than that.

The more general problem is that devs underestimate the amount of work good interface/controls design takes.

To clarify, I find the biggest problem with complex games isn't the controls (except inasmuch as they're buried in a hierarchy), but visual feedback. Not being able to observe the consequences of your actions or the operation of the game world makes you apathetic. The control side, on the other hand, is pretty much standardized at this point, so it tends to be counter-intuitive only when devs subvert the conventions or try something new (neither of which are necessarily bad).

Imagine there are a ton of index cards with pictures on one side, and info written on the other. Ten+ times per minute, you need to retrieve the card with a certain picture, to read its reverse. Unfortunately, these cards are stored in folders, themselves stored in various drawers in a filing cabinet. To start with, you don't really know where particular cards are, and must tediously poke through the cabinet in search of them. Even once you've gotten the hang of it, you waste time opening drawers and removing folders, and it's tough to synthesize information between two or more cards. There's a table nearby big enough to accommodate all the cards at once, but it isn't being used.

That's the situation.

[Graham.]

AAA game designers universally suck at making interfaces. Anytime a user has to think about how to do something, and that thinking isn't a part of the ideal experience your game is supposed to provide, you've made a mistake. Like it's not a debate. You've made a mistake.

Indies aren't any better. It's just nicer to point fingers upwards.

I wasn't disagreeing with your points. I think the "neatness" you speak of is a reflection of a superficial understanding devs have of what elegance is. Elegance means that something does what it needs to do in the most straight-forward way possible. If that something has been created to provide a service or solve a problem, being elegant means that it will take the shape of that problem and reflect its nature in a way that shows its beauty. Elegant solutions are inherently pleasing to absorb for this reason.

Neatness comes from confusing an arbitrary elegance of organization with one of actual use. The second one is so much harder that its actually kind of funny that you can mistake one for other. It's like an adult confusing a hot wheels with a real car. An elegant interface is invisible and makes the _game_ beautiful, not unrelated relationships between the elements of the interface that the designers have uncovered.

I will disagree with you on the controls though. I think controls and interfaces are intricately tied. Assassin's Creed can be awkward - big budget. GTA is inane. The Skyrim fighting, menus, quick-weapons are kind-of face-palm moments. Maybe you're talking strictly about mappings, like the left stick being movement and the right trigger being primary fire. Yeah, I mean why wouldn't right trigger be primary fire?

My tolerance for having to communicate with the game about what I want to do drops with age, and it was only high to begin with because I had a lot of time on my hands. Controls that aren't immediately intuitive are a result of developers being like, "Well, my game is so awesome, the player should spend time learning about me and my struggles. Why should I service them?" The idea that mental cycles in a player's mind is seen as a transient resource by developers makes me want to slap them on the face then pat them on the head, you know because this is a harsh world and they could use the encouragement.

[Danmark]

Neatness comes from confusing an arbitrary elegance of organization with one of actual use. The second one is so much harder that its actually kind of funny that you can mistake one for other. It's like an adult confusing a hot wheels with a real car. An elegant interface is invisible and makes the _game_ beautiful, not unrelated relationships between the elements of the interface that the designers have uncovered.

This is an apt description.

I will disagree with you on the controls though. I think controls and interfaces are intricately tied. Assassin's Creed can be awkward - big budget. GTA is inane. The Skyrim fighting, menus, quick-weapons are kind-of face-palm moments. Maybe you're talking strictly about mappings, like the left stick being movement and the right trigger being primary fire. Yeah, I mean why wouldn't right trigger be primary fire?

Pretty much only had in mind sims and strategy games where you control some kind of disembodied agent that issues commands. Should've made that clear. I don't consider any of those games complex (Elder Scrolls games have lots of breadth but little depth), but otherwise, I agree with everything you've said.

Assassin's Creed is the worst of the bunch. It's as though you're giving the character suggestions, rather than controlling him.

[Graham.]

And yet it's (one of) the biggest non-shooter non-sports non-racing franchises. Good lord what would it be if it were playable. What a testament to an interesting concept and excellent animation.

[JWK5]

Goal: Progressively weed out my cynicism and get back to just enjoying things in life, flaws and all.

[Graham.]

Goal: slam a super-model.

[John Sandoval]

Goal: slam a super-model.

what kind of supermodel, are we talking freja beha here or gisele bundchen or like fabio or something

there is only one right answer

[John Sandoval]

let me give you a hint

[JWK5]

Goal: slam a super-model.

what kind of supermodel, are we talking freja beha here or gisele bundchen or like fabio or something

All of the above, they fuse their model powers and become the supermodel Frebioselle.

[Graham.]

There are many other options. Btw, Fabio is a man.

[Armageddon]

Goal: Make a AAA 3D game entirely by myself except for sound and music.

And do the post above me.

[Muz]

the optimal solution would be to have several different levels of hand-holding, and have the game itself intelligently figure out how experienced the player is, adapting the tutorial to the player in real-time. if the player seems to figure most things out without guidance, the game would simply stop giving guidance

tbh, I hate this. I always play the tutorial at the most basic setting, just because I don't feel like it's worth saving 30 mins on a very important hot key that everyone else knows because they play the tutorial.

So, I think it's best to just have something where everyone starts with the same informational disadvantage, though you probably do have to cater for the people who've never touched the genre. Though on the other hand, people who bother to actually search up an indie game instead of a popular mainstream game already have a good grasp of the genre.

I'd say the best level of hand holding would be something which gauges your skill on level 0. Like if you have problems scrolling the page, then the game drops hints on how to scroll (instead of wasting 20 seconds of your life telling you to try scrolling the page). If you can't figure how to pull the trigger, then a little pop up tells you to click to shoot.

If you can eat food to heal, the game throws you to a firefight, where you will get wounded, then someone will offer you a free sandwich and tell you to pick it up. None of that annoying stuff where the game freezes until pick up the food and eat it.

An RPG making guy once brought up the problem with difficulty curves. Most people save potions and expendables for boss battles. But there will always be people who used up all their potions in minor battles, making the boss battles impossible for their spoiled ass. And there will be people who hoard 999 potions, and would spend an extra 3 hours against the bosses because they refuse to use potions or forgot they had any. And there are those who don't even want to go through this potion dilemma and try to find cheats.

It's harder, but I'm of the thought that you should just try and cater for all these playing styles, perhaps rewarding the harder forms of play compared to others.

[kamac]

Create a game which's income would let me buy myself a mac.
Also create a full 3d game in C++.

Optionally, create a game which would make people cry, feel the epicness. So basically, a game with epic story. But it's an option.

[Shackhal]

I have some goals in my mind:

• Make a game: Check (the first step counts )
• Complete a Ludum Dare: Check
• Make a game where lots of people acknowledge me: Not Yet
• Sell a game: Not Yet
• Be able to support myself for my games: Not Yet
• Go to a GDC: Not Yet (that one i want it no matter what!)
• Live be myself in my own apartment/house/mansion: Not Yet