next »

[Torchkas]

I mean this in a quite literal sense. One might argue that the player will always learn new stuff. But at what point should you, as a designer, deliberately stop guiding the player in the right direction.
At what point does this make the exploration rewarding instead of frustrating?
When do you "let go" of the player, if at any point at all?

Would prefer an answer based on experience rather than "it depends". Unless that's the only answer you can come up with.

[Canned Turkey]

If i'm watching someone playtest, the moment they stop asking me basic questions (i.e. how do I jump) is the moment I stop the tutorial.
Give the player what they want.

[Alec S.]

When the player already knows what they need to know  

Basically, when the player has internalized the logic of the game to the point where they can make reasonable assumptions about what they can do, and what they can expect the response to those actions to be.  

And, to a certain degree, exploration will almost always be guided.  Even if you don't flat out say "go here," you giving the player cues as to where they can explore and why they should explore.

[ThemsAllTook]

Stop doing it before you start. Guided tutorials are a bad thing.

...a less tongue-in-cheek answer would be to do it evenly throughout the game, and as sparingly as possible. Really think hard about why you'd need to tell the player to do something. Does your game break if they don't do it? Are you trying to impose a specific playstyle on them, possibly against their will? Can your game mechanics point them in the right direction subtly enough that they don't even realize it's happening?

[wccrawford]

Stop doing it before you start. Guided tutorials are a bad thing.

...a less tongue-in-cheek answer would be to do it evenly throughout the game, and as sparingly as possible. Really think hard about why you'd need to tell the player to do something. Does your game break if they don't do it? Are you trying to impose a specific playstyle on them, possibly against their will? Can your game mechanics point them in the right direction subtly enough that they don't even realize it's happening?

Along those same lines, you *never* stop.  But you don't do it blatantly.  There's a video on MegaMan and how it shows you what you need to know before you need to know it, but without popping up a tutorial dialog.  *Way* better than a standard tutorial.  Of course, this works best for action games.  If you have a strategy game, it probably won't work as well. 

[oahda]

Offer all tools and mechanics at the start, or at least base all of them on the same concept, possibly upgrade them in obvious ways that don't alter controllers along the way, and never explain them again. Wooh, no breaking of immersion!

[JWK5]

Teach them the essentials (controls, stats, etc.) directly somehow. My personal preference in that department is just being given a "help" screen that spells it all out plain and clear.

Once you've got that squared away then the rest can be taught fairly subtly through demonstration. Rather than forcing the player to sit through a tutorial the player can observe thing to figure out what they are supposed to do (i.e. let the player figure it all out but give them clues).

For example, maybe there is tough series of jumps that will be used throughout the level in your platformer game. You could create a type of enemy that has similar looking jumps and motion as the player, and then have them be able to make the jumps the player must make (thus showing the player how it has to be done without doing it for them or forcing them to stop and read some tutorial dialog).

[Torchkas]

Well the things I've heard so far are mostly basic design structures. At least from my hobbyist observations so far, I get all of this information. Namely, keep a consistent set of rules and don't assume the player is an idiot (grossly simplified).

I meant it more in regards to lateral puzzles, hint systems or quests where you have to find something.
Where would you stop guidance there?

[SirNiko]

This might vary a bit depending on what kind of a player is playing your game.

My girlfriend really likes playing Neverwinter (the MMO) because it has a lot of guidance in it - lots of waypoints to show where to get to the next quest location or NPC. It is incredibly easy, but we aren't playing it to be challenged. Periodically the game gives a vague waypoint location and makes you hunt for the item, but that is only for quests where finding the item is the task at hand.

By contrast, she tends to get lost when playing Borderlands because quest locations are across the map and she runs into dead-ends or misses platforms to climb. Epic Mickey 2 sometimes gives her trouble because she just wants the game to clearly indicate where she should go next for something to do. This tends to spoil the fun unless I help her find her way.

On the other hand, I find Neverwinter too easy and enjoy exploring in Borderlands or Epic Mickey.

I think giving the player more guidance (such as waypoints or map markers) is not a bad way to design a game, so long as you make sure there are things to do in each place. I prefer exploring on my own, so long as I don't feel like I'm wasting time trying to find the content in a boring overworld. You may consider making waypoint markers something that can be turned on for casual players, and turned off for serious players (so long as you make sure it's fun to hunt for the quests or puzzles).

[oahda]

Can't we just do it like back in the olden, golden days and put the instructions in the instruction booklet?

[wccrawford]

Epic Mickey 2 sometimes gives her trouble because she just wants the game to clearly indicate where she should go next for something to do. This tends to spoil the fun unless I help her find her way.

I think you just sold me a copy of Epic Mickey 2!  I was upset with how hand-hold-y the first one was, to the point that it wasn't letting me think *at all*.  Though, I'll admit I didn't get more than a couple hours in before it drove me away. 

Example from the first Epic Mickey:  At the start, you are in a room with 3 machines.  The game does some plot stuff and then tells you you'll have to destroy the machines to open the path.  It then points right at the first machine and tells you to destroy it.  Annoying, but okay.  After do that, it repeats the pointing with the second and third machine.  Really?  Pointing at every single step, as if we hadn't already just done the exact same thing?  Ugh.  I had hoped it would be less heavy-handed later, but it never seemed to stop.

[valrus]

If you're not sure when, maybe leave it up to the player.  Lots of strategy games have that option with the popups, with an option like "I understand, stop telling me this!", but it'd also be nice to see it integrated into the gameplay more.  Where direction is possible, but there are tradeoffs such that independent thinking is rewarded.  Puzzle games often have this when hints are a consumable object or have some cost, but I don't see it much in strategy or adventure games.

For example, in a strategy game, letting the guidance be personified as one of the in-game advisors, with small salary.  You can keep them around, or dismiss them and save that money.

In an adventure or RPG, maybe guidance is a passive skill that you can gain early on.  (Like a passive "Sense Goal" spell, which shows a magic path to the objective.)  A more casual player can rely on this as long as they like, but you can forgo it for a different skill, or stop using it later on to free up a skill slot.  Or one of your possible companions/familiars, in moments of idleness, is always forging ahead in the direction you need to go.  Players who want a more independent experience can replace them with a companion with a different benefit.

[JWK5]

Some RPGs guide the player to their next destination unobtrusively by including "fortune tellers" the player can pay to reveal clues about various important or hidden things in the game. In this manner the help can be completely bypassed if unwanted but can be sought out if needed (and best yet, it given without breaking the fourth wall).

[ThemsAllTook]

(and best yet, it given without breaking the fourth wall).

This is an important consideration too. I've played plenty of games that have dialogue that goes something like this:

NPC: Press the X button to jump!
Player character: What's an X button?
NPC: Oh...um, I don't really know. Don't worry about it I guess!

If you absolutely have to break it, do it quickly and cleanly. Don't have your characters notice or dwell on it.

[Azure Lazuline]

I mean, the answer IS "it depends". The bigger your game is (as in the amount of space you can get to at any given point), the more guidance you need. In my game, there's just a small 2 or 3 minute tutorial to tell you the controls and really basic mechanics, and then that's it. There's a few levels that force you to figure out a certain weapon, but the goal is never unclear - you know you just need to beat all the enemies, and the stages are usually fairly small.

My game has no penalty for failure other than starting the level over, so it's really easy to experiment with different strategies, and most people figure a good one out after a few attempts. There are a few particularly difficult levels (like bosses) where there's a small hint if you die 3 or 4 times to it, given by the mentor character. You don't see the hint unless it can actually help you, so it's never really obtrusive, and it's fully in-character. (I've seen people intentionally dying to the bosses so they can read the silly dialogue, so I think it's done well. )

Of course, the opposite case is if it's an open-world RPG where it can take 30 minutes to get from one side of the map to another - in that case, if you don't at least say the vague area of the objective, then it's probably not going to be fun. It's really just a matter of style, and of your target audience. I'd say that in general though, the best way is either opt-in help (the fortuneteller/adviser examples show that done really well) or only give help if the player shows that they need it.

One more note - the further apart that "you messed up" and "you fail" are, the more guidance you probably need. In an RTS it's almost impossible to figure out where you screwed up, so hints are much more appreciated (bonus points if your adviser gives relevant info, saying possible improvements as you play or after the match). But in a platformer where it's super clear "this enemy did a lot of damage to me so that's why I died", hints are not nearly as necessary.

[valrus]

Oh, yeah, forgot about Fortune Tellers, that's another one.  One benefit about Fortune Tellers that ordinary NPCs don't have is that the player can know *which* person to go to if they need a hint, or forgot something.  You don't have to go around to every NPCs you've met in the last two hours to try to find the one that gave you the hint about the lost mirror.

Riffing off that: Nothing's ever marked on your map before you discover it -- you just get directions like a human would ("Travel west on the Kingsway from Abbotsford, then turn left at the forked tree...").  But one of the businesses in each town is a cartographer.  If you don't feel like hunting things down, or forgot the directions, you can just pay the cartographer a fee and they'll mark it precisely on your map.