next »

[autumnspark]

I was wondering if anyone here has ever written a tutorial for a game before. I get that tutorials should be easy to understand, straight forward, and somewhat to the point, but I think that brief and subtle narrative elements can help a tutorial flow and create better engagement with the player. Thoughts, ideas, long forgotten secrets of ages long since passed? 

[bdsowers]

I try to keep my tutorials brutally short. If possible, I try to avoid them altogether. If impossible, I try to make them use more visual cues than words, and I try to prevent them from actually blocking the player from doing things.

I've been living in mobile land for a while now, and most mobile players give a game a *very* short window of time before moving on. If that time is purely tutorial text, retention is super low.

Depending on the tutorial, there's certainly nothing wrong with putting in narrative elements. If somebody has to say something, make that somebody important the story, and they can make references to the game's universe. If you're showing the player how to navigate an environment, you can incorporate some visual storytelling.

[autumnspark]

@bdsowers I hear ya. Visual storytelling is something I've yet to fully grasp incorporate into the writing aspect. For our game we're basically masking the tutorial by beating the shit out of the player and leaving their ship (of the space faring variety) with very few resources, components etc. This way as they rebuild they learn all the systems and mechanics, but dully flying around a debris field gathering fuel, water, and learning how to dock with objects and fight could be very boring. I guess like all writing you have to find the perfect (succinct) words and scenarios which tells the player what to do in a manner that's both informative and possibly entertaining/funny/mysterious/cool.

[bdsowers]

Could you perhaps go in reverse? Start them with fighting and give them some kind of skirmish before destroying everything? This is a personal preference, but I tend to prefer action-oriented introductions as opposed to resource gathering.

This has the duel benefit of setting up the narrative; they were mid-fight and they lost that fight for whatever reason (ie: they were part of a larger faction that got wiped out while they were away fighting).

[autumnspark]

Yep! That's the idea to start off the main game, basically placing the player into a (hopefully) epic fight which causes them to lose almost everything.

BUT I'm glad you stated your feelings regarding this, as I'm not sure we were planning on including the initial battle for our demo. Would that piss you off to basically miss out on the initial action (even if it was hinted that it would be in the main game) and then be thrown into a tutorial like scenario, that would also include battle elements but not right off the bat?

Thanks for your input 

[bdsowers]

I don't know that it would irritate me, it would just set me up for a different type of game. If the game starts slow, I would expect it to be a slower, more methodical, not terribly combat-driven game. Some people are into that. It's not usually what I go in for these days, but I still play them sometimes (I just finished playing Neptune's Pride, which starts off really slow and then ramps up fast). My boss & coworker would both love that type of game.

[Jordgubben]

Personally I prefer tutorials served in thin slices through the whole game. The first Potral-game comes to mind with structure of 70% invisible tutorial and 30% post-tuorial storyline. Games by Intelligent Systems (Advanced wars, Fire Emblem) are also very good at incremental tutorials. I don't really mind that every "slice" it's mostly text and forced actions (No player decision making) as long as every slice is thin.

[autumnspark]

Thank you fellow internet dwellers, I value your input and shall make good use of it.