next »

[jamesprimate]

Obviously this is an absolutely essential tool for conveying game mechanics, but i find that designers have a tendency to fetishize it to a degree that it breaks suspension of disbelief. Like, for novel mechanics it makes sense ofc, but its 2015 we dont need a whole antepiece to show you that you can jump on a damn crate, thats just silly. yet this sort of almost didactic / axiomic construction, dribbling out game mechanics and turning 70% of the game into a tutorial, seems to be held up as the ideal.

Basically, I feel like its become a trope unto itself, and is done more as a developer craftsmark than as something that actively contributes to the experience. Personally, id rather be tossed into a complicated world and left to figure it out. But this is sort of a hobby horse for me, so im interested in getting some other perspectives. I'd love to see examples of your favorite or most memorable instances of instructive game design done well.

[Alevice]

SInce it mostly happens on consoles, I could have sworn it was like a required design guidline for QA or whatever. Ironic, considering most control the same.

But yeah I grwo tired of these obvious tacked on intros where thy go, left stick to move, random button to interact and shit.

Designers, give us room for testing on our own.

[oahda]

At the very least at the beginning of the game there should be an option to skip the tutorial. This is especially necessary for people who have already played the game before and just want to get started.

[jamesprimate]

eh, im not really talking about a tutorial or even a tutorial level per se, but more instances of level design that teaches game mechanics. the iconic example of this being the opening of mario: http://www.theoryofgaming.com/gold-standard-for-game-design/

the idea is to AVOID an actual tutorial by cleverly forcing the player to into learning certain key actions, but when done poorly it instead has the opposite effect and makes the whole damn game feel like a tutorial. but hey maybe just doing what you say, putting in a skippable tutorial and being done with it is the way to go.

[SirNiko]

I'm not sure I'm entirely following the issue in the opening post.

We have problem games like Final Fantasy 13 that dribble tutorial battles throughout, but that's not instructive level design. That's just a tutorial.

You might have a puzzle game like Snakebird that starts off with a bunch of easy levels that showcase mechanics, but if the player knows what they're doing they can solve those levels extremely quickly. Plus, the game's level select is designed that you can go directly to harder puzzles if you prefer. Either way, though, the 50ish levels of the game start with 5 or so that will pose no challenge at all to a seasoned puzzle solver.

I was watching developer commentary of Ratchet and Clank, and they noted how the early levels feature monsters with reaching weapons to encourage use of your guns instead of melee, or how the first few battles after getting bombs feature groups of monsters and crates that encourage switching to your new weapon. It's 'soft' enough that you can ignore it and power through with melee if you're a decent player, though that also means a hard-headed, inexperienced player may not learn the lessons. Sometimes it's better to just give a tool tip and get it over with.

Like you say, you know it's done properly if you can't tell it's being done. Are you saying there are games where they successfully disguise the "lessons" but because there are so many of them you still feel something is off? Or, that there should be games that feature neither a tutorial nor instructive level design?

I think the OP would benefit from a specific example of a game that does it wrong (or at least, not the way you wish it would be), and how you think it should be fixed or improved.

[sodap]

Ori and the blind forest is a prime example of this. Otherwise great game

[jamesprimate]

@SirNiko: didnt bother because imho its so ubiquitous to platformers, shooters, etc, but one that immediately comes to mind (that was praised for specifically this) is Guacamelee. The game is basically 6 big tutorials as instructive level design interspersed with some plot points and boss fights. Dont get me wrong, i liked that game, but couldnt shake the feeling i was playing some sort of game design course syllabus.

i mean, every game does instructive level design to a certain extent, whether its as simple as introducing enemies, powerups, etc., individually or doing full hand-hold antepieces to be like "yes you can wall jump to climb and you have to do it here to move on", but what im talking about is that its 2015 and everyone has played a million games. unless its a novel mechanic, a player is probably aware at this point that you can move a crate to jump to a higher platform, yet i see that goddamn crate puzzle antepiece in 85% of action games. at last PAX i played 3 games in *a row* that i encountered that exact scenario in the first 5 minutes of playing ffs. Made me want to quit videogames forever, CHILL DEVS.

instructive design works very well though when you are trying to convey how the game is different rather than how its the same. classic example building off the mario 1-1 is Metroid. Whereas the popularity of mario bros and other platformers had established that gameplay was running to the right, the first room in Metroid to the right is a dead end, showing you that you will instead need to move in all 4 directions. natural, quick, to the point, intuitively conveys exactly what it needs to. But say you put that same thing in a modern 3D game? completely unnecessary. we already know that we can move around in 3 dimensions in a 3d game. you dont have to start at absolute square one. and yet you see examples of it constantly.

whatever, im ranting. i just wanted to see some examples of it done well or hear if maybe anyone LIKES that aspect.

[oahda]

its 2015 and everyone has played a million games

some people were born in 2015 and have never played a game

[jamesprimate]

its 2015 and everyone has played a million games

some people were born in 2015 and have never played a game

http://www.diapers.com/p/2-in-1-ipotty-with-activity-seat-for-ipad-814495

http://www.diapers.com/p/fisher-price-infant-to-toddler-apptivity-seat-996388

[oahda]

parents who give their kids ipads as babysitters instead of parenting them dont count

[Chris MacAdam]

Who is the game made for in the question too. For instance if it is a game that targets more hardcore audience. The hand holding tutorials annoy us, but for a casual gamer, or grandma or so, they might need the dumb tool tips that we find annoying.
I agree that it is overdone though.
More games need to throw you in and not really explain anything. Though I can't think of any examples off the top of my head though I know I will remember in a bit after i've had my coffee.. 

[Alevice]

My mother learned to move on journey without a tutorial and she had never played a game before.

I can understand the idea behind it, but it goes to its ridiculopus extremes on what are already well steablished control conventions, and a two minute check by the player will make them figure them all out. I can understand less intuitive inputs and interactions but thats it.

I mean every other modern third person shootr/brawler/whatever, had this part where your character cant do shit but to move forward, and have this input like, use the left stick to move! Anf then cant do shit but interatc with something or maybe jump, and then another prompt shows up and says its how to, and then...


okay okay i get it! you are going to teach me the exact thing nearly every other game has thaught me! even if you are a so called hardcore game!

the irony is that many of the peculair mechanics of each game are often poorly explained, which sometimes makes me feel like the designers do all this design choices not because they understand their necessity, but rateher because they are in the design cookbook, and when they have like to explain something not in the cookbook, they teaching/conveyance skills are not up to the requirement

[oahda]

Yeah, the help in original Ocarina of Time was enough. It's pretty bizarre to see how much extra they packed into the 3D rerelease and the newer Zelda games.

Majora's Mask might have been a bit too obscure at times OTOH tho.

[sodap]

The topic is not so much tutorials as it is instructive level design. I don't think Zelda suffered a lot from this, to be honest. Or the Mario franchise. They suffer from a much worse evil, intrusive unnecesary tutorials in the form of unskippable pop up windows. Which is wrong in every way possible but not on topic :D

I agree that Guacamelee is another good example of this. Also, I hate when they do sequels and don't get rid of this, that would be the whole point of a sequel from a gameplay perspective.

[oahda]

Yeah, I got what James meant, just wanted to mention that.

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

I don't understand Games that are Pegi +12 15 and still put those tutorials, or Indie Games. it's unlikely someone who never played a game will ever play an indie game as his first game  ¯\_('__')_/¯

[gimymblert]

Someone has NEVER had been in a playtesting session in his life ... and will have his dream crushed as soon as he will

[Sik]

Whereas the popularity of mario bros and other platformers had established that gameplay was running to the right, the first room in Metroid to the right is a dead end, showing you that you will instead need to move in all 4 directions. natural, quick, to the point, intuitively conveys exactly what it needs to.

You're thinking about Super Metroid, the original Metroid failed spectacularly at this. The only reason to move left there is because you notice the map continues to the left which is unusual so it leaves you wondering. Worse, items don't tell you what they are so you have to figure out what you just got. Ugh.

And yeah, you never know when your game will be played by a newcomer (not necessarily a non-gamer, it could be simply somebody who never played the specific genre of your game). And yeah, if your game is bound to be played by a kid, you need to account for at least some of it. Amusingly the biggest problem I see absolute beginners have is figuring out that they have to hold down the D-pad/stick/arrow key (they insist on just tapping). Good luck figuring out how to solve that one, if you do for the rest just give some quick hinting and you're done.

In Sol I've just put a small staircase right before the first enemy to force you to figure out the jump button (in case you forgot to check the controls), after that it merely relies on normal level design hinting since you have enough to move around at least:

[s0]

to me the sort of super obvious instructive level design james is talking about actually feels more contrived than just a straight up tutorial haha. particular pet peeve: games that try to make control instructions "diegetic". i swear the next time i walk past a sign with a "press a to jump" pictogram on it im going to scream.

same shit with games that try to avoid using HUD elements at all costs btw (im talking about things like the infamous "bloody screen" in modern shooters or that thing dead space does). This Is An Immersive Game(tm). you can tell its Immersive(tm) because it doesnt have a health bar. you see, real life doesnt have a health bar either. SO NEXT GEN! SO REAL!!!!!

anyway, is it safe to assume that your opinions on this are going to influence rain world in some way?

[SirNiko]

I felt like Wario Land 4 improved further on this by adding secrets to the introductory/tutorial level that a skilled player could obtain. There were still gems hidden in high and low places, and there was an S-Rank to earn for doing it quickly. If you knew what you were doing you could naturally skip directly to a higher difficulty challenge.

I think in all these cases, I'd consider this an extremely minor quibble. So long as the skilled player is not held back by the 'instructive' levels, they're not handicapped, and you've accommodated any unskilled players that might pick up the game on a whim. It's only a problem if it drags on through the game, or if it repeats on multiple playthroughs.

Or you can resolve it by picking up a title like La Mulana that's explicitly designed for advanced players with experience in the genre.

You're thinking about Super Metroid, the original Metroid failed spectacularly at this. The only reason to move left there is because you notice the map continues to the left which is unusual so it leaves you wondering. Worse, items don't tell you what they are so you have to figure out what you just got. Ugh.

The original Metroid allows you to only go to the right three rooms before you hit a dead-end that can't be passed without the morph ball, which is on the far left. It's somewhere between instructive level design and puzzle, since it doesn't goad you left as quickly as it could. I'm pretty sure the devs intended for the player to struggle with that for a while before realizing the trick, whereas most instructive level design tries to teach the player quickly.

Metroid also features a few rooms that LOOK like single screen horizontal rooms but are actually vertical (such as the second room you enter), so it plays with your perception there, too. I thought designing those puzzles around player expectations were one of the most clever elements of the game. The devs were really thinking about how the player would approach the game mentally, instead of slapping down monsters and platforms.