next »

[mooosh]

 

[snowyowl]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2921-Tutorials-101
Video about building a good tutorial. In fact, I recommend the Extra Credits series as a whole to aspiring or new game designers, or experienced ones trying something new. And also to bored people with a few minutes to kill.

[Coz]

I feel a good tutorial the most important aspect after the gameplay / art / program stability. Your player can't enjoy the game if he can't play it. Of course, if it's an exploration game, the least you include in the tutorial, the better. If you can get away without one due to simple mechanics ( e.j.: arrow keys move, Z key shots and that's it ), it's the ideal.

You can make a straight fourth-wall-breaking tutorial( hit the X key to jump ), or mixing the tutorial with the game progression( check the 3D Zelda games ). I find that straight tutorials are lazy. It's best to put the entire tutorial at the beginning of the game, as long as the gameplay is simple enough that it will fit into few minutes, otherwise it breaks immersion to include that big chunk in the beginning.

[mirosurabu]

The less tutorial feels like a tutorial the better.

If all you're doing is teaching the player controls, then I'm fine if you are putting these in a manual that is outside of the game. I don't mind subtle hints and one-time dialogs either, but I do mind hand-holding. D:

If you are teaching the player how to play your game, it's best done the subtle way. If you want to teach the player how to make short jumps then you should have a skippable challenge that rewards short jump, not a cutscene which explains it. D:



And finally, I totally agree with the "No Front Loading" rule in the Escapist meta-tutorial. I think most designers forget that they should unfold content and not just deliver all of it at the beginning of the game. This includes options, actions and UI elements. Not they only make the game less interesting they also clutter the interface with too many UI elements.

[Derakon]

Take a look at Half-Life 2 for a good example. At the start you're standing in a train car -- there's nowhere to go, but you can walk around and look at things. If you don't figure out how to do this on your own, after a few seconds the game will prompt you with the appropriate controls -- but if you do already know this, then no prompt occurs, and you can spend your time just looking around and annoying the other passengers. That gets your basic movement done, then each new element is introduced as it's needed. You aren't told you have a flashlight until the first time you have to crawl through a darkened area. You aren't told how to attack things until you're given your crowbar, and you aren't told how to switch weapons until you get your pistol.

Part of this is also that each of these new elements is introduced in isolation. The game starts out with only movement. Then only picking up and dropping objects is added. Then only melee combat. Then only simple ranged combat. And so on. You're given plenty of time to figure out each mechanic before the next one is introduced. Obviously if you start out with the player able to do everything, then you have to front-load more information...which is a good argument by itself for introducing mechanics slowly and one at a time, so long as the gameplay doesn't suffer for it.

[hmm]

Designing a tutorial can also benefit a game by forcing you to re-think and criticise your gameplay and controls. The process can make you realise there are some unnecessary or overly complicated features and help to focus the game.

The best tutorials are those that stay out of the way, but still convey useful info that is relevant to the player's current situation. They can only do that effectively if the game is designed well and easy to understand.

I guess there could be some situations where its best to let the player learn for themselves what to do in the game, but at the very least the player should be told what the controls are.

[s0]

Pretty much everything I wanted to say has been said already so I'll just post a good example on how NOT to handle tutorials:





Not only is this one unskippable, it also fails to teach you the basics of the game but instead requires you to learn how to make ridiculous hairpin turns you'll never really need. It's also significantly more difficult than most of the rest of the game.

[Coz]

And finally, I totally agree with the "No Front Loading" rule in the Escapist meta-tutorial. I think most designers forget that they should unfold content and not just deliver all of it at the beginning of the game. This includes options, actions and UI elements. Not they only make the game less interesting they also clutter the interface with too many UI elements.

I don't agree 100% with "No Front Loading". There are always exceptions, otherwise design wouldn't be art, just a science. I remember games where they tell you at the beginning 2 moves that you'll start needing only when you are 20 - 50% through the game, but these moves are not crucial; they simply give you a small advantage over other methods of achieving the same goal.

It gave me a sense of achievement when I figured out that I could damage the boss more often if I used 'that move that was taught me at the beginning of the game and I was completely useless until now". I could have beaten the boss without that move, but after that, it improved my gameplay, some of the new enemies that were introduced through the rest of the game were more effectively dispatched with this move, and I felt as if I had 'leveled up' skill-wise.

On the other hand, that other move? It's useful only in the final stage( it breaks crates, but all the crates were empty until the final level, and they didn't get in my way at all ), where removing some crates gives you more room to fight, and turns out that in some hard-to-reach areas there are crates with health refills. Compared to the first, this move's design seemed rushed, unfinished, and just plain lame.


I think that another example where teaching things early is interesting, is Earthbound( Mother 2 ), where the 'Pray' skill is necesary to win the final battle( pretty much random good stuff would happen when you use it, but only sometimes, and usually all the other skills were obviously better ). But Earthbound is a wacky, weird game, where this screwed up concept of design fits well.

There are always exceptions to rules.

[mirosurabu]

I think it mostly applies to UI-based games - RPG's, simulations and strategies - where it's very easy to clutter the interface without any good reason.

Some people like the cluttered interface, some people don't (I don't). And quite often, many of the actions cannot be used early in the game, so why not introduce them later in the game?

It's also quite possible to please both audiences - have two different modes, one which introduces UI elements slowly and one which gives it all away. If unfolding is a gameplay element, make sure the other mode has a strong enough disadvantage to keep the game balanced.

[Coz]

Some people like the cluttered interface, some people don't (I don't). And quite often, many of the actions cannot be used early in the game, so why not introduce them later in the game?

I can only think of one reason why someone would like a cluttered interface: because it fakes depth. People could use it as an indicator that the game is 'worth their money' or gain a false sense of achievement from playing through a seemingly complex UI.

[snowyowl]

I agree that a simple UI is best, but it's not always possible depending on how many new elements you need to control the game.

Achron has an option to turn on one of the UI elements. Specifically, time-wave colours: by default they're all a non-distracting blue that blends in with the blue UI, but experienced players need to be able to identify them easily. So there's an option to make them appear red, yellow, green, blue, and I think purple as well.
The UI is still pretty cluttered despite that, though.

[s0]

I can only think of one reason why someone would like a cluttered interface: because it fakes depth. People could use it as an indicator that the game is 'worth their money' or gain a false sense of achievement from playing through a seemingly complex UI.

What if the alternative to a "cluttered" UI is a labyrinth of submenus and sub-menus? Some games just can't have a simple interface, period.

Also, if a certain information is important to the player at all times, show it at all times and as precisely as possible (unless uncertainty is part of the game's design of course). I personally prefer health bars or numbers over, for instance, gradually turning the graphics black-and-white, as seen in Uncharted and Infamous.

a cluttered interface gets in the way of the game's art, which is what I want to see.

those little dragons are animated btw

[Derakon]

Also, if a certain information is important to the player at all times, show it at all times and as precisely as possible (unless uncertainty is part of the game's design of course). I personally prefer health bars or numbers over, for instance, gradually turning the graphics black-and-white, as seen in Uncharted and Infamous.

Something interesting I read in the Penny Arcade newsposts is that their D&D group has taken to having the DM be responsible for tracking each character's hitpoints. The players only get general descriptions of how badly they just got hit ("The orc's swing opens a deep gash in your side", "you get lightly singed by a fireball") and healthy they're feeling. This turned out to vastly reduce metagaming ("I still have 20HP left; I can survive another round of combat before needing to be healed") and thus greatly increase immersion.

Sometimes, numbers get in the way of enjoying the game.

[eclectocrat]

he alternative to a "cluttered" UI is a labyrinth of submenus and sub-menus? Some games just can't have a simple interface, period.

Your trapping yourself in the old paradigm. There is more than one alternative to a cluttered interface, and many of them don't involve menu's at all.

With thought and ingenuity, things can usually be made simper. Or at least compartmentalized. The problem I see is not that game play is too complex to make a good interface, it's that people make interface an afterthought or just shoot out an interface from their asshole in one diarrhoea blast. Yes, complex things are complex, but it's possible to present them in a way that facilitates learning and developing automatic reflexes easier. The human capacity for learning and action is incredible, the future of interface design will be based on good technical engineering, as well as physiological and psychological understandings. Games will get more complex and easier to play.

[StephenM3]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2921-Tutorials-101
Video about building a good tutorial. In fact, I recommend the Extra Credits series as a whole to aspiring or new game designers, or experienced ones trying something new. And also to bored people with a few minutes to kill.

Thank you so much for linking this! It well inspired me to make some changes that, I think, will significantly improve my current project.