I think this is an important part of interesting strategy. The player should not need to die to learn. It should always be possible for designers to introduce clues in the game world in a realistic and uncheapened way.

For your giant mech example, why should the player need to die to figure this out? Just have the mechs stumble back and shake off the rockets, or swat them down like flies. The mech animation and reaction should show that the rockets didn't do the job, and the delay will give the player some time to react.

Personally I see the issue in two ways:

1) While tutorials aren't really fun, not knowing how to use certain game mechanics is even less fun. As Wavinator already mentioned, Gears of War does this well, and there's really no reason why you can't either offer a branching choice (tutorial or not), or have the tutorial in a separate menu option.


2) A game's difficulty shouldn't be constant or even always increasing. My favourite games are ones where the tension mounts and eases, and the ebb and flow of these tense moments create the gaming moments you remember past turning off your game (this point mainly applies to action-oriented games). With that said it makes more sense to have the "tense moments" that occur later in the game be harder (or at least "bigger", "better", "longer" or any other buzzword you can throw in) than the ones at the beginning, but I don't feel it's a bad thing to have a few really easy sections in the later stages of a game.

Quote:Original post by dashurc
2) A game's difficulty shouldn't be constant or even always increasing. My favourite games are ones where the tension mounts and eases, and the ebb and flow of these tense moments create the gaming moments you remember past turning off your game (this point mainly applies to action-oriented games).

I'm going to wander off topic for a second to mention that this is a perceptive design concept. Something I've never really stopped and looked at. I enjoy increasing difficulty as I wander into newer areas, but I think it would help most games to mix it up some more. It would make their worlds feel a lot less artificial, as well as less predictable.

I've stated this before, but I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE forced tutorials. It breaks immersion in every possible way. Even with the above mentioned Gears of War, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Now, I'm not stating that you should leave the player to learn on their own through dieing, but there are better ways to present this.

Have a tutorial option on the title screen. Start, Continue, Options, Tutorial, Quit. So in Gears of War, instead of stating "We can head this way or leave immediately", you can have a separated side level that the user chooses to play if they want too. (Guitar Hero tutorial is more of what I'm after.). So instead of being in prison and stating "Look at those enemies. To shoot, hit X." Hey, apparently I'm a world reknowned marksman, but you're telling me how to handle a gun? Why not in the training level, have it take place back in boot camp, where it could actually make sense. Also, having a separated training level means that when a friend comes over to try the game, rather than having to start a new game, which might have a 10 minute unskippable cut scene, he could immediately go to training level to learn what he needs too. Or, if I forget something later on, I could go back and learn.

I've played a game where you can play instantly, but don't have to do a tutorial: the first few levels are the tutorial and enemies are introduced, when you are ready for them. The key is in the signs. When playing for the first time, you note some clouds with a question mark on it. When you stand on that sign, they show the thoughts of the main character.

You can run past them, if you already know them and the signs don't disturb me. If you don't know how to play, you read the signs and you can do what they say. It makes you the main character, instead of being the one who controls him.

The game is called "Final Ninja" by Nitrome. It's definitely worth a play.

Even better is the system in "Cheese Dreams" also by Nitrome. The signs always show up, but aren't disturbing. This one is also worth a few levels. You can then see what I meant.

Emiel1

PS: the websites are: Final Ninja and Cheese Dreams.

Quote:Original post by Super Llama
Personally I hate those games that teach you what WASD does...

Everyone needs to learn this somewhere. I first played Doom with a joystick. When I had to play without a joystick, I had to look for what other options were available, the arrow keys in this case. The arrow keys made sense, since they were similar to the control pad for consoles, which I'd learned to use elsewhere. I forget the first FPS I played with the WASD configuration, but I never would've guessed that's how you moved. In some ways, ESDF, IJKL, or UHJK would make more sense, but the arrow keys or the arrows on the numpad would be the most intuitive option.


On another note, I only dislike training if it gets in the way of fun gameplay. I don't mind the immersion breaking aspects because they don't break the aspects of immersion that are important to me. Actually, my preference is for these sorts of things to be taken care of outside of the game world. I don't mind if they occur while I'm playing, but I find a popup pointing out that I can "right click to open" or whatever much less immersion breaking than my partner in crime saying, "Come on, man, right click the door already!" Basically, my immersion is just fine so long as there's a clear line between the game world and the game's interface (although breaking the fourth wall for comedic effect can be all right so long as it fits the game's world).

It's not an FPS, but the worst offender I've played is Final Fantasy VIII. Long, unskippable opening FMV, followed by a guided tour of the Garden, with 2-3 drawn out tutorials before you can do anything of any interest. IX was bad, too, I think it was a full hour before they let me off the leash.

But the impression I got from the OP was that this wasn't about tutorials, but about games leading you through progressively harder challenges to ready you for the "real" challenge. In Serious Sam, you'd get a new toy, and then you'd be faced with a situation where your new toy was the toy of choice. You could say that this is just grooming you for the real challenges later, but I didn't mind it since I wanted to use my new toy. You pick up the shotgun and think to yourself, "Wouldn't it be great to shoot some undead in the face?" and, lo and behold, you can hear the pitter patter of little skeletons coming your way.

I think what makes it work in some games is that they aren't just presented as glorified tutorials, but challenges appropriate to that point in the game.

This almost sounds like a sandbox game idea. Let's take Fallout 3 for example, we are also going to make a couple tweaks to the engine (while keeping this post spoiler-free to boot!).

During the course of the story, you are faced with a large creature to defeat. In Bethesda's Fallout 3, you are specifically tasked with grabbing up a certain weapon to down this creature. In "My" Fallout 3, we are going to assume this weapon is not within your reach "just because it is meant to be used here".

We are going to assume you have rushed to this part of the story, and are woefully under-geared. You pull out a small rifle and begin plinking away at this creature. This thing is many times your size, and is shrugging off the bullets. Now you know that this thing is either a) not going to go down fast or b) it's going to kill you.

Now, say you take your time and get more, as well as better, equipment. When faced with this monstrosity, you are easily able to drop it due to your equipment that you weren't given "for the occasion". Instead you explored the world, figured some of the nuances out on your own (probably through trial and error!!) and you get a better sense of fulfillment because of this.

This is my understanding of the OP's point.

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
In some ways, ESDF, IJKL, or UHJK would make more sense, but the arrow keys or the arrows on the numpad would be the most intuitive option.

One of the reasons WASD is popular is because it provides easy access to shift, control, alt, and space while you're holding movement directions.

However, one thing that's always bothered me about WASD are the goofy adjacency situations, like not being able to change your firing mode (F) while moving right (D), or trying to activate something (E) while moving up-right (W+D). Some of them might be possible with some awkward adjustments, but they're not friendly.

My advice to designers who want to get people quickly into the game is to provide a quick help screen with F1, while linking to it from the title and menu. The page should pop up instantly, with all binded controls listed. It could also include several other pages to list the type of stuff you find on those fold-outs in the game box. Unit vs unit strategies and that sort of thing. Having instant access to game essentials is a huge deal for someone who's only mildly interested in checking a game out. It's also very helpful to the rest of us, who don't have an easy time remembering all of the controls and gameplay gimmicks until we're well into the game.