Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
TUTORIALS, LEARNING AND HAND-HOLDING
Posts
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
LockeZ
View playlists
CloseInstruction manuals have fallen out of style for what I consider a good reason, the same reason why hour-long cut scenes before the game starts are considered awful: when you put something in your game, the player should play it. If it's not interactive, it usually gets boring fast, and even if it's interesting it isn't what the player signed up for. They came to play a game. And this is far more true at the beginning than it is later when they have a mental investment and know that they're gonna get back to the gameplay they already decided they enjoy.
Instead we now have instruction manuals do nothing but tell players what buttons to use, and we create in-game tutorials to teach players how to play. This can be done well or poorly! It's unfortunately a lot more complex than just making a manual.
Watch EXACTLY TEN MINUTES of this video, from 5:47 to 15:47 (you have probably already seen this video, it's the mega man one where he screams a lot)
Invalid YouTube URLhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8FpigqfcvlM#t=348s
One nice thing about old instruction manuals is that you can skip them. If you're replaying a game I don't actually care; 80% of the game is honestly there to prepare you for the parts of the game that come afterward, so the "tutorial segment" gets a lot blurrier. But if I've already played a hundred other RPGs, there are things I'm going to understand in your game - that's what a genre is, it's a set of conventions that a lot of works use. I skipped reading the instruction manual to FF9 even though it didn't have a tutorial segment.
But in lieu of making the tutorial skippable, there's the idea the video above brings up: hide it in the gameplay.
I wonder how well this can really be done in RPGs. One unique feature of RPGs is that, compared to other genres of games, you're constantly getting new things as the game goes on. So the issue comes up many, many times during the game - each time you unlock a new job or get a new party member or acquire enough members to party-switch or get your first weapon that inflicts status effects or start breeding chocobos or whatever whatever etc. The characters are constantly growing in power, which means the player is constantly getting new toys, each of which potentially can have its own explanation or tutorial or easy gameplay segment that works like a tutorial.
Another unique feature is that you are choosing your actions from a menu - so forcing the player to do a certain action isn't really any more interactive than just telling them what to do. If you gray out every command except the right one, you might as well just show an instruction video. Making a tutorial that successfully teaches the player when to do something can be really hard, and even harder to do without feeling hand-holdy and super blatant, and I'd love to hear ideas of how to do this in a menu-based RPG. (I say unique, but both of these features are really shared with strategy games.)
So an alternate option is, of course, to not explain the features, and leave the player to figure them out. In games like Nethack and Dwarf Fortress, figuring out the basics of gameplay/controls/interface is practically the entire game. Or at least the first two hundred hours of it. So I guess there's a market for these types of games. It just isn't me. Or anyone I've ever met. I think sane people like to get the part where they have no clue at all what they're doing out of the way ASAP.
I'll just post this conversation here that I had with a friend two months ago or so about adding this kind of interactive tutorial to his game Soul Shepherd, because it's super relevant and is what made me start actually thinking about this topic as a legit debate instead of just a thing to do that some people don't understand. And then I want to hear you guys' thoughts.
You agree with me? Him? Think there's a way to do both? You have third point of view? A fifth? You want instruction manuals back? You think pasting an IM conversation instead of explaining the points myself is tacky and hard to understand? TUTORIAL TALK GO
Instead we now have instruction manuals do nothing but tell players what buttons to use, and we create in-game tutorials to teach players how to play. This can be done well or poorly! It's unfortunately a lot more complex than just making a manual.
Watch EXACTLY TEN MINUTES of this video, from 5:47 to 15:47 (you have probably already seen this video, it's the mega man one where he screams a lot)
Invalid YouTube URLhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8FpigqfcvlM#t=348s
One nice thing about old instruction manuals is that you can skip them. If you're replaying a game I don't actually care; 80% of the game is honestly there to prepare you for the parts of the game that come afterward, so the "tutorial segment" gets a lot blurrier. But if I've already played a hundred other RPGs, there are things I'm going to understand in your game - that's what a genre is, it's a set of conventions that a lot of works use. I skipped reading the instruction manual to FF9 even though it didn't have a tutorial segment.
But in lieu of making the tutorial skippable, there's the idea the video above brings up: hide it in the gameplay.
I wonder how well this can really be done in RPGs. One unique feature of RPGs is that, compared to other genres of games, you're constantly getting new things as the game goes on. So the issue comes up many, many times during the game - each time you unlock a new job or get a new party member or acquire enough members to party-switch or get your first weapon that inflicts status effects or start breeding chocobos or whatever whatever etc. The characters are constantly growing in power, which means the player is constantly getting new toys, each of which potentially can have its own explanation or tutorial or easy gameplay segment that works like a tutorial.
Another unique feature is that you are choosing your actions from a menu - so forcing the player to do a certain action isn't really any more interactive than just telling them what to do. If you gray out every command except the right one, you might as well just show an instruction video. Making a tutorial that successfully teaches the player when to do something can be really hard, and even harder to do without feeling hand-holdy and super blatant, and I'd love to hear ideas of how to do this in a menu-based RPG. (I say unique, but both of these features are really shared with strategy games.)
So an alternate option is, of course, to not explain the features, and leave the player to figure them out. In games like Nethack and Dwarf Fortress, figuring out the basics of gameplay/controls/interface is practically the entire game. Or at least the first two hundred hours of it. So I guess there's a market for these types of games. It just isn't me. Or anyone I've ever met. I think sane people like to get the part where they have no clue at all what they're doing out of the way ASAP.
I'll just post this conversation here that I had with a friend two months ago or so about adding this kind of interactive tutorial to his game Soul Shepherd, because it's super relevant and is what made me start actually thinking about this topic as a legit debate instead of just a thing to do that some people don't understand. And then I want to hear you guys' thoughts.
LockeZ: It's absolutely possible to teach the player things about how your game works without using a single word
Zombero: not my game
LockeZ: For example, rallies in your game
LockeZ: They're an improved defend command
LockeZ: So right after getting your first rally, have a battle where the player very very obviously needs to defend
LockeZ: Like an enemy that counts down from 5
LockeZ: And they'll use the rally and, assuming it's one that is actually relevant to the big attack, they'll see how it works
Zombero: but that's an approach for linear, story-driven games
Zombero: it's entirely possible to avoid ever having a rally for the whole first twenty hours
LockeZ: Hmm, you have a treasure chest in a room by itself in the northeastern cave, right?
LockeZ: Put the first rally on the shield in that chest
LockeZ: Make the shield also have better stats than the normal shields, so the player will equip it immediately
LockeZ: And make a sub-boss enter the room when you open the chest
LockeZ: That doesn't break any aspect of your nonlinearity, and doesn't feel different from other sub-bosses in the game, but because of how you've already trained the player to believe that opening chests and obtaining stuff from dungeons is super duper important, even though it's technically missable, no one's gonna miss it
Zombero: Also watch this sequelitis video about mega man (linked him the video above)
Zombero: heh seen it
Zombero: I don't think the same approach is as good in RPGs
LockeZ: I had like three text boxes explaining the laser cannon when you got it in my game, in the original version
LockeZ: When I did the second demo, I removed them. Instead, in the battle right before you get it, against the laser sharks, before the sharks attacked you they shot and blew up two crates
LockeZ: And then I surrounded the crystal orb you have to blow up in the conveyor belt room with a circle of crates
LockeZ: Entire laser tutorial right there
Zombero: for something like a tool you use outside of combat it works
LockeZ: I definitely think it works just as well in rpg combat
LockeZ: It's not easy to do
LockeZ: But it's also not easy to do in any other genre
LockeZ: But it makes a difference, I think
LockeZ: Makes the player feel like they are playing a game instead of learning about a system
Zombero: isn't learning about a system part of the fun in the context of an RPG though?
Zombero: if you're *just* playing the game, in the same sense as you're just playing megaman... there's no much *game* there
Zombero: the mental exercise is part of the experience
LockeZ: Using what you've learned to win is absolutely a massive part of the fun
Zombero: and when you combine guiding the player with menus I just always wind up hating it
Zombero: it always feels so obvious, so contrived
Zombero: it's not like megaman where there's more to performing an action than just choosing an action
Zombero: choosing an action is all there is
LockeZ: If that were really true you wouldn't need to explain anything
LockeZ: There's still choosing the right action at the right time
LockeZ: And I think that's absolutely something that enemy encounters can teach the player
Zombero: they can
Zombero: but they teach it slower
Zombero: and the whole encounter is a waste of time
Zombero: and it feels so hand-holdy
LockeZ: Overcoming an obstacle on your own does NOT feel more hand-holdy than reading a tutorial
Zombero: it's not on your own
Zombero: it's over-coming an obstacle using the obviously intended method
Zombero: vs. reading what something does, and having to figure out when to use it on your own
LockeZ: it feels far more "on your own" than being told what to do by a wall of text
Zombero: but you aren't being told what to do
Zombero: you're being told what you *can* do
Zombero: in the tutorial you're being guided into what to do
LockeZ: You don't feel like you're being guided, though, if it's done right
Zombero: then I've never seen it done right
Zombero: in an RPG
Zombero: I've seen it done right in other games
Zombero: I'm not convinced it can be done right in RPGs
Zombero: because your options in a menu system are too obvious unless you throw 1000 options at the player right from the start
Zombero: though being taught how to do things *outside* the menus can be done similarly to other games
LockeZ: I will grant that the menu screen is much, much harder to do that for than a battle is
Zombero: well I mean anywhere that has menus
Zombero: including battle
Zombero: like oh you just got this new command
Zombero: here's this enemy you need to use it on immediately after
Zombero: feels like kindergarten -_-
LockeZ: I don't think it feels like kindergarten, unless every other aspect of your game's normal strategy is put on hold until the player is done learning the new thing
LockeZ: Well the alternative is... that the new skill isn't immediately useful at first? In which case getting it feels less meaningful, like it wasn't actually worth getting. And also by the time it is useful, I've halfway forgotten about it
You agree with me? Him? Think there's a way to do both? You have third point of view? A fifth? You want instruction manuals back? You think pasting an IM conversation instead of explaining the points myself is tacky and hard to understand? TUTORIAL TALK GO
Paper Mario Series: Tattle Ability
Of the RPGs I've played (not many) this is the closest equivalent I've found to the "learn by playing" approach taken in more skill-based action games. The tricky thing with tutorials in RPGs is that it's menus and tactics. Not twitch-control oriented or based on timing. The latter is something that a player can learn the basics of in a relatively short time. And they don't change much through most games. So it's easier to teach a game's controls n' things through the gameplay since there isn't as much to learn and remember. It's all about mastering a simple skillset.
The Tattle ability in Paper Mario is essentially a Libra spell that is actually fun to use. It gives you the name of the enemy, it's stats, notes any special abilities, and often contains a useful description or witty remark of said enemy. But most importantly (and I observed this more in Thousand-Year Door) it gives you a tip or outright tells you the most effective way of dealing with that particular enemy.
Like you noted in the OP, the controls and abilities aren't something a player needs to be taught. That's what spell descriptions and things are for. It's all about when and how to utilize those abilities. So the best way to implement a more gameplay oriented approach would be to make the player find out bits and pieces about the enemy either through their own experimentation or through a situation-based Help Manual. But not through an option on the menu that takes you directly to such help. Some kind of action the player has to perform is crucial. Hence why I think the Tattle Ability is so great. I honestly don't think that a true gameplay based tutorial can be done in RPGs. "True" meaning without any textual prompts by the game whatsoever.
The one thing to NOT do would be to have painstaking, detail-oriented crash courses on gameplay. Just pithy little explanations throughout the game, and only when absolutely necessary.
Of the RPGs I've played (not many) this is the closest equivalent I've found to the "learn by playing" approach taken in more skill-based action games. The tricky thing with tutorials in RPGs is that it's menus and tactics. Not twitch-control oriented or based on timing. The latter is something that a player can learn the basics of in a relatively short time. And they don't change much through most games. So it's easier to teach a game's controls n' things through the gameplay since there isn't as much to learn and remember. It's all about mastering a simple skillset.
The Tattle ability in Paper Mario is essentially a Libra spell that is actually fun to use. It gives you the name of the enemy, it's stats, notes any special abilities, and often contains a useful description or witty remark of said enemy. But most importantly (and I observed this more in Thousand-Year Door) it gives you a tip or outright tells you the most effective way of dealing with that particular enemy.
Like you noted in the OP, the controls and abilities aren't something a player needs to be taught. That's what spell descriptions and things are for. It's all about when and how to utilize those abilities. So the best way to implement a more gameplay oriented approach would be to make the player find out bits and pieces about the enemy either through their own experimentation or through a situation-based Help Manual. But not through an option on the menu that takes you directly to such help. Some kind of action the player has to perform is crucial. Hence why I think the Tattle Ability is so great. I honestly don't think that a true gameplay based tutorial can be done in RPGs. "True" meaning without any textual prompts by the game whatsoever.
The one thing to NOT do would be to have painstaking, detail-oriented crash courses on gameplay. Just pithy little explanations throughout the game, and only when absolutely necessary.
EgyLynx
0
Manual vs read.me vs game in tutorial?
each one has own good points and not so good points...
each one has own good points and not so good points...
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Maybe describe what you consider the good points and the not so good points in more detail, and the scenarios where you think one outweighs the other?
Personally, I don't really consider a manual or readme a valid option for scenarios that involve, uh... video games. To me the question is tutorial vs. easy gameplay vs. player exploration. I guess a lack of instruction could be considered a form of non-linearity, right? You're not being given a path to follow, you're finding things on your own. I have a dreadfully low opinion of sandbox gameplay, so take that with a grain of salt I guess...
Personally, I don't really consider a manual or readme a valid option for scenarios that involve, uh... video games. To me the question is tutorial vs. easy gameplay vs. player exploration. I guess a lack of instruction could be considered a form of non-linearity, right? You're not being given a path to follow, you're finding things on your own. I have a dreadfully low opinion of sandbox gameplay, so take that with a grain of salt I guess...
author=EgyLynx
Manual vs read.me vs game in tutorial?
each one has own good points and not so good points...
I've never read a read.me in my life. Nor will I ever. I prefer in-game tutorials as long as they aren't horribly slow. They also don't need to hold my hand the entire way. I can deal with learn-on-your-own kinda stuff. That's how I learned how to play Mario. And who doesn't love Mario?
LOLninja
35
Reminds me of this slideshow, it tells the same story but elaborates further.
http://www.slideshare.net/dings/just-add-points-what-ux-can-and-cannot-learn-from-games
I played TLOZ Spirit Tracks and realized that the dungeon design was actually one big 'tutorial' for the new skill you get in that dungeon.
I used the idea in my own game. But yeah, this all regards to action games.
In classic turn-based RPG battles, it might be less obvious what is expected of you. But I believe that using text is not the problem. You need to leave stuff for the player to find out, in an environment that reflect the rules of the game, and allows the player to experiment. I can imagine that draining HP/MP and unclear, varying enemey weaknesses is a less-than-ideal environment to try to figure out a weakness.
http://www.slideshare.net/dings/just-add-points-what-ux-can-and-cannot-learn-from-games
I played TLOZ Spirit Tracks and realized that the dungeon design was actually one big 'tutorial' for the new skill you get in that dungeon.
I used the idea in my own game. But yeah, this all regards to action games.
In classic turn-based RPG battles, it might be less obvious what is expected of you. But I believe that using text is not the problem. You need to leave stuff for the player to find out, in an environment that reflect the rules of the game, and allows the player to experiment. I can imagine that draining HP/MP and unclear, varying enemey weaknesses is a less-than-ideal environment to try to figure out a weakness.
Daria
71
author=LOLninja
I played TLOZ Spirit Tracks and realized that the dungeon design was actually one big 'tutorial' for the new skill you get in that dungeon.
That's been a big part the "Zelda Formula" since, well there was Zelda. You always get that one useful item that's immediately needed to advance in the dungeon. And then you have to rack your brain to remember where you saw a similar obstacle and rush off to collect another heart container.
The worst example of an ingame tutorial I can think of was Enchanted Arms. The beginning of the game kept interrupting you with useful tips like "press X to climb the ladder" and "press X to jump". It was frustrating because A. Every tip told you to use the X button, and B. More often than not I was about to press X when the message would pop up. Annoying.
The another type of tutorial I despise is the forced mock-battle. Lets face it RPGs are NOT difficult and usually it's just a matter of getting used to the menus- which I can usually do by trial and error during one of any of the gazillion grinder battles. I don't need hand holding to tell me exactly which option to select in the menu preceded by a novel of explanation as to why I should select it. Just let me play the game.
In these instances I usually just mash the selection button continuously without reading and end up having to figure it all out on my own anyway.
author=wildwesauthor=EgyLynxI've never read a read.me in my life. Nor will I ever. I prefer in-game tutorials as long as they aren't horribly slow. They also don't need to hold my hand the entire way. I can deal with learn-on-your-own kinda stuff. That's how I learned how to play Mario. And who doesn't love Mario?
Manual vs read.me vs game in tutorial?
each one has own good points and not so good points...
Of course, most platforming Mario games don't even HAVE in-game tutorials...
author=Daria
In these instances I usually just mash the selection button continuously without reading and end up having to figure it all out on my own anyway.
Hooray for button mashing!
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=wildwes
Of course, most platforming Mario games don't even HAVE in-game tutorials...
You're wrong. Every Mario game has in-game tutorials. They're just hidden better in some of them than other.
They work in very much the same way as the Mega Man X tutorial in the OP. Which you apparently didn't even watch, which is a shame, since it's what this topic is about.
Crystalgate
694
If you can, hide the tutorial in the gameplay. I don't know if you always can do so, but I think you can at least usually do so. If you can't hide the tutorial in the gameplay, make it skip-able. Also, don't mix things that exist in every RPG with features unique to your game. You should not have one "battle commands" tutorial that both explains what the never used defend command and the unique for your game command, the latter who's use is critical to master to beat harder fights, does.
I don't think that has to be more hand holding than in any other game. Imagine a first person shooter where you get a shotgun and are soon thereafter beset by enemies in close quarters. Even though the "use the shotgun" part is obvious, you still have to dodge enemy attacks or move to advantageous positions or do whatever the game requires you to do other than getting enemies into the cross-hair. So, the player still has to display some measure of skill.
In RPGs, there are (in theory) two issues to deal with in battles, you need to reduce enemy HP to 0 and you need to keep your own HP above zero. Most skills only deal with one of those issues, meaning you can still leave the other issue up to the player.
author=LockeZ
Zombero: well I mean anywhere that has menus
Zombero: including battle
Zombero: like oh you just got this new command
Zombero: here's this enemy you need to use it on immediately after
Zombero: feels like kindergarten -_-
I don't think that has to be more hand holding than in any other game. Imagine a first person shooter where you get a shotgun and are soon thereafter beset by enemies in close quarters. Even though the "use the shotgun" part is obvious, you still have to dodge enemy attacks or move to advantageous positions or do whatever the game requires you to do other than getting enemies into the cross-hair. So, the player still has to display some measure of skill.
In RPGs, there are (in theory) two issues to deal with in battles, you need to reduce enemy HP to 0 and you need to keep your own HP above zero. Most skills only deal with one of those issues, meaning you can still leave the other issue up to the player.
doomed2die
180
I'm kind of with Zombero on this one...
When you say something like "put the player in a position where he inevitably will use the newly acquired mechanic," how different is that really from "gray out all buttons except the desired one"? They ultimately serve the same purpose which is to essentially force the player to take the desired action.
Conversely, "hand-holding tutorials" give a clear sense of direction and can grant access to information without unnecessary experimentation (i.e. defending can also prevent status effects! How was I supposed to know that again?)
When you say something like "put the player in a position where he inevitably will use the newly acquired mechanic," how different is that really from "gray out all buttons except the desired one"? They ultimately serve the same purpose which is to essentially force the player to take the desired action.
Conversely, "hand-holding tutorials" give a clear sense of direction and can grant access to information without unnecessary experimentation (i.e. defending can also prevent status effects! How was I supposed to know that again?)
Experimentation is always a good thing. It's a game, after all. Let the players have some fun figuring things out on their own. The discovery is all part of learning and coming up with a strategy that fits your party and the encounter. Plus, its the sense of discovery that contributes most to the fun of RPGs in my opinion.
There's always other ways of teaching the player aside from taking them aside (in the overhead or in the battle screen) to coach them in the fine aspects of your carefully crafted battle system. Take a page out of Dragon Quest's book: Have actual books or scrolls or whatnot lying around that the player can look at. In chests or bookshelves, whatever. Bonus points if you make the books actually fun and interesting to read: It gives players incentive to go poking their noses around in nooks and crannies, and can provide that crucial information all the same.
Tutorial + World Building. Two birds in one stone.
There's always other ways of teaching the player aside from taking them aside (in the overhead or in the battle screen) to coach them in the fine aspects of your carefully crafted battle system. Take a page out of Dragon Quest's book: Have actual books or scrolls or whatnot lying around that the player can look at. In chests or bookshelves, whatever. Bonus points if you make the books actually fun and interesting to read: It gives players incentive to go poking their noses around in nooks and crannies, and can provide that crucial information all the same.
Tutorial + World Building. Two birds in one stone.
Shinan
4314
Tutorials is something near and dear to my heart.
My opinions on them have shifted over time but I'll see what I can come up with right now. Also I've not seen the video because I'm at work and youtube embeds don't work (and I have no sound). Which is why I haven't posted in this topic before because I thought I should watch the video. But it's been three days and I haven't managed so I'm going to write my thoughts and then try to remember to watch the video when I get home.
One kind of tutorial I thought was excellent was the hand-holding kind that slowly progressed you through the game while teaching you all the systems fairly slowly. However when this was taken to an extreme in Grand Theft Auto 4 I realized just how much of a pain in the ass it can be. Especially upon restarting the game you have to sit through the same things before you are even allowed to do any of the fun stuff.
So while this approach is good if your game is complex and has a lot of systems it is so easily handled in a way that will just make you want to tear your hair out.
I think the biggest mistake in GTA4 is how slowly it teaches things when you already know them. Being able to skip the instructions or having the instructions be non-intrusive is a way to circumvent this. Take for example Half-Life 2 which prompts you to do the regular stuff of "press W to move forward" but does so unobtrusively and while it doesn't give you stuff to play with immediately it also lets you run through those early stages fairly quickly and never stops for a five minute explanation.
Then there are skippable and tiered tutorials. These are most often found in strategy games where you choose tutorials and there's fifteen different ones where the first one consists of "move the mouse cursor to the edge of the screen to scroll" and the last one has you managing your economy under enemy fire.
These are almost always completely disconnected from the main game and explicitly exist to teach you to play the game before jumping in. (jumping into a game that also is a tutorial usually by limiting your unit selection and introducing the big guns in the later game)
Of course there are a couple of problems with these too. Sometimes there aren't fifteen tutorials but only one. And it begins with scrolling and zooming and ends with the important stuff. But the beginning is so boring it is tempting to just quit but then you might miss out on a fairly vital detail involving unit selections and hotkeys that is unique to the game and introduced later in the tutorial.
Other games do a similar thing where, once you get a new ability it asks you "do you want to watch the tutorial on how to use this thing?" which I think is also a decent approach. Sure these tutorials do take you out of the game slightly but sometimes these things are necessary to know and it's great if they are skippable (and often you can then access them later through a menu in case you need a quick refresher)
I really think that tutorials is a must. I kinda want tutorials to be for pure morons too. It makes a game accessible and I know that not everyone wants their games to be accessible but I think it's an important part of game design. However I also think a tutorial should be as unobtrusive as possible so that you can, if you don't need it, either ignore it completely or run through it so quickly that you barely even notice it was there.
I also think that although it is a good idea to have your first level be an introductory one it should still be exciting to play even if you know what you're doing. Basically if it has a lot of explosions and goons to kill you don't always notice that you're being told how to kill these goons. (and then all your weapons are taken from you... because that's also a way tutorials work sometimes)
And then I'll end with the worst kind of tutorial. It's the non-interactive one. Sometimes it can work (like an in-game manual or similar if you want to check out certain concepts. Such as the civilopedia in Civilization) but having a "mandatory" non-interactive tutorial is a sure way to turn off any player who is just waiting for the tutorial to be over. Strategy games are often the worst at this as well. Some strategy games just have a "how to play"-video playing in the tutorial section and I don't think I've ever learned anything from one of those. Not even when I really tried.
Reading pages and pages of text to explain a concept without having illustrations to go with it is also a really bad idea. So no matter how much you think it's clever to have a library in your game that fully explains the intricate crafting system within its books it's generally a pain in the ass.
tl dr
Treat players like morons during tutorial sequences but make them brief enough that even those that are not morons are not offended.
My opinions on them have shifted over time but I'll see what I can come up with right now. Also I've not seen the video because I'm at work and youtube embeds don't work (and I have no sound). Which is why I haven't posted in this topic before because I thought I should watch the video. But it's been three days and I haven't managed so I'm going to write my thoughts and then try to remember to watch the video when I get home.
One kind of tutorial I thought was excellent was the hand-holding kind that slowly progressed you through the game while teaching you all the systems fairly slowly. However when this was taken to an extreme in Grand Theft Auto 4 I realized just how much of a pain in the ass it can be. Especially upon restarting the game you have to sit through the same things before you are even allowed to do any of the fun stuff.
So while this approach is good if your game is complex and has a lot of systems it is so easily handled in a way that will just make you want to tear your hair out.
I think the biggest mistake in GTA4 is how slowly it teaches things when you already know them. Being able to skip the instructions or having the instructions be non-intrusive is a way to circumvent this. Take for example Half-Life 2 which prompts you to do the regular stuff of "press W to move forward" but does so unobtrusively and while it doesn't give you stuff to play with immediately it also lets you run through those early stages fairly quickly and never stops for a five minute explanation.
Then there are skippable and tiered tutorials. These are most often found in strategy games where you choose tutorials and there's fifteen different ones where the first one consists of "move the mouse cursor to the edge of the screen to scroll" and the last one has you managing your economy under enemy fire.
These are almost always completely disconnected from the main game and explicitly exist to teach you to play the game before jumping in. (jumping into a game that also is a tutorial usually by limiting your unit selection and introducing the big guns in the later game)
Of course there are a couple of problems with these too. Sometimes there aren't fifteen tutorials but only one. And it begins with scrolling and zooming and ends with the important stuff. But the beginning is so boring it is tempting to just quit but then you might miss out on a fairly vital detail involving unit selections and hotkeys that is unique to the game and introduced later in the tutorial.
Other games do a similar thing where, once you get a new ability it asks you "do you want to watch the tutorial on how to use this thing?" which I think is also a decent approach. Sure these tutorials do take you out of the game slightly but sometimes these things are necessary to know and it's great if they are skippable (and often you can then access them later through a menu in case you need a quick refresher)
I really think that tutorials is a must. I kinda want tutorials to be for pure morons too. It makes a game accessible and I know that not everyone wants their games to be accessible but I think it's an important part of game design. However I also think a tutorial should be as unobtrusive as possible so that you can, if you don't need it, either ignore it completely or run through it so quickly that you barely even notice it was there.
I also think that although it is a good idea to have your first level be an introductory one it should still be exciting to play even if you know what you're doing. Basically if it has a lot of explosions and goons to kill you don't always notice that you're being told how to kill these goons. (and then all your weapons are taken from you... because that's also a way tutorials work sometimes)
And then I'll end with the worst kind of tutorial. It's the non-interactive one. Sometimes it can work (like an in-game manual or similar if you want to check out certain concepts. Such as the civilopedia in Civilization) but having a "mandatory" non-interactive tutorial is a sure way to turn off any player who is just waiting for the tutorial to be over. Strategy games are often the worst at this as well. Some strategy games just have a "how to play"-video playing in the tutorial section and I don't think I've ever learned anything from one of those. Not even when I really tried.
Reading pages and pages of text to explain a concept without having illustrations to go with it is also a really bad idea. So no matter how much you think it's clever to have a library in your game that fully explains the intricate crafting system within its books it's generally a pain in the ass.
tl dr
Treat players like morons during tutorial sequences but make them brief enough that even those that are not morons are not offended.
Trujin
210
Hmmm, how about this: Concider a RPG that has frag granates as a utility item. You want the player to know that you can blow up crack walls with it and that you can use it in battle to damage enemies with it.
Would it be a good idea to incorporate it like this:
In the story you get caught by the enemy. They take all your equipment and throw you into a pit. You see a body lying there with 3 granates around his body which you can take. In the same room there is a crack in the wall. When you notice this you press enter at the wall and a little menu pops up with usable utility items or you can select it from the menu and it tracks the coördinates to see if you are near a cracked wall.
The wall blows up and you learned to use these granates at cracked walls. While entering the hole you created you will encounter enemies. They do you lot's of damage because of your loss of equipment and you can't harm them that bad too. So to more logical thing to do would be to check if you can use that granate to damage the enemy and so it does. You killed it and are free to go.
Would that be any good?
Would it be a good idea to incorporate it like this:
In the story you get caught by the enemy. They take all your equipment and throw you into a pit. You see a body lying there with 3 granates around his body which you can take. In the same room there is a crack in the wall. When you notice this you press enter at the wall and a little menu pops up with usable utility items or you can select it from the menu and it tracks the coördinates to see if you are near a cracked wall.
The wall blows up and you learned to use these granates at cracked walls. While entering the hole you created you will encounter enemies. They do you lot's of damage because of your loss of equipment and you can't harm them that bad too. So to more logical thing to do would be to check if you can use that granate to damage the enemy and so it does. You killed it and are free to go.
Would that be any good?
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Trujin, that would be an excellent example of how to do a "covert" tutorial. Youre leading the player clearly into performing the desired actions - and more importantly, learning the desired knowledge - without ever saying a word. The removal of anything else you can do makes the way forward clear, and then when they get their other stuff back, they know how the new tool works and can continue to apply it.
That's a pretty straightforward thing to learn, though, compared to a lot of concepts.
In addition to being harder in a menu-based system, it's also harder to do when you're trying to teach the player what NOT to do. A harder example would be the way party leaders work in several of the Shin Megami Tensei games. The first member of a party is the party leader, and if he or she dies, the party is wiped out and you get a game over. I wonder how you could do a "covert" wordless tutorial to explain SMT's party leader system? I mean, negative reinforcement obviously teaches it eventually, but getting a game over sends you back a long way, often half an hour - it's not something you would want to require the player to do two or three times before he understands why he died. So, what, you teach this by making an enemy right after the first save point that's... guaranteed to cause several game overs because it uses instant death on your party leader on round two? That sounds awful :< I mean it sounds exactly like something SMT would fucking do, because it is unforgiving as shit, but man. There's gotta be a way to introduce the idea that doesn't rely on getting three game overs in the game's opening tutorial.
That's a pretty straightforward thing to learn, though, compared to a lot of concepts.
In addition to being harder in a menu-based system, it's also harder to do when you're trying to teach the player what NOT to do. A harder example would be the way party leaders work in several of the Shin Megami Tensei games. The first member of a party is the party leader, and if he or she dies, the party is wiped out and you get a game over. I wonder how you could do a "covert" wordless tutorial to explain SMT's party leader system? I mean, negative reinforcement obviously teaches it eventually, but getting a game over sends you back a long way, often half an hour - it's not something you would want to require the player to do two or three times before he understands why he died. So, what, you teach this by making an enemy right after the first save point that's... guaranteed to cause several game overs because it uses instant death on your party leader on round two? That sounds awful :< I mean it sounds exactly like something SMT would fucking do, because it is unforgiving as shit, but man. There's gotta be a way to introduce the idea that doesn't rely on getting three game overs in the game's opening tutorial.
Daria
71
What about using one of those fake bosses that are unbeatable? Dying just continues the story but you purposely have the boss target the party leader on turn 3 or something with, as you suggested instant death. You could throw the player into a false game over and continue the game.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Hmm. Surprisingly non-terrible. Could probably be applied to most ways of teaching things that cause a game over.
Trujin
210
Or if the game let you, you could go for a cutscene about some awesome ancient army leader and his epic defeat. It would either show or let you play that battle that will go like this: You fight, the leader gets killed, army goes all wacko and clears the battle field.
Travio
149
author=doomed2die
When you say something like "put the player in a position where he inevitably will use the newly acquired mechanic," how different is that really from "gray out all buttons except the desired one"? They ultimately serve the same purpose which is to essentially force the player to take the desired action.
I think the best way to do this is to put the player in a situation where that ability is useful but not necessary. For example - you just learned a shield against magic attacks. The next boss/whatever uses a lot of magic attacks - you can defeat the boss with some thought and work without using the shield, but the shield will make your life far easier. You don't have to use the shield to win, but it's useful in the situation as it keeps you from having to heal as often so you can focus on offense and shorten the battle.
Daria
71
Or Oooh! Cheesey dream sequence for the wins! Really there are a lot of ways to tie in the same principle to thematically fit your game.
