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)
THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT - PERCEPTION OF DESIGNER & PLAYER "RESPONSIBILITIES" IN AMATEUR & COMMERCIAL VIDEO GAMES
Posts
supremewarrior
View playlists
Closeauthor=Crystalgateauthor=supremewarriorNobody needs to give me a birthday present. Nevertheless, if someone gives me a turd on my birthday, I'm not going to be grateful.
You know it always points back to this statement whenever there is such a debate on this issue, but you need to understand that when you are putting your own work out there for the public no one is forced to play it, they are doing so on their own free will.
Writing a review for your game is a privilege think about it, why should anyone review YOUR game? They don't need to but if they decide to do so by putting their own time and effort into it then you should be grateful. A review is a privilege in the amateur game making world don't forget that and don't take it for granted
A review written by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about or a hater is not a privilege, regardless of how much he didn't have to write the review.
Also, when someone posts criticism, they are usually trying to affect the game maker's decision. Here's the deal, you can do the same thing with reviews. In other words, it's fully possible to write a review for a selfish reason. This is very likely to actually be the case if the review is written by a hater or a fanboy.
Finally, if you post a low score review and that way bring down the average score, it may affect someone's decision to play the game negatively. Now, if the reviewer raises some good points that other people are likely to not like as well, then that's fair and the creator also gets some usable information out of it. This however isn't the case if the reviewer has an ulterior motive for writing the review.
That's if they are a hater or a fanboy in which they are biased, I'm talking about the general community who are here together trying to help each other make fun enjoyable games by giving feedback in the form of reviews or do you just see bad reviews as someone just trying to express their hate by writing a bad review?
Crystalgate
694
author=supremewarrior
That's if they are a hater or a fanboy in which they are biased, I'm talking about the general community who are here together trying to help each other make fun enjoyable games by giving feedback in the form of reviews or do you just see bad reviews as someone just trying to express their hate by writing a bad review?
You originally said that one should be grateful even if the review is a piece of crap. I did not from what you wrote derive that you were talking about solely a helpful community, especially seeing as we already were talking about non helpful feedback.
author=CrystalgateI meant if your game was a piece of crap and someone reviewed it anyway.author=supremewarriorYou originally said that one should be grateful even if the review is a piece of crap. I did not from what you wrote derive that you were talking about solely a helpful community, especially seeing as we already were talking about non helpful feedback.
That's if they are a hater or a fanboy in which they are biased, I'm talking about the general community who are here together trying to help each other make fun enjoyable games by giving feedback in the form of reviews or do you just see bad reviews as someone just trying to express their hate by writing a bad review?
On the notion of non helpful feedback I already stated that if a group of people is telling you the same thing then it goes to show that there is a flaw and that is helpful feedback, but what I am saying is that some people seem to let their pride blind their judgement and do not see the flaws in their own games.
Crystalgate
694
author=supremewarrior
I meant if your game was a piece of crap and someone reviewed it anyway.
On the notion of non helpful feedback I already stated that if a group of people is telling you the same thing then it goes to show that there is a flaw and that is helpful feedback, but what I am saying is that some people seem to let their pride blind their judgement and do not see the flaws in their own games.
OK that clarifies things.
However, it's not for sure that if many people tells the same thing, it's an actual flaw. This goes especially if they say that the game is to hard.
author=Crystalgate
Nobody needs to give me a birthday present. Nevertheless, if someone gives me a turd on my birthday, I'm not going to be grateful.
I guess the same can be said of the player, right?
Even if I am given a free game to play, if it is a turd, I'm not going to be grateful for playing it.
Anyways, the title of this topic is kinda extreme: The Customer is NOT always right... but neither is the Developer.
I would say it's up to the developer to deal with criticism adequately: if it is negative, but at least with some sort of constructive angle, one can judge its value and choose to take it in consideration or ignore it.
If it is crap coming from a hater with an ulterior motive, who is to say you can't expose him and prove that it is not true?
author=Crystalgate
However, it's not for sure that if many people tells the same thing, it's an actual flaw. This goes especially if they say that the game is to hard.
Most of the time it's a good indicator to go by, but it could be that the game is hard because information was not told to the player beforehand... Example: If there were no explanation of limit breaks in FF7 I don't think some people playing the game would have caught on what they were and what they did.
We can look at this from both points of perspective for the player and the developer but I think it just all comes down to common sense.
As for hard, I think it comes down to something that has been alluded to already, The player is ready to make the effort for a commercial game, apparently (I have seen post saying it's too hard, when it really wasn't or that was precisely the fun of the game) not for a free game.
Crystalgate
694
author=rabitZ
If it is crap coming from a hater with an ulterior motive, who is to say you can't expose him and prove that it is not true?
Sounds like a good idea whenever that's actually possible.
If someone complains about something being to hard, I suggest that the creator tells how one can beat that challenge. It's even better if he/she can record a video of him-/herself beating that challenge. That way it's easier to see if the challenge really is to hard or if the player is just playing poorly. However, stick to skills and resources the player can be expected to have.
The reason for reviews of free games to exist is flimsy enough to begin with imo. Reviews of commercial games are valuable to potential buyers because you want to know if a thing is going to be worth your $$ before you pay for it. Since money is not a concern when it comes to free games, you read a review mostly because you want to save the time of downloading, installing, and playing up to the point where the game has convinced you that you're going to enjoy it. But unless your internet speed is unusually slow, I don't see all that as much of a gain. Often times you would be better served to simply try the darn game for yourself than to read someone's review of it, especially if that review is long. The worth of a review of a free game is overrated imo, and long reviews especially so.
If, however, you are using reviews as a method of giving feedback to a developer (who did not explicitly request your review), I think you've got things all wrong.
If, however, you are using reviews as a method of giving feedback to a developer (who did not explicitly request your review), I think you've got things all wrong.
Crystalgate
694
author=Crystalgate
If someone complains about something being to hard, I suggest that the creator tells how one can beat that challenge. It's even better if he/she can record a video of him-/herself beating that challenge. That way it's easier to see if the challenge really is to hard or if the player is just playing poorly. However, stick to skills and resources the player can be expected to have.
I just realized how bad it sounded when I posted that. The creator should go and post a video just to prove someone wrong? That sounds like a rather hostile environment.
The advantage of posting a video isn't so much to prove something than it is to sort things out.
Let's say we have a boss who attacks with magic and summons minions who uses physical attacks. Let's also say that the boss is status immune while the minions aren't and that you can only use one defensive buff. Now, assuming you have the necessary tools for it, one tactic would be to choose to buff magic defense and status the minions. That way you mitigate all attacks. Now, as simple as it sounds, chance is a lot of people will overlook that possibility. If they see it demonstrated, with some luck they go "right, I need to take a more throughout look at my skillset the next time" and hopefully they will think more the next boss battle. I don't think there's many players who are to dumb to make that sort of thinking, rather I suspect we are just to used to some conventions, such as status effects sucking, to try out some strategies. If so, then a wake up call can do wonders.
On the other hand, if the video shows that the creator is fighting the boss at considerable higher level than the players, or the strategy used is one the player can't realistically have figured out (the boss is weak to silence while there has already been eight bosses before that one, all completely status immune) then we'll know for sure that it's the fight that the problem and we can easier clarify for the creator where the problem lays.
You won't necessarily need a video though, often just posting the strategy and recommended levels will be enough.
I believe that's the best way to handle a situation where the player thinks a game is to hard and the creator don't, put it to test.
Aurabolt
450
For the original post, I do see where you're coming from; As Ephiam will likely tell you as I'm playing his game in-stream, that I am not one to generally detract him for his game design choices, but my own choices because I made mistakes. We talk about things in stream and chat which hope to fix and improve upon different ideas-I did the same thing with LockeZ's Vindication-and I generally find myself trying to make different choices and actions in my own play-style to enjoy and immerse myself in the game.
Commercially, games are very much the same way for me as I approach Independent games. I try to play them with thought and comprehension of the rules before I move forward and apply different strategies. Only if I start to see flaws in the gameplay itself or the narrative itself do I start calling foul. Hopefully, I'm making the correct distinctions, but one can never be sure. However, if the designer has called foul on very cruddy ideas or concepts beforehand or is well-known for their recent title to have glaring issues, I will be skeptical.
I think its human nature to be wary of certain issues, but not exactly vengeful or unhappy because of the standards we place. I play the game, I bring enjoyment as I can-or learn to create it in some cases because I like to make my own stipulations-and I have fun. No need to place standards and tension upon the designer unless there is a real problem, that's what I say.
Commercially, games are very much the same way for me as I approach Independent games. I try to play them with thought and comprehension of the rules before I move forward and apply different strategies. Only if I start to see flaws in the gameplay itself or the narrative itself do I start calling foul. Hopefully, I'm making the correct distinctions, but one can never be sure. However, if the designer has called foul on very cruddy ideas or concepts beforehand or is well-known for their recent title to have glaring issues, I will be skeptical.
I think its human nature to be wary of certain issues, but not exactly vengeful or unhappy because of the standards we place. I play the game, I bring enjoyment as I can-or learn to create it in some cases because I like to make my own stipulations-and I have fun. No need to place standards and tension upon the designer unless there is a real problem, that's what I say.
Radnen
1806
Being 12 pages in someone must have said it, but I'll say it again. I think it's largely to do with the fact that you are so close to the developers of a game when you post an LT here.
Almost nobody is this up-front/face-to-face with commercial game developers. Therefore if they can't complain to the head boss they must forfeit and move on. Whereas here you don't have to.
Also there's a lot of garbage amateur games out there that really sharpens the line between a bad game and a good game. Most commercial games actually are complete and to some respect a fairly good game experience compared to many amateur counterparts. Therefore, there's a pressure to get amateur games at a higher state of playability and design.
Lastly RPGMaker is a simple platform to work from, any ol' chump can make a game in it. But it takes a skilled person to make a masterful game which again sharpens the divide between good and bad developers. While a lot of commercial software already begs for a masterful audience, so you need to be serious to use it (hence their cost, as well).
Almost nobody is this up-front/face-to-face with commercial game developers. Therefore if they can't complain to the head boss they must forfeit and move on. Whereas here you don't have to.
Also there's a lot of garbage amateur games out there that really sharpens the line between a bad game and a good game. Most commercial games actually are complete and to some respect a fairly good game experience compared to many amateur counterparts. Therefore, there's a pressure to get amateur games at a higher state of playability and design.
Lastly RPGMaker is a simple platform to work from, any ol' chump can make a game in it. But it takes a skilled person to make a masterful game which again sharpens the divide between good and bad developers. While a lot of commercial software already begs for a masterful audience, so you need to be serious to use it (hence their cost, as well).
Cozzer
0
I'm going to completely ignore the rest of the discussion and just reply to something Max said in another page.
I'm a computer noob and I don't even know about options.
I know about options, but I'm used to RM games not having them so I don't even bother to check.
I know about the possibility of your game having options, but sometimes I just forget about it.
I see your options, but I still feel it's annoying that I have to change settings to a value EVERYBODY uses and that should be default (I mean, is there anyone who chooses to walk slowly in a game?).
I open the options menu, but I'm distracted by something and I just don't see the "walk speed" options.
If you want your target audience to be "as close to everybody as possible", you have to include all the guys above.
Also, you should ASK your testers to consciously be as clueless and as lazy as possible, if you want their reactions to mirror the real players' ones.
Because yes, when I play games I am clueless and lazy unless I choose not to be. Because if I want something that orders me to make effort instead of just giving me the possibility to, I just go to work or something.
(But, I feel it's better to overstate it, it's NOT a bad thing to make a game that requires effort. You just have to accept that not everybody will play it.)
author=MaxThen you have to make your game accessible to "as close to everyone as humanly possible". Something that clashes with your mentality of "some people are bad players".
I will point out that the phrase I have bolded is the exact opposite of the truth. The intended target audience for the game in question is "as close to everyone as humanly possible".
author=Max
Not knowing that you can press Shift to run in VX is not being a bad player. Not checking the options screen of the game you're playing and then complaining about a slow walk speed? That is a rather disrespectful attitude on the part of the player towards the game. RPG Maker games in particular tend to invite this disrespectful attitude since they are numerous and free.
I'm a computer noob and I don't even know about options.
I know about options, but I'm used to RM games not having them so I don't even bother to check.
I know about the possibility of your game having options, but sometimes I just forget about it.
I see your options, but I still feel it's annoying that I have to change settings to a value EVERYBODY uses and that should be default (I mean, is there anyone who chooses to walk slowly in a game?).
I open the options menu, but I'm distracted by something and I just don't see the "walk speed" options.
If you want your target audience to be "as close to everybody as possible", you have to include all the guys above.
Also, you should ASK your testers to consciously be as clueless and as lazy as possible, if you want their reactions to mirror the real players' ones.
Because yes, when I play games I am clueless and lazy unless I choose not to be. Because if I want something that orders me to make effort instead of just giving me the possibility to, I just go to work or something.
(But, I feel it's better to overstate it, it's NOT a bad thing to make a game that requires effort. You just have to accept that not everybody will play it.)
author=Cozzer
I see your options, but I still feel it's annoying that I have to change settings to a value EVERYBODY uses and that should be default (I mean, is there anyone who chooses to walk slowly in a game?).
There *is* a boss in a game who has an attack that will hit you if you are either standing or running and moving. If you're walking and moving however this one attack will miss because ???. An optional boss in an obscure game who you can kill while taking that hit every time he uses it. And, uh, that's it. Maybe there's a case in a Mario romhack or something. Otherwise it's just a case if finding a rubber band to solve the dev's problem of being either an idiot or lazy.
*edit*
A-ha! I got one! Walking and then attacking results in performing the according button-press attack set by the player. Running and then attacking will result in using a different move: One of the three run attacks based on what button was pressed. I imagine there's more cases where walking and running result in different actions based on player input.
Cozzer
0
author=GreatRedSpiritI forgot to put context: who would choose to walk slowly in a standard jRPG game?
Stuff.
I mean: in your example it makes sense not having "running" as the default setting, but we're talking about another genre with other mechanics.
(My fault: i continued an already began discussion without saying what I was talking about)
I see your options, but I still feel it's annoying that I have to change settings to a value EVERYBODY uses and that should be default (I mean, is there anyone who chooses to walk slowly in a game?).
Interestingly, for me "auto-dash" is not the default option.
Isn't that interesting?
I find that very interesting, actually.
I actually prefer holding down the button. Isn't that perverse and bizarre? Even when my time is at a premium and I'm not particularly invested in the game as entertainment (such as when testing). I go on holding that shift key, happy as a...clam? Bad metaphor.
Anyway, the default WALK speed in RPG Maker VX is actually not slothful at all. The run speed is extremely zippy, but even the walk speed isn't really what you'd call a slow walk speed. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks so, either, or the walk speed wouldn't have been set to what it is. I'm not saying that every decision Enterbrain makes is pristine and unassailable--they have done some retarded shit--but they did make a few design decisions in RPG Maker VX which I found quite defensible. One of them was the default handling of walk speed and dashing.
I'm a computer noob and I don't even know about options.
I know about options, but I'm used to RM games not having them so I don't even bother to check.
I know about the possibility of your game having options, but sometimes I just forget about it.
I see your options, but I still feel it's annoying that I have to change settings to a value EVERYBODY uses and that should be default (I mean, is there anyone who chooses to walk slowly in a game?).
I open the options menu, but I'm distracted by something and I just don't see the "walk speed" options.
Well, I mean, because we are talking about an actual game I'm actually making, let's make this a touch less theoretical.
How would you like me to fix this?
Besides "make auto-dash the default option" which ("let's assume for the sake of argument") I don't want to do.
Should I have a pop-up appear at the start of the game and explain to the player that they can hold shift to run, or look in the "System" menu to enable Auto-Dash? Well, ordinarily that would be fine, and I'd do it just in case to prevent a player from rage-quitting because of "slow walk speed" when their fucking isn't one.
But I mean what can we take as obvious? Should I explain that the arrow keys move you and that enter examines and escape opens the menu too?
But I digress...as it happens, ordinarily I wouldn't mind explaining that, but in the game in question well...there's quite a lot of stuff I'm already explaining that the player needs to know right away. And I'm very leery of it becoming a wall of text. I want the player to get to the gameplay without being bogged in message after message.
Is something that is completely optional and reasonably easy to discover on your own and a standard feature of many games WORTH adding another message worth of text the player might not even read in their impatience to gain control? Must I struggle to strike a balance between avoiding "wall of text" ragequit and "slow walk speed" rage quit? Or is it perhaps reasonable to suggest that in a better world players might be a bit more patient and respectful of games?
Honestly, the real point of this topic is that it is absurd the degree to which developers who actually keep an ear and an eye open to community feedback live in TERROR of any design decision that doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator and might possibly lose them some players. It just seems like "fear of ragequit" is an ass-backwards stance from which to seriously consider game design.
Better if the default assumption could be a player who is willing to give your game a fair chance. But of course we don't live in a perfect world.
There is a psychological bias against something you got for free which is to me the very worst part of human nature. If you BOUGHT an RPG that many developers received a salary for with a slow walk speed or a slow text speed for $60.00 you'd check every goddamn in-game menu and page of the manual to see if there was a way to fix it, and even if there wasn't you'd damn well soldier on through tedium to protect your investment.
So why should your attitude towards a game that someone unpaid gave you for free be so grossly different and frankly worse?
Answer: It's human nature, but fuck that. Human nature can be overcome.
Cozzer
0
Huh. It is actually interesting, and I admit sometimes I don't even bother checking if there is an auto-run option because I'm content with keeping pressing shift. It's probably some subconscious crap that we use to convince ourselves that we are accomplishing something.
Still, it's a decision you should make based on the preferences of your players: in this case, if the majority of them just turn on auto-run as soon as they discover it and never look back, standard practice would be to make it active on default.
(Please note that this auto-run thing is an example for a lot of design choices).
Still, it's a decision you should make based on the preferences of your players: in this case, if the majority of them just turn on auto-run as soon as they discover it and never look back, standard practice would be to make it active on default.
(Please note that this auto-run thing is an example for a lot of design choices).
Cozzer
0
author=Max
But I mean what can we take as obvious? Should I explain that the arrow keys move you and that enter examines and escape opens the menu too?
That is the core of this discussion, and that's where "what is your target audience" really comes in.
Do you want your game to be played by people who have never seen an RM game?
By people who have never seen a RPG?
By people who have never seen a video game?
By people who have never seen a computer?
Trying to pander to one of those categories will probably annoy others, though: if you want people who have never seen an RPG to play, you'll have to explain them the very basic conceps of "stats", "turns", "levels", etc., which will probably annoy more expert people who don't want to lose time (and also somehow annoy hardcore games who consider an insult to their pride if the game is not always trying to kill them by any means possible, lack of information included).
If you want people who have never seen a video game to play yours, you'll have to explain them that pressing the "left" arrow makes their character go left, with similar (but bigger) results.
How I would resolve it: before the beginning, I'd ask the player which kind of player he is (more or less between the categories I mentioned above), and change the amount of tutorials according to his answer.
Also, I'd keep an "help/guide" funcion always available (that wouldn't be very important in a standard jRPG, but in the kind of game you're making, it is).
(In this particular case: if you don't want to set auto-run to on, the next logical step would be to ask the player before the beginning, or at least point out exactly how he can change it.)
author=MaxYou know, I feel it is you that have no respect to the player.
Or is it perhaps reasonable to suggest that in a better world players might be a bit more patient and respectful of games?
I don't play games to "have patience". I play games to have fun.
If you can convince me that having a little patience will gain me more fun, I'm ok with it.
If you ORDER me to have patience and act all high-and-mighty when I refuse, I'm out.
(Note: not a personal attack. I'm trying to explain why this attitude may seem justified to you, but seems just arrogant to me)
You perceive an awful lot of arrogance where there isn't any; the points I made in the post just above this one I probably made more eloquently and less confrontation ally in the OP and earlier pages of this thread.
Well, my target audience as already stated is "as close to 'LITERALLY EVERYONE' as feasibly possible". But even pretending that the quantity of work I'm capable of putting into the game is both infinite and infinitely renewable (which it isn't) think about what you're advising.
Am I to ask the player questions to determine what level of preamble to assail them with? That's just heaping Preamble onto Preamble.
(Title Screen)
> New Game
> Load Game
> Quit
> New Game
"Have you seen a computer before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of what a computer is, goto next.)
"Have you played a videogame before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of how video games work, goto next.)
"Have you ever played an RPG before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of how RPGs work, goto next.)
"Have you ever played an RPG Maker VX game before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of VX's controls and features, goto next.)
"Welcome to Journeyman"
> Short Game
> Normal Game
> Epic Game
> Return To Main Menu
> Short Game
"Have you ever played this game before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Explanation of auto-dash in case they get angry, goto next.)
"Would you like auto dash off?"
> Yes
> No
"Introductory Cutscene"
"Explanation of some of the features unique to this game the player needs to know about to begin."
*Player Gains Control*
In my own game development experience--which to be OPENLY ARROGANT is not entirely insubstantial--the less BULLSHIT you have between *title screen* and *Player Gains Control*, the better.
I think no matter how broad the audience you're trying to reach is, it's probably a safe bet that you can skip the computer and videogame steps at the very least, and have that much less bullshit between title screen and player gains control.
That is the core of this discussion, and that's where "what is your target audience" really comes in.
Do you want your game to be played by people who have never seen an RM game?
By people who have never seen a RPG?
By people who have never seen a video game?
By people who have never seen a computer?
Trying to pander to one of those categories will probably annoy others, though: if you want people who have never seen an RPG to play, you'll have to explain them the very basic conceps of "stats", "turns", "levels", etc., which will probably annoy more expert people who don't want to lose time (and also somehow annoy hardcore games who consider an insult to their pride if the game is not always trying to kill them by any means possible, lack of information included).
If you want people who have never seen a video game to play yours, you'll have to explain them that pressing the "left" arrow makes their character go left, with similar (but bigger) results.
How I would resolve it: before the beginning, I'd ask the player which kind of player he is (more or less between the categories I mentioned above), and change the amount of tutorials according to his answer.
Also, I'd keep an "help/guide" funcion always available (that wouldn't be very important in a standard jRPG, but in the kind of game you're making, it is).
(In this particular case: if you don't want to set auto-run to on, the next logical step would be to ask the player before the beginning, or at least point out exactly how he can change it.)
Well, my target audience as already stated is "as close to 'LITERALLY EVERYONE' as feasibly possible". But even pretending that the quantity of work I'm capable of putting into the game is both infinite and infinitely renewable (which it isn't) think about what you're advising.
Am I to ask the player questions to determine what level of preamble to assail them with? That's just heaping Preamble onto Preamble.
(Title Screen)
> New Game
> Load Game
> Quit
> New Game
"Have you seen a computer before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of what a computer is, goto next.)
"Have you played a videogame before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of how video games work, goto next.)
"Have you ever played an RPG before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of how RPGs work, goto next.)
"Have you ever played an RPG Maker VX game before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Lengthy explanation of VX's controls and features, goto next.)
"Welcome to Journeyman"
> Short Game
> Normal Game
> Epic Game
> Return To Main Menu
> Short Game
"Have you ever played this game before?"
> Yes, goto next.
> No (Explanation of auto-dash in case they get angry, goto next.)
"Would you like auto dash off?"
> Yes
> No
"Introductory Cutscene"
"Explanation of some of the features unique to this game the player needs to know about to begin."
*Player Gains Control*
In my own game development experience--which to be OPENLY ARROGANT is not entirely insubstantial--the less BULLSHIT you have between *title screen* and *Player Gains Control*, the better.
I think no matter how broad the audience you're trying to reach is, it's probably a safe bet that you can skip the computer and videogame steps at the very least, and have that much less bullshit between title screen and player gains control.
If we're going into dumb strawmen arguments you forgot where the player accidentally hits confirm when they really meant to push down first whereupon they reagequit, drive to your house, and put a brick through your front window that also breaks your TV and kills your dog.
Or you could just set dash the default speed. Or when the player gains control have an unobtrusive HUD element come up that details the inputs. You can even put under the bit that says "SHIFT: DASH" in a nice pixel font "Change Dash Settings in Options".
Or you could just set dash the default speed. Or when the player gains control have an unobtrusive HUD element come up that details the inputs. You can even put under the bit that says "SHIFT: DASH" in a nice pixel font "Change Dash Settings in Options".
