(From the Psycological Persective) A game can be designed so "as you play" then you learn more about "how to play". It can be done in such a way that the player is barely aware of the fact that he or she is actually learning. Its also a proven (scientific) fact the games were and are the natural way to learn. Games have passed the test of nature as being the best way to learn. So if you were to make a game, why would you want to include a manual that explains to the player how to play your game when you already have access to the best meduim for learning anyhow? Isn''t this a just a tad backwards? I think game designers spend way to much time trying to configure the mechanical aspect of their game rather than working out and understanding the psycological power of "The Game". So tell me, what do we understand out the Psycological Aspects of Game Design? Is it possible to "Construct a Learning Curve" based around your brilliant ideas for a game? Last but not least how can we Value Ideas (for game design) with in the Learning Curve? Note: Don''t hesitate to ask your own question/s either, they''re all welcome. We are their, "Children of the Free"

Well, I know I and a lot of people, like it when you start a game, you can have a training mission (ala half-life)
I''d never read the manual =]

Well Now,

Some of the best games around have that
feature Half-Life for one. However some
people just want to get stuck in. I personally
like a plot and theme to develop before I
start the action.

STVOY

Mega Moh Mine!!

If a training mission was not fun then would you still use it?

Do you get frustrated when you can''t work out the controls (ingame) because you feel that you''re missing out on the fun?



We are their,
"Children of the Free"

I prefer it when the plot and theme develop around me . I always, always read the manuals from back to front. Usually they are at least marginally interesting reads.
I like training scenarios, because it''s much less of a chore to use the controls while you''re learning them than to memorize them with the vain hope that you''ll remember them later.
A perfect training mission would be one that ties in heavily with the game, promotes the theme, is fun and is challanging. There must be a puzzle or two for you to figure out yourself.
Also, it must be humerous if the game''s envirnment allows it. That''s always a nice touch.

My favourite is the Half-Life: Opposing Force training mission, the bootcamp. It truly feels like there is action going on all the time around you, and the drill sargeants do an excellent job of making you feel like a worthless maggot.
Speaking of which: in the .pak file, there are plenty unused sounds, such as a drill sargeant saying, ''It''s time to kick ass and chew bubblegum; and I''m all outta gum.'' Classic .

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive

It''s a very interesting thought, Paul. I know that a vast majority of gamers NEVER read the manuals that come with games, and most of them appreciate a "training" level of sorts.

However, sometimes the plot or tone of the game has to take priority over easing the player into it. For instance, in "Resident Evil 2," the game begins with you surrounded by 5 or so zombies with only a handgun. It throws you right into the game. If you don''t figure out how to play you''re dead.

The game I''m working on, "Enigma," begins in which you need to escape your apartment and evade a bunch of strange stalkers that are hanging about. I could have started with a really simple level that gradually takes you through how to play the game, but then I would have had to alter the plot by changing the opening to the game.

Besides, sometimes you just have to give gamers some credit. Most of the time they can figure out controls, etc without a manual OR a training course. So long as your game doesn''t have TONS of controls and you mapped them in obvious places (ie, jump is SPACEBAR--that''s easy. Jump is "K" key ... then the player will have to look at the manual).

------------------------------
Changing the face of adventure gaming...
Atypical Interactive

As i''ve noticed a lot more game these days are including more training areas in their games. This is especially true with FPS''s. Maybe they are doing it to attract new comers.

Or maybe it''s a sign that games are getting more complicated.

Can the easyness of learning how to play a game turn people off, regardless of how fun and involving the game could be.

What i mean is, Are there certain types of people who will only buy a game if it requires hours of reading a manual?

We are their,
"Children of the Free"

I really don''t think so . How can an incredibly complicated control system HELP a game?

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive

If a game has a complicated control system then the player could presume thats its an involving game. Take the player who like games that continue over weeks of play. They could presume that a game that has a complicated control system is one of these games.

We are their,
"Children of the Free"

"Can the easyness of learning how to play a game turn people off, regardless of how fun and involving the game could be?"

Of course some people might be turned off by an easy-to-learn game, but I think that the main concern for the majority of gamers is a fun and addicting game. There''s quite a few games that fall under the "minutes to learn, a lifetime to master" catagory. Nearly all console puzzle games: Tetris, Puzzle Fight, Bust-a-Move, etc. qualify and even some successful computer games (Diablo 1/2). The ease of learning these games broaden their appeal, so (gasp) non-hardcore gamers buy them.

I think most people on GameDev are hard-core gamers, and thus tend to make a game that appeal towards hard-core gamers, not necessarily the average gamer.