Quote:

Original post by ApochPiQ I've just been thinking along similar lines for the X series over at Egosoft.

That's awesome. [cool] The X series, being an old Elite fan, keeps my faith in gaming going.

Quote:

In X3 we had a fundamental problem: new players face an incredibly steep learning curve.

I'm curious: Is the idea of built-in levels of layered complexity, both in terms of UI and even (to some degree) the flight and combat model, feasbile from a development standpoint? (i.e., here's your crappy class A shuttle, the controls are simple, but the ship is tactically weaker simply because it's a vessel with less features; if you want fancier moves, you'll have to get the class B, etc.)

Quote:

However, ironically, the first X game I think is one of the few that really did it "right." The tutorial was presented entirely in the context of the gameplay (flight testing your new spaceship).

Yeah, one of the things I most liked about this was that I was immediately playing the game-- the immersion was there (I'm a test pilot, not a newbie), the universe was safe for some experimentation, and (unlike many mission-based games) I got a real early taste of freedom.

Quote:

Now, cracking the fourth wall can be extremely funny - if it is done right. Sadly, most designers seem to think that it's OK to just bulldoze the entire wall and pretend it doesn't exist, and that detracts from the experience.

Agreed, and particularly easy to do when both designer and QA staff have forgotten what it was ever like to be a newbie. I know that in many of the places I worked the tutorial was nearly an afterthought, something of a nuisance.

Quote:

The concept I've been kicking around is to return to in-game education. I think this stems from the same basic issue as "Experiment Mode" - players need to learn how they can affect the world, but they don't want to sacrifice valuable playing time to do it. Especially in this era of increasingly casual gamers, we need a mechanism that lets people always move forward, or at least never go too far back/laterally.

Consider that there also might be a trust issue, as well, particularly if the game is large and the player cannot discern the pattern for surprises or how certain systems work. The player may never even discover certain content because they don't know to work to find it, and don't trust that it's worth investing the time to look. Freelancer, for example, has a number of treasure caches sprinkled throughout its stellar maps, but I've never bothered to search for more than a few because the empty-space-to-reward ratio is so high.

If, OTOH, I get a sense of what might be out there, and a general idea of where it might be, then I'll not only search, I'll have fun in the searching. I think this not only applies to item, but to experiences, particularly those that arise from experimenting and taking risks.

Quote:

To use a concrete example, I'd take the X series (since I spend most of my design-mode time thinking about it anyways [wink]). Start the player out in their spaceship, and they have to get some kind of intergalactic driver's license. Fly around these space-cones, park between these holographic lines, get your little futuristic license card, have fun. Need to learn how to fight the Evil Space Aliens? Head over to the Star Arcade and play the "games" there. Need to learn how to make a profit trading Widgets with the Heathen Natives? Go off to some other kind of "simulator" and goof around.

Haha, I've been thinking about the same exact thing as a Grand Tour for an open ended game. It was spurred by my friend's refusal to leave the starting town of Morrowind because he was unsure of how deadly the world was, what his options were, and what awaited him.

Another component of this that might work is lore. Something as simple as log messages (as in the old Starflight games) that tell about places the player hasn't yet been could be a very immersive way of encouraging them to train, experiment and seek out new experiences. Having two pilots talk about barely surviving the "skipspace manuever" (or whatever) I think can generate genuine interest in what the heck it is, what it's used for, and how its done.

Quote:

There's two important aspects to this in my mind. First, the simulation has to have a rich subset of real gameplay, so that the player can genuinely learn by using the simulator. Second, the simulation should never affect players in a way that makes the "regular game" dull.

One thing I'd like to try is to tightly interrelate these two things so that they don't exist in a vaccuum. I like the idea of making it more immersive, but what about the possibility of earning notice or money for the simulation? (I'm thinking of the old movie The Last Starfighter, where video games act like actually talent scouts)

I think if the "real virtual world" leaks into the "virtual virtual world" you are right back to the problem of how to keep the player experimenting, but I think it would be very immersive to at least have SOME crossover between these two aspects.

(I don't have time to read though everything at the moment so sorry if I repeat something)

You've given me an interesting idea for my MMORPG that I've been developing for the past year. It is a futuristic type of game so one thing will be hologram arenas for practicing fighting. One thing I could do is as players explore the world, hostile areas can be replicated in the holoarena if players take time to use the map command. This can then be used to allow young players to explore the are and discover what is there before actually risking their lives.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator I'm curious: Is the idea of built-in levels of layered complexity, both in terms of UI and even (to some degree) the flight and combat model, feasbile from a development standpoint? (i.e., here's your crappy class A shuttle, the controls are simple, but the ship is tactically weaker simply because it's a vessel with less features; if you want fancier moves, you'll have to get the class B, etc.)

I think the concept makes sense and could be practical. The danger is that it demands a lot more development and testing time than a more numerically-controlled system (where the starting ship simply goes slower and has weaker shields, or whatever). I think the development complexity of that approach could quickly get out of hand if not carefully managed. A fresh-from-the-ground title could probably pull it off.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Consider that there also might be a trust issue, as well, particularly if the game is large and the player cannot discern the pattern for surprises or how certain systems work. The player may never even discover certain content because they don't know to work to find it, and don't trust that it's worth investing the time to look. Freelancer, for example, has a number of treasure caches sprinkled throughout its stellar maps, but I've never bothered to search for more than a few because the empty-space-to-reward ratio is so high. If, OTOH, I get a sense of what might be out there, and a general idea of where it might be, then I'll not only search, I'll have fun in the searching. I think this not only applies to item, but to experiences, particularly those that arise from experimenting and taking risks.

This is definitely a real issue, and it's one that we wrestle with a lot in X. I think part of the potential power of the simulator concept is in providing teasers of what's available. As a player, I'll tend to enter games very uneasy about combat when I have to engage the enemy for the first time. If I can test out combat in a risk-free environment, where I can still "get killed" without losing my actual game persona to the grim reaper, then I'll be much more likely to go test out real combat - and I'll be much more likely to do so bravely and without the typical cautious, boring timidity of a totally new player.


However, a totally separate "tutorial" environment isn't the same. The risk doesn't feel real, because I know it's just a tutorial. By separating the learning experience too far from the game experience, the impact is lost. Risk-free tutorials are sterile, and sterile is boring.

Having the simulator accessed "in game" is only going to work, I think, if the results of the simulated experience are directly tied in to the game universe. If the in-game simulator is just interface sugar-coating for a standard tutorial design, the concept is simply a detriment and obstacle to the player. Bad news.

The flip side, though, has a lot of promise. I go into a holographic Fight to the Death with some local champion in the ring. If I "die," my game character has to endure the shame of loss. It's a real penalty in the game universe, but it's a trivial (and maybe even entertaining) penalty. If I kill the champion, then I get all kinds of in-game prestige and a shiny Champion crown. My character's real kill count didn't go up, but the character still benefits a little bit. By carefully tuning the penalities and rewards of the simulator experience, and keeping them thoroughly within the framework of the game fiction, I think we can mix up a very powerful appetizer for the "real" gameplay.

Really, I think it comes down to a simple principle: game learning experiences ("tutorials") shouldn't be seen as separate concepts from gameplay. The same things make them fun as make "regular" gameplay fun, so the less artificial distiction there is between the two, the more enjoyable they both will be.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Jotaf So delegate all responsability to the player. "Ok, at this point we get to the main gate... expect some resistance so I'm gonna throw in a couple of trolls" :P I'm assuming a kind of holo-room for this. You see, the player would build the simulation as he went along, according to his knowledge, and judge from that! If he was wrong, too bad. Should've gathered more intel. A smart move is to always over-estimate your opponents. This is immensely more fun, and you don't have to worry about balancing the simulation with reality. Sweet. That's very cool. So it's up to you to try to get layouts of locations, enemy types and some form of knowledge (not exactly sure how to convey this) of their behaviors? Do you think you should be able to buy all of this as intel / information? What about hiring a character to scout and model the target, with some incorrect / incomplete information as a result of their lack of skill?

Well, that's the spying component of your game, it depends on whether you want to abstract it too much or not. I would advise against it because spying is so darn cool :)

The way I was thinking, it would most of the time be just a blank room, where you could fight an enemy in a new way you thought of (different weapon, different strategy...). Then you could add some variants to the scenery, more enemies and even other gameplay situations if you wanted (lock picking, vehicles...). It would never be an actual clone of the situation, just a close enough reenactment.

The problem with "buying" a simulation from a character is that if it's wrong, the player will be mad at the game for tricking him. My opinion is that this should be avoided.

An alternative would be buying tips that are always true, but there are only a few of them available; they're never enough to reconstruct more than 10% of the actual scene. I think this handles nicely all of the negative points that were mentioned.

Quote:

I'm assuming, btw, that even if simulation is safer, the player will eventually run out of resources and be motivated to actually take the risks that match the sim.

Of course! Ever played One Must Fall 2097? In career mode you always had the opportunity to run a simulation before actually fighting someone to climb up the ladder. That's because the cost for losing was pretty heavy: you'd go down the ladder and also pay all the repairing for your bot. I'd improve my skill until I was able to win with half my HP; otherwise I would run the simulation again and again. Still lost a couple of times though :P but I knew it was MY fault.