What intelligence level do you assume for your target audience? How does one relate gameplay descriptions and instructions accordingly? Not just with the interface, but with the game world. When NPCs discuss game world concepts, how smart is the wording and dialog? Some simple examples: - Cover that vector / Watch that direction - Rotate the camera / Turn the camera - A is scaled by B / A is relative to B / B increases and decreases A - Interpolated between / Transitioned between / In between Not the best examples. While these are related to math, the question isn't. If an expert of guns develops a shooter, or an expert of vehicles develops a racer, they face the same problem. To make it worse, it's not always obvious when something needs dumbed down. The longer you've been exposed to something, the more common it seems. You see examples of the exploitation of this concept in kids movies. Adult jokes, which only adults will understand, are hidden throughout them. Also occasionally in sci-fi media, where the smart character spits out a mouthful of meaningless drivel to make a fictional concept sound too complicated to grasp (which happens to be totally lame for those who understand what they say). I'm just curious as to what other developers are doing. Do you design for a low IQ bar, a middle bar, or as high as your own bar allows you?

You'll need to test your game with target players to be really sure your instructions are clear, regardless of how simple you think your instructions are.

I think it's best if you can to show instructions in more than one way, such as with written instructions and a visual demo or diagram. That way you're conveying the same info in multiple ways and it'll be much easier for the player to grasp.

Making use of conventions used by many other games also helps with a learning curve.

Ive seen some games where they didnt use standard movement keys (used by 100s of other games but did their own set (and then had no ability to customize the command-key bindings (which is NOT rocket science).

If I'm making a casual game for casual gamers, and I'm trying to attract people to a genre they're otherwise not interested in, then one of the things that can help is to have a clear, simple tutorial that lets the player understand how the game works. Mastering it is a completely different issue, as I prefer such leaning curves that everything is fairly simple to grasp but having aspects that are hard to master. As for something such as a control scheme, a player should be able to play the game after 10 minutes or so, tutorial included.

If you're making a game for hardcore gamers, I would think that you'd either aim for a nearly non-existant tutorial (let them learn for themselves) or have some sort of detailed tutorial that may be long (but you're designing for hardcore gamers - they can handle this). If it's a genre they're familiar with, then they'll most likely already know the basis of something like the control scheme and may only have to be told that "this and this is unqie with this game; keep it in mind".

This can apply in most aspects of the game. And it isn't necessarily IQ-related. My brother, being the genius that he is, wants to be able to play a game just by picking up the control. He doesn't want a tutorial. He'll push a few buttons and see what happens, test his way and see what works and what doesn't. Since he doesn't have the time nor will to sit for more than 30-60 minutes (unless he's playing a multiplayer game, maybe), he wants to be able to start playing right away. I'm fairly similar. I can have a tutorial thrown at me, but I want it to be over with, and I don't like to get familiar with controls while the game is actually progressing.

Devil May Cry did this well, I think. They didn't actually have a tutorial, but you got to move around freely and try out things before combating enemies. In Devil May Cry 3, the player was immediately thrown in combat with an enemy attacking you about a second or two after the screen appears.


Ultimately, you could simply design for both masses - the ones who play for fun, and the hardcore gamer. For instance, have difficulties. Or you could have forked paths, one being for newbies and one for hardcore gamers. Of course, let the harder path be more rewarding and more attractive to the hardcore gamer. It's easy to scare a newbie from taking that really difficult path, but it's harder to convince the vet why he shouldn't take the easy way.

Quote:

Original post by Metallon a player should be able to play the game after 10 minutes or so, tutorial included.

I don't know, I want to be playing in about one or two minutes. Even when I start an RPG, I want to be doing something very quickly, even if it's just moving around, before they wow me with cinematic. Casual gamers won't even pick something up if it looks to complex or they might have to learn (scary) how to play. (This is why clones sell.)

And it's not that I like to experiment, it's that I want to skip to the fun. Although, I do like to experiment, I want to know what I have to do and how without taking time to read a message box or go through a tutorial.

(I believe tutorials are the #1 cause of death among gamers, but only half the people I tell that joke to agree.)

I think it's a common pitfall among designers, in that they simply can't think up a more fun way of showing the player how to do things. If you look at JRPG's, these always come with some very intricate systems and mechanics. Since the game is already long, why not just leave all that behind and let the player progress naturally through the game instead of having these damned tutorials? Have the word "NEW" appear next to a command if you haven't tried it yet. IF there's some new mechanism involved that requires some thinking or such, have that marked with some yellow arrow that shows that you can use it, instead of forcing it on the player.

My point is, it's usually not fun to freeze the game and have these tutorial screens pop up. If you have too many at once, the gamer will feel swamped and not up for learning all of it. Taking it bits by bits is the same as regularly disrupting immersion and game experience from the player. Considering this is done at the start of the game, this is not good. Finally, you could have new things appear over a later period of time, by which the player may already feel comfortable with his playing style. It's no fun when you have to suddenly rethink over something that was actually available from the beginning, but there was no tutorial to show it (and by now you were relying on them to show you whatever you didn't know).

There are exceptions to everything, but... just some general thoughts.

Quote:

Original post by Kest To make it worse, it's not always obvious when something needs dumbed down. The longer you've been exposed to something, the more common it seems. Do you design for a low IQ bar, a middle bar, or as high as your own bar allows you?

Well first, you should probably drop the condescension. Presenting information in an accessible manner has little or nothing to do with "intelligence".

To see a superb example how very difficult subjects can be shared with a general audience in a compelling and accurate way, get a copy of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series from a library,

Quote:

Original post by drakostar Well first, you should probably drop the condescension. Presenting information in an accessible manner has little or nothing to do with "intelligence".

I believe this is called "clever game design". Game designers should first and foremost be excellent communicators. Communicating to the end user how to do things in a game in an "accessible manner" as you put it, hasn't got much to do with the intelligence of the end user - again, as you put it.

Some games also give the player a companion who explains things to him. In shooters it's often a squad where a squad leader will explain something. Sometimes during a mission, sometimes also in a quick obstacle course with a gun range.
In Zelda on the other hand some fairy would follow you, glowing and shaking when she has a hint and the player could decide to listen to her by pressing a button. She would also point at important things by flying there, etc.
That also worked pretty well in the Sonic games, where Tails is the companion of Sonic. I always felt this was a very convenient way to show things to the player while still bringing action.

Quote:

Original post by drakostar Well first, you should probably drop the condescension.

As someone in full control of the content of a game, the amount and level of complex concepts infused into it can be no higher than your own amassed understanding. Regardless of that level, there will be players that have not encountered or gained an understanding of specific elements introduced. I would be among those players in regard to countless specific concepts. There's no condescension.

Quote:

Presenting information in an accessible manner has little or nothing to do with "intelligence".

Accessible is extremely relative. If you make the content as accessible as possible, you'll have something on the level of a children's book. You have to draw a line somewhere. The location of that line is what the topic is about.

I don't think it would be a good idea to add a lot of complex concepts, then present them all in long, drawn out, simplified form. It may be better in some cases to just exclude the complex content entirely. Especially if it's just background coloring, such as nerdy NPCs talking among themselves, or log entries in a genetic lab scientist's journal.

If it was known that players of a game would be highly knowledgable, it wouldn't just change the type of presentation, it would change what is practical to present.