Remember your first time? Nervously looking around at people you don’t know? Fiddling about trying to work out what goes where and trying to think of all the things you’re supposed to be learning? Like the first day of school, the introduction to any new game is important for both the developer and the player. Both parties want to ensure that the player is well equipped for the tasks and challenges to come and there’s no worse feeling than the frustration of either being able to see the solution in front of your eyes, but not knowing how exactly to pull the execution off. But many different developers will use many different ways to introduce concepts to the player.
Valve may be coming close to being a cliché in the way of being an example to other developers, but it is interesting to chart their progression of how they teach the player. The first Half Life came with the Hazard Course, which was literally an obstacle course designed to teach players the fundamentals of the HEV suit that Gordon wears. Following the example of the hologram, it was a very bog standard tutorial, really – show by example and then wait for the player to copy the action. Of course, it managed to remain in the first person perspective that Valve never wanted to remove you from in order to maintain immersion. Come Half Life 2, Valve had a dilemma – the player had been in suspended animation for a number of years, and it was very difficult to come up with a plausible in universe explanation for teaching the player the fundamentals -Freeman hasn’t had some sort of training course while in his mysterious stasis. So Valve went one step further with their task of player immersion by integrating the tutorials into the game proper. As described in the Episode One commentary, concepts were first shown with an example – clever level design drawing the player’s eye towards the concept. Next the concept was reinforced with a opportunity for the player to try it for themselves, followed by putting the player under pressure using either enemies or other interference while doing the task. This way, the player is almost doing a tutorial within the game itself. All Valve have to do is occasionally display prompts on screen the first time and a player can master almost advanced concepts. The method proved so successful, they used it again for subsequent episodes and of course, Portal.
Multiplayer throws in an an entirely new set of complications for a developer. Of course, new players are usually playing a game alongside season veterans, and being patronised can almost be as bad as not having enough information. Again looking at Valve for an example, they went about it in two different ways – although interestingly barely provided anything for Counter Strike Source (the original CS however, did have a tutorial a long time ago which was inexplicably no longer included by the time the Steam release came around). For Team Fortress 2 a brief video is shown the first time any new game mode is played. Of course, the inherent problem with this is the age old ‘RTFM’ argument – people usually want to get on with playing as fast as they can, and indeed Team Fortress 2 can be a very difficult game to get into for the new player. Nine classes? Each play subtly differently to the others? And then obviously the game mode rules on top of that? You can’t fit all that information into a video, so a big challenge for developers is to make the initial experience as intuitive as possible so at least if the player has at least played one FPS they have a chance of getting the hang of the basic fundamentals. For Left 4 Dead the main tactic is on screen prompts that are context sensitive, but again there’s a massive advantage with playing with people you know, and massive derision if you try and play online with strangers for the first time and get it wrong.
In the same way that n00b has become a insulting term, sometimes a player doesn’t want to feel like they are learning, and that can be the greatest challenge to a developer. Do they include the tutorial within the main game, or have it as a separate entity? Of course there’s not a definitive correct answer, but there’s plenty of examples of interesting ones. Mirror’s Edge also incorporates it into the main game, but it may become tedious the second third and fourth time you want to play through. Call of Duty 4 also makes it the first level before the game starts for real, but also incorporates a nice touch in that the time you take to complete the tutorial dictates what level you should play the rest of the game at, should you choose. But is a tutorial a worthy way of judging your performance for the rest of the game, especially when those conditions are far more controlled? It resonates slightly with the old debate as to whether school tests really show a pupil’s ability, or whether it just indicates how well they did on that particular day.
Some tutorials can really get it wrong as well. Personally, I have found the Champions Online tutorial very poor despite really enjoying the rest of the game. It tried very hard with the spectacle of the thing and showing off the features, but when it came down to the nitty-gritty teaching of the concepts and exactly how things worked, it was very muddy and unclear. Walls of uninspired text that require patience to sit through and read never really sit well with gamers, especially in an age of pick up and play. Things like crafting are barely explained at all, and even when they are it is difficult to return to the explanation to find out exactly what the game was originally getting at. In their defence, MMOs can be the hardest type of games to explain- and when the elephant in the room is as big as WoW is, it’s easy to assume that most of your potential audience will be able to understand most concepts thanks to it’s own success. But what about the new customers? Surely they need an entry point just as much as anyone else?
There are so many options to consider – do you gradually throughout the course of the game introduce the concepts, or do you teach them all at the very start and then challenge them? Should they be dynamic, changing depending on how much previous experience a player has? It’s a delicate balancing act, and there certainly is not one catch all method. Games can be made and broken on a player’s first hour with it. Risk making it too simple, and people are put off by it feeling patronised. Overcomplicate things, and people will never quite get into the game. As much as they want to teach us, it’s important to remember developers are still learning too.
Related posts:
- Heads Up
- The humble HUD or Heads Up Display is often – quite literally – an overlooked...
- Do You See, DLC?
- Downloadable Content. It’s certainly the new physics, in terms of popularity going by it’s inclusion...
- benVidya – The Way It’s Meant To Be Played
- There can be an interesting disparity between the way a game is designed to be...
Lovely article. I think tutorials are ridiculously difficult to get right. Splinter cell 3 springs to mind in that it just makes you watch a load of videos, which was a backward step from 2 which had you running an (optional) assault course that I think explained all the intracities that you would need perfectly.
I have to give a nod to Oblivion for simultaneously showing you how the game works and picking up how you play at the same time to recommend your class. It was a stroke of genius and worked as a tutorial.
On the flip side though, Morrowind barely had any kind of tutorial (a few pop up boxes but nothing much of substance) and I really liked that; you literally went into Vvardenfell as an inexperienced and overwhelmed wreck – just like your character.
Tricky.
I think the best kind are the ones you don’t even realise *are* tutorials. Of course, I can’t think of any examples of such tutorials. But then, that’s the beauty of them!
This has got me thinking now. Every time there is a tutorial it’s “use w to walk forward” or “left click and drag to select your units” for the first 10 minutes. I think for tutorials to progress they need to be intrinsic to the actual game and exclude what it is apparent that you know what to do.
For example I don’t need telling how to run and shoot in a shooter, but I will need introducing into any new mechanics specific to that game – but then if I have played it before I might just need a refresher. Basically, the first mission should be simple enough that an expert could do it in 2 minutes, but complex enough that it teaches you everything you will need to know.
Another thing is that it’s a shame instruction books have died. They used to be really cool things to read – they were often even funny. Now, for the most part, they are just bland emptyness only included because the publishers feel it’s mandatory. In fact, the only instruction books that I have seen to be any good of late was GTA IV’s and Blood Money.
We included tutorials for the Hidden… only to realise that about 4 people have ever actually tried them!
That’s fascinating. I think goes into what I was saying about mutliplayer’s RTFM argument – no one ever seems to unless explicitly told by other players whom are getting peeved at the new player. Multiplayer tutorials are seemingly incredibly hard to do. Intergrate them and you risk boring/patronising veterans (as they may have to see them every time they play too) or make them seperate entities and risk them never being seen or used.
The whole subject about tutorials and teaching within games is really interesting, I could easily manage an print magazine length feature and may still do in the future.