游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

教授玩家如何玩游戏的4大方法

发布时间:2016-01-07 13:58:34 Tags:,,,,

作者:Darran Jamieson

我们都不喜欢游戏内部教程。当我们购买了一款游戏时,我们总是希望能够略过菜单和和各种流程图而直接进入游戏行动中。但我们同时也需要了解如何游戏。我们需要清楚每一款游戏的新规则,毕竟如果所有游戏都相同的话,我们就不需要再玩新游戏了。

因为计算机游戏都很复杂,所以它们的教程远不止“使用方向键和空格去射击。”而像如何进行互动,目标是什么以及游戏世界如何做出反应等等都是游戏需要传达给玩家的。

所以我们肯定希望能够尽早呈现给玩家游戏教程。这里的关键是,游戏的前几分钟有可能成就玩家的体验也有可能彻底将其摧毁。对此AAA级游戏留有更多余地,而如果你创造的是一款手机游戏或网页游戏,你便需要尽快让玩家进入游戏中以确保它们能够获得游戏乐趣,否则它们将很快找到其它替代你的游戏的内容。

是的,所以我们既需要创造游戏,同时也需要避免玩家必须经历一个无聊的教程才能了解游戏的运行。对此的解决方法便在于我们如何组织游戏教程:是否能够创造出有趣的教程?或者我们是否能将教程融合到游戏中?

教程主要分为三种类型:非互动性,互动性和被动型。让我们依次分析这些教程。

非互动性游戏内部教程

从很多方面看来非互动性游戏内部教程是一种过时的游戏设计。下图便是来自我和我的团队在几年前所创造的一款游戏《Infected》。

这张图便是整款游戏的教程;当我们回顾过去时会发现这其实是一个很大的设计缺陷。在观看别人玩这款游戏时,我们发现他们会敲击屏幕,眼睛出现短暂的呆滞,然后他们会敲击“开始”按键。的确对于我们的大多数玩家来说,他们都不能理解游戏是如何运行的。

《植物大战僵尸》的创造者George Fan提出了这样的原则,“不管何时游戏屏幕上出现的单词都不能超过8个。”通常情况下玩家的注意力持续时间总是很短,所以他们很难消化一些较长的信息。

尽管非互动性教程并不糟糕,但是它们却很容易打破8个单词的限制。而对于这一设计缺陷,我们的总结如下:

不要过分压制玩家

这便是游戏内部教程设计的第一条原则,玩家需要理解游戏的发展:如果你提供给玩家200个组合动作和特定攻击列表,那么她们有可能只记住了其中的2,3个,并且只会在整款游戏中使用这几个。然而如果你能够慢慢地教授玩家(游戏邦注:一次只介绍一个概念),他们便有更多机会去掌握每种能力。

之前我们已经简单提到了这一概念,即使用成就作为教程辅助。强迫玩家完成一个只有一种基本武器的关卡将会彻底破坏玩家的乐趣,但是如果能够提供给玩家相关奖励,你便能够鼓励玩家进一步尝试一些新策略和战术。

这时候可以使用评级或奖励系统,如星级或A到F的评级。较弱的玩家能够轻松地完成关卡,而坚持挑战更难内容的玩家则能够获得更高分数的奖励。这既能让更多硬核玩家100%完成游戏,也能让休闲玩家无需深陷任何复杂关卡轻松感受到游戏乐趣。

《超级食肉男孩》便将“教程”延伸到了前6个关卡中。第一个关卡教授玩家一些基本内容:向左向右移动与跳跃。第二个关卡教授玩家在墙上的跳跃。第三个关卡是关于奔跑。一旦玩家理解了这些基本概念,游戏便会开始介绍像旋转刀,分裂平台以及滚动关卡等概念。

实际上《超级食肉男孩》的第一个关卡是很难失败的。游戏使用了我们所谓的“新手洞穴”技巧。即玩家将从一个不可能失败的地方开始游戏—-为了到达一个可能死掉的位置他们需要不断向前。这也将提供给玩家掌握游戏技巧的机会,即这时候玩家不会感受到来自敌人攻击或时间耗尽等威胁。

我们也在《Infected》中执行了“新手洞穴”技巧:尽管玩家还是有可能在第一个关卡输掉游戏,但是几率不大。玩家将获得一些起步优势, 并且这时候也几乎不存在AI。在更后面的关卡中AI将执行一些有意的行动,但是在第一个关卡AI将只会随机移动。这意味着即使玩家不清楚如何游戏,他们获胜的几率也非常高。(当然了也有些玩家仍会失败,但比起最早的版本现在的游戏体验更出色。)

虽然在游戏中执行“新手洞穴”的方法不多,但一种有效的方法便是创造一个互动教程:这是带有明确机制的游戏部分,在这里玩家只能执行胜利所需要的行动。这让玩家将无需遭遇失败或无聊的风险而“玩”游戏。

互动性游戏内部教程

让玩家能够在游戏内部教程中互动是教授玩家机制的一种好方法。即比起只是告诉玩家游戏如何运行,这类型教程将让他们执行能够创造出更棒用户留存所需要的行动。尽管你能够提供玩家游戏说明无数次,但是让他们真正执行游戏行动才能确保他们真正记住并理解游戏。

上图是来自《Highrise Heroes》,它有效地示范了如何将玩家更好地带到教程中。尽管只是呈现一张如何让一个单词发挥作用的图像更简单,但是让玩家真正经历控制单词的行动能够确保他们在前进前更好地理解这一概念。在玩家发挥自己的能力去完成这一基本游戏元素前他是缺少“完整的”游戏玩法的。因为你迫使了玩家去执行行动,所以你便能够肯定玩家在精通这一任务前不能继续前进。

这类型教程的唯一缺陷在于如果玩家已经很熟悉游戏的运行的话,他们便会觉得经历这些关卡教程很无聊。这时候游戏便可以通过让玩家略过教程关卡而避免这种情况,但是开发者也必须清楚有些玩家会不管自己之前是否玩过游戏都直接略过教程。《Steambirds》的创造者Andy Moore便说过他们在设定不可略过的教程后玩家留存率从60%增加到了95%。

背景式游戏内部教程

背景式游戏内部教程让玩家能够直接访问游戏玩法。这时候玩家仍然能够穿越“新手洞穴”区域,同时他们也能够以更快的速度做到这点,即能够更快地进入“常规游戏”中。

让我们举个例子来看:

VVVVVV(from tutsplus)

VVVVVV(from tutsplus)

这是《VVVVVV》中的第一个画面,即使用了一个小小的弹出窗口去告诉玩家如何左右移动。当玩家完全准备好时,他们唯一能做的便是移动到第二个画面上,即在那里他们将了解到如何“跳”过障碍。从这里他们将精通游戏玩法—-尽管移动和跳跃也能够整合在一起说明,但是分开描述能够确保玩家掌握了每个技能并且不会一下子面对太多文本内容。

背景式教程和互动性教程间的区别非常细微,因为它们都是使用一种简单的风格。而最主要的区别还是在于玩家可以轻松地略过背景式教程:所有的内容都会被融合到背景中。

互动性教程和背景式教程都是我们本应该用于《Infected》中的内容。我们本来可以基于三种移动去教授玩家教程(如何移动,如何跳跃以及如何获取),如此玩家便能够真正理解游戏玩法。尽管我们清楚问题所在,但因为我们是在最后才创造游戏教程,所以我们很难去弥补它。

没有任何游戏教程

你是如何从水龙头中接水的?一般情况下你会将水龙头开关拧到右边。你是如何锁紧螺丝的?你会按照顺时针方向锁紧。这些事情都是不需要任何指南说明的—-这是我们本能知道的事情。或者说我们在很小的时候便了解了这些,并且一直是以这样的方式在做这些事,所以这些知识始终贯穿于我们的生活中。

而游戏也是基于这一的原则运行着。作为一名资深玩家,我们总是自然而然便知道自己想要收集货币并获得升级。但是非游戏玩家可能不能自然地理解这些,所以你应该确保这些内容足够明显。(即使你之前从未玩过一款平台游戏,但是任何人也都知道不能跳进火堆里。)

玩家应该能够一眼识别出“好的对象”与“不好的对象”间的区别,而不用牺牲自己去发现这些。Shigeru Miyamoto便曾经谈论过他是如何判断《马里奥》中货币的用途:

“当我们在考虑一些能让所有人看到便有‘我一定要得到它!’的想法的东西时,我们马上便想到了钱。”

《植物大战僵尸》则使用了“植物”和“僵尸”主题去教授玩家:玩家知道植物不能四处移动,而僵尸总是缓慢移动着。比起面对一个“炮塔vs士兵”的无聊主题,植物vs僵尸的主题能让游戏变得更有趣且更可爱,并且也能够传达给玩家一些重要信息。

pvz(from tutsplus)

pvz(from tutsplus)

因为玩家通常都“知道”游戏如何游戏,所以我们不一定每次都要跟他们解释所有内容。当你将玩家带到一款游戏中,你可以考虑不要跟他们说任何事,而是让他们自己找出答案。而如果他们一动不动地待在原地,你便可以提供给他们一些暗示(如“尝试着移动控制杆而行走”),但你需要记住玩家总是会尝试着独自执行一些基本命令。因为游戏玩法的“基本规则”通常都是通用的,所以我们可以假设玩家非常熟悉这些规则;这同时也意味着改变这些基本规则存在风险。

有些没有经验的游戏设计师认为采取一些“正常方式”便是一种错误的方式,并忽视了一些已经确定的规则。在过去,实时策略游戏便曾遭遇这样的问题:尽管今天的游戏通常都会使用一个标准化的控制系统(即左击选择,右击移动或攻击),但是早前的游戏缺少这样的一致性,并且经常会转换左/右鼠标键控制,或者总是尝试着将所有指令都整合到一个按键中。如果你在今天玩过其中一款早前游戏的话,你便会觉得它的控制系统非常奇怪,因为我们现在已经掌握了一种截然不同的控制方式了。

而执行“显著的”控制便是《Infected》的突出之处:尽管玩家可能并未阅读教材,但是只要点击一个组件便能够呈现给他们应该做出的移动。通过提供给玩家视觉回应(即点击一个组件便是正确的移动)能够让玩家继续探索控制系统。我们最初的游戏版本便不具有这样的视觉回应,我们也发现添加这一小小的图像能够让游戏玩法变得更加明显,并且不需要删除任何其它内容。

如果你想要改变传统的游戏玩法元素的话,这里倒是有个不错的理由。《块魂》使用了两个按钮开关让玩家移动,而不是采取传统的做法即只使用一个开关进行移动,另一个开关去控制摄像机。尽管这么做可能会在一开始让玩家感到混淆,但是游戏的简单性也意味着这一控制系统能够有效地发挥作用。

同样地,网页游戏《Karoshi Suicide Salaryman》也要求玩家杀死自己,即通常是通过跳到钉子上。尽管这是一种“非标准化”游戏行为(因为游戏主题恰好相反),但是玩家的目标始终都很明确。

游戏总是会不断变化着,而如果能够了解你何时改变了某些内容(游戏控制或目标),玩家便不需要重新学习所有内容。

继续学习与实验

有趣的是,即使不提供给玩家明显的指示内容也能够鼓励他们通过尝试去了解游戏玩法。在《塞尔达》系列中,玩家总是能不断找到新道具和装备,并且他们需要学习这些道具的使用方法。而比起提供冗长的解释去教授玩家如何使用新武器,游戏只是将玩家带到一个封闭的房间并说道:“自己想办法弄明白”,而因为“谜题”总是很明显,所以玩家通常都能够较轻松地找出答案。

其实这些房间就是新手洞穴:尽管玩家能在游戏中途找到它们,但是它们能让玩家在一个安全的环境中探索一个全新工具的使用方法。一旦玩家了解了自己的新工具的用途,他们便会被重新带回游戏世界,并继续解决谜题并对抗怪兽。在游戏最后,玩家往往都能够非常熟悉自己的新工具的用途并能够使用它们去解决多个层面的谜题。

《塞尔达》关于游戏内部教程的设置是值得我们学习的:在这里,游戏本身也就是教程。除了最后的地下城外,玩家一直都处于学习的状态;这种“滴漏式教学方法”便是《塞尔达》系列中最大的优势之一。比起只是在游戏一开始提供所有教程,玩家能够逐渐了解游戏,既不会感到压力也能够不断发现一些很酷的新工具,这样的设置真的很出色。

《植物大战僵尸》也有效使用了滴漏式教学方法:在每个关卡中,玩家将开启一种新植物(有时候是一个新阶段),并且他们必须了解如何使用这些新植物去击退僵尸军团。这款游戏从未带给玩家太多压力,反而不断地提供给玩家一些全新的内容。因为玩家将花些时间去了解每种武器,这也能鼓励他们去选择那些最有效的植物,而不是至始至终都使用自己在游戏最开始所选择的植物。

不要吓跑玩家

所有的这些内容都在传达着一个观点:不要吓跑玩家,也不要让他们感到无聊。这似乎是一个再明显不过的建议,但似乎仍有些游戏(包括一些AAA级游戏)不能把握这一点。

对此的一个常见例子,也是一个反复出现的错误是,要求玩家注册才能玩游戏。如果你真的想要吸引玩家的注意,那就不要逼迫他们填写生日,电子邮件等等繁琐的内容,只要提供给他们一个账号并让他们玩游戏便可。如果玩家喜欢游戏,他们之后便会乐意去填写这些完整的信息。(游戏邦注:《Tagpro》便是一款在这方面做得很好的在线多人游戏:让玩家选择一个服务器,作为用户点击Play他们便能开始游戏了。)

你当然可以创造复杂的游戏,但你也必须意识到人类的记忆通常都不是很好,并且维持注意力的时间总是很短,所以他们很难从长篇幅的文本中学到很多东西。如果你之前从未玩过一款游戏,你可以先试试《十字军之王》,《欧陆风云》,《矮人要塞》或者《文明》等游戏。如果你不清楚如何玩这些游戏的话,你可能很难去学习如何玩游戏。尽管这些游戏都很出色,但是它们也拥有自己的“立基”元素,这并不是因为它们拥有自己的学习曲线,而是因为它们带有“学习悬崖”。

结论

开发者需要牢记的是:尝试着去创造有趣的教程而不是乏味的内容。每一款游戏都是不同的,所以在一个特定游戏类型中执行这些建议可能有点困难,但如果你能够确保游戏的前五分钟内容足够有趣,你便有可能将玩家带向游戏最后。

本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转发,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

4 Ways to Teach Your Players How to Play Your Game

by Darran Jamieson

We all hate in-game tutorials. When we buy a game, we want to jump straight into the action, not spend ages reading through menus and flowcharts of moves. But we need to know how to play. We need to understand the new rules of each game—after all, if every game were the same, why would we need other games?

And because computer games are so complex, there’s much more to a tutorial than just “use arrow keys and space to shoot”. There’s how we interact, our objectives, how the world reacts to us: all this needs to be imparted to the player, and preferably without sitting them down and specifically having to say “spikes are bad”.

So we want to get our tutorial out of the way as quickly as possible, right? The thing is, the first few minutes of a game can make or break a player’s experience. Triple-A games have a little bit more leeway, but if you’re making a mobile or web game then you need to get the player into the meat of the game as soon as possible to ensure they’re having fun; otherwise, they’ll just find something else to play.

OK, so we need to make a tutorial, but we don’t want the player to sit through a boring lesson on how the game works… this is a conundrum. The solution lies in how we construct our tutorial: can we make it fun? In fact, can we make it part of the game?

Tutorials can be largely split into three types: non-interactive, interactive, and passive. We’ll look at each in turn.

Non-Interactive In-Game Tutorials

Non-interactive in-game tutorials are, in many ways, a leftover of old game design. The image below is from Infected, a game my team and I made several years back.

The entire game tutorial is essentially this one image; in retrospect, it was a massive design flaw. When watched people actually play the game, they would hit that screen, their eyes would briefly glaze over, and they would hit Start. For most of our players, they were none the wiser on how the game actually worked.

George Fan, the creator of the fantastic Plants vs Zombies, goes by the rule that “there should be no more than eight words on the screen at any time”. Players generally have short attention spans, and are not looking to digest large quantities of information.

While non-interactive tutorials are not necessarily bad, they nearly always break this eight-word limit. If we were wanted to explore this design flaw, we could sum it up neatly as:

Don’t overwhelm the player.

This is really the first rule of in-game tutorial design. Players need to understand what’s going on at all times: if you give the player a list of 200 combo moves and special attacks, then chances are they’ll remember two or three and use those for the entire game. However, if you “trickle teach” the player—introduce one concept at a time—then they will have plenty of opportunity to get to grips with each ability.

We’ve actually talked briefly about this idea before, under the concept of using achievements as tutorial aids. Forcing the player to complete a level with only a basic weapon might damage the overall “fun level”, but giving players an achievement for doing it makes it optional, and encourages players (especially those who are already competent at the game) to try new strategies and tactics.

Any sort of rank or reward system can be used in this way, such as a star rating or an A+ to F ranking. “Bad” players can complete the level easily, whereas players who adhere to more difficult challenges are rewarded with higher scores. This also allows more hardcore gamers to aim for 100% completion, while casual gamers can still enjoy the game without getting stuck on a difficult level.

Super Meat Boy spreads its “tutorial” over the first half dozen levels. The first level teaches you the fundamentals: moving left and right and jumping. Level 2 teaches wall jumping. Level 3, sprinting. Once the player has understood these basic concepts, the game starts introducing concepts like spinning blades, disintegrating platforms, and scrolling levels.

The first level of Super Meat Boy, in fact, is incredibly difficult to fail at. The game uses a technique often referred to as a “noob cave”. Essentially, the player starts in a position from which it is impossible to fail—they need to make progress in order to get to a point where they can die. This gives the player a chance to get to grips with the game mechanics, without feeling under threat of enemies attacking or timers running out.

The “noob cave” technique is something we implemented in Infected to some degree: although it is possible to lose the first level, it requires some effort. The player is given a significant starting advantage (twice as many pieces as the enemy), and the AI is almost non-existent. At high levels, the AI will make calculated moves, but on the first level, the AI will move 100% randomly (within the rules of making a legal move). This means that even if the player has zero idea of how to play, they are still highly likely to win. (Of course some players still managed to lose, but the overall experience was significantly better for our players than our first version, where we simply threw them against an advanced AI that would crush them.)

There are a few ways to implement a “noob cave” in a game, but one effective way is to create an interactive tutorial: a section of the game with locked down mechanics where the player can only perform the actions required to win. This allows the player to “play” the game, without running the risk of losing and getting bored.

Interactive In-Game Tutorials

Allowing player interaction within an in-game tutorial is a good way to teach mechanics. Rather than simply telling the player how the game works, making them perform required actions results in better retention. While you can tell a player the instructions a hundred times, actually getting them to perform game actions will guarantee that they remember and understand.

The above image, from Highrise Heroes, is an excellent demonstration of how to involve a player in a tutorial. Although it would be easier to simply display an image of how making a word works, forcing them to go through the actions of actually completing a word ensures they understand this concept before they proceed. The player is locked out of “full” gameplay until they have demonstrated their ability to complete this basic gameplay element. Because you force the player to perform the action, you can be sure that the player is unable to progress until they have mastered this task.

The only drawback with this style is that, if the player is already familiar with how the game works, they can find playing through obligatory tutorial levels tedious. This can be avoided by letting players skip through the tutorial levels—but be aware that some players will then skip the tutorial regardless of whether they’ve played the game before. Andy Moore, creator of Steambirds, has talked about how he went from a 60% to a 95% player retention rate after making the tutorial unskippable.

Background In-Game Tutorials

Background in-game tutorials allow the player direct access to gameplay. While the player can still progress through a “noob cave” area, they are able to (hopefully) do it at a faster pace, and thus get into the “proper game” faster.

Here’s an example:

This is the first screen in VVVVVV, which uses a small pop-up to tell the player how to move left and right. As the player is completely boxed off, the only action they can perform is moving onto the second screen, where they are shown how to “jump” over obstacles. From there, they have essentially mastered gameplay—and although moving and jumping could fit into a single room, spacing them out ensures players have mastered each skill and aren’t overwhelmed by masses of text.

The difference between a background and an interactive tutorial can be subtle, as they can both use a similar style. The primary difference is that a background tutorial can be skipped by the player with no effort: everything merely merges into the background.

An interactive or background tutorial is something we should have used in Infected. The entire tutorial could have been taught in three moves (how to move, how to jump, and how to capture), so there wouldn’t have been a significant loss to gameplay if we’d implemented it. Although we were aware of the issue, the tutorial was one of the last things we developed, so good design took second place to just getting the game finished.

No In-Game Tutorial

How do you get cold water from a faucet? Generally, you turn the tap handle to the right. How do you tighten a screw? You turn it clockwise. These things don’t come with instruction manuals—we instinctively know how they work. Or rather, we learn how they work at an early age, and since they (generally) all work in the same way, that knowledge is reinforced throughout our lives.

Games operate on this principle as well. As veteran gamers, we automatically know that we want to collect coins and gain upgrades. Non-gamers might not understand these things automatically, so it’s important to make these things as obvious as possible. (Even if you haven’t played a platform game before, it’s fairly obvious that jumping into fire is not a good idea.)

A player should generally be able to identify the difference between “good” and “bad” objects at a glance, without having to use death as a trial and error discovery method. Shigeru Miyamoto once talked about how he decided why coins specifically were used in Mario:

“Thus, when we were thinking about something that anybody would look at and go ‘I definitely want that!’, we thought, ‘Yep, it’s gotta be money.’”

Plants vs Zombies’ use of “plant” and “zombie” themes helps teach the players without any explanation at all: players know that plants don’t move around, and that zombies are slow moving. Rather than going for a boring “turrets vs soliders” theme, the Plants vs Zombies theme allows the game to be interesting and cutesy, and still impart vital knowledge.

Since players will often “know” how a game plays, we don’t always have to explain everything. When you throw a player into a game, consider telling them nothing—let them figure things out for themselves. If they stand around motionless, then give them a few hints (“try moving the control stick to walk!”), but remember that players will generally try to perform basic commands themselves. Because the “basic rules” of gameplay tend to be universal, this means we can assume the player has some familiarity with them; however, it also means that it’s incredibly dangerous to make changes to those basic rules.

Some fledgling games designers decide that doing things “the normal way” is the wrong way, and ignore established rules. The real-time strategy (RTS) genre has suffered from this in the past: while today’s games tend to use a fairly standardised control system (left click to select, right click to move or attack), older games had very little consistency, and would often switch the left/right mouse button controls, or try to bind multiple commands to a single button. If you play one of these old games today, then the bizarre controls can be very jarring, as we’ve since learned a different control set.

Implementing “obvious” controls was the saving grace of Infected: while the player may not have read the tutorial, clicking on a piece immediately highlighted moves the player could make. By giving the player a visual response that clicking on a piece was the “right” move, it let them continue exploring the control system. Our initial versions of the game did not have this highlighting, and we found that adding this minor graphical addition made gameplay much more accessible and obvious, without taking anything anything away.

If you want to change traditional gameplay elements around, have a good reason. Katamari Damacy uses both thumbsticks to move, rather than the more traditional setup of using one thumbstick to move and the other to control the camera. While this may cause some intial confusion, the simplicity of the game means that this control system works exceptionally well.

In a similar vein, the web game Karoshi Suicide Salaryman actually demands that the player kill themselves, often by by jumping on spikes. While this is “non-standard” game behaviour due of the game’s reversed theme (die to win), the player’s objectives are always clear.

Games will always change and evolve, but it’s important to understand that when you change things—be it controls or game objectives—the player should not have to relearn everything.

Continual Learning and Experimenting

Its also interesting to note that not providing the player with explicit instructions can actually encourage gameplay through experimentation. In the Zelda series, the player is constantly finding new items and equipment, and must learn how they work. Rather than sitting through a lengthy explanation of “the hookshot: learning how to use your new weapon”, the game just dumps the player in a closed room and says “figure it out”—although the “puzzle” is generally so obvious that the player should be able to work things out instantly.

These rooms are basically noob caves: despite being found halfway through the game, they allow the player to explore how their new toy works within a safe environment. Once the player has worked out the intricacies of their new toy, they are thrown back into the game world, where they can continue puzzling and fighting monsters. By the end of the game, the player is so used to using their new weapons that switching between them to solve multi-tiered puzzles is second nature.

The way Zelda games handle in-game tutorials is also worth noting: for Zelda, the game is the tutorial. With perhaps the exception of the final dungeon, the player never really stops learning; this “trickle teaching” is one of the greatest strengths of the Zelda series. Rather than being given everything at the beginning, the player slowly unlocks the game, so they are never overwhelmed and are always unlocking cool new toys to use.

Plants vs Zombies, again, also uses trickle teaching effectively: in every level, the player unlocks a new plant (and sometimes new stages), and must learn how to use these to defeat the zombie army. The game never overwhelms the player, but always gives them something new to play with. Because the player gets to spend time with each weapon, it encourages the player to select the plants that are most effective, rather than finding a few plants they like at the start and sticking with them throughout the whole game.

Don’t Scare the Player Away

All of this really just says: don’t scare the player away, and don’t bore them away either. It seems like such obvious advice, but it’s remarkable how few games (including triple-A games) seem to be unable to understand this.

One common example of this, a mistake made time and time again, is requiring registration to play online. If you’re trying to get a player hooked, don’t make them wade through forms filling out their date of birth, their email address, and so on—just give them a guest account and let them play. If they enjoy the game, then they’re more likely to sign up for a “full” account. (Tagpro is a online, multiplayer game which does this fairly well: select a server, hit Play as Guest and you’re in.)

It’s fine to make complex games, but realise that humans have poor memories and short attention spans, and do not learn well by being presented with masses of text. If you’ve not played them before, try playing a game like Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Dwarf Fortress, or even Civilisation. If you haven’t been show how to play by someone else, it can be quite daunting to learn how the game actually works. And while these are all fantastic games, they will always have a certain “niche” quality—not because they have learning curves, but because they have learning cliffs, impassible to all but the most determined.

Conclusion

Remember: try make your tutorials fun, rather than a tedious slog. Every game is different, and it might be difficult to implement all of these ideas within a particular genre—but if you can make the first five minutes fun, you can probably hook the player to the end credits.(source:tutsplus

 


上一篇:

下一篇: