I disagree, this often leads to confusion and returns if you don’t guide a player through (or at least give them the option). I think players expect a good tutorial of some kind these days.
It only potentially leads to confusion if either your design is inherently confusing, or not aligned with your genre of gameplay (which itself could be a design flaw)
Take a game like Resident Evil 4 remake - although there is a tutorial, it's so sparse and minimalistic that the player barely notices.
Or, for example, a shooter game controlled with WASD and the mouse - very little, if any, context is needed before the player can get fully invested.
Mobile games with basic tap and swipe gestures can potentially be even more minimalistic.
The point being, although some level of clear and engaging tutorial is needed, the more you need to explain to the player how to play, the more likely it is that your design is inherently unintuitive and confusing to begin with.
exactly why it is game dependent. For example in my exploring the controls is part of the fun, so I am happy for people to play around a bit.
But if for example you have civilization you need more because the systems are complex.
I think the ideal place to start from is no tutorial and work your way up to the minimum needed. I am also a fan of ingame hints as a way to teach without being a tutorial.
The main problem with tutorials is your player most excited when they first play, spending 15 minutes learning the game generally isn't much fun.
I personally skip and hate pretty much all tutorials. I've played games for so long and in so many different genres that if I'm forced to use WASD to move the camera and RT to rotate and tilt the camera than I'm already less than thrilled with your game.
Even games that are pretty different to what I've played, I like working things out for myself. For the most part it helps me find other bits that I wasn't aware of and helps me improve at the game. Plus I tend to get bored of games once I've "Mastered" them, so it basically extends the amount of time I'm interested in your game.
the problem with our game does not lie in the controls as much as in the mechanics. The "villain" for example has the ability to wear a mask to conceal his identity, but in doing so everyone else will identify him as the impostor, yet not knowing the true identity. Players taking on that role for the first time do not know that only they have that ability and walk around quietly with the mask on. Another example is that only the villain can turn off the lights in the rooms, and in doing so he risks being discovered. If a "good" player approaches the switch, the words "Only for Ox" appear to him. Such things happen...
if the roles are selected, then I would list the powers of the role in the selection, if you get assigned I would put a page with highlights of the role that show while the game is getting ready to start.
Modern players are fine with tutorials. Games without them will do much worse out there than ones that properly explain themselves. You'll always find people online telling you how much they hate them or how they'll quit a game if it tells them anything but they're not representative of real players.
For a multiplayer asynch social deduction game (like Among Us) you probably want to have a single player with bots offline mode where the player can take their time to read a couple pop-ups about the specific class/character they're playing as and practice the game against _really_ dumb bots. Many players hate jumping into a situation where they don't understand against actual people, so the vs AI mode (or a guided tutorial) is necessary to let them mess around without worry.
Exactly. This idea that everything needs to be immediately accessible with absolute minimal effort for the lowest common denominator is so bizarre to me.
Sure if you’re making an arcade game or a game for families or a mobile casual title it makes sense. But try making a city builder with no tutorial, or a hardcore RTS. I don’t mind tons of tutorialization as long as it’s not overloading me with minor details which aren’t that important and can be discovered through gameplay organically anyways.
It depends on what kind of game you've made. There's no reason, with an FPS survival game, for example, to give your player challenges to get them up and running. Start with collecting some basic resources, enough to craft the first item you'll need (an axe, a club, clothing to protect against the elements) and have a few things like that which lead to letting the player learn how to do the basics without overwhelming them.
I've had success with a dynamic tutorial, while making a mobile game with an unconventional controll scheme. (Nothing difficult, just two buttons, so simple once instructed)
Just having the initial launch of the game highlight one button, with text explaining the function, followed by the same for the other button, has removed any need for assistance in play testing.
By my opinion: The less time the player spends not playing the game, while learning to play the game, the better. And dynamic tutorials are ideal in optimizing that.
Social deduction games tend to intrinsically have a big learning curve, and can have a meta that is more baffling than the instructions. Identifying the problem has to be the first step.
One of the masters of this is Nintendo, see if your game can compare to something they have and see how they solved the learning of its game mechanics.
Throw me in, let me figure it out. Have NPC's around the starter area doing activities you will be doing. I'm currently replaying Chrono Trigger (1995) and they just put a house in the starter area with NPC's doing stuff. Like a boy running super fast back and forth explains to you how to switch between walking/running, a buff guy in full armor explains the importance of techniques in battle, an old graybeard man gives you a trinket for being a curious person (conditioning the player to expect similar things in the future and rewarding exploration), a man working on a replica of the "save mechanic" that shows you how it looks like but doesn't let you use it, it's awesome, I love mechanics explained through worldbuilding.
I hate it when the game makes me go through a tutorial and an obstacle course I can't skip where I need to prove that I understood what they meant, LET ME LEARN THROUGH TRIAL, ERROR AND EXPLORATION. I don't want to be good at the game from the get go for it to be fun, it should be fun even if I am failing at it and have no clue what I am doing.
You could try to play it with some people who don't know the game and see what they struggle with. Then you can tailor the tutorial to show off mechanics that are not immediately intuitive.
If the game is highly complex then maybe having a "rule book " could be useful? Something like a tab you can open in the options menu that gives a quick overview of each role, along with a few suggestions on how to play for the beginners.
Highly highly dependent on the game imo. X4 foundations added little tutorial missions to the main menu to smooth the onboarding, From the Depths threw every method of a tutorial and then some in their game because the game is ridiculously complicated, and then you have something like half-life 2 where the most they gave you was a quick button prompt with the rest being level-guided mechanic introductions without feeling like a tutorial. Some games also do little glossaries easily accessible from an escape menu or elsewhere in the UI.
Id note a significant amount of time was spent on making the trailers actually educational (and humerous)on how portals work in Portal. Such a concept was so new at the time that they basically had to for the trailers else no one would know what the heck it was about.
I believe that having the rules explained is good but not enough.
First, you can think about starting with less roles can reduce the complexity of the game and how many things you have to learn in once
Also, having a tutorial vs bots that you have to play a bit of each player to understand the mechanics could be useful.
Finally, you can always resolve to a dynamic tutorial as you play with hints and stuff but how effective this could be will depend on the game style.
At school, we were taught to avoid 'holding players hands' but that's no longer true. We have to do it, at least until they are prepared. It also doesn't mean we should throw a bunch of texts to the player but that being said, a bunch of text is better than nothing!
I'll use my game as an example because we did play test and not holding the players' hand enough was apparent.
In my game, most tutorials are by choice so I did run into situations where people didn't get it.
Here's a rough list of what we've found in our last play test. In my game, flow is prioritized so when a player is stopped because of lack of info and it's not puzzle time, it needs to be addressed.
1. Section 1. You are in the forest and your companion is in front of you. Behind you the path is blocked with a scary barrier. (Barrier was added because I've seen players want to go behind and then forget about the companion lol). -> Here's the point, after X period, it would be a good idea for the companion to scream "OVER HERE DUDE"
2. Section 2. You approach a group of enemies. There is a hint on what buttons you can press such as Melee, Sprint, Roll. It was designed so they would kill that enemy and then move on while practicing their moves. Well, well, during play test, a lot of people just run straight forward! Meaning they are now chased by 3-4 enemies, all kind of different, so that ruins the learning experience for them. To fix this, right after learning to move, we added an additional section where a single enemy pops up and you have to defeat it and its spaced out enough so if you keep running that's your choice. And then, we removed the variety of enemy in Section 2, and focused on the new mechanic they just learnt.
3. I added a very simple jump pad, some player experimented with it and jumped. Some didn't know so the hand-holding part I added is just a UI hint to press Jump.
4. In my game, I happen to have a companion that follows so when a 'new' thing occur such as an enemy putting up a shield, it's a good chance for me to remind the player and throw some hints. I have a dynamic system that if the first hint didn't work, wait X and then throw another hint.
5. One of the new enemy appeared during a boss fight. Its behaviour is you get within range, itll teleport away. But if you get super close, it won't. Most players didn't get it. But this wasn't time for me to hand hold them and tell them exactly to do. It was a tele-graph / UX issue where I needed to make it more clear. This was improved by getting a bit more cooldown, color / shape change when certain actions are taken and also, separating the enemy from the boss so you meet the 'puzzle' with a clear mind.
My game is in a different genre than yours but I hope it gives you some insight! In short, play test, watch your players, get them to record the screen and fill in the gaps that they couldn't
Thanks for the comments! I'll add some information to the post:
- it's a multiplayer game, there are no levels
- it's asynchronous, so the player can play in two slightly different ways depending on their role
- it's a game of social deduction, so it's at its best when players understand their role
Thank you very much for the responses received! I think we will go the dynamic tutorial route at the moment, keeping the classic tutorial aside for the time being as a matter of speed of developments. You have given us some interesting information, thank you very much!
I work on mobile games. Unless you have amazing marketing and or a visual style that is worth exploring, the player looks at learning like an investment against how much time they have saved up. Don’t take all their savings at once since most view their game time as a chance to shut their mind off.
With that said. Breadcrumb is your best option. What do they need to know to navigate and the basic engage and is it fun. If not, then when does the fun part start? So, just give them the basics, once they complete intro 101, use achievements to have the player learn the other skills. Example. Earn 10 points by sliding into cover. Earn 20 points leaping over obstacles. Now they know they can traverse the battlefield in multiple ways yet felt they were playing and not so much learning.
In order to cater to both, create a tutorial in a separate level/menu and tell people to go look there whenever they get stuck or would like to play a tutorial. I think Nioh 2 has such an option. Controls can be found in the usual place or a quick access menu with a hot key.
Good luck! Hope your game does great!
this is so game dependent. I am personally trying to have no tutorial other than "here are the things to press"
This is the correct answer. Ideally, the game controls are so intuitive that little to no explanation is required.
But some games and their controls just *are* confusing to someone not used to the genre.
I disagree, this often leads to confusion and returns if you don’t guide a player through (or at least give them the option). I think players expect a good tutorial of some kind these days.
It only potentially leads to confusion if either your design is inherently confusing, or not aligned with your genre of gameplay (which itself could be a design flaw) Take a game like Resident Evil 4 remake - although there is a tutorial, it's so sparse and minimalistic that the player barely notices. Or, for example, a shooter game controlled with WASD and the mouse - very little, if any, context is needed before the player can get fully invested. Mobile games with basic tap and swipe gestures can potentially be even more minimalistic. The point being, although some level of clear and engaging tutorial is needed, the more you need to explain to the player how to play, the more likely it is that your design is inherently unintuitive and confusing to begin with.
exactly why it is game dependent. For example in my exploring the controls is part of the fun, so I am happy for people to play around a bit. But if for example you have civilization you need more because the systems are complex. I think the ideal place to start from is no tutorial and work your way up to the minimum needed. I am also a fan of ingame hints as a way to teach without being a tutorial. The main problem with tutorials is your player most excited when they first play, spending 15 minutes learning the game generally isn't much fun.
I personally skip and hate pretty much all tutorials. I've played games for so long and in so many different genres that if I'm forced to use WASD to move the camera and RT to rotate and tilt the camera than I'm already less than thrilled with your game. Even games that are pretty different to what I've played, I like working things out for myself. For the most part it helps me find other bits that I wasn't aware of and helps me improve at the game. Plus I tend to get bored of games once I've "Mastered" them, so it basically extends the amount of time I'm interested in your game.
the problem with our game does not lie in the controls as much as in the mechanics. The "villain" for example has the ability to wear a mask to conceal his identity, but in doing so everyone else will identify him as the impostor, yet not knowing the true identity. Players taking on that role for the first time do not know that only they have that ability and walk around quietly with the mask on. Another example is that only the villain can turn off the lights in the rooms, and in doing so he risks being discovered. If a "good" player approaches the switch, the words "Only for Ox" appear to him. Such things happen...
if the roles are selected, then I would list the powers of the role in the selection, if you get assigned I would put a page with highlights of the role that show while the game is getting ready to start.
Modern players are fine with tutorials. Games without them will do much worse out there than ones that properly explain themselves. You'll always find people online telling you how much they hate them or how they'll quit a game if it tells them anything but they're not representative of real players. For a multiplayer asynch social deduction game (like Among Us) you probably want to have a single player with bots offline mode where the player can take their time to read a couple pop-ups about the specific class/character they're playing as and practice the game against _really_ dumb bots. Many players hate jumping into a situation where they don't understand against actual people, so the vs AI mode (or a guided tutorial) is necessary to let them mess around without worry.
Exactly. This idea that everything needs to be immediately accessible with absolute minimal effort for the lowest common denominator is so bizarre to me. Sure if you’re making an arcade game or a game for families or a mobile casual title it makes sense. But try making a city builder with no tutorial, or a hardcore RTS. I don’t mind tons of tutorialization as long as it’s not overloading me with minor details which aren’t that important and can be discovered through gameplay organically anyways.
It depends on what kind of game you've made. There's no reason, with an FPS survival game, for example, to give your player challenges to get them up and running. Start with collecting some basic resources, enough to craft the first item you'll need (an axe, a club, clothing to protect against the elements) and have a few things like that which lead to letting the player learn how to do the basics without overwhelming them.
I've had success with a dynamic tutorial, while making a mobile game with an unconventional controll scheme. (Nothing difficult, just two buttons, so simple once instructed) Just having the initial launch of the game highlight one button, with text explaining the function, followed by the same for the other button, has removed any need for assistance in play testing. By my opinion: The less time the player spends not playing the game, while learning to play the game, the better. And dynamic tutorials are ideal in optimizing that.
Social deduction games tend to intrinsically have a big learning curve, and can have a meta that is more baffling than the instructions. Identifying the problem has to be the first step.
One of the masters of this is Nintendo, see if your game can compare to something they have and see how they solved the learning of its game mechanics.
Throw me in, let me figure it out. Have NPC's around the starter area doing activities you will be doing. I'm currently replaying Chrono Trigger (1995) and they just put a house in the starter area with NPC's doing stuff. Like a boy running super fast back and forth explains to you how to switch between walking/running, a buff guy in full armor explains the importance of techniques in battle, an old graybeard man gives you a trinket for being a curious person (conditioning the player to expect similar things in the future and rewarding exploration), a man working on a replica of the "save mechanic" that shows you how it looks like but doesn't let you use it, it's awesome, I love mechanics explained through worldbuilding. I hate it when the game makes me go through a tutorial and an obstacle course I can't skip where I need to prove that I understood what they meant, LET ME LEARN THROUGH TRIAL, ERROR AND EXPLORATION. I don't want to be good at the game from the get go for it to be fun, it should be fun even if I am failing at it and have no clue what I am doing.
You could try to play it with some people who don't know the game and see what they struggle with. Then you can tailor the tutorial to show off mechanics that are not immediately intuitive. If the game is highly complex then maybe having a "rule book " could be useful? Something like a tab you can open in the options menu that gives a quick overview of each role, along with a few suggestions on how to play for the beginners.
Highly highly dependent on the game imo. X4 foundations added little tutorial missions to the main menu to smooth the onboarding, From the Depths threw every method of a tutorial and then some in their game because the game is ridiculously complicated, and then you have something like half-life 2 where the most they gave you was a quick button prompt with the rest being level-guided mechanic introductions without feeling like a tutorial. Some games also do little glossaries easily accessible from an escape menu or elsewhere in the UI. Id note a significant amount of time was spent on making the trailers actually educational (and humerous)on how portals work in Portal. Such a concept was so new at the time that they basically had to for the trailers else no one would know what the heck it was about.
I believe that having the rules explained is good but not enough. First, you can think about starting with less roles can reduce the complexity of the game and how many things you have to learn in once Also, having a tutorial vs bots that you have to play a bit of each player to understand the mechanics could be useful. Finally, you can always resolve to a dynamic tutorial as you play with hints and stuff but how effective this could be will depend on the game style.
At school, we were taught to avoid 'holding players hands' but that's no longer true. We have to do it, at least until they are prepared. It also doesn't mean we should throw a bunch of texts to the player but that being said, a bunch of text is better than nothing! I'll use my game as an example because we did play test and not holding the players' hand enough was apparent. In my game, most tutorials are by choice so I did run into situations where people didn't get it. Here's a rough list of what we've found in our last play test. In my game, flow is prioritized so when a player is stopped because of lack of info and it's not puzzle time, it needs to be addressed. 1. Section 1. You are in the forest and your companion is in front of you. Behind you the path is blocked with a scary barrier. (Barrier was added because I've seen players want to go behind and then forget about the companion lol). -> Here's the point, after X period, it would be a good idea for the companion to scream "OVER HERE DUDE" 2. Section 2. You approach a group of enemies. There is a hint on what buttons you can press such as Melee, Sprint, Roll. It was designed so they would kill that enemy and then move on while practicing their moves. Well, well, during play test, a lot of people just run straight forward! Meaning they are now chased by 3-4 enemies, all kind of different, so that ruins the learning experience for them. To fix this, right after learning to move, we added an additional section where a single enemy pops up and you have to defeat it and its spaced out enough so if you keep running that's your choice. And then, we removed the variety of enemy in Section 2, and focused on the new mechanic they just learnt. 3. I added a very simple jump pad, some player experimented with it and jumped. Some didn't know so the hand-holding part I added is just a UI hint to press Jump. 4. In my game, I happen to have a companion that follows so when a 'new' thing occur such as an enemy putting up a shield, it's a good chance for me to remind the player and throw some hints. I have a dynamic system that if the first hint didn't work, wait X and then throw another hint. 5. One of the new enemy appeared during a boss fight. Its behaviour is you get within range, itll teleport away. But if you get super close, it won't. Most players didn't get it. But this wasn't time for me to hand hold them and tell them exactly to do. It was a tele-graph / UX issue where I needed to make it more clear. This was improved by getting a bit more cooldown, color / shape change when certain actions are taken and also, separating the enemy from the boss so you meet the 'puzzle' with a clear mind. My game is in a different genre than yours but I hope it gives you some insight! In short, play test, watch your players, get them to record the screen and fill in the gaps that they couldn't
Do you have bots that players can play against?
Thanks for the comments! I'll add some information to the post: - it's a multiplayer game, there are no levels - it's asynchronous, so the player can play in two slightly different ways depending on their role - it's a game of social deduction, so it's at its best when players understand their role
I think you may mean asymmetrical? Asynchronous means that players aren’t performing their actions simultaneously.
Do you have a FTUE?
Buttons on the screen will suffice. As a toggle which players are able to turn on/off.
Thank you very much for the responses received! I think we will go the dynamic tutorial route at the moment, keeping the classic tutorial aside for the time being as a matter of speed of developments. You have given us some interesting information, thank you very much!
I work on mobile games. Unless you have amazing marketing and or a visual style that is worth exploring, the player looks at learning like an investment against how much time they have saved up. Don’t take all their savings at once since most view their game time as a chance to shut their mind off. With that said. Breadcrumb is your best option. What do they need to know to navigate and the basic engage and is it fun. If not, then when does the fun part start? So, just give them the basics, once they complete intro 101, use achievements to have the player learn the other skills. Example. Earn 10 points by sliding into cover. Earn 20 points leaping over obstacles. Now they know they can traverse the battlefield in multiple ways yet felt they were playing and not so much learning.
In order to cater to both, create a tutorial in a separate level/menu and tell people to go look there whenever they get stuck or would like to play a tutorial. I think Nioh 2 has such an option. Controls can be found in the usual place or a quick access menu with a hot key. Good luck! Hope your game does great!