The learning curve

[vongo.859]

The learning curve

I think the majority of people will agree with me that "easy to learn, hard to master" is the ideal way to experience learning a game. Unfortunately, providing that experience appears to be easier said than done. How do you think this could be handled properly?

What sort of learning curve do you expect and want from a game like CP2077?

Thoughts and opinions on tutorials?

Are there effective ways to teach the controls and mechanics while retaining a sense of immersion?

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I would hope for no baby stepping the beginning, or at all. The best experiences I remember from cRPG's are from learning the tricks and quirks along the way. IMO, "easy to learn" often goes wrong in that it nulls a good part from the intrigue of learning.

As for tutorial, I hope it won't be integrated but a separate feature that one can go through from the startup menu if one wants. I'd want to be dropped into the Night City to find my own bearings on how things roll.

 

[matsif]

as with all things that are a directly subjective opinion, "everything in moderation, especially moderation"

CDPR will need to make money in order to continue support of the title. Therefore, considerations need to be made for a wider breadth of player. Making it a "drop in with no tutorial or any info" type of game is going to hurt it just as bad (if not more so) than making it a hand holding hello kitty hugfest filled with teddy bears and rainbows.

I thought witcher 2 was fine as far as learning curve, but that was for a game with a distinct main character and storyline that, while offering you options to change up some things, was for the most part linear. If CP2077 ends up being more of an open world sort of game, with no distinct major storyline (or an entirely optional main storyline like elder scrolls games), then the curve needs to be different from what it was in witcher 2.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Deus Ex had a good optional tutorial, so did Temple of Elemental Evil.

In my mind integrated tutorials are most often just a waste of time (that people usually want skip anyway at least after the first time, since it is just learning the basics). They take way too long to complete and provide way too little of any real worth outside of possibly kicking off the storyline (which could be better if not paired with learning to walk and other such things).

 

[Suhiira]

I have zero issues with tutorials that are optional.
That way folks that want one can have what they want and those that don't are also happy.
Myself I usually play them because it's the easiest way to learn the basics of the game mechanics. But I've yet to see one that taught you everything you "needed" to know to master a game. And that's just fine.

 

[braindancer12]

i heard CD did a pretty good job with the tutorial for The Witcher 3, bringing the player slowly into the world and the mechanics in a small area and after the tutorial area which the player can choose to leave when he is ready the"real"game starts and you enter the big open world.

I have zero issues with tutorials that are optional.
That way folks that want one can have what they want and those that don't are also happy.
Myself I usually play them because it's the easiest way to learn the basics of the game mechanics. But I've yet to see one that taught you everything you "needed" to know to master a game. And that's just fine.

i often skipped tutorials if they were optional....but that was often a dumb idea because it makes things often harder to not understand anything. Skipping the tutorial is fine if you for example play the third game of a series which you alread played and you already know anything.

It would be the best if CP gets an easy and slow tutorial which brings the player into the game world and the mechanics, thats really important for players who have never played CP2020 and who know nothing about anything

 

[Leto]

I`m more the kind-of-guy who 1st takes a look at the key-bindings, to get a clue what kind of inter-/actions are to expect. Sometimes that doesn´t suffice at all, but often it does. Because the basic way to move and interact are mostly the same. An optional Tutorial should exist imo. But I gotta say, I´m really annoyed by all those non-skippable tutorials, which suggest that I NEVER EVER played a game before.... like "press "w" to move forward. Good. Now also hold down "shift" to sprint. Very good. [...]" A Tutorial should explain the game-mechanics of this specific game to me - not make me feel like a total retard!
And yes, I totally agree with that "easy to learn, hard to master"-philosphy. A good Tutorial and well balanced challenges at the beginning of a game can help a lot to achieve this. Although I honestly don´t remember any really good Tutorial or missions with tutorial-character that didn´t seem kind of.... stilted. Well, the guys of CDPR will come up with something good, I hope!

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

I never followed the tutorials.

If a game needs a tutorial, chances are the mechanics are not intuitive.

 

[Sardukhar]

I never followed the tutorials.

If a game needs a tutorial, chances are the mechanics are not intuitive.

Accurate to a point, but some settings and games are going to have mechanics that aren't intuitive - or that will kill you to learn.


Netrunning will be one in 2077.

Also, some games can be so bloodthirsty that intuitive mechanics or not, you need a "cautionary tale" so's you don't get murderlated ten times learning that Dark Souls is really not your typical melee game.

 

[Suhiira]

Accurate to a point, but some settings and games are going to have mechanics that aren't intuitive - or that will kill you to learn.


Netrunning will be one in 2077.

Also, some games can be so bloodthirsty that intuitive mechanics or not, you need a "cautionary tale" so's you don't get murderlated ten times learning that Dark Souls is really not your typical melee game.

Or they're complex.
Easy does not equal better.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Maybe not if you're playing Victoria II or a grand strategy game but

for an RPG yeah its a bad thing. Or for virtually any other type of games.

For RPGs in particular, you should be able to scroll down to the stats and have a small explanation as to how they works without being handheld.

 

[Suhiira]

Actually I am playing Victoria II

I disagree.
Simple controls means no innovation in what has become the "standard" simple combat/game mechanics.
With consoles you have the inherent limitations of only so many buttons/toggles, and if your goal is to create games solely for consoles then I totally agree they must be simple and standardized.

But to restrict PCs to simple and standardized because of console limitations, or worse yet do a piss poor import of console controls to the PC (I'm looking at you DA:I) shows a lack of concern for what may not be be largest percentage of your audience (number of games bought wise) but is certainly the most dedicated/informed/innovative sector.

AND eventually consoles will have to become more complex, to allow for more buttons etc. or we will be stuck with simple games/mechanics because of the limitations of the controls.

 

[Sardukhar]

or worse yet do a piss poor import of console controls to the PC (I'm looking at you DA:I) shows a lack of concern for what may not be be largest percentage of your audience (number of games bought wise) but is certainly the most dedicated/informed/innovative sector.

We-ell..if you're role-playing, the idea is that you shouldn't need a tutorial because the control interference is minimal - you're supposed to be gently dipped into the world without noticing you're not "you" anymore.

Before we get into console wars, I'm gonna guess you don't play a lot of console games. Ironic, given the informed comment. I guess this because otherwise you'd know they almost -always- tutorial or help-mode the hell out of you.

I don't think complex control schemes improve a lot of games - and I've been a simmer and a serious (?) MMO player. I ran Mage in WoW, which means 60+ keybindings and all in play.

If I'm in an RPG, I'm more impressed if it's intuitive and smooth than I am by the amount of keys I have to rebind, honestly.

That said, I don't like tutorial areas and I don't like multi-use buttons. Blech.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Simple controls means no innovation in what has become the "standard" simple combat/game mechanics.
With consoles you have the inherent limitations of only so many buttons/toggles, and if your goal is to create games solely for consoles then I totally agree they must be simple and standardized.

Nope. You underestimate the level of innovations displayed by games outside your favorite niches.

Complexity =/= more buttons. Chess after all can be played with WASD + enter or a mouse.

More buttons = complexity via obfuscation

But to restrict PCs to simple and standardized because of console limitations, or worse yet do a piss poor import of console controls to the PC (I'm looking at you DA:I) shows a lack of concern for what may not be be largest percentage of your audience (number of games bought wise) but is certainly the most dedicated/informed/innovative sector.

AND eventually consoles will have to become more complex, to allow for more buttons etc. or we will be stuck with simple games/mechanics because of the limitations of the controls.

Eh. Who said this/gave you this idea that anyone wanted to have console-style gameplay.

 

[Suhiira]

Before we get into console wars, I'm gonna guess you don't play a lot of console games. Ironic, given the informed comment. I guess this because otherwise you'd know they almost -always- tutorial or help-mode the hell out of you.

I don't think complex control schemes improve a lot of games - and I've been a simmer and a serious (?) MMO player. I ran Mage in WoW, which means 60+ keybindings and all in play.

Nope I don't play a lot of console game, don't even own one.

It's not that I think, or even intended to suggest, that a complex control scheme improves a game ... far from it ... the simpler the better!

My point was something that has a limited number of controls (like a console) is by necessity limited in how much any game can be controlled by it.
Example, your standard vanilla PC mouse. You have a left and right button, a mousewheel (which usually has a "click on" option as well as the scroll), and movement of the mouse itself ... period. If you make a game that's ENTIRELY mouse controlled (why anyone would I have no idea) you can only have a maximum of six control functions (left click, right click, simultaneous left & right click, scroll up & down, scroll wheel click, general mouse movement) in the entire game, this inherently limits how many things you can control in the game, thus how complex the games control scheme can be.

---------- Updated at 11:28 AM ----------

Nope. You underestimate the level of innovations displayed by games outside your favorite niches.

Complexity =/= more buttons. Chess after all can be played with WASD + enter or a mouse.

The complexity of the game itself is entirely separate from that of it's controls, as you pointed out with chess as an example.

More buttons = complexity via obfuscation

I'm not sure I follow.
How does more game functions, accessible via more control options (buttons, scrolls, etc.) automatically equal obscure as you strongly suggest?

 

[Sardukhar]

I'm not sure I follow.
How does more game functions, accessible via more control options (buttons, scrolls, etc.) automatically equal obscure as you strongly suggest?

I can try answer this one.

More buttons obfuscate the user's interface/experience by increasing the distance from the Real World that the game is set in.

In a ( hopefully future) RPG, we will jack in, log on and just...be our characters. No keys or controls needed. There will need to be some tutorial parts, ( THIS is how you Netrun!) but mostly it should be highly intuitive.

The difference between Apple products and other early cell phones.


Now, some PnP games shoot hard for this, as you know. Minimal disruption, few dice. Some are diceless. Others - Hello, Iron Crown Enterprises - try to simulate reality and use charts, lots of rolling, elaborate rulesets that you have to learn.

So from a game perspective, more controls and sim like behaviour can be fun, just because it's a learned skill.

From an RPG perspective, purely role-playing, it's more like a LARP - rock/paper/scissors and you.

 

[Vincentdante]

I'm all for easy controls as well, you don;t need to complicate things for the sake of complexity I think. But difficulty wise I expect a Cyberpunk game to potentially kick my ass from the get go unless I play it safe.

 

[Sardukhar]

I'm all for easy controls as well, you don;t need to complicate things for the sake of complexity I think. But difficulty wise I expect a Cyberpunk game to potentially kick my ass from the get go unless I play it safe.

I imagine the starting area from Witcher 2, only with guns and Buzzhands (TM).

Or, you know, smart players that avoid combat and talk/sneak/seduce/hack/tech their way through.

 

[Vincentdante]

I imagine the starting area from Witcher 2, only with guns and Buzzhands (TM).

Or, you know, smart players that avoid combat and talk/sneak/seduce/hack/tech their way through.

It's all about the style man

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

I imagine the starting area from Witcher 2, only with guns and Buzzhands (TM).

Or, you know, smart players that avoid combat and talk/sneak/seduce/hack/tech their way through.

I find it's the other way around generally speaking.

Hacking/talking/etc is really easy. It's Either you have the stats or you don't.

In most RPGs and FPSes, sneaking is more a test of patience then a test of smarts.

On the harder difficulty settings, for taking the action route, there's usually a bag of tricks that's not always obvious during the first playthrough.