How much tutorial should a developer put in an RPG?

[Asymptotics]

I thought about skipping a main menu too but am not sure about that one yet.

Honestly sounds like that would be too much. The main menu is the perfect spot to access saved games, controls and other settings. Settings especially are the first thing that a lot of players look for in a game and hiding them somewhere in the UI in a game just sounds like a hassle.
Of course you can go the retarded way and add settings to a separate pre-launch screen, like Skyrim and many others did.

 

[Moaning_Clock]

The idea was to have a way for the player to get the manual screen even if he's forgotten the keyboard shortcut, so maybe with a button in the interface

That's in there - in the row where also health and turns are, you can click on three grey bars, that also gets you to the manual

for 1-2 numbers, it doesn't have to be too much "in your face", perhaps a bit like how KOTOR did it:

yeah, Age of Decadence does that also (and I believe a lot of other games) - since you can also click with the mouse I wouldn't think it would be necessary only for the PC. It wouldn't be to extreme for Controller either (L1/R1) but I don't like it.

because being told how to do something is not as effective at learning (at least for me) as just doing it.

absolutely - I have a bit fear that this will cut that learning completely but I dunno

 

[Moaning_Clock]

Honestly sounds like that would be too much. The main menu is the perfect spot to access saved games, controls and other settings. Settings especially are the first thing that a lot of players look for in a game and hiding them somewhere in the UI in a game just sounds like a hassle.
Of course you can go the retarded way and add settings to a separate pre-launch screen, like Skyrim and many others did.

I don't intend to use a pre-launch screen. You click an icon and have access to all important options, you click another icon and access the one-page manual/help screen - everything while playing. Tbh I think it would be superior to the typical menu structure but since these things aren't really explored it may be a lot of work to get it right and a menu would be easier.

 

[Sykar]

Fallout 2 made a good beginning tutorial and you see how people around here complain about it.

Because it was not a good tutorial.

Contrary to YOUR opinion and a lot of others, Fallout 2 has the best tutorial in entire gaming sector. Even better than VTMB because VTMB doesnt showcase the talking ability to get out of fight.

What you all hate is the impossibility to get out of it easy and quickly~ While it's a legitimate complaint, it doesnt validate your judgement~

 

[laclongquan]

If you hate everything about it how can you even play the next several hours of it? Did you even play Fallout 2 at all?

And this is better than killing rats in a dark tunnel. Dont tell me you love it.

 

[JarlFrank]

Depends on the game and the audience. Generally tutorials piss me off because explaining shit like WASD in the game is so obnoxious and time wasting to actual gamers, and anyone else can read a manual, youtube it, they'll figure it out.

The next time I encounter a strategy game whose campaign starts out with "Use your scroll wheel to zoom in and out, hold down the right mouse button to rotate the view, move your cursor to the edge of the screen to move the view" and you can't skip it, I'll go visit the devs and beat them up.

Even if you never played a strategy game before, this shit is completely unnecessary and boring. "Now click on this soldier to select him!" Why do you need to tell me that? Why do you need to make this a fucking mission objective?? That should be fucking intuitive. Strategy games aren't an ultra-casual genre, and even ultra-casuals have probably played Civilization before. I doubt there's anyone out there who buys a strategy game and wouldn't be able to intuitively guess that clicking on a unit selects it.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

The only tutorial I need is "how to save the game".

 

[Oberon]

If you hate everything about it how can you even play the next several hours of it?

A decent point, makes sense logically.
But for whatever reason playing through it every time felt like pulling teeth.

 

[Butter]

If you hate everything about it how can you even play the next several hours of it? Did you even play Fallout 2 at all?

And this is better than killing rats in a dark tunnel. Dont tell me you love it.

It's a testament to how good Fallout 1 is that people were willing to endure the Temple of Trials.

 

[thesheeep]

Even if you never played a strategy game before, this shit is completely unnecessary and boring. "Now click on this soldier to select him!" Why do you need to tell me that? Why do you need to make this a fucking mission objective?? That should be fucking intuitive. Strategy games aren't an ultra-casual genre, and even ultra-casuals have probably played Civilization before. I doubt there's anyone out there who buys a strategy game and wouldn't be able to intuitively guess that clicking on a unit selects it.

Here's the thing: There is no perfect tutorial.
And that is down to one simple fact: The perfect tutorial explains everything that you didn't already know but need to, while not bothering you with all the rest.

That amount of information is different for each player.
You might not believe it, but there are people who have never played a Civ before. There are people who get curious about a more in-depth gameplay experience than Fortnite after growing their first pubic hair.
The last thing you want to do is turn away a potential future connoisseur by not explaining things to them that nobody else would need to know, down to how to select a unit.
You might have gotten away with that 20 years ago, but now? Nah. Now you should be happy that anyone under the age of 40 is even interested in depth anymore. Easing people in is a requirement (for those that need it).

The only solution to a good tutorial is to have multiple different tutorials (or different variants of the same tutorial) with different amounts of information.
I have seen that in a few games, but it is a hard thing to do for developers - rather development intensive.
A well-explained selection of different tutorial modes for different target audiences (all skippable, naturally). And a good in-game manual, of course - or out of game, if it absolutely has to be.

 

[JarlFrank]

Even if you never played a strategy game before, this shit is completely unnecessary and boring. "Now click on this soldier to select him!" Why do you need to tell me that? Why do you need to make this a fucking mission objective?? That should be fucking intuitive. Strategy games aren't an ultra-casual genre, and even ultra-casuals have probably played Civilization before. I doubt there's anyone out there who buys a strategy game and wouldn't be able to intuitively guess that clicking on a unit selects it.

Here's the thing: There is no perfect tutorial.
And that is down to one simple fact: The perfect tutorial explains everything that you didn't already know but need to, while not bothering you with all the rest.

That amount of information is different for each player.
You might not believe it, but there are people who have never played a Civ before. There are people who get curious about a more in-depth gameplay experience than Fortnite after growing their first pubic hair.
The last thing you want to do is turn away a potential future connoisseur by not explaining things to them that nobody else would need to know, down to how to select a unit.
You might have gotten away with that 20 years ago, but now? Nah. Now you should be happy that anyone under the age of 40 is even interested in depth anymore. Easing people in is a requirement (for those that need it).

The only solution to a good tutorial is to have multiple different tutorials (or different variants of the same tutorial) with different amounts of information.
I have seen that in a few games, but it is a hard thing to do for developers - rather development intensive.
A well-explained selection of different tutorial modes for different target audiences (all skippable, naturally). And a good in-game manual, of course - or out of game, if it absolutely has to be.

Age of Empires 2 did it very well 20 years ago: it had an optional tutorial campaign where each level would teach you a different part of the gameplay, starting with how to control units, then going to base building, army production, defending, attacking, and culminating in a real skirmish mission where you have to build up an army to take down an enemy base that's also continuously sending soldiers after you.

If you already know how to play, you can skip that training campaign and start with the other campaigns.

Many modern RTS only have one central campaign and the first level has all the tutorial stuff, starting out with how to move your camera and select your units. You can't skip that first level. You have to go through it. It's not optional.

It's really not that hard to make the tutorial an optional prologue, is it?

 

[thesheeep]

It's really not that hard to make the tutorial an optional prologue, is it?

For some, I think, it is a question of resources.

But honestly, it makes more sense to scratch some end-game content than scratch a better tutorial if you cannot do both.
Most people stop playing before they reach the ends of games anyway, even if they like the game, but everyone reaches the beginning.

Others probably just target an audience that they assume already knows everything. Which seems to be unnecessarily exclusive to me.

 

[laclongquan]

Startopia make another good example of tutorial.

The main game basically has ten campaign, each teach a different aspect of the game, and the mission objectives reflect that.

I doubt you remember it, since it's not exactly a RPG.

 

[JarlFrank]

Others probably just target an audience that they assume already knows everything. Which seems to be unnecessarily exclusive to me.

Is it though? Most strategy games, for example, are easy enough to intuit. You click on a unit to select it. You click on menu buttons to select buildings to construct, the button usually has a hammer or saw displayed on it, implying "construction". Most games also have tooltips appearing when you hover your mouse over the menu buttons. If you've ever used a computer before, you know that clicking on things selects them. And by "used a computer" I mean simple things like opening a Word document.

The same applies to other genres. A well-designed interface is intuitive by having universally recognizable symbols, and enhances the readability by having mouse-over tooltips. When I was 12 and first played Arcanum, I had no manual. My Romanian pal brought a cracked copy from Romania, and all we had was a CD with the game on it. We knew it was an RPG, but that was all. We installed it, played around in it, and... the interface wasn't very hard to figure out, despite it being a pretty complex game. Not talking about how the character system works or anything, just the interface elements: you had a button that looks like a book, which opens your journal. Makes sense. The button that looks like a satchel is your inventory. Yeah, that's also very logical. You open the world map travel interface by clicking on the button that looks like a globe. Again, it makes sense.

Anyone who has a genuine interest in trying out a game should have no issue figuring things out on their own, as long as the interface is designed in an intuitive manner.
Of course, checking the keybindings first if you never played a game before is a good idea, especially in a first person RPG where you need to know that WASD moves your character, for example.
But not having your game start out with "HEY DUDE, THIS IS HOW YOU MOVE, THIS IS HOW YOU SELECT THINGS, AND NO YOU CAN'T SKIP THIS EXPLANATION OF THE MOST BASIC GAME CONCEPTS" isn't exclusionary. It just assumes that people interested enough in buying a game don't need to be led by the hand for the most obvious things that even a grandma could figure out.

 

[thesheeep]

The same applies to other genres. A well-designed interface is intuitive by having universally recognizable symbols, and enhances the readability by having mouse-over tooltips. When I was 12 and first played Arcanum, I had no manual. My Romanian pal brought a cracked copy from Romania, and all we had was a CD with the game on it. We knew it was an RPG, but that was all. We installed it, played around in it, and... the interface wasn't very hard to figure out, despite it being a pretty complex game. Not talking about how the character system works or anything, just the interface elements: you had a button that looks like a book, which opens your journal. Makes sense. The button that looks like a satchel is your inventory. Yeah, that's also very logical. You open the world map travel interface by clicking on the button that looks like a globe. Again, it makes sense.

Anyone who has a genuine interest in trying out a game should have no issue figuring things out on their own, as long as the interface is designed in an intuitive manner.

You and I come from a very different period of gaming, though.
Nowadays, that "figure it out yourself" stuff just doesn't really fly anymore. Not when you can move on to the next of 100 games rather similar to the one you are currently trying to play.

Sure, some things are undoubtedly intuitive and don't need further explanation. But there is also a lot that has become so second nature to experienced gamers it might simply be forgotten in a tutorial
I'd always divide a tutorial into "new to games" / "new to the genre" / "new to the game" / "skip this shit, motherf*****". If the game is of the more hardcore kind, the first one may be optional.

Btw. for me it was a Russian friend who brought Arcanum

 

[fork]

Games that don't let you figure things out yourself aren't worth playing.
That's why everything is shit nowadays: People are beyond retarded and like to eat shit.
There's no other explanation for how fucked up everything is (not just in gaming, but everywhere).