It's kind of hard to predict how new players will react to something when you spent the last 3 years making it.
Every game developer playtests stuff to see how new players react to it, you can do a lot with accessible design but you still need to test it and change it based on that.
And the same problem shines through the design element of NS2, which it did in NS1 which was developed from 2000 onwards. It's too complex. *Edit; And NS2 is only more complex.
Any business model that doesn't learn where it's going wrong in 10 years, isn't going to work. It only makes things cost more and take longer.
Not to be negative however there is no positive to take except, being too risky and too non-mainstream can be as good as it can be bad. There's a balance to be struck and I don't think the team have found that yet, being willing to listen to the community and maybe even have a session or two with a broad range of players could really help; like this thread.
<!--quoteo(post=1816631:date=Dec 16 2010, 10:37 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Dec 16 2010, 10:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And the same problem shines through the design element of NS2, which it did in NS1 which was developed from 2000 onwards. It's too complex. *Edit; And NS2 is only more complex.
Any business model that doesn't learn where it's going wrong in 10 years, isn't going to work. It only makes things cost more and take longer.
Not to be negative however there is no positive to take except, being too risky and too non-mainstream can be as good as it can be bad. There's a balance to be struck and I don't think the team have found that yet, being willing to listen to the community and maybe even have a session or two with a broad range of players could really help; like this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how is it too complex?
the RTS aspect isn't too complex, it's in the same vein as other RTS's. you have resources and you build with them. you take parts of the map and you upgrade your tech. etc etc. the FPS aspect isn't too complex either. If you're a marine, you shoot at aliens or build buildings. If you're alien, you bite marines to death.
So Whee, I've entered a game of NS2. I can place a couple of buildings. I can shoot aliens that's nice. How do I get new guns? What do these upgrades do? What do I need for these upgrades? Is there an order? I wonder how this tech tree works. Holy crap the lights went out, why is this room lit only in red? What's all this plasma and carbon all about? Why can others run faster than I can? Why can I not hear some aliens but I can others?
It leaves too many questions for a new player to ask. Some people will say combat killed off NS, the hardcore guys around here really don't like combat. Why? It made NS more accessible, people played combat over classic on publics more so than classic after 3.x. Why? It was a heck of a lot simpler, easier, pick up and go.
I could go on and on and on and make a really strong case but honestly, I haven't got the time nor patience and if you want to challenge the critical argument I and the OP can make, go ahead. Although the evidence of how NS1 developed and maintained and how the player base diminished is really clear. A design fault created a lack of interest to new players and casual players, don't get me wrong I like NS, it's a niche and a good Starcraft inspired game.
However, if you run a business you need to run it for to make money and set it up to succeed and not fail. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions and go away from what you really want to do, sometimes you need to do that sooner rather than later.
<!--quoteo(post=1816627:date=Dec 16 2010, 08:32 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Dec 16 2010, 08:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aren't those issues something that should have pre-planned and written in to your design as a core element, started from the outset and not incrementally changed?
Sounds like an awful lot of re-working and change from the current game model.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, most things are actually like this... which is why I wanted to add my 2c (or 2p) while the design is still at a crossroads. Iterative development works. Being afraid to throw everything out usually ends up being the bigger problem.
It's not really as valuable to get the design perfect the first time as it is to rapidly iterate through things that aren't working and not get too mentally invested in any one approach. Everyone at some point falls prey to the Myth of the Perfect Draft. The idea that complex things can be designed on paper and produced to perfection the first time is a little unrealistic.
Need to focus on the market and backwork. If by 'too complex' you mean not-enough people will buy it because they don't understand it- ala what "sort of" happened in NS1, steam has already solved part of that problem. NS2 will be launching in a different world than the 2003 spread of ns1. If they can nail the game and get some decent gameplay trailers circulating, with assisted hype from old ns1 players, should be able to get a reasonable number of people to buy the game in the launch.
Remember steam has 30 million active accounts and a daily average of 3 million users.
the complexity is hitting the next stage of sales, the broad, word of mouth, "maintstream" takeup.
that's where some more intuitive design and/or trainers will be handy. Again your not talking "tutorials" per say, just warm bath entries on building, power, resources, room names etc
carve that up into a few mechanism, maybe there's bigger HUD of the room name, compasses etc
not sure its as categorical or alarmist as a few of these posts are making out
<!--quoteo(post=1816638:date=Dec 17 2010, 03:06 AM:name=_Thresh_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Thresh_ @ Dec 17 2010, 03:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816638"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Need to focus on the market and backwork. If by 'too complex' you mean not-enough people will buy it because they don't understand it- ala what "sort of" happened in NS1, steam has already solved part of that problem. NS2 will be launching in a different world than the 2003 spread of ns1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1816627:date=Dec 17 2010, 03:32 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Dec 17 2010, 03:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aren't those issues something that should have pre-planned and written in to your design as a core element, started from the outset and not incrementally changed?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been a frequent critic of UW's <u>appearance</u>**** of changing core gameplay design in response to fan complaints, but that being said "UI, minimap style, names of resources, and tooltips" are not "core elements" at all.
**** disclaimer: UW denies these changes are in response to fan complaints, and correlation does not prove causation, so I defer to their statements. I'm only saying there is a consistent <i>appearance</i> of this happening.
<!--quoteo(post=1816641:date=Dec 17 2010, 03:16 AM:name=NS2HD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NS2HD @ Dec 17 2010, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816641"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm so glad we need to have this discussion... It is solid evidence that NS2 is not going to be a sanitised, anaesthetised console game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think there were talks of an xbox or equivalent port.
I myself haven't owned a new console since the N64. Although it makes sense business wise to make it console accessible, games may be considered art but they won't help make you money if that money is made after you've moved on ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1816635:date=Dec 17 2010, 04:02 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Dec 17 2010, 04:02 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816635"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So Whee, I've entered a game of NS2. I can place a couple of buildings. I can shoot aliens that's nice. How do I get new guns? What do these upgrades do? What do I need for these upgrades? Is there an order? I wonder how this tech tree works. Holy crap the lights went out, why is this room lit only in red? What's all this plasma and carbon all about? Why can others run faster than I can? Why can I not hear some aliens but I can others?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All of those questions can be answered by an informative UI and situational tool-tips.
The best part of this is that a developer can come on here and see the views of democratic and reasoned thinking. If you have added to this thread, positive or negative, I salute you.
If you have come on here with needless non-constructive posts... why bother.
The reason topics tend to create such chatter, is that there is an issue. This clearly highlights issues for the developers, and this is a great thing.
I hope they realise what a great game they are producing, and that this criticism should be taken in a positive - not negative - light.
<!--quoteo(post=1816641:date=Dec 17 2010, 12:16 AM:name=NS2HD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NS2HD @ Dec 17 2010, 12:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816641"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm so glad we need to have this discussion... It is solid evidence that NS2 is not going to be a sanitised, anaesthetised console game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's right. The problem is that some proposals are straight to that point. Making the game too easy to play is just a console game.
<!--quoteo(post=1816627:date=Dec 17 2010, 02:32 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Dec 17 2010, 02:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aren't those issues something that should have pre-planned and written in to your design as a core element, started from the outset and not incrementally changed?
Sounds like an awful lot of re-working and change from the current game model.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If by pre-planning the issues in the design stage you mean removing commander mode, nixing power nodes, taking out upgrades, making small maps consisting of a few rooms and 1 or 2 connecting hallways, and perhaps maybe just take out the alien side, cause that;s kind of different and harder to understand, then yeah...we could have planned better.
I'm pretty sure most of the stuff I've mentioned is not changing the current game model. The commander UI overhaul is partly coming about due to the fact that we are ditching Flash and redoing it all in Lua. And moving some buttons around, changing some icons and names for things are all part of the typical design process that most games go through. The maps already have been designed to be easier to understand and to find your way around, with landmark themed rooms with their own distinct props, tram tunnels that connect one side of the map to another, etc. The maps are still a WIP, so lighting, layout etc. is always going to keep getting polished in order to make it work better for gameplay, and to highlight important routes. There's a lot of stuff that has been planned to make things clearer that we just have not had a chance to implement yet, and plenty of things that have been simplified from NS1 (just read all the threads that have been created complaining about how much we are dumbing down NS2 for the casual market)
Yes, both NS1 and NS2 are complex games, and they will probably never be as accessible as many of the mainstream FPS games out there. But that is a deliberate choice we've made, and the kind of game we want to play and feel our fans want to play. The OP of this thread put forth some constructive feedback, and there are plenty of ways to address the learning curve of NS2 without a complete overhaul of the current game model.
Squeal, out (leaving another cluttered wall of text in his wake)
<!--quoteo(post=1816635:date=Dec 16 2010, 11:02 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Dec 16 2010, 11:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816635"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a good basic start.
So Whee, I've entered a game of NS2. I can place a couple of buildings. I can shoot aliens that's nice. How do I get new guns? What do these upgrades do? What do I need for these upgrades? Is there an order? I wonder how this tech tree works. Holy crap the lights went out, why is this room lit only in red? What's all this plasma and carbon all about? Why can others run faster than I can? Why can I not hear some aliens but I can others?
It leaves too many questions for a new player to ask. Some people will say combat killed off NS, the hardcore guys around here really don't like combat. Why? It made NS more accessible, people played combat over classic on publics more so than classic after 3.x. Why? It was a heck of a lot simpler, easier, pick up and go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> the premise of natural selection is survival of the fittest. if people can't be bothered to ask around for 5 seconds, or RTFM, then they're not the target audience for this game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I could go on and on and on and make a really strong case but honestly, I haven't got the time nor patience and if you want to challenge the critical argument I and the OP can make, go ahead. Although the evidence of how NS1 developed and maintained and how the player base diminished is really clear.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and this is why games like the latest CoD have sprung up. Because people demand to get their hand held every step of the way. why are you following ns2 if you don't have time nor patience for it? you're clearly not interested in games of this caliber.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A design fault created a lack of interest to new players and casual players, don't get me wrong I like NS, it's a niche and a good Starcraft inspired game.
However, if you run a business you need to run it for to make money and set it up to succeed and not fail. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions and go away from what you really want to do, sometimes you need to do that sooner rather than later.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there are plenty of other companies who make point and click shooters. UWE is a small independent team. It can't challenge the big guns like EA and Activision on their turf. So in effect, yes, it is a niche game, because that's what it needs to be to survive.
I'm hoping that there are a lot of gamers fed up with easy-mode play, and want a game with depth to it. That's what NS2 promises to deliver. you would have them get rid of everything they stand for to make a few extra bucks - which ironically is pretty much why the market for FPS's today is all flash and no substance.
*edit* also, NS2 is not a starcraft-inspired game. it's a natural-selection inspired game. I don't think flayra sat down and said 'hey, starcraft is cool, let's make an FPS out of it.' Sure, there are concepts that are borrowed from starcraft...but in turn those concepts were borrowed from elsewhere. the RTS mode doesn't even feel like starcraft.
I have become a lot more good player on other games just playing NS1. At some point I stop playing it (facts of life, too much work). When I started playing again I go for the new ones. Struggling with TF2, CS:S, DoD:S, HL2, Crysis, L4D (1 and 2), etc.- I was struggling hard. So I went back to NS1, played for 2 weeks and then start playing on all this games again. Surprise, surprise, I started owning everyone.
So, for me playing NS as a regular player is like a pro in other games. That's for me, I can only talk about my experience. The thing is that other players told me the same thing, they become better at other games after playing NS. It complexity makes you a better gamer, and then you start asking other developers to do something like this, because you get almost instantly bored on other games.
Since the start of NS I faced all the changes on it, loved ones and hated others, but I managed to play well no matter the changes. You just get used to it.
Now NS2, I want something better than NS, and for me that is a little more complex, not to the point that no one can play it but something challenging. I don't want a copy of NS with better graphics, like many people ask, I want a new game with new strategies and new features. Of course, to get the feeling it is NS you need things form NS1, but not a copy. I do love all the new things, I like the changes done so far, hate the change on the MAC but everyone wanted it and after playing I found it really give the NS feeling this way.
So, my point is, don't ask for NS2 to become a crappy game that an amoeba can master, ask to make NS2 a better thing than NS1.
All good points, and I agree with most of the proposed solutions. Simplify the visual experience so players know exactly what they're looking at, and teach them the rules and basic strategy.
ie. - make the commander visible in the comm chair (he's in a sitting position, there are a bunch of cables connected to him and he's wearing a visor or something) - have a singleplayer tutorial level with simple bots (or without, just having a voice or text to guide you through is enough to get the basics) - to help players distinguish between different types of spore clouds or damage types, you can do what Valve did in Half-life 2. In radioactive sludge you could hear the geiger-counter popping and a radioactive symbol started flashing as you did the quake-style "OOMPH" (or something like that, I already forgot) - the above point could also be used for when aliens are near a crag, or a marine is near an armory. For example, a white health cross symbol would flash and an aura would appear on the edges of your screen.
The problem is always resources and time, I guess, but I think if these kinds of features were phased in over time it would still attract more players.
BTW, to be honest I never had a problem getting into NS1 when I was like 13-14, I don't see the problem at all for people who play games like TF2. Just run and gun, man. Eventually you figure out the other stuff. Then again I hardly ever comm'ed.
Tool tips are bad - fine for when hovering a mouse over something because it is interactive (you do something, you get response). But when concentrating 'on the game' and explaining a dynamic they are useless because you are often not doing something knowingly to 'activate' them. Especially in an FPS, where you spend your time looking down the sights.
Anyone heard this Chinese proverb?
<b>I hear and I forget
I listen and I understand
I do and I remember</b>
This is why game dynamics, such as 'who you are', 'what you should be doing' should be explained in clever cinematic ways.
So you learn as you play.
I think some sort of command assistant would be 'universally good'. So if you join the game for the first time, the command assistant (this is part of the command chair) will give orders to players through the actions of the commander automatically.
Maybe it could simply (at first) be:
# Defend spawn and build infantry portal with squad.
# Follow squad and build res point - these provide resources for your team.
Basically it could just see what was going on with the commander and his orders, and auto link you to them with vocal / way point cues - things will probably play out similarly at start each time, most comms will at first build a res tower in adjoining rooms. But this could just change depending on the comm's orders.
This is where understanding could be had, whilst playing. So you DON'T need to RTFM - which no one does anyway. Or play an offline tutorial - which no one wants to do anyway.
Similar things could be done for the commander:
# Login (10 seconds)
# This is your aim (kill aliens), threats etc (quick pictures and vocalisations)
# This is your tech tree (shows a quick run of the tech tree)
# This is what you should do at first (build res nodes, build armoury)
This would obviously be for new players and be switchoffable.
Then a command assistant panel could be in the upper left of the commander's view, and advises on what to build next.
This would make the transition into the game, not only smoother - but also cooler!
A lot of games have a single player which coasts you through how to play the game. I think the challenging and obvious most important thing here is the lack of such an important asset.
Who in their right mind wants to play off line content when this game is all about online fps/rts exciting action... People will want to jump right in after seeing things like the latest media release.
Offline Tutorials - Often boring. RTFM - Very boring. Play and Learn - Win win situation.
Make complexity simple through good noob support through understanding.
The attitudes on here are so wrong.
No one ever got a book on Quantum Physics in school before learning their times tables did they? That didn't simplify the thing that is maths...
Why can't this translate to NS2?
Because a lot of people on here are ignorant to good design.
When I started to play NS1 I had the feeling I was a noob and that I didn't understand everything, I didn't knew the weapons, the upgrades, the ressources, the JP's and so on. But it was totally fine, I understood that as a marine I had to shoot the aliens, build stuff, and follow the others, do what they do.
As an alien I tried to kill marines as a skulk although I had never been an onos or a fade. No problem. Be a gorge, drop a rt, do some healing, try to be useful to your team, easy.
The game has to be made so that noobs players can still play less important roles without ruining the game, and learn by imitating the better players ?
<!--quoteo(post=1816736:date=Dec 17 2010, 01:40 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Dec 17 2010, 01:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816736"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tool tips are bad - fine for when hovering a mouse over something because it is interactive (you do something, you get response). But when concentrating 'on the game' and explaining a dynamic they are useless because you are often not doing something knowingly to 'activate' them. Especially in an FPS, where you spend your time looking down the sights.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find them fairly useful. For example if you look at an unbuilt structure and it says 'this is an unbuilt structure, press E to build it' it tells you how to build and that building stuff is a good thing.
Doesn't need to be complex, but it conveys the information when you need it.
You are right on both accounts, but as you stated Chris - you are doing something to warrant a response. Looking at a structure, as opposed to hovering your mouse over a button.
I think tooltips are great, they just can't be used in every situation. Especially if a player joins and spends more time dying as a skulk because he is trying to learn the nuances from reading rather than playing. I also think players want something more cinematic than text. You don't for example pick up and object in the real world and text appears giving you a brief summary. You hold it, you discover it through smell sight and touch, and what happens when you play with it.
In good game design you'll approach a building and it will be explained to you dynamically. "This is a res tower soldier, it collects resources for the team". Cheesy? Most definitely. Better than text? Most certainly.
This could also be tied into some sort of commander 'figure' like in RTS games, when you get a head appearing on the screen. Hell Marines have holo visors, why couldn't it be displayed on there. Why not like something out of Terminator when he looks at people and objects? These are just possibilities, I mean, I haven't really thought these through properly - the holo visor would probably quite insulting on your FOV. But anything better than text, and multiple but similar answers to the problem exist beyond those given examples.
That is why vocal cues, and cinematic on-line in-game tutorials whilst playing the game would be the ultimate goal. It also introduces the marine commander relationship in a better light, and you are contributing to the team without realising it. Even if it involves dying whilst welding a building.
Following team mates around is another point that is totally correct. However, if you haven't played before - whilst a majority will follow players around, some might not. If one of your tasks was 'follow squad x and build a res tower' because a commander selected a squad you were not automatically assigned to, you are learning and playing.
"You are now part of a squad, cover your team mates when building AND LISTEN TO THE COMMANDER SOLDIER!"
These are all really cool 'interaction points' that already exist, I think they should be part of a larger and smarter system that make up initial player learning and understanding.
You should hold the hands of people who have never played before, it does not mean you have to dumb the game down. The issue is that this sort of depth requires lots of research and testing, time from the player (non casual gamer [casual as in jump in and play - CoD, etc]) and a firm grip and understanding of behavioural psychology.
Offline tutorials <i>packaged</i> as single-player campaigns or challenges (See CoD, SC2) aren't boring though (potentially), and most people actually begin with the offline stuff first. No one wants to do tutorials or read a manual, so most people won't, but no one wants to get destroyed online either and that's where SP comes in. SP eases people in. So long as you tell a story, and it isn't someone holding your hand or teaching you, they'll go for it... People love to learn, but they hate to be taught.
Now, as for what kind of story you'd produce... don't try to break new ground. Keep the plot simple and straightforward. Essentially, just make the interactive version of an immersive, sci-fi, nothing-but-action flick. Something survival-based, maybe; feels less tacky than the other usual plots.
<!--quoteo(post=1816746:date=Dec 17 2010, 02:36 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Dec 17 2010, 02:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are right on both accounts, but as you stated Chris - you are doing something to warrant a response. Looking at a structure, as opposed to hovering your mouse over a button.
I think tooltips are great, they just can't be used in every situation. Especially if a player joins and spends more time dying as a skulk because he is trying to learn the nuances from reading rather than playing. I also think players want something more cinematic than text. You don't for example pick up and object in the real world and text appears giving you a brief summary. You hold it, you discover it through smell sight and touch, and what happens when you play with it.
In good game design you'll approach a building and it will be explained to you dynamically. "This is a res tower soldier, it collects resources for the team". Cheesy? Most definitely. Better than text? Most certainly.
This could also be tied into some sort of commander 'figure' like in RTS games, when you get a head appearing on the screen. Hell Marines have holo visors, why couldn't it be displayed on there. Why not like something out of Terminator when he looks at people and objects? These are just possibilities, I mean, I haven't really thought these through properly - the holo visor would probably quite insulting on your FOV. But anything better than text, and multiple but similar answers to the problem exist beyond those given examples.
That is why vocal cues, and cinematic on-line in-game tutorials whilst playing the game would be the ultimate goal. It also introduces the marine commander relationship in a better light, and you are contributing to the team without realising it. Even if it involves dying whilst welding a building.
Following team mates around is another point that is totally correct. However, if you haven't played before - whilst a majority will follow players around, some might not. If one of your tasks was 'follow squad x and build a res tower' because a commander selected a squad you were not automatically assigned to, you are learning and playing.
"You are now part of a squad, cover your team mates when building AND LISTEN TO THE COMMANDER SOLDIER!"
These are all really cool 'interaction points' that already exist, I think they should be part of a larger and smarter system that make up initial player learning and understanding.
You should hold the hands of people who have never played before, it does not mean you have to dumb the game down. The issue is that this sort of depth requires lots of research and testing, time from the player (non casual gamer [casual as in jump in and play - CoD, etc]) and a firm grip and understanding of behavioural psychology.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I dunno, I would generaly prefer a simple text popup.
Text is not immersive but it IS efficient. The point of a tooltip is to explain something to you when you need it and quickly. So a short text summary is best.
If you ever played battlefield 2 and found the constant tutorial voiceover annoying, you know what I mean.
I haven't yet played a game that couldn't be explained mostly by contextual text popups and some tips of the day on the loading screens, as well as smart design that makes it easy to get into anyway.
Players know that the silly floating head telling them prerecorded lines is not the commander, it's just the annoying tutorial guy, and if a tutorial is annoying it's not going to be used, you want tutorials to be unobtrusive, so a small text box when you look at things or when something comes onto your screen is pretty much the best method of doing that.
They would still have to be implemented as part of something bigger.
Remember tool tips are limited by what you are interacting with currently, they can not tell you the bigger picture. They are terrible for popping up when you are trying to chase a skulk with your sights, and you pass something that is important. It just gets missed.
People don't really like reading text as much as they like the visuals to explain what an object is doing. Having Ninite smoke rise from the res towers for instance - capped or uncapped - would be a big tip visually speaking. Visually the buildings do not read that well still - the armoury needs a weapons hologram above it. Like how the command chair has a Login - probably the easiest building to understand currently. Apart from sentries, that are self explanatory.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People love to learn, but they hate to be taught.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point, my suggestions as stated though were not thought out - just shots in the dark at something that is more intuitive than text. But you are right, and it is why early player suggestions and commands that were seemingly coming from the commander (but actually running along side him at first) would be great.
In the first minutes he can learn that his main objectives are:
# Stick together as a squad.
# Build stuff - identify buildings and importance.
# Progress through level.
Simple stuff I know, but unless you know it you don't. Simple as.
Tool tips are fine for commander, but less so for FPS. In fact, most modern FPS have shied from tool tips. Now you learn whilst you play the game, and not on some annoying tutorial level.
<!--quoteo(post=1816398:date=Dec 16 2010, 01:08 PM:name=weezl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (weezl @ Dec 16 2010, 01:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1816398"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->watch this whole video <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2454-Easy-Games" target="_blank">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...2454-Easy-Games</a> and a tutorial is already planned for ns2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks for posting this. The Escapist is awsome. I hope UWE makes an engaging tutorial...
Comments
Every game developer playtests stuff to see how new players react to it, you can do a lot with accessible design but you still need to test it and change it based on that.
Any business model that doesn't learn where it's going wrong in 10 years, isn't going to work. It only makes things cost more and take longer.
Not to be negative however there is no positive to take except, being too risky and too non-mainstream can be as good as it can be bad. There's a balance to be struck and I don't think the team have found that yet, being willing to listen to the community and maybe even have a session or two with a broad range of players could really help; like this thread.
Any business model that doesn't learn where it's going wrong in 10 years, isn't going to work. It only makes things cost more and take longer.
Not to be negative however there is no positive to take except, being too risky and too non-mainstream can be as good as it can be bad. There's a balance to be struck and I don't think the team have found that yet, being willing to listen to the community and maybe even have a session or two with a broad range of players could really help; like this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
how is it too complex?
the RTS aspect isn't too complex, it's in the same vein as other RTS's. you have resources and you build with them. you take parts of the map and you upgrade your tech. etc etc.
the FPS aspect isn't too complex either. If you're a marine, you shoot at aliens or build buildings. If you're alien, you bite marines to death.
How is that 'too complex'?
So Whee, I've entered a game of NS2. I can place a couple of buildings. I can shoot aliens that's nice. How do I get new guns? What do these upgrades do? What do I need for these upgrades? Is there an order? I wonder how this tech tree works. Holy crap the lights went out, why is this room lit only in red? What's all this plasma and carbon all about? Why can others run faster than I can? Why can I not hear some aliens but I can others?
It leaves too many questions for a new player to ask. Some people will say combat killed off NS, the hardcore guys around here really don't like combat. Why? It made NS more accessible, people played combat over classic on publics more so than classic after 3.x. Why? It was a heck of a lot simpler, easier, pick up and go.
I could go on and on and on and make a really strong case but honestly, I haven't got the time nor patience and if you want to challenge the critical argument I and the OP can make, go ahead. Although the evidence of how NS1 developed and maintained and how the player base diminished is really clear. A design fault created a lack of interest to new players and casual players, don't get me wrong I like NS, it's a niche and a good Starcraft inspired game.
However, if you run a business you need to run it for to make money and set it up to succeed and not fail. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions and go away from what you really want to do, sometimes you need to do that sooner rather than later.
Sounds like an awful lot of re-working and change from the current game model.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nah, most things are actually like this... which is why I wanted to add my 2c (or 2p) while the design is still at a crossroads. Iterative development works. Being afraid to throw everything out usually ends up being the bigger problem.
It's not really as valuable to get the design perfect the first time as it is to rapidly iterate through things that aren't working and not get too mentally invested in any one approach. Everyone at some point falls prey to the Myth of the Perfect Draft. The idea that complex things can be designed on paper and produced to perfection the first time is a little unrealistic.
Remember steam has 30 million active accounts and a daily average of 3 million users.
the complexity is hitting the next stage of sales, the broad, word of mouth, "maintstream" takeup.
that's where some more intuitive design and/or trainers will be handy. Again your not talking "tutorials" per say, just warm bath entries on building, power, resources, room names etc
carve that up into a few mechanism, maybe there's bigger HUD of the room name, compasses etc
not sure its as categorical or alarmist as a few of these posts are making out
I am talking about the gameplay, not the story.
its part of the reason it was never solved in ns1
needs to be considered against what these guys are trying to achieve given the current playing field
I've been a frequent critic of UW's <u>appearance</u>**** of changing core gameplay design in response to fan complaints, but that being said "UI, minimap style, names of resources, and tooltips" are not "core elements" at all.
**** disclaimer: UW denies these changes are in response to fan complaints, and correlation does not prove causation, so I defer to their statements. I'm only saying there is a consistent <i>appearance</i> of this happening.
I think there were talks of an xbox or equivalent port.
I myself haven't owned a new console since the N64. Although it makes sense business wise to make it console accessible, games may be considered art but they won't help make you money if that money is made after you've moved on ;)
All of those questions can be answered by an informative UI and situational tool-tips.
If you have come on here with needless non-constructive posts... why bother.
The reason topics tend to create such chatter, is that there is an issue. This clearly highlights issues for the developers, and this is a great thing.
I hope they realise what a great game they are producing, and that this criticism should be taken in a positive - not negative - light.
That's right. The problem is that some proposals are straight to that point. Making the game too easy to play is just a console game.
Sounds like an awful lot of re-working and change from the current game model.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If by pre-planning the issues in the design stage you mean removing commander mode, nixing power nodes, taking out upgrades, making small maps consisting of a few rooms and 1 or 2 connecting hallways, and perhaps maybe just take out the alien side, cause that;s kind of different and harder to understand, then yeah...we could have planned better.
I'm pretty sure most of the stuff I've mentioned is not changing the current game model. The commander UI overhaul is partly coming about due to the fact that we are ditching Flash and redoing it all in Lua. And moving some buttons around, changing some icons and names for things are all part of the typical design process that most games go through. The maps already have been designed to be easier to understand and to find your way around, with landmark themed rooms with their own distinct props, tram tunnels that connect one side of the map to another, etc. The maps are still a WIP, so lighting, layout etc. is always going to keep getting polished in order to make it work better for gameplay, and to highlight important routes. There's a lot of stuff that has been planned to make things clearer that we just have not had a chance to implement yet, and plenty of things that have been simplified from NS1 (just read all the threads that have been created complaining about how much we are dumbing down NS2 for the casual market)
Yes, both NS1 and NS2 are complex games, and they will probably never be as accessible as many of the mainstream FPS games out there. But that is a deliberate choice we've made, and the kind of game we want to play and feel our fans want to play. The OP of this thread put forth some constructive feedback, and there are plenty of ways to address the learning curve of NS2 without a complete overhaul of the current game model.
Squeal, out (leaving another cluttered wall of text in his wake)
--Cory
So Whee, I've entered a game of NS2. I can place a couple of buildings. I can shoot aliens that's nice. How do I get new guns? What do these upgrades do? What do I need for these upgrades? Is there an order? I wonder how this tech tree works. Holy crap the lights went out, why is this room lit only in red? What's all this plasma and carbon all about? Why can others run faster than I can? Why can I not hear some aliens but I can others?
It leaves too many questions for a new player to ask. Some people will say combat killed off NS, the hardcore guys around here really don't like combat. Why? It made NS more accessible, people played combat over classic on publics more so than classic after 3.x. Why? It was a heck of a lot simpler, easier, pick up and go.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the premise of natural selection is survival of the fittest. if people can't be bothered to ask around for 5 seconds, or RTFM, then they're not the target audience for this game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I could go on and on and on and make a really strong case but honestly, I haven't got the time nor patience and if you want to challenge the critical argument I and the OP can make, go ahead. Although the evidence of how NS1 developed and maintained and how the player base diminished is really clear.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and this is why games like the latest CoD have sprung up. Because people demand to get their hand held every step of the way. why are you following ns2 if you don't have time nor patience for it? you're clearly not interested in games of this caliber.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A design fault created a lack of interest to new players and casual players, don't get me wrong I like NS, it's a niche and a good Starcraft inspired game.
However, if you run a business you need to run it for to make money and set it up to succeed and not fail. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions and go away from what you really want to do, sometimes you need to do that sooner rather than later.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there are plenty of other companies who make point and click shooters. UWE is a small independent team. It can't challenge the big guns like EA and Activision on their turf. So in effect, yes, it is a niche game, because that's what it needs to be to survive.
I'm hoping that there are a lot of gamers fed up with easy-mode play, and want a game with depth to it. That's what NS2 promises to deliver. you would have them get rid of everything they stand for to make a few extra bucks - which ironically is pretty much why the market for FPS's today is all flash and no substance.
*edit* also, NS2 is not a starcraft-inspired game. it's a natural-selection inspired game. I don't think flayra sat down and said 'hey, starcraft is cool, let's make an FPS out of it.' Sure, there are concepts that are borrowed from starcraft...but in turn those concepts were borrowed from elsewhere. the RTS mode doesn't even feel like starcraft.
I was struggling hard. So I went back to NS1, played for 2 weeks and then start playing on all this games again. Surprise, surprise, I started owning everyone.
So, for me playing NS as a regular player is like a pro in other games. That's for me, I can only talk about my experience. The thing is that other players told me the same thing, they become better at other games after playing NS.
It complexity makes you a better gamer, and then you start asking other developers to do something like this, because you get almost instantly bored on other games.
Since the start of NS I faced all the changes on it, loved ones and hated others, but I managed to play well no matter the changes. You just get used to it.
Now NS2, I want something better than NS, and for me that is a little more complex, not to the point that no one can play it but something challenging. I don't want a copy of NS with better graphics, like many people ask, I want a new game with new strategies and new features. Of course, to get the feeling it is NS you need things form NS1, but not a copy.
I do love all the new things, I like the changes done so far, hate the change on the MAC but everyone wanted it and after playing I found it really give the NS feeling this way.
So, my point is, don't ask for NS2 to become a crappy game that an amoeba can master, ask to make NS2 a better thing than NS1.
ie.
- make the commander visible in the comm chair (he's in a sitting position, there are a bunch of cables connected to him and he's wearing a visor or something)
- have a singleplayer tutorial level with simple bots (or without, just having a voice or text to guide you through is enough to get the basics)
- to help players distinguish between different types of spore clouds or damage types, you can do what Valve did in Half-life 2. In radioactive sludge you could hear the geiger-counter popping and a radioactive symbol started flashing as you did the quake-style "OOMPH" (or something like that, I already forgot)
- the above point could also be used for when aliens are near a crag, or a marine is near an armory. For example, a white health cross symbol would flash and an aura would appear on the edges of your screen.
The problem is always resources and time, I guess, but I think if these kinds of features were phased in over time it would still attract more players.
BTW, to be honest I never had a problem getting into NS1 when I was like 13-14, I don't see the problem at all for people who play games like TF2. Just run and gun, man. Eventually you figure out the other stuff. Then again I hardly ever comm'ed.
Very helpfull IMO!
Anyone heard this Chinese proverb?
<b>I hear and I forget
I listen and I understand
I do and I remember</b>
This is why game dynamics, such as 'who you are', 'what you should be doing' should be explained in clever cinematic ways.
So you learn as you play.
I think some sort of command assistant would be 'universally good'. So if you join the game for the first time, the command assistant (this is part of the command chair) will give orders to players through the actions of the commander automatically.
Maybe it could simply (at first) be:
# Defend spawn and build infantry portal with squad.
# Follow squad and build res point - these provide resources for your team.
Basically it could just see what was going on with the commander and his orders, and auto link you to them with vocal / way point cues - things will probably play out similarly at start each time, most comms will at first build a res tower in adjoining rooms. But this could just change depending on the comm's orders.
This is where understanding could be had, whilst playing. So you DON'T need to RTFM - which no one does anyway. Or play an offline tutorial - which no one wants to do anyway.
Similar things could be done for the commander:
# Login (10 seconds)
# This is your aim (kill aliens), threats etc (quick pictures and vocalisations)
# This is your tech tree (shows a quick run of the tech tree)
# This is what you should do at first (build res nodes, build armoury)
This would obviously be for new players and be switchoffable.
Then a command assistant panel could be in the upper left of the commander's view, and advises on what to build next.
This would make the transition into the game, not only smoother - but also cooler!
Offline Tutorials - Often boring.
RTFM - Very boring.
Play and Learn - Win win situation.
Make complexity simple through good noob support through understanding.
The attitudes on here are so wrong.
No one ever got a book on Quantum Physics in school before learning their times tables did they? That didn't simplify the thing that is maths...
Why can't this translate to NS2?
Because a lot of people on here are ignorant to good design.
As an alien I tried to kill marines as a skulk although I had never been an onos or a fade. No problem. Be a gorge, drop a rt, do some healing, try to be useful to your team, easy.
The game has to be made so that noobs players can still play less important roles without ruining the game, and learn by imitating the better players ?
I find them fairly useful. For example if you look at an unbuilt structure and it says 'this is an unbuilt structure, press E to build it' it tells you how to build and that building stuff is a good thing.
Doesn't need to be complex, but it conveys the information when you need it.
I think tooltips are great, they just can't be used in every situation. Especially if a player joins and spends more time dying as a skulk because he is trying to learn the nuances from reading rather than playing. I also think players want something more cinematic than text. You don't for example pick up and object in the real world and text appears giving you a brief summary. You hold it, you discover it through smell sight and touch, and what happens when you play with it.
In good game design you'll approach a building and it will be explained to you dynamically. "This is a res tower soldier, it collects resources for the team". Cheesy? Most definitely. Better than text? Most certainly.
This could also be tied into some sort of commander 'figure' like in RTS games, when you get a head appearing on the screen. Hell Marines have holo visors, why couldn't it be displayed on there. Why not like something out of Terminator when he looks at people and objects? These are just possibilities, I mean, I haven't really thought these through properly - the holo visor would probably quite insulting on your FOV. But anything better than text, and multiple but similar answers to the problem exist beyond those given examples.
That is why vocal cues, and cinematic on-line in-game tutorials whilst playing the game would be the ultimate goal. It also introduces the marine commander relationship in a better light, and you are contributing to the team without realising it. Even if it involves dying whilst welding a building.
Following team mates around is another point that is totally correct. However, if you haven't played before - whilst a majority will follow players around, some might not. If one of your tasks was 'follow squad x and build a res tower' because a commander selected a squad you were not automatically assigned to, you are learning and playing.
"You are now part of a squad, cover your team mates when building AND LISTEN TO THE COMMANDER SOLDIER!"
These are all really cool 'interaction points' that already exist, I think they should be part of a larger and smarter system that make up initial player learning and understanding.
You should hold the hands of people who have never played before, it does not mean you have to dumb the game down. The issue is that this sort of depth requires lots of research and testing, time from the player (non casual gamer [casual as in jump in and play - CoD, etc]) and a firm grip and understanding of behavioural psychology.
People love to learn, but they hate to be taught.
Now, as for what kind of story you'd produce... don't try to break new ground. Keep the plot simple and straightforward. Essentially, just make the interactive version of an immersive, sci-fi, nothing-but-action flick. Something survival-based, maybe; feels less tacky than the other usual plots.
I think tooltips are great, they just can't be used in every situation. Especially if a player joins and spends more time dying as a skulk because he is trying to learn the nuances from reading rather than playing. I also think players want something more cinematic than text. You don't for example pick up and object in the real world and text appears giving you a brief summary. You hold it, you discover it through smell sight and touch, and what happens when you play with it.
In good game design you'll approach a building and it will be explained to you dynamically. "This is a res tower soldier, it collects resources for the team". Cheesy? Most definitely. Better than text? Most certainly.
This could also be tied into some sort of commander 'figure' like in RTS games, when you get a head appearing on the screen. Hell Marines have holo visors, why couldn't it be displayed on there. Why not like something out of Terminator when he looks at people and objects? These are just possibilities, I mean, I haven't really thought these through properly - the holo visor would probably quite insulting on your FOV. But anything better than text, and multiple but similar answers to the problem exist beyond those given examples.
That is why vocal cues, and cinematic on-line in-game tutorials whilst playing the game would be the ultimate goal. It also introduces the marine commander relationship in a better light, and you are contributing to the team without realising it. Even if it involves dying whilst welding a building.
Following team mates around is another point that is totally correct. However, if you haven't played before - whilst a majority will follow players around, some might not. If one of your tasks was 'follow squad x and build a res tower' because a commander selected a squad you were not automatically assigned to, you are learning and playing.
"You are now part of a squad, cover your team mates when building AND LISTEN TO THE COMMANDER SOLDIER!"
These are all really cool 'interaction points' that already exist, I think they should be part of a larger and smarter system that make up initial player learning and understanding.
You should hold the hands of people who have never played before, it does not mean you have to dumb the game down. The issue is that this sort of depth requires lots of research and testing, time from the player (non casual gamer [casual as in jump in and play - CoD, etc]) and a firm grip and understanding of behavioural psychology.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dunno, I would generaly prefer a simple text popup.
Text is not immersive but it IS efficient. The point of a tooltip is to explain something to you when you need it and quickly. So a short text summary is best.
If you ever played battlefield 2 and found the constant tutorial voiceover annoying, you know what I mean.
I haven't yet played a game that couldn't be explained mostly by contextual text popups and some tips of the day on the loading screens, as well as smart design that makes it easy to get into anyway.
Players know that the silly floating head telling them prerecorded lines is not the commander, it's just the annoying tutorial guy, and if a tutorial is annoying it's not going to be used, you want tutorials to be unobtrusive, so a small text box when you look at things or when something comes onto your screen is pretty much the best method of doing that.
Remember tool tips are limited by what you are interacting with currently, they can not tell you the bigger picture. They are terrible for popping up when you are trying to chase a skulk with your sights, and you pass something that is important. It just gets missed.
People don't really like reading text as much as they like the visuals to explain what an object is doing. Having Ninite smoke rise from the res towers for instance - capped or uncapped - would be a big tip visually speaking. Visually the buildings do not read that well still - the armoury needs a weapons hologram above it. Like how the command chair has a Login - probably the easiest building to understand currently. Apart from sentries, that are self explanatory.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People love to learn, but they hate to be taught.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point, my suggestions as stated though were not thought out - just shots in the dark at something that is more intuitive than text. But you are right, and it is why early player suggestions and commands that were seemingly coming from the commander (but actually running along side him at first) would be great.
In the first minutes he can learn that his main objectives are:
# Stick together as a squad.
# Build stuff - identify buildings and importance.
# Progress through level.
Simple stuff I know, but unless you know it you don't. Simple as.
Tool tips are fine for commander, but less so for FPS. In fact, most modern FPS have shied from tool tips. Now you learn whilst you play the game, and not on some annoying tutorial level.
<a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2454-Easy-Games" target="_blank">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...2454-Easy-Games</a>
and a tutorial is already planned for ns2<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for posting this. The Escapist is awsome.
I hope UWE makes an engaging tutorial...