310 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Kronner wrote...
Ever heard of MANUAL? No, not in-game journal.
No offense, but Witcher 2 is obviously not a game for you.

A game that relies solely on text to teach the player understanding of how it works has a bad tutorial.

[Nashiktal]

Kronner wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

That doesn't change the fact that Witcher 2 tutorial is sh*t.

And how the f*ck I suppose to know that journal has tutorial?
Not many games do that and all of them are RTS.



And check out ExtraCredits on how to make a good tutorial.

Ever heard of MANUAL? No, not in-game journal.
No offense, but Witcher 2 is obviously not a game for you.

The elitism of TW2 fans is terrible.

[Kronner]

In Exile wrote...

Kronner wrote...
I actually think The Witcher 2 is cool, since it requires you to..you know..read the MANUAL..oh the horror, right? Pretty cool to see that not all new games must include annoying amount of hand holding.

Let's play a game. We can call it the "fly a plane without dying" game. We both get into real planes. You read a book about how to fly the plane. I train with a real pilot using a simulator. At the end, we see who doesn't die.

I have a better one: try to teach someone how to tie their shoelaces by writing an instructional booklet without pictures.

Putting my neuroscientist cap on for a second, physical skills require experiential learning. Any game that wants you to do something but tries to teach you that thing by reading something is doing it very wrong. It's why math or physics textbooks have problems and not just theory.

Yeah. Comparing flying a real plane to playing a videogame. Way to go man.
Anyway, the manual is just kind of a crossroad that navigates you if you do not know what to do or do not understand the game. Reading it does not take more than a couple of minutes. If one simply looks at it, it is apparent that there is a tutorial in the journal, there are silver and steel swords etc.

Modifié par Kronner, 19 juin 2011 - 06:02 .

[Marionetten]

Nashiktal wrote...

The elitism of TW2 fans is terrible.

You heard it, expecting people to read manuals is now elitism.

[Kronner]

Nashiktal wrote...

The elitism of TW2 fans is terrible.

Call it whatever you want. But I would think that when one does not understand what's going on in the game, reading the manual is the first thing that comes to mind.

[Siven80]

On topic (i think), I dont mind a linear game if the story and gameplay appeal to me. Choices which affect the game are cool, i like them, but you cant expect every choice to drastically change the game as that would just be so hard to write in and show ingame, and as a player could get overwhelming.

Witcher 2 had a great story and the choices were well done. Some huge choices can change the game entirely and theres smaller ones which are more illusion of choices. All of which help make a good game.
But that doesnt mean TW2 is perfect. Compared to most modern games its tutorial is terrible (didnt affect me though as i always read manuals). Also there ar many gameplay design, and UI design choices which are quite frankly bad and dont help to make fun gameplay. But overall it is a top game.

[In Exile]

Kronner wrote...
Yeah. Comparing flying a real plane to playing a videogame. Way to go man.

Have you ever heard of a flight simulator (the actual thing, not the Microsoft game)? It's effectively a video-game, in a realistic cockpit, that teaches pilots how to fly planes.

Anyway, the manual is just kind of a crossroad that navigates you if you do not know what to do or do not understand the game. Reading that does not take more than a couple of minutes. If one simply looks at it, it is apparent that there is a tutorial in the journal, there are silver and steel swords etc.

None of that teaches you how to play the game. It just tells you things about the game.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Kronner wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

The elitism of TW2 fans is terrible.

Call it whatever you want. But I would think that when one does not understand what's going on in the game, reading the manual is the first thing that comes to mind.

And if I lose the manual? Or borrow my friend's copy and he lost the manual? 

What you're saying is that if something happens to that manual, then you're effectively screwed - and that's GOOD game design. 

So yeah, I agree with Nashiktal. The elitism of TW2 fans is terrible.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...

You heard it, expecting people to read manuals is now elitism.

That comment is embarassing. But it doesn't change the fact that a manual is a terrible way of teaching. Empirically. It's as certain a fact at this point as the function of the electron transport system in cellular respiration.

[Marionetten]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And if I lose the manual? Or borrow my friend's copy and he lost the manual? 

What you're saying is that if something happens to that manual, then you're effectively screwed - and that's GOOD game design. 

So yeah, I agree with Nashiktal. The elitism of TW2 fans is terrible.

http://cdn.steampowe...df?t=1305141546

The ignorance here is truly astounding.

[In Exile]

Siven80 wrote...

On topic (i think), I dont mind a linear game if the story and gameplay appeal to me. Choices which affect the game are cool, i like them, but you cant expect every choice to drastically change the game as that would just be so hard to write in and show ingame, and as a player could get overwhelming.

Witcher 2 had a great story and the choices were well done. Some huge choices can change the game entirely and theres smaller ones which are more illusion of choices. All of which help make a good game.

The question is, how much actual branching do you need to hit 'illusion' of choice? That's the sweet spot, and I wish we could spend the thread hashing it out. It's my fault partly for getting into the TW2 tutorial issue, and I'm going to not comment on the issue any further.

[Chromie]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

The elitism of TW2 fans is terrible.

Call it whatever you want. But I would think that when one does not understand what's going on in the game, reading the manual is the first thing that comes to mind.

And if I lose the manual? Or borrow my friend's copy and he lost the manual? 

What you're saying is that if something happens to that manual, then you're effectively screwed - and that's GOOD game design. 

So yeah, I agree with Nashiktal. The elitism of TW2 fans is terrible.

Well the manual is available online for download. How is this elitist though? No one was saying they are better just saying that's what a manual is for. Funny I see people say they love rpgs and when a game tries to do things that games like FO and BG did such as REQUIRING you to read your journal for quest clues, gameplay help and more people ***** out.

[Kronner]

In Exile wrote...

Have you ever heard of a flight
simulator (the actual thing, not the Microsoft game)? It's effectively a
video-game, in a realistic cockpit, that teaches pilots how to fly
planes.

Yes, but it's still significantly more complex than Witcher 2.

In Exile wrote...
None of that teaches you how to play the game. It just tells you things about the game.

Well of course, it tells you where to find whatever you need to know.

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And if I lose the manual? Or borrow my friend's copy and he lost the manual? 

There is a manual in PDF format.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Siven80 wrote...

On topic (i think), I dont mind a linear game if the story and gameplay appeal to me. Choices which affect the game are cool, i like them, but you cant expect every choice to drastically change the game as that would just be so hard to write in and show ingame, and as a player could get overwhelming.

Witcher 2 had a great story and the choices were well done. Some huge choices can change the game entirely and theres smaller ones which are more illusion of choices. All of which help make a good game.
But that doesnt mean TW2 is perfect. Compared to most modern games its tutorial is terrible (didnt affect me though as i always read manuals). Also there ar many gameplay design, and UI design choices which are quite frankly bad and dont help to make fun gameplay. But overall it is a top game.

Yeah - I agree that both linearity and nonlinearity can be good design choices, depending on the game. But Mass Effect 3 has such good opportunties to be an awesome as a nonlinear game with reverb effects of previous choices

[Bad King]

Skyrim iz b3ttr then both.

[Apollo Starflare]

Edit: ^^ Speaking of which, anyone else kinda want to see BioWare try their hand at a more open sandbox-y type of game at some point? Obviously they specialise in their own style, but they also make a big deal about being experimental and innovotive.

I have no idea if Skyrim will improve on the previous ES games somewhat dodgy storytelling, but if not I would totally be game to see BioWare try and make an open world game with their trademark great story and characters. It seems a hard mix to get right, but they have shown they like a challenge with TOR and from what I have heard New Vegas does a fair job at something along those lines.

Haristo wrote...

The Witcher 2 is storytelling perfection and a model of non-linearity.

I just want Mass Effect 3 to become it.

See, I like the Witcher games for what they are but this is just silly. The only thing from TW2 I wouldn't mind seeing in ME3 is a big divergance towards the end where the game can play out very differently depending on your choices.

In terms of everything else, including other consequences, I'm happy in trusting BioWare's ability at storytelling. They are one of the devs who helped write the rule book which CDP is working off of anyway, and the ME team (and don't bring e-mails into this) have shown they can use choice and consequence to good effect already. With the big finale and the lack of a follow up game I'm hoping they let themselves go crazy on the final act.

But going back to your statement? No, I certainly don't want ME3 to 'become' TW2. Far from it. It has it's own style. If BioWare were to make any game more 'Witcher'-like I wouldn't mind if it were JE2. The Witcher games remind me so much of JE in some respects. Not sure how well JE would fit a realistic and adult design, although the first game wasn't without it's moments.

Modifié par Apollo Starflare, 19 juin 2011 - 06:12 .

[Cyberfrog81]

Lizardviking wrote...

Kronner wrote...
Ever heard of MANUAL? No, not in-game journal.
No offense, but Witcher 2 is obviously not a game for you.

A game that relies solely on text to teach the player understanding of how it works has a bad tutorial.

Oh, but the tutorial part of the journal has... pictures! If you use an XBox360-controller it shows you what buttons to press and so on.

*sigh*

No, the tutorial isn't the best. And yes, TW2 can be unforgiving.
And that... was damn refreshing.

[In Exile]

Kronner wrote...
Yes, but it's still significantly more complex than Witcher 2.

It's the same point. Saying that a manual actually teaches you do to something is very wrong. I wouldn't be as annoyed by this usually, but I'm very familiar with the research in the area.

Well of course, it tells you where to find whatever you need to know.

Not really. It's like going back to the shoelace example. There are different skills at work, because in one case we're looking at declarative information and another at procedural.

Knowing 'about' something and knowing 'how to do' something are independent, and learning one thing doesn't help you learn the other.

An in-game tutorial is more effective not because it spoon-feeds people, but because it teaches skills the right sort of way.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 juin 2011 - 06:13 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

In Exile wrote...

Siven80 wrote...

On topic (i think), I dont mind a linear game if the story and gameplay appeal to me. Choices which affect the game are cool, i like them, but you cant expect every choice to drastically change the game as that would just be so hard to write in and show ingame, and as a player could get overwhelming.

Witcher 2 had a great story and the choices were well done. Some huge choices can change the game entirely and theres smaller ones which are more illusion of choices. All of which help make a good game.

The question is, how much actual branching do you need to hit 'illusion' of choice? That's the sweet spot, and I wish we could spend the thread hashing it out. It's my fault partly for getting into the TW2 tutorial issue, and I'm going to not comment on the issue any further.

That's a really interesting question - you could make a pretty good case that, although Witcher 2's "change 50% of the game based on choices" thing is cool, it's kind of overkill.

The way that Dragon Age: Origins, for instance, had you fighting the same final level, but with different allies and game plans depending on the choices you had made in the different questing areas seems like a way to make the storyline responsive and branching without a massive draw on developer resources. Or Devil Survivor did a pretty good job of this too, giving you different endgames based on earlier choices but leaving a lot of early-game and mid-game content the same.

[CroGamer002]

KOTOR!

Great RPG and I didn't had to read manual. Why?

Because prologue thought me how to play a game with, you know, PROPER AND FUN TUTORIAL!

Making me read manual to learn how to play a game is bad and lazy game design.

Modifié par Mesina2, 19 juin 2011 - 06:15 .

[In Exile]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Edit: ^^ Speaking of which, anyone else kinda want to see BioWare try their hand at a more open sandbox-y type of game at some point? Obviously they specialise in their own style, but they also make a big deal about being experimental and innovotive. 

BG, Bioware's first entry into the RPG genre aeons ago, was sandbox-ish.

Look at the ridiculous failure that was DA2 in terms of city design and Bioware's general inability to plan out cities & locations, I think they'd do a terrible job.

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...
That's a really
interesting question - you could make a pretty good case that, although
Witcher 2's "change 50% of the game based on choices" thing is cool,
it's kind of overkill.

For me, it was the right about of kill, so to speak. I'll expand below.

The way that Dragon Age: Origins, for
instance, had you fighting the same final level, but with different
allies and game plans depending on the choices you had made in the
different questing areas seems like a way to make the storyline
responsive and branching without a massive draw on developer resources.
Or Devil Survivor did a pretty good job of this too, giving you
different endgames based on earlier choices but leaving a lot of
early-game and mid-game content the same.

Here's the thing: if you never replay a game, you don't ever know how meaningful a choice was. To see whether a choice really matters, you have to replay the sequence with a different choice.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Marionetten wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

And if I lose the manual? Or borrow my friend's copy and he lost the manual? 

What you're saying is that if something happens to that manual, then you're effectively screwed - and that's GOOD game design. 

So yeah, I agree with Nashiktal. The elitism of TW2 fans is terrible.

http://cdn.steampowe...df?t=1305141546

The ignorance here is truly astounding.

So what you're saying is, instead of just putting a tutorial in the game and allowing us to access it any time, I'd have to download something else and then either alt-tab every time I needed to look something up, thus "breaking immersion" as you... ah... people... like to say or waste an assload of money on ink to print it out. 

Instead of hitting the "H" key for "Help" or something. Bad design is bad. 

The arrogance here is truly astounding.

(And for the record, DaveWhateverTheRestOfYourNameIs, this is why I despise Witcher threads and am hostile to people to start them. I've seen it far too often in the DA forums, one person comes in and talks about how "Witcher is teh awesome" and then alllllll the other little drones come in screaming about how "Witcher is teh awesome and if you disagree you're a loser noob and a BioDrone and are pathetic and should just stick your head in the oven". This is a Mass Effect forum, if people want to discuss The Witcher... DO IT ON THEIR FORUMS. It's NOT that hard a concept to grasp.)

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 19 juin 2011 - 06:21 .

[Kronner]

In Exile wrote...

It's the same point. Saying that a manual actually teaches you do to something is very wrong. I wouldn't be as annoyed by this usually, but I'm very familiar with the research in the area.

Not really. It's like going back to the shoelace example. There are different skills at work, because in one
case we're looking at declarative information and another at procedural.

Knowing 'about' something and knowing 'how to do' something areindependent, and learning one thing doesn't help you learn the other.

An in-game tutorial is more effective not because it spoon-feeds people, but because it teaches skills the right sort of way.

I never said manual is there to "teach" you anything. I said it merely told you where to look for stuff you do not know.

And if you do not understand why you have two swords etc., reading the manual will tell you why..why is that wrong?
Anyone familiar with the Witcher universe will not be annoyed by needless tutorials or pop-ups and the rest can read the manual. I'd much prefer no tutorial + manual than the other way around. These games are not complex or anything, they are actually pretty simple.

For me it was refreshing to see a game introduction/tutorial like that.

And just to clarify..the manual tells you basic controls..and tells you that there is a tutorial section in the in-game journal..this tutorial section is voiced and pretty straightforward..that is GREAT design.

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

So what you're saying is,
instead of just putting a tutorial in the game and allowing us to access
it any time, I'd have to download something else and then either
alt-tab every time I needed to look something up, thus "breaking
immersion" as you... ah... people... like to say or waste an assload of
money on ink to print it out. 

Instead of hitting the "H" key for "Help" or something. Bad design is bad. 

The arrogance here is truly astounding.

LOL
If you read that manual ONCE, you'd know you can find everything in the in-game journal.
Have you even played the game?

Modifié par Kronner, 19 juin 2011 - 06:25 .

[Marionetten]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

So what you're saying is, instead of just putting a tutorial in the game and allowing us to access it any time, I'd have to download something else and then either alt-tab every time I needed to look something up, thus "breaking immersion" as you... ah... people... like to say or waste an assload of money on ink to print it out. 

Instead of hitting the "H" key for "Help" or something. Bad design is bad. 

The arrogance here is truly astounding.

What I'm saying is that the manual is available for download for free online and that your argument of "what if I lost it" holds no merit whatsoever as it's easily replaceable. Also, alt-tabbing brings you no more out of the experience than bringing up a help section would. Your precious immersion is ruined either way.

[Chromie]

Mesina2 wrote...

KOTOR!

Great RPG and I didn't had to read manual. Why?

Because prologue thought me how to play a game with, you know, PROPER AND FUN TUTORIAL!

Making me read manual to learn how to play a game is bad and lazy game design.

Baldur's Gate had a great manual that helped me out a lot. Lazy game design in ME2 where you don't need a manual or anything because they stripped so much same with DA2.

Like I quoted a Bio dev before
"While I hate the 'it's killing immersion' line as much as the next designer, because it's really just a translation of 'I don't like it'," 

If your telling me reading a manual that is written IN CHARACTER, who is a bard and write and sings ofcourse, breaks your immersion I have to believe you just hate it. Hell Geralt carries a book on his armor across his chest.

Modifié par Ringo12, 19 juin 2011 - 06:24 .