9 réponses à ce sujet

[ChaosAgentLoki]

Okay, so many people fear that Bioware's losing its path. Well, this post isn't going to discuss that. What this post will discuss is how a well thought out tutorial (especially for Dragon Age, which has some of the worst tutorials I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing...) can bring in just as many new fans as altering the game's genre.

So, to start I want to bring up a game that is slightly similar to DA:O  (at least combat wise). Final Fantasy XII had a tutorial that was very in depth. It was not perfect (there were still some flaws there as well), but it did manage to explain the basics very well. Advanced tactics and strategies were not covered (and they don't have to be), but the basics were given enough time that they made sense when throwing the player out to the wolves (both figuratively and literally). By the time the player had left Rabanastre on their first hunt, the concept of how the game was played was solidified.Advanced techniques came later with both time, the addition of party members and experimentation, but that's not something that effects the tutorial.

Even Mass Effect holds a successful tutorial (mainly in ME2)  where the player was given a rundown on all the basics of gameplay within the first major amount of playtime that they were given. Sure, some of the more advanced techniques (hotkeying allies abilities is the first one that comes to mind) were not explained, but a player could easily get a lot out of the game with the tutorials given.

Compare this to Dragon Age and how the tutorials explain practically nothing after giving you the very, very basics of how to play the game. The rest of the information is contained exclusively within the Codex. Now, the information being in the codex is not a bad thing, it's just not right to not give further information on the basics of the game that way (and no...the tips given on the loading screens do not count). The inclusion of a slightly detailed explanation (within the gameplay) on how party gameplay works would go a long way in making the games more accessible without destroying their challenge or needlessly altering the genre. 

At the same time, they need to realize that not everyone is completely clueless when it comes to playing RPGs. Tutorials on what it means to level up are superfluous and embarassing (especially with how many games nowadays use level ups). Things like that did not need to be included (DA2, I'm looking at you there) and do nothing to really help the player. Instead, they sat over the screen for far too long and were irritating when leveling up the first time.

Now, that's how to do a good tutorial. To use a tutorial to gain new fans without giving up identity, I'm going to use a game from outside the RPG genre as my example. Call of Duty Black Ops had a tutorial mission that covered absolutely everything in the basics while also staying true to its genre. As someone who is not a very big fan of shooters, I became a major Black Ops fan. The tutorial gave me all the necessary information on how the game played and then let me discover further advanced tactics and strategies (amongst other things) while playing past that.

This has been a long and rambly post, but what I'm attempting to say (and I may have done it poorly, I'm not sure) is that the tutorial is the make or break point for many people. It is the point where new fans can be added without sacrificing the identity of the game or its genre. By teaching them the basics (and I mean the basics of every major aspect...not just how you attack, move around or use abilities) it makes the game more enjoyable for everyone who picks it up. Well, that's my spiel. What does everyone else think? 

[andar91]

Generally, I agree.

There's been a lot of talk about the "demographic" that Bioware is or isn't going for. I feel that drawing people into RPG's that may not have played them before is a fantastic idea, as long as you preserve the rpg elements.

I agree with Mike Laidlaw (he said this a long time ago) that a huge wall of text and the like is way too intimidating. And frankly, it's out of place in a video game, where you shouldn't need a manual to play it. I'm not saying manuals couldn't be used; I just don't think it should be a necessity. For me, it's an issue of complexity vs. depth. You don't have to have a huge degree of complexity for depth. I feel DA's combination of Attack, Defense, Armor, Damage, Fortitude, and Resistances is fairly simple, but is really all that is needed.

Anyway, I think the best way to fold new fans into deep combat is to introduce depth (not necessarily difficulty; that should vary based on difficulty setting) gradually as they play. And a big part of that is the skillfull use of tutorials to explain basics, perhaps with codex entries that could go into deeper detail should people want that.

On a side note, I think gradual deepening is where DA2 failed; I never felt like the combat deepened as much as it should have in DA2. For example, all enemies' abilities seemed focused on damage exclusively. How come enemies didn't have some abilities that lowered damage resistance (a la Hex of Despair) for a short time, or slowed us down, or healed their allies? There was some, but I didn't feel like it happened enough for the encounters to feel as interesting as they did in DA:O (getting hit with Curse of Mortality could turn a straightforward fight into a very different thing, for example).

But I've gone off topic a bit. And I agree that FFXII had a good tutorial. So did XIII, except it was WAY too long and the game held your hand too much.

[cJohnOne]

I like a nice long separate tutorial because I always forget how to play a game and like to run through it.

[ChaosAgentLoki]

andar91 wrote...

Generally, I agree.

There's been a lot of talk about the "demographic" that Bioware is or isn't going for. I feel that drawing people into RPG's that may not have played them before is a fantastic idea, as long as you preserve the rpg elements.

I agree with Mike Laidlaw (he said this a long time ago) that a huge wall of text and the like is way too intimidating. And frankly, it's out of place in a video game, where you shouldn't need a manual to play it. I'm not saying manuals couldn't be used; I just don't think it should be a necessity. For me, it's an issue of complexity vs. depth. You don't have to have a huge degree of complexity for depth. I feel DA's combination of Attack, Defense, Armor, Damage, Fortitude, and Resistances is fairly simple, but is really all that is needed.

Anyway, I think the best way to fold new fans into deep combat is to introduce depth (not necessarily difficulty; that should vary based on difficulty setting) gradually as they play. And a big part of that is the skillfull use of tutorials to explain basics, perhaps with codex entries that could go into deeper detail should people want that.

On a side note, I think gradual deepening is where DA2 failed; I never felt like the combat deepened as much as it should have in DA2. For example, all enemies' abilities seemed focused on damage exclusively. How come enemies didn't have some abilities that lowered damage resistance (a la Hex of Despair) for a short time, or slowed us down, or healed their allies? There was some, but I didn't feel like it happened enough for the encounters to feel as interesting as they did in DA:O (getting hit with Curse of Mortality could turn a straightforward fight into a very different thing, for example).

But I've gone off topic a bit. And I agree that FFXII had a good tutorial. So did XIII, except it was WAY too long and the game held your hand too much.

I've bolded the parts I really agree with here. Overall, you seem to grasp what I was getting at. The depth of gameplay should be available, but the tutorials need to give the basics while leaving room for the player to delve deeper if they wish. The Codex is great for the additional depth. Not for the majority of the 'How to Play' info when starting up a game.

And, I bring up FFXII a lot when discussing Dragon Age because it is what the console versions of DA should strive to be like (before anyone attacks me, I mean gameplay wise...even though the story for XII is awesome). However, that's a differnt topic entirely.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

I REALLY DISLIKED THE TUTORIAL IN MASS EFFECT 2. I THINK IT TOOK ABOUT AN HOUR TO GET TO THE ACTUAL GAME - BEFORE THAT, I'M BASICALLY JUST WATCHING CUTSCENES, WALKING THROUGH SCRIPTED SET-PIECES, AND SHOOTING INCREDIBLY WEAK ROBOTS WITH A PISTOL. I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO TAKE FUTURE DRAGON AGE GAMES.

[ChaosAgentLoki]

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...

I REALLY DISLIKED THE TUTORIAL IN MASS EFFECT 2. I THINK IT TOOK ABOUT AN HOUR TO GET TO THE ACTUAL GAME - BEFORE THAT, I'M BASICALLY JUST WATCHING CUTSCENES, WALKING THROUGH SCRIPTED SET-PIECES, AND SHOOTING INCREDIBLY WEAK ROBOTS WITH A PISTOL. I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO TAKE FUTURE DRAGON AGE GAMES.

Please calm down. I was just stating my opinion and I thought that ME2 gave a very good tutorial by explaining the basics of the game very well. I can understand that you felt it took too long to get to the main game, that is a valid point.

[Mmw04014]

I thought Vampires: The Masquerade Bloodlines had a really good tutorial. Sure that game had crappy gameplay, but the game did set up a nice level that introduced you to the world and showed you how to shoot, sneak, feed, etc. The best part was that it was optional and if you were already familiar with the game you didn't feel like you missed something important by skipping it.

However, you didn't get into it until after you had distributed your points in the character creater, so the game was already giving you a bunch of numbers and abilities at you before you knew what they were. That's how I would prefer it though. Loading up a new game only to go straight to a tutorial (that is hopefully optional) then going to the character creation scene is awkward. I think the key is to let players pick their starting abilities first even if they don't necessarily know what they mean, but not punishing them throughout the game for these initial choices.

[Firky]

My enduring memory of Origins' tutorial is that it taught you how to unequip your clothes.

I don't recall anything of DA2's except that you couldn't die. Which was actually a bit confusing.

I think they were going for action that eased you in in DA2. Personally, I like Icewind Dale and spending 40 minutes just getting past the party creation screen. (So, I don't think I have anything useful to offer.)

Edit: Although. Conquest of Elysium 3. You get, basically, no information at all. I found learning the game was solely driven by my imagination. Which is actually a pretty awesome concept.

Modifié par Firky, 23 avril 2012 - 12:17 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

I thought the entire DA 2 was already a tutorial for beginner. Everything was already railroaded. Simplified dialogue option. Simplified railroaded choices. Simplified character creation featuring 2 class paths - warrior/rogue and mages. Simplified one character background. Simplified personality system with auto-dialogue and paraphrase, it's just a matter of picking color tones.

If beginners still don't know how to play an rpg then they should play pokemon or solitaire instead.