ExNomenDei
01-22-2010, 03:36 PM
I think Portal, especially the version with commentary from the developers, is a very good 'game', since it explains gameplay teaching. It shows developers how to get people to associate certain visual, audible, or even circumstantial clues with actions, some more and some less complex. Like the angle of panels in that game 'telling' gamers they're going to have to use gravity to propel them across vast distances.
Of course, in an action game, that example is moot. You're basically fighting enemies. But perhaps it should be made clear to each class what and how their skills work and what effects they have with more than texts: Short demonstrations and carefully phrased hints might make people feel more like they're getting to know the game. A slow but deliberate build-up of complexity is also important for a game like this: At first, you just want to attack, learn how to use your attacks even. You want to get to know the control scheme you're dealing with as well. Not worry about your health or anything like that. A gamer also doesn't want to feel weak at the start of the game.
What I'm saying is this: The start of the game should be simple, but quick. What I always hated about Titan Quest was how the start of the game was stale, boring, and predictable. I even gave myself x40 XP modifiers to get through it very quickly, then turned it down a lot of notches to make the rest of Normal fun. Perhaps the very start of the game should be dynamic, surprising, and easy to do, even more than the rest of it. But it shouldn't last long either. Dragon Age: Origins gave us a good example of how to make replaying the game a little less tedious: Each class had its own first hour or two of gameplay. It made playing a new character a lot more fun. An action-game might need only ten to thirty minutes of this kind of gameplay, but if that gives each class a chance to grow before the actual story starts, that's still more than enough.
Titan Quest was the opposite to Dragon Age: Origins. Each character started out the same, with a small knife in hand and an attack button. To draw people in, the start of the game might be more fun if each class is given a good example-ability for their own class. Say that a Barbarian-class gets a multi-mob hitting attack, or an extreme knockback effect, and a mage gets the ability to channel mobs' magic power to form some sort of attack, with nice visual cues. Making a custom early-on boss that's weak to these kinds of attacks then tells players what their class is about, and gives them a sense of power over something. It makes them understand what the strong points of their class are: the raison d'etre for their class.
Early on gameplay, then, is the 'feeler' for a class, and not something like Titan Quest where you knew exactly what was going to happen. And though Dragon Age didn't really bring the whole class difference idea home later on in the game, it did show the potential. Early on, it gave you time to get to know your kind of character a little better.
A tutorial, however, is also not the way to go. Dragon Age made sure that, though it was giving you a tutorial, it didn't make the start of the game feel like one. It was heavily dependant on giving you the sense that you were already in danger without there being much of a reason for it. It thrust you into the game in moments and made you feel like you were already contributing, something that Titan Quest lacked because of its almost arbitrary beginning: You were placed near a boat and you were asked to help kill something. You did it by clicking on it a few times, without being attacked yourself. The only part of this I do agree on is not being hurt. It gave people a few moments to get to grips with the controls.
A backstory, even if it's short, to make you understand why you are where you are, and a moment where you learn what your class can really do before you pick it, were things missing from Titan Quest. A lack of action and purpose, I feel, also led many people to believe the entire game was stale, partially because the end of the original game and as the expansion (although the entire expansion showed a much greater feel for story telling in general than the 'main' game) were the only parts where you really 'got' what you were doing.
Let's take Typhon as an example. He was introduced at the very last minute of the game, if my memory serves me correctly. You didn't get to see him, you got to see the tools he used, and you got to fight them. But if he had been introduced a little bit earlier in the game, so you had an idea of what your ultimate goal was, that might have given players much more incentive to keep on playing for the storyline, which wasn't that bad at all near the end. The parts with the ghostly Emperor, and in the expansion the whole chapter with the dead Greek heroes, gave you a sense of purpose that was missing in the first bit of the game, where you were killing 'little-bad-guys' who were out to do something bad, but you were clueless as to what.
Mass Effect was a better example of how to make this kind of 'little-bad-guy'-'big-bad-buy' idea work: The little bad guy was a recognizable and easily-hated individual, but there were also hints of the big-bad out there even early on in the game. While I've no idea on what kind of story you've got planned, this same mechanic works in Action-games. Introducing the big-bad as a small part of what you need to fix, and making the little-bad a focal point in the first half of the game, could enhance the desire to keep on playing in any game, even one where story-telling is not as important as gameplay.
To sum up:
I just wrote this in one go and didn't really think deeply of where I was going to take this, but I think these were my main points:
- Repeating the start of the game the way Titan Quest did is a bad thing, because:
The start of the game was predictable and boring
You had little sense of purpose at the start of the game
The gameplay mechanics and your abilities started off the same
You had little clue as to what to do and how to do it and the text-based tutorials were not helpful enough for many people to get them going
- Titan Quest suffered from players losing interest, because:
The game didn't have enough 'hooks' to make you feel like there was a lot of purpose up until very late in the game
Players often didn't quite understand their abilities because there was no short explanation of what they were useful for
The world around them didn't feel dynamic or 'alive' enough to get them to play to see more of it. Especially the second act suffered from this: There's only so many sand-dunes and dark dungeons you can take before you stop caring about them
I may be inclined to edit or improve upon this post later, but we'll have to see.
I would also like to note that despite its flaws, Titan Quest to me is one hell of a game, even though it sounds like I didn't enjoy it up there. That's the reason I bought the Legendary edition just now: I've faith you guys can make the game and make it good.
Of course, in an action game, that example is moot. You're basically fighting enemies. But perhaps it should be made clear to each class what and how their skills work and what effects they have with more than texts: Short demonstrations and carefully phrased hints might make people feel more like they're getting to know the game. A slow but deliberate build-up of complexity is also important for a game like this: At first, you just want to attack, learn how to use your attacks even. You want to get to know the control scheme you're dealing with as well. Not worry about your health or anything like that. A gamer also doesn't want to feel weak at the start of the game.
What I'm saying is this: The start of the game should be simple, but quick. What I always hated about Titan Quest was how the start of the game was stale, boring, and predictable. I even gave myself x40 XP modifiers to get through it very quickly, then turned it down a lot of notches to make the rest of Normal fun. Perhaps the very start of the game should be dynamic, surprising, and easy to do, even more than the rest of it. But it shouldn't last long either. Dragon Age: Origins gave us a good example of how to make replaying the game a little less tedious: Each class had its own first hour or two of gameplay. It made playing a new character a lot more fun. An action-game might need only ten to thirty minutes of this kind of gameplay, but if that gives each class a chance to grow before the actual story starts, that's still more than enough.
Titan Quest was the opposite to Dragon Age: Origins. Each character started out the same, with a small knife in hand and an attack button. To draw people in, the start of the game might be more fun if each class is given a good example-ability for their own class. Say that a Barbarian-class gets a multi-mob hitting attack, or an extreme knockback effect, and a mage gets the ability to channel mobs' magic power to form some sort of attack, with nice visual cues. Making a custom early-on boss that's weak to these kinds of attacks then tells players what their class is about, and gives them a sense of power over something. It makes them understand what the strong points of their class are: the raison d'etre for their class.
Early on gameplay, then, is the 'feeler' for a class, and not something like Titan Quest where you knew exactly what was going to happen. And though Dragon Age didn't really bring the whole class difference idea home later on in the game, it did show the potential. Early on, it gave you time to get to know your kind of character a little better.
A tutorial, however, is also not the way to go. Dragon Age made sure that, though it was giving you a tutorial, it didn't make the start of the game feel like one. It was heavily dependant on giving you the sense that you were already in danger without there being much of a reason for it. It thrust you into the game in moments and made you feel like you were already contributing, something that Titan Quest lacked because of its almost arbitrary beginning: You were placed near a boat and you were asked to help kill something. You did it by clicking on it a few times, without being attacked yourself. The only part of this I do agree on is not being hurt. It gave people a few moments to get to grips with the controls.
A backstory, even if it's short, to make you understand why you are where you are, and a moment where you learn what your class can really do before you pick it, were things missing from Titan Quest. A lack of action and purpose, I feel, also led many people to believe the entire game was stale, partially because the end of the original game and as the expansion (although the entire expansion showed a much greater feel for story telling in general than the 'main' game) were the only parts where you really 'got' what you were doing.
Let's take Typhon as an example. He was introduced at the very last minute of the game, if my memory serves me correctly. You didn't get to see him, you got to see the tools he used, and you got to fight them. But if he had been introduced a little bit earlier in the game, so you had an idea of what your ultimate goal was, that might have given players much more incentive to keep on playing for the storyline, which wasn't that bad at all near the end. The parts with the ghostly Emperor, and in the expansion the whole chapter with the dead Greek heroes, gave you a sense of purpose that was missing in the first bit of the game, where you were killing 'little-bad-guys' who were out to do something bad, but you were clueless as to what.
Mass Effect was a better example of how to make this kind of 'little-bad-guy'-'big-bad-buy' idea work: The little bad guy was a recognizable and easily-hated individual, but there were also hints of the big-bad out there even early on in the game. While I've no idea on what kind of story you've got planned, this same mechanic works in Action-games. Introducing the big-bad as a small part of what you need to fix, and making the little-bad a focal point in the first half of the game, could enhance the desire to keep on playing in any game, even one where story-telling is not as important as gameplay.
To sum up:
I just wrote this in one go and didn't really think deeply of where I was going to take this, but I think these were my main points:
- Repeating the start of the game the way Titan Quest did is a bad thing, because:
The start of the game was predictable and boring
You had little sense of purpose at the start of the game
The gameplay mechanics and your abilities started off the same
You had little clue as to what to do and how to do it and the text-based tutorials were not helpful enough for many people to get them going
- Titan Quest suffered from players losing interest, because:
The game didn't have enough 'hooks' to make you feel like there was a lot of purpose up until very late in the game
Players often didn't quite understand their abilities because there was no short explanation of what they were useful for
The world around them didn't feel dynamic or 'alive' enough to get them to play to see more of it. Especially the second act suffered from this: There's only so many sand-dunes and dark dungeons you can take before you stop caring about them
I may be inclined to edit or improve upon this post later, but we'll have to see.
I would also like to note that despite its flaws, Titan Quest to me is one hell of a game, even though it sounds like I didn't enjoy it up there. That's the reason I bought the Legendary edition just now: I've faith you guys can make the game and make it good.