retutorials

It has become almost mandatory to include a tutorial process at the beginning of any game. That's great. But how often are you only partially through a game when something distracts from it for weeks or even months?

A tutorial at the beginning of a game's campaign isn't of much use then, because you don't want to start over. Explanatory videos are not much better than simply showing you a control map before dumping you into the action. A tutorial split into a series of active experiences can feel tedious, largely because after each one you're confronted with a list ("Four more to go..." /sigh).

Games with complex control schemes might benefit from what I'll call a "retutorial" — a comprehensive hands-on experience, similar to the introductions of many campaigns, which can be played at any time.

The main difference between an introduction and a retutorial should be a lack of emphasis on story, allowing the player to skip any assignment which covers something the player remembers. Give the player some control over the pace and content.

Most big games ramp both the complexity of controls and the difficulty of encounters as the story progresses. Players shouldn't feel like they're jumping onto a speeding train when picking up where they left off.

skipping tutorials

More than a few times, I've introduced someone who doesn't regularly game to a game and that person chooses to skip the tutorial. Sometimes, they skip the tutorial right away. More often, they start the tutorial, then become impatient and skip to real gameplay.

It mainly has to do with pace. A tutorial shouldn't be too much slower than normal play. It must be fun in its own right.

In some games, it can be better to start the player off with the full palette of actions among easier enemies and challenges. Allow the player to learn through experimentation, rather than overt instruction. That's not feasible in all games.

In any case, all tutorials should be true play -- not a precursor to fun, but actual fun.

options on-the-fly

Adriann asked me today: "Do you think it would be at all possible to implement an in-game weapon customization system [in Modern Warfare 2]?" He would like to be able to change weapon options on-the-fly, rather than being limited to a handful of saved loadouts - like in the first Modern Warfare. It's not that the loadouts are a problem. It's that sometimes you want to make minor adjustments, like adding a silencer or switching to smoke grenades.

I think many games could learn from this screen in Frontlines: Fuel of War:


As you can see, two different option sets are included on one screen. The player can quickly and easily move between Loadout, Role or Deployment location by merely flicking the 360 thumbstick left or right. Then pushing the thumbstick down or up changes the player's selection within a set of options.

The player doesn't have to make a selection in one set of choices before having access to another set. The options are not tiered. They are displayed simultaneously. So a player can quickly change one without making a selection in another.

It's a very streamlined interface... worth copying.

multiplayer personalities and UI

One of the things that made Perfect Dark 64 great was the variation in AI personalities. As I recall, the sims I included most often were the JudgeSim, VengeSim, and KazeSim.

Anyone who played that game realizes how much fun those personalities added. Players could be given a similar mix of roles with supportive interfaces.

For example, a player in the role of Judge could be shown only the player with the most kills on radar. The same could be done for a Venge role. Another player's role might be to lay traps and explosives.

Such multiplayer might get complicated, but roles of this general style are worth considering.

Also, it's not always necessary for competitors to each have access to a type of knowledge (like radar). It can be alright for one player to have different information and tools than another player, as long as that's considered in the rest of design.

Microsoft Surface games

If Microsoft Surface does become a popular household item one day -- or even just a hotel lobby passtime -- there will certainly be games for it. I don't believe it will greatly change device interaction in general (not person-device interaction, anyway; inter-device interaction, yes), but its unique interface definitely invites fresh types of gameplay.

Touchscreen technology has been around a while now. The iPhone and Nintendo DS are popular, but all such products require one hand to hold and one hand to operate. MS Surface, being a table, invites use of both hands. That drastically affects gameplay potential.



You might immediately think of arcade-style games when imagining Surface games. But deep AAA action adventure games are also possible... especially if linked to a pair of gaming goggles (3-D films and games should be common by the time Surface comes down in price, so using 3-D goggles might be common).

For example, imagine a game involving free-diving and swimming in the ocean. The player could move her hands on the MS Surface similar to true swimming motions. Starting one's hands in the middle of the screen and dragging them outward would propel the character forward in the water. Dragging both hands to the left or right would turn the character. Dragging both hands up or down would send the character to deeper or shallower water. Meanwhile, the goggles would allow the player to look independently of her movement... which enables gameplay like chasing and fleeing.

Placing the fingertips of one's open hand on the Surface and dragging them together would enable you to grab objects (including ladders). The opposite could drop or throw items, depending on the quickness of the movement. Dragging one hand could also throw objects, since only both hands together move the character through the water.

A light slap of the hand on the table could signal a punch or other blow (though I'm not sure how resilient Microsoft's table is). Dragging a finger in a circle around an object could throw a net.

Anyway, I'm really not trying to design a game here. I just mean to show that being able to interact with a touchscreen using both hands creates many possibilities not available when using only one hand. I don't forsee MS Surface becoming an ubiquitous device anytime soon. But if such a day comes, it could be fun for gamers.