[Intro Music]
Today, we're going to tackle a question we get asked almost every week.
Why are games so easy these days?
Well, let's start by unpacking that statement.
Because I'm not sure that most gamers who ask that question are really
looking for a return to the days of truly difficult games.
I mean, some of them might be but I think what most of them are really looking for
is depth.
You see, the challenging games that most of us see as fun aren't challenging based
on the difficulty of execution.
Their challenge is based on depth.
What's the difference, you ask?
The difference between these types of difficulty
is simply in how much room the player is given to address a problem.
Consider the multiplayer modes from Call of Duty 4 and Area 51 BlackSite.
In many ways, the moment-to-moment gameplay of each of these titles appears to be very similar at first.
However, Call of Duty's mechanics allow the player a variety of ways to approach any given situation.
Whereas in BlackSite, the player's reasonable options are very limited,
reducing the gameplay to a repetitive mix of reactionary, rote actions.
Challenge in games with depth is based on an understanding and mastery of the mechanics.
As a player's understanding of the mechanics grow,
they discover new ways to approach more difficult problems,
and come to realize that the rules of the game actually
allow them to reduce incredibly difficult situations to manageable challenges.
Of course, that doesn't mean that the challenge won't take skill to execute.
It's important to understand: Depth isn't purely cerebral.
Deep games still require player execution,
it's just that the execution doesn't get as dull or frustrating, because the player has more choices.
Say you're playing a first person shooter and you've reached a scenario
where rushing in with guns blazing just results in failure.
You try over and over again, but the direct approach always get you killed.
So instead you try an alternate solution: a well-placed flashbang,
a rocketjump, a different weapon type. That's a demonstration of depth.
We really want to point out this distinction because James has spoken to
many an aspiring designer who believes depth is only for RPGs or strategy games,
or that depth means big tables with lots of statistics and number crunching.
This isn't true. Well, okay, the part about tables and statistics kind of is, but the
player doesn't actually have to see those. Sure, depth can take the form of
long cerebral calculations, but it can also be based on a thorough
understanding of the game mechanics that allows the player to make intelligent
split-second decisions in real time.
Depth can be found in the process of painstakingly raising the perfect
Pokémon team, or it can take the form of a well-chosen perfectly timed
counter-attack move that turns the tide of a Street Fighter match.
Okay. So you see what I mean when I say that most of us want challenges based on depth,
rather than challenges based strictly on execution, right?
So, if you really are looking for an execution challenge that's depth-free,
I have a recommendation for you:
Simon. Best execution challenge game ever built.
Or I guess you could go with Rock Band or something but... c'mon you wimps!
Simon! The game so badass it's impossible to beat it.
Where was I... right. "Why are games so easy?" Okay.
There's a common belief in the industry that simple or easy games sell better than deeper, more difficult ones.
This is false. It's a very cursory and poor interpretation of the data we have before us.
Here's the real fact: The more approachable a game is, the better it sells.
All other variables being equal, the more approachable game will sell better every time.
But "approachable" is not the same thing as "easy".
Making games easy is just the simplest, least inventive way of making them approachable.
It's not the only way, and it certainly isn't the best way.
A good game - the kind of game franchises are built around - starts off simple, but offers a
great deal of depth later in the game because, throughout the whole experience,
the player has been taught to understand and master the mechanics.
Which brings us to our second point: Tutorials.
Tutorials rarely get the attention they deserve.
If you do a tutorial right, the player will barely even notice it;
if you do it wrong, the player will either be confused or bored stupid.
Tutorials are absolutely crucial for games to have the depth we crave and remain approachable.
Not only does a good tutorial help the player to understand and enjoy your game,
it allows you to create deeper, more challenging game experiences for the player to tackle.
Approachable depth: the best of both worlds.
If we want more challenging games, what we really should be demanding are better tutorials.
If a tutorial's bad, most people are going to give up on a game
long before they get to the point where they find the challenge fun.
So let's step down from the soapbox now, and get our hands dirty.
Let's run through some concepts regarding what makes a good tutorial.
Get your helmets on.
First: you don't have to frontload your tutorial.
Portal is a game that is 80% tutorial.
if you introduce your players to game elements over time
as they become appropriate, they won't get overwhelmed.
Even user interface elements can be introduced one at a time.
If you've never checked out Toontown before, go try playing the first 15
minutes for a great example of this idea in action.
Second: the least text you have to rely on, the better.
Good tutorials let the player learn by doing.
Remember Modern Warfare's training course? Awesome tutorial.
Third, learning should be reinforced by challenges.
Create obvious, overt scenarios outside of the tutorial where the player's forced
to perform actions they learned during the tutorial section.
These segments will force the player to think more deeply about the situational use of your mechanics.
Fourth: tutorials should have the feeling of danger, without posing any real danger to the player.
Anyone who's played Demon's Souls knows what I'm talking about.
Fifth: completing the tutorial should make the player feel accomplished.
Remember God of War? By the end of the tutorial level, you had defeated a giant
Hydra and impaled it upon the broken mast of a ship wrecked at sea.
I challenge you to finish that level and not feel like a badass.
You felt ready to take on whatever the game had to throw at you after that
If you can accomplish these things, you can deliver deep gameplay without the player ever feeling
like they're working for that depth.
Those of you who have gone through a Pokémon phase know how deep that rabbit hole goes, and yet,
six-year-olds can play it, do well, and have a great time.
Heck, James's mom beat Portal.
Approachability does not prohibit deep, challenging, rewarding gameplay.
So, anyone out there on the hardcore fringe, furiously posting about how real
gamers are willing to work for their fun:
Cut it out. You're not helping.
You're not helping people to discover an aspect of
gaming they might really enjoy, and you're not even helping the type of
games you like to get made.
Just because anyone can beat Pokémon or Portal does not make them bad games.
In fact that's part of what makes them great games -
and it doesn't make them any less fun for the rest of us. Deep. but approachable.
Now this is something we should be fully capable of as an industry: game designers are teachers.
If you can't design a good tutorial, you probably don't have any business making a triple-A game.
For those of you working on a game right now: don't take the easy way out.
Put the effort into educating your player, and I guarantee you it'll pay off.
Educate, to better entertain.
Hup, that about wraps it up for this week. If you guys would like us to go further
into this and do an episode on how to actually build a good tutorial:
let us know. We'll add it to the stack. Later.