10-04-2015, 08:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2015, 08:16 AM by Sketchasaurus.)
Learning at its very core is trial and error.
Skills are built by making mistakes and trying other strategies, expecting one to be entirely literate in your game's own design "language" is plainly put: bad design.
You need to facilitate the learning of the nuances of your game THROUGH the gameplay of the game; if you expect them to understand how the game "should" be played, people are going to do one or some of the following things:
A ) Be frustrated with interacting with the game "where do I go, what do I do? How do I do this?"
B ) Feel cheated out of their time "I wasn't prepared for this"
There's a huge principle that validates this trope that has been at the very core of game design from the beginning: Bushnell's Law:
"All the best games are easy to learn and difficult to master. They should reward the first quarter and the hundredth."
When designing a game, you can't assume that they know how they're supposed to interact with your game, you design with the lowest common denominator in mind, not those you'd imagine to be proficient from the get-go. Sure, there's a learning curve, and that road to proficiency is paved in trial and error.
What you need to consider is a balance between risk and reward; you pose a challenge to the player, and in the chance that they fail, you provide an opportunity for them to try another option or try again, after their success, you reward that success in-game, but that reward is also something that a player receives from themselves for their efforts: the feeling of accomplishment.
Memorization and pattern recognition is entwined in game design: The behavior of the ball and enemy paddle in pong, the movement of the ships in space invaders, the attack patterns of the enemy ships in Galaga, the ghost movement in Pac man, the jump arcs of the springs in Donkey Kong, even Mario's Jump arc is a predictable pattern that you learn from trial and error in Donkey Kong.
A boss's attack pattern is not the same as a QTE, to even consider that point is laughable. Enemy movement and boss movement ALMOST ALWAYS has a pattern behind it; it's less rewarding(and exponentially more frustrating) if enemy/boss movements are entirely random: THAT is unfair design. QTE's are more to build a sort of "involved suspense" during moments of a cutscene or other "feeling" moment, they only require the basic instinct of button pressing when prompted. Memorization stages require you to use what you have learned about the interaction with the game in order to test your proficiency in that interaction, or to sharpen those skills, that's what the "challenge" of a game is.
Skills are built by making mistakes and trying other strategies, expecting one to be entirely literate in your game's own design "language" is plainly put: bad design.
You need to facilitate the learning of the nuances of your game THROUGH the gameplay of the game; if you expect them to understand how the game "should" be played, people are going to do one or some of the following things:
A ) Be frustrated with interacting with the game "where do I go, what do I do? How do I do this?"
B ) Feel cheated out of their time "I wasn't prepared for this"
There's a huge principle that validates this trope that has been at the very core of game design from the beginning: Bushnell's Law:
"All the best games are easy to learn and difficult to master. They should reward the first quarter and the hundredth."
When designing a game, you can't assume that they know how they're supposed to interact with your game, you design with the lowest common denominator in mind, not those you'd imagine to be proficient from the get-go. Sure, there's a learning curve, and that road to proficiency is paved in trial and error.
What you need to consider is a balance between risk and reward; you pose a challenge to the player, and in the chance that they fail, you provide an opportunity for them to try another option or try again, after their success, you reward that success in-game, but that reward is also something that a player receives from themselves for their efforts: the feeling of accomplishment.
Memorization and pattern recognition is entwined in game design: The behavior of the ball and enemy paddle in pong, the movement of the ships in space invaders, the attack patterns of the enemy ships in Galaga, the ghost movement in Pac man, the jump arcs of the springs in Donkey Kong, even Mario's Jump arc is a predictable pattern that you learn from trial and error in Donkey Kong.
A boss's attack pattern is not the same as a QTE, to even consider that point is laughable. Enemy movement and boss movement ALMOST ALWAYS has a pattern behind it; it's less rewarding(and exponentially more frustrating) if enemy/boss movements are entirely random: THAT is unfair design. QTE's are more to build a sort of "involved suspense" during moments of a cutscene or other "feeling" moment, they only require the basic instinct of button pressing when prompted. Memorization stages require you to use what you have learned about the interaction with the game in order to test your proficiency in that interaction, or to sharpen those skills, that's what the "challenge" of a game is.
![[Image: shrine.gif]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/344477/shrine.gif)