All these and related questions essentially deal with how a gamer first reacts to a game. It's doubtful that a manual is ever consulted when a game is bought nowadays, but when it is it's most likely when a game is too hard and you try to get a handle on things by better learning the controls and the way your character interacts with the given world. This in itself brings up the problem of how well a manual is written too - is it clear enough, does it adequately explain how to progress initially or does it simply bog you down?
Most games have the obligatory 'tutorial level’, which gives you a feel for the rest of the game and has been a great innovation of course but can also be frustrating when the controls and character are exceedingly simple to operate. At the moment, unless someone comes up with a radically new approach to inviting the player into the game, the tutorial level will no doubt go on as the best means of explaining the mechanics of how to be who you are and what you do.
This 'first contact' is essential to grab the gamer and keep them interested in the rest of the game - i.e. if you don't feel comfortable with the basics and how to survive with them, you'll probably never really be interested with the rest of the game, no matter how well scripted it is, how well the graphics are presented and so on.
Consider the number of games you've played where you just jump in and everything in terms of control and progress just feels right. Then think of how much thought, play testing, re-evaluation and re-writing of code and script must have gone on to produce that ease of play.
Then consider those trashy produced pieces that scream for more development before release and what a nuisance it is to fork out a large amount of money only to find that the experience bites your wallet back with a vengeance.
Role-Playing Games are notoriously well known for starting off a character or party with low levels. Often, against what seem to be insurmountable odds, you get the hang of the system (or a handy cheat code!). 'The Bard's Tale', currently in development for console and based on the old PC game of the same name is reported to start the character off with the task of killing a single rat! Some text appears on screen to announce 'Quest Complete!' until a much larger shadow appears behind the hero's victorious posture, presumably ready to pounce. Although a funny analogy it really draws out the whole idea of both enjoying the gameplay and being competent enough to survive in it.
Other games merely have a set life/health amount that persists through a game and may be augmented by new abilities but no real change to the character's strength. A boss will appear and you shoot it with different weapons. The bosses get progressively harder while you usually remain the same; it's all about balancing the player's needs in the context of the battle.
What games have you played that lost your interest early because of being too difficult or too hard? What was the best game you ever felt completely comfortable with, in terms of grasping controls and feeling confident to progress but also having the satisfaction of having completed it without the disappointment of having had no real challenge? Drop a line and let us know - maybe you're a game designer, or want to be one - we'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
I suppose there are tons of reasons why we play through a game again but essentially it is for a higher or better score, isn't it - the knowledge that you can beat the thing so much better now you've played it to its bitter end. Of course the unlockables are always fun but I totally agree that the FF series or similar aren't worth it just for a couple of items! I suppose replayability in gaming is like reading a favourite book again - you know the plot but you get more of an understanding or enjoyment of it the next time around.
Loading...
