The arts of learning is best described by Piaget: What you learned today is based on what you learned yesterday.


Knowledge builds on knowledge. So how would one implement this? I really like it when games don''t show off their entire panel of controls that make one dizzy at the sight. A bad example of this is Diablo2, aww man the interface really sux for a beginner. A good example is the boot camp in Ground Control. The interface and panels are offered to the player in a slow and comfortable manner. The player is presented with a new panel, executes a few missions, then is presented with the next. His knowledge grows slowly about the game as he becomes accustomed to it.


Another good trick to allowing players a quick entry into a game is to use CLICHE:s. *Gasp* Did he say that? Yep, cliches don''t require a steep learning curve and arent all that bad. *Gulp*

quote: Original post by Spyder

The arts of learning is best described by Piaget: What you learned today is based on what you learned yesterday.

This would explain why i could not work out why Streetfighter became so big. I''ll have to look into the history of beat''em ups now.

Then again people do sit down and hack at things for hours on end without pay and enjoy it. Maybe Streetfighter promoted (in some strange way) this sort of enjoyment in the game.

Remembering that this is how the old text adventures use to work aswell.

quote:
Knowledge builds on knowledge. So how would one implement this? I really like it when games don''t show off their entire panel of controls that make one dizzy at the sight. A bad example of this is Diablo2, aww man the interface really sux for a beginner.

Thats interesting, i heard that they got a new game designer in just for D2. Btw (without turning this thread into a D2 debate) how would you rank it in comparison to D1 (no one else please :-)

quote:
A good example is the boot camp in Ground Control. The interface and panels are offered to the player in a slow and comfortable manner. The player is presented with a new panel, executes a few missions, then is presented with the next. His knowledge grows slowly about the game as he becomes accustomed to it.

I haven''t played Ground Control yet, but it sounds like what they are doing is precisely what i''ve been thinking about "how to make a game easier to learn". Would you call it a mulitple GUI structure?

quote:
Another good trick to allowing players a quick entry into a game is to use CLICHE:s. *Gasp* Did he say that? Yep, cliches don''t require a steep learning curve and arent all that bad. *Gulp*

No hassling cliche''s on this thread :-) It sounds like a good way to add complexity to a game without exhasting the players mind.



We are their,
"Children of the Free"

quote: Then again people do sit down and hack at things for hours on end without pay and enjoy it. Maybe Streetfighter promoted (in some strange way) this sort of enjoyment in the game. Remembering that this is how the old text adventures use to work aswell.

I really haven''t played Streetfighter, Im afraid. As for old text adventures, I remember there wasn''t any real help references or tutorials. I remember playing Hitchhikers guide, you would get stuck at one point and had to guess what command to use.

Prophecy! I think we will see a semi-return of the text parser now that alot of games are going multiplayer. It''s already used now for chat, and various messaging. The hardcore gamer can use the text parser/console for controls, and special commands.

quote: Thats interesting, i heard that they got a new game designer in just for D2. Btw (without turning this thread into a D2 debate) how would you rank it in comparison to D1 (no one else please :-)

Ok, i share your worries heh . Personally D2 was abit of a dissapointment, the animation is really the lacking part. If you study the way characters move/run it''s really pretty jumpy. I think they are using about 6 images for a walk, which is really low when you think about it. Another low is the AI, not that impressive. D2 is still worth it if you like the niche. They have implemented several neat ideas:

* Stash. Players can storage items in a stash (in form of a chest in town).

* Trade. There is a good and easy interface for trading items between players. Easy drag and drop and offer.

* Interface for handling parties, invite players, kick them etc.

* The ability of attaching gems and totems to weapons is special slots giving them magical properties.



Well back to the topic, the reason i used D2 as an example of a bad interface is that the game really is composed with a myriad of diffrent screens and menu:s, it''s just to much and to technical. You asked about a ranking compared to D1, I''d say D2 is a D1.7, they didn''t make the extra yards.

quote: I haven''t played Ground Control yet, but it sounds like what they are doing is precisely what i''ve been thinking about "how to make a game easier to learn". Would you call it a mulitple GUI structure?

Definately! But i reccomend you to check it out, you can actually just download the demo it provides you with the bootcamp and a few levels. Even ground control has it lows but I wont go into that now.

I''ll be back to share some more theories from a psycological perspective later on tonite!

In not to confident in the game terminology "Parser". My interpretation is that of which Fallout uses for dialoge/yes? I was just reading on another forum here under AI about the uses of the "fill in" technique that microsoft use in their applications. Sorry, i can''t resist sometimes adding my ideas once in a while. But i''ll elaborate more if wish.

I think computer AI could be a very useful way of assisting the players learning curve. Making the journey a little bit more softer. Which would allow us to make quite complicated games that teach themselves to the player.

The technical thoughts i''ve expressed here are merely promoting the psycological factor.

Spyder, what i was talking about with the beat''ups is that they tend to be very complicated these days. i.e. combo''s. It kind of shows that people who do like beat''em ups (play them a lot) do like game depth aswell/yes?




We are their,
"Children of the Free"

quote: In not to confident in the game terminology "Parser". My interpretation is that of which Fallout uses for dialoge/yes? I was just reading on another forum here under AI about the uses of the "fill in" technique that microsoft use in their applications.

Well with parser i was mostly refering to games like Police Quest 1, or text based games like Zork, or MUD:s. For instance if you type: "tell paul lets go slay an orc", the parser parses the text input and sends you a message, not really much diffrent from the MS DOS promt. The fill in technique is really good, i plan to use it in the online world I''m working on. The same technique is used in Nokias cell phones. This really would have improved old textbased games, and does encourage people to type messages.

quote: I think computer AI could be a very useful way of assisting the players learning curve. Making the journey a little bit more softer. Which would allow us to make quite complicated games that teach themselves to the player.

Hm. splendid idea, do you have any practicle examples of how you would like to implement this?

quote: Spyder, what i was talking about with the beat''ups is that they tend to be very complicated these days. i.e. combo''s. It kind of shows that people who do like beat''em ups (play them a lot) do like game depth aswell/yes?

With game depth i guess you mean complexity? I like to think of game design in terms of complex languages composed of signs. Say for instance early beat''em ups only used kick (we''ll asign that letter "K") and punch ("P"). The next generation will use a "K" and "P" combo, they''ve really created a new sign "Q" the kick and punch simultaneous sign. As games grow they become more complex, and games tend to grow with it''s players. The players and developers develop this language together. After 20 years of beat em ups, the language has developed from a handful of "K" and "P" to something very complex. For a beginner this language will be very hard to grasp at once, but the raw gamer understands it perfectly. So what you want to do is introduce your game language, and signs one at a time. It''s like learning english if you only know arabic.

quote: From Spyder

Hm. splendid idea, do you have any practicle examples of how you would like to implement this?

:-). Not as yet, no. But it would probably be a good topic for a new thread. Then i guess we could re-assess this idea.

So a parser is just a word matching routine. I''ll be back with some more thought soon.





We are their,
"Children of the Free"

Yup you could say that about parser, and just to tie the sack I think text input will be revived in the future, we''ll see.

Here''s another thought that came from a game called LAPD Future Cop. This game uses a intro when you go to deathmatch. But what they added was humour. Humour is a very tricky way to teach people things, it induces a desire TO learn. yes?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!