Gaming Thoughts on Tutorials

I'd like them included but optional and where I can pick what I want to learn. I don't want to be forced into learning how to run or shoot a gun for 10 minutes when all I really want to do is learn how to fly.

 

I agree tutorials should be included, but not forced upon you.
Good that you mention Red Alert.
It has seperate tutorials that you need not play to advance the main missions.
On the other hand, it limits your available units in the beginning of the story mode. But that's not a tutorial, that's a story decision.

I think that's quite well done.

 

I think tutorials are important. I mean they are usually (not always) very borring and tedious, but they do count.
I notice the developers, usually implement them in 3-4 major ways. Like: 1. They put optional in game menu. 2. They make it obligatory as you start the single/multiplayer campaign 3. They make it as in Prince of Persia 2008, when you start the game you choose whether the tutorial to "follow" you ingame (close to the first type).

Tutorials if well made lower the barriers for new players to become a full-fledged part of the community. I remember I tried DotA a few times. I am not a fan, but getting into the community is downright s****y experience. Since if you say "What -ap is?" and you get kicked all over the place. Ok, I am gamer and I know what battle.net is I can take my time, but someone else who just decided to try the mode out....don't really think he/she will be back again. However newby it seems to all others.

 

When a title is the first in the series or is a game that breaks the mold and uses keys assigned to different functions being guided in to this is certainly helpful.

When a title follows on in a series I have to say that either a quick pointer or reminder in game as the appropriate time, tip during the loading screen (tho these often tend to be insulting or inappropriately timed) or just the option to play the tutorials for the parts you specifically feel you need.

Afterall basic movement and using weapons is something easily worked out and a quick look at the controls is usually enough. Driving a car or jeep is a small step to add but going on to learn specific details about tank controls or flying a helicopter or jet fighter is something that will need practise and for those that want to try their hand at it, give them the option to undergo that training, tutorial or practise session.

Is that really all that much to ask? Perhaps this would also give developers and publishers alike a different way to be approach game and level design and improve the experience for the masses, hard core gamers and fans of the series alike.

 

See they are adding a tutorial to The Witcher 2 in version 2.0 I'm assuming because people struggled with it. I rather enjoyed the fact that you had to read the codex and work it out as you played. I think people these days are too used to having their hands held.

I agree a complicated space sim or strategy game may need a tutorial, but most games don't; yet come with them any way. Look at the original Deus Ex, sure the tutorial was optional, but it was also pointless. Unreal 2 had a tutorial section, again optional, but again pointless.

 

Sounds to me like you need to apply section battle drills.
Cover and movement.
If you have an 8 man section for example:

Fireteam Alpha: (assign key team 1)
- Section Commander
- Support Gunner (LMG)
- Assaulter (Grenades)
- Assaulter (Grenades)

Fireteam Bravo: (assign key team 2)
- Section 2IC
- Support Gunner (LMG)
- Assaulter (Grenades)
- Assaulter (Grenades)

Whenever you come into contact, get fireteam (a) laying down suppressive fire on target while you flank with the firetam (b) using smoke and terrain as cover, Once Team (b) is in place swap team roles and repeat. Cover and movements.
Once a fireteam is within spitting distance of the target, send in that fireteams assaulters to clean up with grenades (while keeping the enemy down with suppresive fire from the covering team)

You could assign further key bindings (team key 3 and 4) so the assaulters from each fireteam have thier own mini teams, handy for multiple targets.

Not played Vietnam yet, but played the first one.

 

Played MoW and MoW vietnam, I really love the concept of the games.

Lets be fair though, the developers left a lot to be desired in the 'make it fun' department. They had a vision, they did that and did it well - an RTS with direct control that works with unparalleled realism - and we all give them credit for that.

But really they should be equally lambasted for the piss-poor campaign design and any kind of critical thought for what the player experiences.

I think on the broad scale of things most games aren't too bad, MoW in particular is a bad example because it's just a badly put together game (that's also awesome).