Learning Curves in Game Design

The following is a game design methodology/concept to the design and creation of learning curves in games. I felt the need to write this up as I have seen other developers approach the learning curve task and as I saw the need for a very clear cut method to this task as I've been working with the RenWerX team on Ascension. I'd love to hear peoples comments, critiques, and thoughts on this. Though I don't post much, I thought i'd share it with all of you in hopes of helping even one in some way :)

When taking into consideration the design of a game, phrases like "learning curve" and the likes tend to start to get thrown around. It's no surprise, though, as the learning curve is an important factor in determining just how easy it is for new players to 'pickup' your game and start playing. However, when it comes time to take the steps to really approach, assess, and develop the learning curve everything tends to get jumbled together. The movement is put together, other assets like weapons are added in, maps are created, various features are added in addition and soon you've got a jumble of factors that may or may not be a detriment to your games learning curve. I say this because I've seen this as the case for games in the past and it was also an issue in which the team I work with was facing. With that, I developed a concept to designing learning curves that makes sense both to the developer and that will ultimately make more sense to the end user - the gamer - as well.

In my concept I take the single, general gameplay learning curve and break it into one primary learning curve that I call the initial learning curve and into however many other secondary learning curves are necessary. I refer to these secondary curves as the expansive learning curves.

The initial learning curve can potentially look similar to that of the general learning curve (downward sloping), but is often times shorter visibly and in terms of time with respect to difficulty. This is because the initial learning curve is reduced to what a player has to learn initially in the game to be moderately 'effective'. That is to say, the initial learning curve is a representation of the amount of time with respect to difficulty it takes the player to learn the bare minimum of what's required for them to be able to begin enjoying the game.


For example:
Pong's initial learning curve consists of the following:
1.Movement (side to side)

A bit more complex example:
Counter-Strike Source's initial learning curve consists of the following (abbreviated):
1.Movement (forwards, backwards, side to side)
2.Jump
3.Firing a weapon
4.Throwing a grenade
5.Weapon switching
6.Interacting with the buy menu
7.Identifying maps
8.Identifying environments

With the above, we can obviously see that Pong has quite a short learning curve in comparison to Counter-Strike Source. This is also a trade off, however, as Counter-Strike Source's learning curve is somewhat longer though still relatively short. The difference is that Counter-Strike Source also has many expansive curves, where Pong has very few such as angled shots, speed, and rebounds.

While the initial learning curve is the bare minimum in which a player has to learn to enjoy or be moderately effective at a game, the expansive learning curve is a curve representing and is based on a different idea. The expansive curve is based on expansive elements of a game. That is, elements that a player can expand into and learn, but that are not a requirement for interacting and enjoying the game. That does not mean that expansive elements do not bring or add enjoyment, mind you, on the contrary, they almost always do. Often times it's the expansive elements that keep players playing a specific game. Because of what the expansive learning curve represents, it deals with different factors than the initial learning curve. While the initial learning curve deals with Difficulty with respect to Time (downward sloping), the expansive learning curve deals with Mastery with respect to Time (upward sloping). That is to say, the expansive learning curve deals with how much time it takes for a player to master the expansive element. This is important because as opposed to being a facet of the initial learning curve where the element is being measured by difficulty as it's another road block to playing the game, it's being measured as a voluntary addition or evolution of the game that is a facet to their overall skill within the game, but not a requirement of it. This allows players the freedom to learn and adapt to various expansive skills as they feel they appropriately ready for it.


A good example of this comes from Enemy Territory. Enemy Territory has an initial learning curve slightly more complicated than Counter-Strike source, but has more obvious expansive elements. Depicted below:

Enemy Territory Initial Learning Curve Elements (abbreviated):
1.Movement (side to side, forwards, backwards)
2.Firing a weapon
3.Throwing a grenade
4.Understanding classes
5.Understanding various class specific utilities
6.Interaction with map assets/objects (like building a bridge)
7.Jumping

Enemy Territory Expansive Learning Curve Elements (abbreviated):
1.Sprinting
2.Leaning

In this case, I mention 2 of the expansive learning curve elements from Enemy Territory. Sprinting and Leaning. They're expansive elements because while you initially figure out how to sprint when you first start playing, and while you could lean if you felt so inclined - neither is necessary to enjoying or being 'good' at the game. In fact, I know a number of skilled players at Enemy Territory who rarely utilize lean as an expansive element. In addition, when using sprint in conjunction with jump you can move even faster- another expansive element. These expansive elements are a necessity to any game due to the additional depth of gameplay given. By adding in expansive elements, you give players the ability to evolve their skill but don't force them to evolve them when they first start playing.

Life is a great example of the concept of the initial and expansive learning curve, and can possibly contest to the validity of making games easier to learn and understand. In life, you start with a rather daunting learning curve. You have to learn to see, eat, walk, and so forth. However, once you've overcome the initial learning curve, you're prepared to face the more expansive elements. Perhaps you want to have your hand at surfing. If it appeals to you, you might invest more time into mastering it (becoming a professional, or just become good). If surfing isn't your think, you might want to take up soccer, investing time into mastering it. If you don't like soccer, you can drop it and move on to something else. You can do this because it doesn't effect any of the elements involved in your initial learning curve- it doesn't affect any of the elements involved in you interacting or enjoying everyday life.

The prior has been a concept that I think many game developers have considered intuitively but have perhaps not laid out thoroughly in a clear-cut, defined form. Because of this while they design to some extent intuitively with this in mind, certain elements fall between the cracks or become a jumble of the overall learning-curve idea. By using the concept above as you allow both the your team and the end user a way of properly addressing and easily understanding the elements of your game.