About the "Easy to learn, hard to master" on Casual Games
by Rodrigo Contreras · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 03/03/2009 (8:18 am) · 2 replies
Hey guys, my name is Rodrigo Contreras and I'm an independent game designer. In my search for "some truth" on game design, I have encountered many sentences that might help us, developers, make our casual games more fun. The most remarkable in my opinion, that is used to define the concept of casual games, is "The game, to be fun, it must be easy to learn and hard to master".
But this sentence seems to have two big problems: 1) How do you know that the game is easy to use? and 2) How do you know is hard to master?
Of course, there are many ways that allow us to respond both questions (that's not the subject here) but never with a high amount certainty AND at a low cost. For example, "testing". If you really wanna know if your game is easy to learn you need people to play it, and many times. You don't want only the first feedback you get, you need to enter on an iterative process of tweaking and testing, tweaking and testing, etc. This will take money and many testers that will allow get a response based on a good and statistically evaluable sample.
For that I propose the following sentence that, is my hope, will help you save a some money. Instead of asking your self (at first) "Is my game easy to learn?" ask your self "Is my game easy to teach?".
So I propose that a casual game, by a designers point of view, should consider an "easy to teach" approach feature.
Rod
But this sentence seems to have two big problems: 1) How do you know that the game is easy to use? and 2) How do you know is hard to master?
Of course, there are many ways that allow us to respond both questions (that's not the subject here) but never with a high amount certainty AND at a low cost. For example, "testing". If you really wanna know if your game is easy to learn you need people to play it, and many times. You don't want only the first feedback you get, you need to enter on an iterative process of tweaking and testing, tweaking and testing, etc. This will take money and many testers that will allow get a response based on a good and statistically evaluable sample.
For that I propose the following sentence that, is my hope, will help you save a some money. Instead of asking your self (at first) "Is my game easy to learn?" ask your self "Is my game easy to teach?".
So I propose that a casual game, by a designers point of view, should consider an "easy to teach" approach feature.
Rod
#2
I think you're right on that argument:
What I'm proposing goes through a different path. I'm using teach as follows (by dictionary):
By saying "Is my game easy to teach?" I'm assuming that the knowledge transfer is being made. Considering this, "Is my game easy to teach?" brings to the table quality of work that we, the game developers, do regarding learning how to play. If yo are having a hard time explaining the game and understanding those instructions, it's obvious (I belive) that the player will be equally or even more frustrated.
At last, I think it would be wrong to say: "I don't have any type of instructions or feedback that let the players understand my game: So it's easy to teach." This because you are not transfering any kind of knowledge on how to play the game, its like giving a player that has never played Solitaire a card deck and say: "Play Solitary".
:)
Rod
03/03/2009 (12:26 pm)
Hey Ted.I think you're right on that argument:
Quote:Knowledge transfer must be in favor of the one who the knowledge is being transferred to, and that should go for game development as well...I think the most important view is always the Players'.
What I'm proposing goes through a different path. I'm using teach as follows (by dictionary):
Quote:Teach can refer to almost any practice that causes others to develop skill or knowledge.
By saying "Is my game easy to teach?" I'm assuming that the knowledge transfer is being made. Considering this, "Is my game easy to teach?" brings to the table quality of work that we, the game developers, do regarding learning how to play. If yo are having a hard time explaining the game and understanding those instructions, it's obvious (I belive) that the player will be equally or even more frustrated.
At last, I think it would be wrong to say: "I don't have any type of instructions or feedback that let the players understand my game: So it's easy to teach." This because you are not transfering any kind of knowledge on how to play the game, its like giving a player that has never played Solitaire a card deck and say: "Play Solitary".
:)
Rod
Torque 3D Owner Ted Southard
To me, learning is far more important than teaching, because learning is something that happens constantly whether there is a teacher present or not. If you design the ideas to be easy to teach, then you give the teacher a break, but not necessarily the student. If you make the ideas easy to learn, then the teacher's role is diminished in favor of the student, which is the goal.
Knowledge transfer must be in favor of the one who the knowledge is being transferred to, and that should go for game development as well, or else game developers may find it easier to teach concepts in ways that make it harder for players to learn them.
My own 2 cents...