Game design and the 'tax' of a learning curve

[GSH]

Interesting thoughts on game design 'taxes' of the learning curves here. Doesn't explicitly mention FPS+RTS learning curves, but it's quite applicable to BZ1/2 and bringing in newcomers.

-- GSH

[MrTwosheds]

Bz2's single player missions do a good job of reducing the game tax, base controls and combat are balanced quite well. What a lot of players like about it is that its learning curve continues to rise for a long time after the basics have been learnt, extending way beyond what the single player missions offer. I have always suspected that this was a design accident, rather than the result of meticulously detailed planning.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

I think the concept of a 'gamer tax' is close to broken with this.

"When we talk about gamer tax, we're focusing on the time it takes someone to understand the basics of a game. Or in other words: How long it takes for a player to be able to make informed choices when playing. We're not talking about game mastery or beating the game, as by that point the player knows how to play the game."

Take chess.

The "tax" is absolutely facile, with such things as castling, promotion and en passant, providing but the slightest wrinkle on an otherwise mindless two minutes of instruction.

But could it also be argued that teaching the noob maybe four basic 6 move openings could save him untold games of humiliation?

Where the basic learning stops and "knowing the game" begins, is too subjective to call a 'tax', unless you pay that tax for many dozens of hours, no matter what game it may be beyond tic-tac-toe.

[MrTwosheds]

Not sure its really a valid concept for chess, game tax is like a parallel measurement of Attention Deficit Disorder, a modern human condition, brought on by a pointlessly pressured and accelerated lifestyle. Folks can pay out $50 for a game, but then not be prepared to put in the time and effort to learn how to play it. So for the game designer its important to make the UI ADHD friendly, while still making the game complex and entertaining enough to offer at least some satisfaction for those who do get past the basics (not too much though or they won't come back to buy your next product)
The game tax for chess would vary a lot, it being dependent on real people explaining the rules as its UI does not offer any help with this at all. If you handed a chess set to a couple of 6 year old's, without explanation, they would not be able to play it. Human interaction with someone who does know it is fairly essential, but computer games are designed for solo use, where giving up is a much easier option.

[S.cavA.rmyG.en]

game tax is like a parallel measurement of Attention Deficit Disorder

+800 points

[Red Devil]

i agree with the article. the tax referred to is the time, effort, and frustration spent learning a new game (or anything for that matter). it's the difference between taking a college course with a professor to guide you and one without.

i downloaded COD:BO and it took me all of 0 seconds to "learn" how to run and gun.

i also recently bought Plants vs. Zombies and the built-in tutorial introducing new weapons, creatures, and tactics before each round made learning how to play it both seamless and fun. if not for that, learning it would have taken much longer and been annoying.

[Nielk1]

I hate coming back to a game after a year and being clueless.

Looking at you Revenge of the Titans...

[Psychedelic Rhino]

By far my biggest issue in the learning curve is complex key layouts. I'm left-handed, so re-mapping is critical. I'm grateful most all new games allow very flexible remapping. I've tried very hard over the last few years to settle down to a "standard" re-mapping of the KB. Some games, namely FPS', add a twist here and there for little extras. For example, the "hip slide" in Far Cry 2, or all the extra weapon combos in the Dead Space series.

The 'catch' to all this is using a laptop. My standard map layout on a full-size KB is very uncomfortable on a laptop's KB, so I have still another layout for it. It's brutal hard-wiring my brain for two layouts. If I'm playing SP, a little confusion is ok, but having learned BF3 on the PC, then trying MP on my laptop is a sad undertaking.

'Back in the day' with BZ, I used a joystick with three hats, anything complex could be mapped to the hats. Sadly, FPS' don't lend themselves well to a stick.

[Apollo]

Intuitive game design and fun game play are very important in keeping a game alive but that just isn't enough for Battlezone.

I think the games needs to get back on the market after 12 and 14 years.

[MrTwosheds]

I agree, but it seems the only viable routes to market would be piracy. The law(s) currently take no account of the need for historical preservation of such products. You only have to visit a museum to realise that everything has a value from a historical perspective. Pc games are no exception, indeed they may, in time, become items of great value, particularly those from the early years. Preservation is particularly difficult considering the way platforms evolve. Clearly the manufacturers cannot yet be relied on to assist in the preservation of their own work. It is, for now, down to the likes of Ken and Nathan to do the best they can.
Possibly it could become an area where a charitable organisation might succeed, where a commercial model could not. Either way Law(s) that recognise the rights of users as well as distributors would be a step in the right direction. Ie there should come a point where the continuation of reproduction of a Valued Item outweighs the rights of the now disinterested original manufacturer and their legal protection from "piracy" expires (if they fail to make the product available themselves). Much like it does with patents.

I bet the BBC are currently cursing themselves for not saving a recording of Jim L Fix It with Gary Glitter

[Nielk1]

We have options, I've amassed 85 people so far to throw at GoG to vote the BZ series up, need a bunch more though.

[Red Spot]

You can include me in that list ...