+- PlayByMail Forums (https://forums.playbymail.dev)
+-- Forum: General Chatter (https://forums.playbymail.dev/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+--- Forum: Opinions & General Discussion (https://forums.playbymail.dev/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: What's wrong with current BBGs? (/showthread.php?tid=59)
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - JonO - 03-30-2011
It sounds like a tutorial - either written, or provided on-line - would be a good idea. Take the player through the basics with lots of screenshots.
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - GrimFinger - 03-30-2011
(03-30-2011, 01:58 PM)JonO Wrote: It sounds like a tutorial - either written, or provided on-line - would be a good idea. Take the player through the basics with lots of screenshots.
Oh, God! Another tutorial - just what the gaming world needs. ACK!!
Make the game intuitive, and the player can figure it out, without the game losing players to deficient tutorials, before they ever even try the game, proper.
I don't hate tutorials, per se. Rather, when I sign up for a game, I just want to start playing. This is most likely to happen if, one, the games interface is tutorial, and two, the game's design is intuitive. Rulebooks and game manuals are all fine and dandy things, of course, but a game that is not intuitive, at all, can become "learn-able" via the long, scenic route.
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - Ramblurr - 03-30-2011
When it comes to games with pure text interface, the phrase "intuitive interface" is impossible if the game is computer moderated. Unless the programmer can solve the million dollar problem of parsing natural language, players will have to abide with un-intuitive means if interacting with the computer.
Sure, some systems are better than others (arcane number codes vs actual words), but in the end they will all follow a strict format that can only be learned by reading a manual or tutorial.
(addition)
... which is why I think an interactive orders creator is an invaluable tool.
The player should identify an action he wants to do, e.g., move a ship from A to B, and be able to do] it, without having to figure out how to encode/instruct that order. This is what GUIs are for: translating abstract actions a user wants to accomplish into a command the machine can understand.
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - JonO - 03-30-2011
(03-30-2011, 03:47 PM)GrimFinger Wrote:(03-30-2011, 01:58 PM)JonO Wrote: It sounds like a tutorial - either written, or provided on-line - would be a good idea. Take the player through the basics with lots of screenshots.
Oh, God! Another tutorial - just what the gaming world needs. ACK!!
Make the game intuitive, and the player can figure it out, without the game losing players to deficient tutorials, before they ever even try the game, proper.
I don't hate tutorials, per se. Rather, when I sign up for a game, I just want to start playing. This is most likely to happen if, one, the games interface is tutorial, and two, the game's design is intuitive. Rulebooks and game manuals are all fine and dandy things, of course, but a game that is not intuitive, at all, can become "learn-able" via the long, scenic route.
Nobody ever makes a user RTFM, but if he doesn't, and asks questions of the game moderator that are answered in the tutorial, the GM has the option of simply send a link to it rather than answering the question, which'll save everybody time. And, I believe that there are players who prefer to read a tutorial before filling out their first turn.
I agree wholeheartedly about making the choices as intuitive as possible, however that can only make sure that the player's orders are correctly formatted and machine-readable. A tutorial can have a line it in like "You can, of course, order the other planets in the system to be colonized, but you are better off sending your scouts to the nearest star systems." And then display a graphic that shows the method of sending scouts to the nearest systems.
One of the advantages of a tutorial in this case is Ram could produce it a lot more quickly, in time for Galaxy Alpha players to take advantage of it, than he can code an entirely new application.
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - Ramblurr - 03-31-2011
(03-30-2011, 06:04 PM)JonO Wrote: One of the advantages of a tutorial in this case is Ram could produce it a lot more quickly, in time for Galaxy Alpha players to take advantage of it, than he can code an entirely new application.
Yup, I've been working on this with a current FH GA player this past week. I hope to have the wiki and/or forum post up with the tutorial. It is 12 turns of orders and turn reports along with some brief strategy comments on why the player did what he did.
IMHO, part of the problem with a tutorial that gives order examples is a player will use it to the exclusion of the game manual. Moreover, the player likely won't even read the tutorial for comprehension, but simply scan through it until he/she finds something relevant to their interests. Then they'll copy+paste the relevant bits, attempt to change the orders so it applies to their position, then wonder why they get errors upon orders submission. I've seen this before in other games
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - JonO - 03-31-2011
I look forward to reading it. I spent the day working on the help files that go along with enrolling in the game. I am bored out of my gourd doing it, but if I provide a narrative for each input screen and a nice big button with a question mark on that will call up the appropriate file, I am hopeful that the process will be, for the new player, as painless as possible.
I think that, tomorrow, I will be able to upload the entire finalized enrollment app to my test server.
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - GrimFinger - 03-31-2011
(03-30-2011, 06:04 PM)JonO Wrote: Nobody ever makes a user RTFM, but if he doesn't, and asks questions of the game moderator that are answered in the tutorial, the GM has the option of simply send a link to it rather than answering the question, which'll save everybody time. And, I believe that there are players who prefer to read a tutorial before filling out their first turn.
RTFM, of course, for those who might breathe air instead of acronyms, stands for "Read The Fucking Manual." Or, if one prefers a muted variation on the same, "Read The Freakin' Manual."
Most games that I have ever played have had manuals. Many have also had tutorials. Some have had strategy guides, as well. Others have had example turn reports, or overviews, or guided tours. Just piling more eggs on the player's plate won't make those eggs taste like bacon, however.
Certainly, tutorials can instruct the player at a pace where a game is more easily comprehended. Tutorials can also bore players out of their very existence.
Going back to my very first posting on page # 1 of this thread, I will say it, again. My own experience to date with browser based games has been that, by and large, they are boring. Whatever else may be said about tutorials to their benefit, tutorials have acquired a well-deserved reputation for being boring.
The more intuitive that a game is, the less that the game in question needs a tutorial. I think that that much is axiomatic. Of various browser based games that I have tried, to date, I just don't think that a tutorial - or even a better tutorial for those that already had one, would have been sufficient to bridge the gap, in order to transition the game from being boring to being exciting and engaging and addicting.
Programmers are a lot like engineers, in that as they program their respective games, they each acquire a hefty degree of familiarity with them. When a game manual or a set of rules are then crafted by those very same individuals, things tend to invariably get taken for granted.
The completely uninitiated approach the very same games with very different perspectives form those who programmed them. What is obvious or logical to the programmer can be confusing - or even invisible - to the player new to the game.
Since I play in Far Horizons: The Awakening, currently, I will use that game as an example to help illustrate my point. I downloaded the latest version of the game manual from the game moderator's website again, earlier this evening. The rules in question are the seventh edition of the rules for Far Horizons. Yet, they are highly deficient. Why? Because, things that I need to do are not always obvious.
Why aren't they obvious? There have been at least seven separate revisions to the rules, and even still, confusion is no stranger to the uninitiated that chance to try the game.
In the following thread, site user Wolvar posted this:
(03-20-2011, 04:09 AM)Wolvar Wrote: I understand the frustration took me a good 4 weeks to understand everything myself even with the rules. Still pretty much a novice since this will only be my third attempt.
If a game is incapable of making me want to read the rules, after I start playing, then what are the chances that I am the only one who will feel that way?
Over a decade into the Twenty-First Century, do I want to become a rulebook archaeologist, and try to sift through the bits and pieces covered by a mountain of text, just in order to perform basic, rudimentary tasks? It certainly isn't going to make my Top Ten list of things that I most look forward to doing.
I want to sit down, and play the game - whatever game it is that I play. I don't want to hoist a voluminous tome of boring incarnate, regardless of whether it is First Edition or Seventh Edition, in order to get up and running in the game. If the game is intuitive, then I, the player, will know that, and I will feel that. The game moderator won't have to pressure me or brow beat me or remind me to read the game manual or the rulebook. Rather, I will have incentive on my own to tackle what I call "the heavy reading."
If I want to read, then I'll buy a book. Except, I don't like to read. I like to play games. I don't like to play games that bore me to death, though. I also don't like to play rulebooks posing as games.
Boring Browser Based format + Boring Tutorial = More Boredom
That's the simple math of it, to me.
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - JonO - 03-31-2011
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: Most games that I have ever played have had manuals. Many have also had tutorials. Some have had strategy guides, as well. Others have had example turn reports, or overviews, or guided tours.
All the same, really. The idea is to explain how to play the game. There are some games which encourage the role of a live mentor - that's just another verion of a manual or tutorial
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: Going back to my very first posting on page # 1 of this thread, I will say it, again. My own experience to date with browser based games has been that, by and large, they are boring. Whatever else may be said about tutorials to their benefit, tutorials have acquired a well-deserved reputation for being boring.
I know you are not saying that you have played all of them or that you know your experience is universal, but to stress the point, it is obvious that there are thousand, maybe tens of thousands of players who enjoy browser-based games.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: The more intuitive that a game is, the less that the game in question needs a tutorial. I think that that much is axiomatic. Of various browser based games that I have tried, to date, I just don't think that a tutorial - or even a better tutorial for those that already had one, would have been sufficient to bridge the gap, in order to transition the game from being boring to being exciting and engaging and addicting.
I am confused. Are we talking about the fact that a game is browser-based, or that it is simplistic (boring) or that its documentation is hard to understand. Those latter two, while not mutually exclusive, do not always go together, and neither is a concomitant of being in a browser.
The ideal, I believe is that a game should be "easy to learn, hard to master."
Most of the PBM games including Rimworlds -1986 and (I suspect) all of the ones you remember fondly, were not easy to learn because they required either looking up or memorizing a bunch of codes. Good ones had a set pattern for the codes so you didn't have to remember the format for each one as well. Some PBMs also had return sheets that were filled with codes, that had to be mentally translated before they were understood.
But yet we loved 'em - why? because they challenged us. They made us feel good when we succeeded and made us try harder when we failed. There were BBS's filled with the equivalent of tutorials - some players took on the role of being tutorials and were worth their weight in gold to the GM, whether they knew it or not.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: Programmers are a lot like engineers, in that as they program their respective games, they each acquire a hefty degree of familiarity with them. When a game manual or a set of rules are then crafted by those very same individuals, things tend to invariably get taken for granted.
Invariably??? I beg your pardon??? I am a programmer. The rulebook for RW-1986 was detailed, indexed, and updated constantly. (Much of the book was not needful to learn how to give orders, it was back stories, strategy choices, lookup tables, reference works and indexes.) I know that BSE was presented in much the same way and I assume the rest of ABM's games were, too. On the other hand, I can agree that the situation you describe exists - has existed since the earliest days of gaming, and will continue to exist forever. It is simply not universal.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: The completely uninitiated approach the very same games with very different perspectives form those who programmed them. What is obvious or logical to the programmer can be confusing - or even invisible - to the player new to the game.
You are dead right. But again you paint all programmers with the same brush. Not every member of any profession acts in lockstep with every other member. Nor is every programmer limited to only thinking in terms of code. I have earned my living as a technical writer -- who are paid decent bucks to explain how to handle software far more complicated than any game.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: Since I play in Far Horizons: The Awakening, currently, I will use that game as an example to help illustrate my point. I downloaded the latest version of the game manual from the game moderator's website again, earlier this evening. The rules in question are the seventh edition of the rules for Far Horizons. Yet, they are highly deficient. Why? Because, things that I need to do are not always obvious.
Here's where I get confused. Are you criticizing FH because its rulebook is not well written, or because it is played in a browser? You are talking about a game that was written years ago, in a language (Ansi C) known for efficiency and control not its ability to deal with strings (words). It is filled with codes a la the 80's and 90's, and so far Ram has yet to upgrade its input/output beyond that era, even though the website is attractively laid out and shows great promise of becoming a good interface.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: If a game is incapable of making me want to read the rules, after I start playing, then what are the chances that I am the only one who will feel that way?
Over a decade into the Twenty-First Century, do I want to become a rulebook archaeologist, and try to sift through the bits and pieces covered by a mountain of text, just in order to perform basic, rudimentary tasks? It certainly isn't going to make my Top Ten list of things that I most look forward to doing.
I couldn't agree with you more. Eliminating this experience, to me, is the promise of computer-interface gaming. When Ram gets an interface in place that is easy to understand, offers only the options (in understandable terms) that are available at that moment and generally makes it impossible to enter an order that will fail, then FH can start achieving its full potential. (I note that the interface doesn't have to be browser-based, it can be a client program running on the player's computer and utilizing the web merely as a way of communicating with the game server.)
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: The game moderator won't have to pressure me or brow beat me or remind me to read the game manual or the rulebook. Rather, I will have incentive on my own to tackle what I call "the heavy reading."
The incentive that has existed since Starweb was being run on punch cards is wanting to play the best game you can. That is not changed by the game being available on the web. It is a function of how much the game (as opposed to the interface) challenges you.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote:Boring Browser Based format + Boring Tutorial = More BoredomThat's the simple math of it, to me.
Sure. but the operative word there is boring, not manual or game. Let me rewrite it as:
Exciting game + well designed interface + well written and easily used documentation available on line or for download = a game you'll play forever.
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - ixnay - 03-31-2011
Grim, the fact that you cited the poorly-written rules of Far Horizons shows that this is not about whether the game is played in a browser or a more traditional PBM format. The FH rules *are* terrible, but with the right rules the game mechanics are fairly simple and straightforward. I have half a mind to write up a field guide to FH myself.
Similarly, many BBGs are boring, but many are not. I give you the examples of Farmville and Mafia Wars (on facebook) as examples of *very* simple repetitive games that have a stunning grip on their players. (Earning their publishing companies millions of dollars, incidentally.)
I'm not saying PBM should look to Farmville as the way of the future. Rather, PBM should put it's vast experience at text-based and simple-graphic storytelling to use and leapfrog past Farmville. In a big way.
RE: What's wrong with current BBGs? - Gads - 03-31-2011
(03-31-2011, 03:57 PM)JonO Wrote:(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: Most games that I have ever played have had manuals. Many have also had tutorials. Some have had strategy guides, as well. Others have had example turn reports, or overviews, or guided tours.
All the same, really. The idea is to explain how to play the game. There are some games which encourage the role of a live mentor - that's just another verion of a manual or tutorial
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: Going back to my very first posting on page # 1 of this thread, I will say it, again. My own experience to date with browser based games has been that, by and large, they are boring. Whatever else may be said about tutorials to their benefit, tutorials have acquired a well-deserved reputation for being boring.
I know you are not saying that you have played all of them or that you know your experience is universal, but to stress the point, it is obvious that there are thousand, maybe tens of thousands of players who enjoy browser-based games.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: The more intuitive that a game is, the less that the game in question needs a tutorial. I think that that much is axiomatic. Of various browser based games that I have tried, to date, I just don't think that a tutorial - or even a better tutorial for those that already had one, would have been sufficient to bridge the gap, in order to transition the game from being boring to being exciting and engaging and addicting.
I am confused. Are we talking about the fact that a game is browser-based, or that it is simplistic (boring) or that its documentation is hard to understand. Those latter two, while not mutually exclusive, do not always go together, and neither is a concomitant of being in a browser.
The ideal, I believe is that a game should be "easy to learn, hard to master."
Most of the PBM games including Rimworlds -1986 and (I suspect) all of the ones you remember fondly, were not easy to learn because they required either looking up or memorizing a bunch of codes. Good ones had a set pattern for the codes so you didn't have to remember the format for each one as well. Some PBMs also had return sheets that were filled with codes, that had to be mentally translated before they were understood.
But yet we loved 'em - why? because they challenged us. They made us feel good when we succeeded and made us try harder when we failed. There were BBS's filled with the equivalent of tutorials - some players took on the role of being tutorials and were worth their weight in gold to the GM, whether they knew it or not.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: Programmers are a lot like engineers, in that as they program their respective games, they each acquire a hefty degree of familiarity with them. When a game manual or a set of rules are then crafted by those very same individuals, things tend to invariably get taken for granted.
Invariably??? I beg your pardon??? I am a programmer. The rulebook for RW-1986 was detailed, indexed, and updated constantly. (Much of the book was not needful to learn how to give orders, it was back stories, strategy choices, lookup tables, reference works and indexes.) I know that BSE was presented in much the same way and I assume the rest of ABM's games were, too. On the other hand, I can agree that the situation you describe exists - has existed since the earliest days of gaming, and will continue to exist forever. It is simply not universal.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: The completely uninitiated approach the very same games with very different perspectives form those who programmed them. What is obvious or logical to the programmer can be confusing - or even invisible - to the player new to the game.
You are dead right. But again you paint all programmers with the same brush. Not every member of any profession acts in lockstep with every other member. Nor is every programmer limited to only thinking in terms of code. I have earned my living as a technical writer -- who are paid decent bucks to explain how to handle software far more complicated than any game.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: Since I play in Far Horizons: The Awakening, currently, I will use that game as an example to help illustrate my point. I downloaded the latest version of the game manual from the game moderator's website again, earlier this evening. The rules in question are the seventh edition of the rules for Far Horizons. Yet, they are highly deficient. Why? Because, things that I need to do are not always obvious.
Here's where I get confused. Are you criticizing FH because its rulebook is not well written, or because it is played in a browser? You are talking about a game that was written years ago, in a language (Ansi C) known for efficiency and control not its ability to deal with strings (words). It is filled with codes a la the 80's and 90's, and so far Ram has yet to upgrade its input/output beyond that era, even though the website is attractively laid out and shows great promise of becoming a good interface.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: If a game is incapable of making me want to read the rules, after I start playing, then what are the chances that I am the only one who will feel that way?
Over a decade into the Twenty-First Century, do I want to become a rulebook archaeologist, and try to sift through the bits and pieces covered by a mountain of text, just in order to perform basic, rudimentary tasks? It certainly isn't going to make my Top Ten list of things that I most look forward to doing.
I couldn't agree with you more. Eliminating this experience, to me, is the promise of computer-interface gaming. When Ram gets an interface in place that is easy to understand, offers only the options (in understandable terms) that are available at that moment and generally makes it impossible to enter an order that will fail, then FH can start achieving its full potential. (I note that the interface doesn't have to be browser-based, it can be a client program running on the player's computer and utilizing the web merely as a way of communicating with the game server.)
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote: The game moderator won't have to pressure me or brow beat me or remind me to read the game manual or the rulebook. Rather, I will have incentive on my own to tackle what I call "the heavy reading."
The incentive that has existed since Starweb was being run on punch cards is wanting to play the best game you can. That is not changed by the game being available on the web. It is a function of how much the game (as opposed to the interface) challenges you.
(03-31-2011, 02:47 AM)GrimFinger Wrote:Boring Browser Based format + Boring Tutorial = More BoredomThat's the simple math of it, to me.
Sure. but the operative word there is boring, not manual or game. Let me rewrite it as:
Exciting game + well designed interface + well written and easily used documentation available on line or for download = a game you'll play forever.
I agree with you 100% JonO
(03-31-2011, 05:36 PM)ixnay Wrote: Grim, the fact that you cited the poorly-written rules of Far Horizons shows that this is not about whether the game is played in a browser or a more traditional PBM format. The FH rules *are* terrible, but with the right rules the game mechanics are fairly simple and straightforward. I have half a mind to write up a field guide to FH myself.
Similarly, many BBGs are boring, but many are not. I give you the examples of Farmville and Mafia Wars (on facebook) as examples of *very* simple repetitive games that have a stunning grip on their players. (Earning their publishing companies millions of dollars, incidentally.)
I'm not saying PBM should look to Farmville as the way of the future. Rather, PBM should put it's vast experience at text-based and simple-graphic storytelling to use and leapfrog past Farmville. In a big way.
If PBM want to convert successfully to the on-line media I think it can do far worse than look to games like Farmville or Mafia Wars. Yes we all agree they are repetitive, shallow and maybe even boring however they have got right far more than any PBM todate regarding success online. What is so wrong with getting a simple basic PBM game working online successfully and using it's model and platform as a base to increase depth and complexity?