Surgency Games

One could argue that games within certain genres, are, by nature, complicated, and always require a tutorial that goes “back to the basics” because the basics are complicated on purpose. The RTS genre is one such exception. I’m not saying we should get rid of “how-to” tutorials in gaming, but rather that the how needs to be supported by the why, and when game tutorials miss this component, you can run the risk of frustrating and alienating a large section of your player base, mostly those who are not familiar with the genre.

Two examples have come up recently: MLB 09 The Show and Street Fighter IV. I don’t mean to pick on these titles exclusively (as I have a great fondness for both of them) but they are games I am currently playing, and both games help showcase the point.

In MLB, there are a number of tutorials and training sessions the player has access to, teaching them nearly every aspect of the game of baseball. Or rather, teaching them how to perform every action within the game of baseball by using their PS3 controller. Context for these actions, instructions as to why one pitch is better than another within a certain situation, or why you should always try to steal a base when the count is 3-2 or why it’s better to try and hit a sacrifice fly with one out and one man on, is never made clear.

Unless you know the game of baseball, know its strategies intimately, you’ll never be able learn through the game, because it simply isn’t present in the game. You need to go outside of the game and learn how the game is played, only so that you can come back and successfully play an abstraction of the game. Luckily, MLB has a number of difficulty sliders and settings that can be tweaked and adjusted to the player’s liking, which gives users who have never played baseball before a fighting chance against the AI. The problem is, because the game is lacking in proper instruction (and by this I mean the why) players will never grow into the higher levels of difficulty, unless they attempt to learn outside of the game. To me, this is flawed design.

I happen to know quite a lot about the game baseball, so, for me, MLB holds much interest. But it makes me think. It makes me think about all the sports I don’t know how to play in real life, whose strategies I don’t understand. Football. Basketball. Hockey. Through my gaming career, I’ve found titles in nearly every genre that I can play and enjoy. Except football games, basketball games, and hockey games. I don’t know why one play is better than any another in Madden. I always choose one at random from the playbook. Often, at anything other than the lowest difficulty, I am crushed.

Is it really so hard to include basic strategy within these games? A simple tutorial that explains why it’s better to execute a running play instead of a passing play? A tutorial that offers an explanation as to why the defensive line is moving around, what that signifies and how best to counter it? Why should I call an audible? Why should I do anything?

The simulation genre would seem to have it the worst. Aspects of real life, represented in video game form, which we are not intimately familiar with, can be confusing when presented without change or interpretation within the confines of a video game. In shooters, you inherently understand why getting shot is bad; you inherently understand that shooting someone in the head is better for your survival than shooting someone in the legs. In simulation racing, it probably doesn’t need to be explained why you brake when you enter into a corner, but it might help to know why you shouldn’t try to steer the car at the same you press the brake.

In Street Fighter IV, the basics of the game are simple. Press a button, watch your guy on screen do something. The next layer takes a bit of work. You might learn that if you make quarter-circle turn and press a punch button, Ryu will throw a fireball across the screen. You can look at a “character sheet” from the pause menu and learn (by memorization) all of Ryu’s special attacks. You might have to pause the game every few minutes for a refresher course. Eventually, you know what Ryu can do. You’ve learned it all (by rote memorization; not the best, but still…) and you’re ready to play.

You begin a match on the Medium difficulty setting. You get your ass kicked.

If you’re new to the Street Fighter franchise, you’ve hit a wall that will be difficult to bypass. You’ll be stuck playing on the most basic difficulty level against AI that makes the game not fun in the other direction.

I’ve personally always loved the Street Fighter series. I admire its artistry and respect how much of an influence it had on modern fighting games and the video game industry as a whole. But the truth is I suck at Street Fighter, always have, likely always will. This fine tradition continues with Street Fighter IV. Mainly because, the game, while almost forceful in teaching me how to play the game (near endless challenge modes, bright, easy to read moves lists, etc.) it never teaches me why, at any given moment, one move is better than another.

Perhaps some of the fun in the game is learning this on your own. OK, I buy that. But there are still basic Street Fighter tenets that I obviously don’t understand. Countering, attack timing, movement speeds and animation priority. How should I learn about these mechanics? How can I compete with players who have been at this series for nearly fifteen years? I’m not talking about skill here; I imagine I couldn’t compete on that level anyway. I’m talking about explaining fundamental concepts behind the game in a way that teaches me why one fireball is preferred over another, depending on the distance of my opponent. This seems like valuable stuff to know. I took the next-gen pastiche of Street Fighter IV to mean I might finally be able to learn all of this stuff. I thought the game would finally want to teach me the reasoning behind the combat.

The why is important. To me, it’s more important than the how. Games executing on a good tutorial that teach both concepts are already light-years ahead of the competition.  As an example, take the tutorial level from Call of Duty 4. In it, you are taught how to fire a gun, how to look down its sights, how to reload, how to snap to a target, and on and on. After all of this, you are taught you have a pistol. You are taught how to fire it. You are taught that it is nowhere near as powerful as your main weapon.

A question pops into your head: Why would you ever want to use the pistol instead of your main weapon?

The game answers this question almost immediately: Switching to the pistol will always be faster than reloading your main weapon.

This mechanic is great design, allowing for a more robust interplay between weapons. And it is explained to the player why they would want to use their pistol and in what situation it might be better to use the pistol.

I have, as far as I can remember, never killed more enemies with a pistol, than in Call of Duty 4.