ChienAboyeur
SasqWatch
- Joined
- March 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,265
The time when video games were shipped with big, descriptive, detailled manuals is over and it will not return.
Two main causes behind.
Gaming is divided in two stages:
Learning can be achieved through multiple ways. Two ways are well known.
Learning through a dissociated way (theory) and learning through an embedded way(practice)
The natural way:
When the video game industry started, people look at what was done elsewhere, in other gaming sectors like board gaming.
Board gaming usually learn how to play games through a dissociated way.
You can learn how to play a game without ever practising it thanks to an extensive cover delivered in a manual.
The dissociated way actually provides two versions of the game: the game as it shall play, the authoritative version (given in the manual) and the game as it plays (given by actual sessions of gaming)
It is well known that the dissociated way provides ground for critical thinking naturally as it gives two versions to compare. The abstraction work is done and given to sight.
That was the state of the industry at start: providing two versions of the same game that make it plain to see what works and does not work.
Then one person or some people got the brilliant revelation that they were not doing board games, that they should not be constrainted by board games limitations, that they were doing video games and they should take advantage of that.
Therefore the learning process in gaming was moved from the dissociated way to the embedded way.
The embedded way, learning through practice, has this it does not provide two versions at the go, you have to abstract and build the model. It might happen when you want to further the knowledge of the game or when you want to teach it etc
Building the second version is not difficult in video games but requires an effort, that step back that people might not take, especially if you want on them not taking it through immersion stuff and the sort.
The embedded way comes with a big advantage: as things are being practised, they seem natural, they flow naturally and questioning them is an imported feature.
For a game designer, the embedded way is superior as it does not prepare for an exercize in critical thinking. The dissociated way naturally prepares players to compare and find their own conclusions on thing that work the way they shall.
The embedded way captures the mind and removes the questions off the table.
Priceless. That alone means that big manuals wont come back.
The mystery book:
In the past, mystery books came as well known scam. They were supposed to contain unvaluable knowledge for people who took time to investigate them.
As it is impossible to judge a book by its cover, you got to read a mystery book before assessing the reality of its content.
The video game industry takes that feature.
Learning through a dissociated way is straightforward: you dont have to play the game to learn it. Or more exactly, you dont have to practise the game.
An experienced reader, by reading a manual, could tell between a failed game and a good game.
Learning through the embedded way comes with the high benefit that the stage of learning how to play a game can be sold. Even better, you can use the stage of learning to cover for the lack of game in the end.
Certain games work fully on this principle.
For example, it is classical for a RTS to learn the game through a campaign. Campaign that slowly introduces units after units, meaning that the player only starts to play the game when the units are all granted. And this might mean only one or two missions in a campaign of 15 missions. The other missions are dedicated to learn how to play the game.
Even better, in the case of an utterly failed game, it still requires ten or 15 hours of practice before declaring that the game is an utter failure.
At this point, easy to blur the lines between stage one and stage two. In the dissociated way, the stages are structurally kept separated but in the embedded way, you can claim that the time spent on learning the game should not be different than the time spent on playing the game.
You spend time learning a totally failed game? The same as playing a proper game. As a matter of fact, you spend time on them.
This opportunity is fully revealed in ventures like Steam Early Access. Players might never play the game as the game never releases. But they spend countless hours learning how to play unfinished versions of the game.
Other side benefits: it widens the customer base as people (sophists) who are infatued with learning things without applying them are perfect target base.
Another massive benefit is that it allows to build on an everlasting metagame without never completing the actual game.
Players always playing an ever evolving metagame without ever touching to a finished version of the game.
Those two causes ensures that big manuals shall not return soon.
The benefits of them are too big to be ignored.
Two main causes behind.
Gaming is divided in two stages:
- Stage one: Learning how to play the game
- Stage two: Playing the game
Learning can be achieved through multiple ways. Two ways are well known.
Learning through a dissociated way (theory) and learning through an embedded way(practice)
The natural way:
When the video game industry started, people look at what was done elsewhere, in other gaming sectors like board gaming.
Board gaming usually learn how to play games through a dissociated way.
You can learn how to play a game without ever practising it thanks to an extensive cover delivered in a manual.
The dissociated way actually provides two versions of the game: the game as it shall play, the authoritative version (given in the manual) and the game as it plays (given by actual sessions of gaming)
It is well known that the dissociated way provides ground for critical thinking naturally as it gives two versions to compare. The abstraction work is done and given to sight.
That was the state of the industry at start: providing two versions of the same game that make it plain to see what works and does not work.
Then one person or some people got the brilliant revelation that they were not doing board games, that they should not be constrainted by board games limitations, that they were doing video games and they should take advantage of that.
Therefore the learning process in gaming was moved from the dissociated way to the embedded way.
The embedded way, learning through practice, has this it does not provide two versions at the go, you have to abstract and build the model. It might happen when you want to further the knowledge of the game or when you want to teach it etc
Building the second version is not difficult in video games but requires an effort, that step back that people might not take, especially if you want on them not taking it through immersion stuff and the sort.
The embedded way comes with a big advantage: as things are being practised, they seem natural, they flow naturally and questioning them is an imported feature.
For a game designer, the embedded way is superior as it does not prepare for an exercize in critical thinking. The dissociated way naturally prepares players to compare and find their own conclusions on thing that work the way they shall.
The embedded way captures the mind and removes the questions off the table.
Priceless. That alone means that big manuals wont come back.
The mystery book:
In the past, mystery books came as well known scam. They were supposed to contain unvaluable knowledge for people who took time to investigate them.
As it is impossible to judge a book by its cover, you got to read a mystery book before assessing the reality of its content.
The video game industry takes that feature.
Learning through a dissociated way is straightforward: you dont have to play the game to learn it. Or more exactly, you dont have to practise the game.
An experienced reader, by reading a manual, could tell between a failed game and a good game.
Learning through the embedded way comes with the high benefit that the stage of learning how to play a game can be sold. Even better, you can use the stage of learning to cover for the lack of game in the end.
Certain games work fully on this principle.
For example, it is classical for a RTS to learn the game through a campaign. Campaign that slowly introduces units after units, meaning that the player only starts to play the game when the units are all granted. And this might mean only one or two missions in a campaign of 15 missions. The other missions are dedicated to learn how to play the game.
Even better, in the case of an utterly failed game, it still requires ten or 15 hours of practice before declaring that the game is an utter failure.
At this point, easy to blur the lines between stage one and stage two. In the dissociated way, the stages are structurally kept separated but in the embedded way, you can claim that the time spent on learning the game should not be different than the time spent on playing the game.
You spend time learning a totally failed game? The same as playing a proper game. As a matter of fact, you spend time on them.
This opportunity is fully revealed in ventures like Steam Early Access. Players might never play the game as the game never releases. But they spend countless hours learning how to play unfinished versions of the game.
Other side benefits: it widens the customer base as people (sophists) who are infatued with learning things without applying them are perfect target base.
Another massive benefit is that it allows to build on an everlasting metagame without never completing the actual game.
Players always playing an ever evolving metagame without ever touching to a finished version of the game.
Those two causes ensures that big manuals shall not return soon.
The benefits of them are too big to be ignored.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,265