Do you prefer games that just toss you in or games with a tutorial?

[Wolfox]

Simple question really. Or is it?

Also, we're going for the full extremes here. no skipable tutorial parts or tutorial you can play anytime. You either have a Mandatory Tutorial that tells you all you need, or you just get tossed in and have to figure it out yourself while trying to survive (Castlevania style).

 

 

Personally, give me the tutorials. I can find enjoyment in playing those (yes, even the first island of SuMo/USUM) and I'd rather just learn what the game thinks I should learn.

[....]

It really depends tbh,

If game has an easy-going nature and fairly easy to figure out already,Tutorials are not really necessary,

But i mostly love games without tutorials,Dark Souls,Skyrim etc,

I just want to run off to a big fucking crazy world~

[FairFamily]

It depends on what the game has/wants to offer. Personally I think that games without tutorials can lead for extremely satisfying revelations when you find out about a mechanic that you previously didn't use. Also it allows the player to devellop strategies in his own way. That being said there has been cases where this if done badly can lead in severe problems during the game (looking at you Dark Souls) but that is for everything in games. 

[Dragoknight]

Divin' right in, baby!

 

Well, I suppose if a tutorial is short and sweet (and introduces the new mechanic in an interesting and fun way), then I suppose a tutorial would be beneficial. Kinda like a combat tutorial for a certain blocking method or combo, as long as it isn't too repetitive. But most of the time, I like figuring things out on my own rather than being told outright to do this. Granted the complexity of a task is also an important factor, so for something along the lines of doing a sequence of events that you would never guess otherwise, give me a tutorial. If not, then get out of my may. (I'm also the kind of person that explores many options, enjoys finding unique ways to accomplish certain tasks and likes to test the game's limits so......)

Edited March 2, 2018 by Dragoknight

[LemonJones]

I'm a tutorial hater man. I've never ever prefered that type of game. The more mysterious and difficult it is (without it being annoying), the better.

[Shamitako]

Yes

[BandorKitty]

Hmmmm it really depends on the type of game and it's system. If it's something with a complex, unfamiliar system, then yeah, I'd prefer a tutorial to at least get the basics down. Otherwise, if it has a basic system, or it's somewhat obvious on what you can and can't do then I'd prefer to jump right in and find my own way around. If the tutorial is mandatory for a basic game, I don't mind it as long as it's short. With Pokemon S/M US/UM though, that first island is preeeeetty long and the stuff like the different trial challenges feel a bit over-explained to me.

[Wolfox]

3 hours ago, BandorKitty said:

Hmmmm it really depends on the type of game and it's system. If it's something with a complex, unfamiliar system, then yeah, I'd prefer a tutorial to at least get the basics down. Otherwise, if it has a basic system, or it's somewhat obvious on what you can and can't do then I'd prefer to jump right in and find my own way around. If the tutorial is mandatory for a basic game, I don't mind it as long as it's short. With Pokemon S/M US/UM though, that first island is preeeeetty long and the stuff like the different trial challenges feel a bit over-explained to me.

hence why I said the complete extremes. my personal checks for yes or no were Sun and Moon and Darksouls. Dark Souls just tosses you in without any holding bars while SuMo gives you a parachute and a falling net while just walking across a regular road.

[BandorKitty]

@Wolfox Yeah I know, I voted no tutorial. That was me explaining my mindset

[Zargerth]

I'll go with no tutorials. I prefer to learn and explore on my own. With that said, if I forget or have missed something, a manual or tutorial you can read again is pretty handy in situations like this.

[leo_the_greatest]

Optional tutorials are great, but I absolutely despise Pokemon's format of holding your hand like a toddler every single game. On the other hand, you take a game like Europa Universalis IV with an incredibly limited tutorial that throws you in knowing basically nothing and then you spend the first 80 hours getting your ass kicked just trying to figure out how to play as a major nation and not suck.

 

On 3/2/2018 at 5:09 PM, LemonJones said:

I'm a tutorial hater man. I've never ever prefered that type of game. The more mysterious and difficult it is (without it being annoying), the better.

Have you ever tried a Paradox Grand Strategy game? Guaranteed that you would change your mind if you ever tried one such as Europa Universalis IV. There's a fan-made Youtube tutorial that doesn't even un-pause the game (real-time strategy) for like 10 episodes because of the level of complexity you can go into to really understand the game.

[Commander]

This is a hard question because it really grinds down to the game. While nobody likes being bogged down for a couple hours purely for explanation, it can often end up being just as frustrating not knowing what to do or how to even go about stuff. I do think some tutorial designed stuff is needed, but not silly stuff like how to buy items or how to use them. Take Pokemon Colosseum for example. They treat you like you know how to battle, but explain new mechanics. Even if you don't know how to battle that well, they give you two really good mons against a bunch of weak trainers to get the hang of it. It'd be hard to know you could catch trainer Pokemon without them explaining it.

 

I don't really like this question as tutorials are needed and have to be designed around (not all tutorials are explicit) as I really don't like being thrown into games without any idea and things being way too hard and forcing me to learn quickly.

[L'Belle]

As long as the tutorial is not too long and boring, I like tutorials.

[LemonJones]

13 hours ago, leo_the_greatest said:

Have you ever tried a Paradox Grand Strategy game? Guaranteed that you would change your mind if you ever tried one such as Europa Universalis IV. There's a fan-made Youtube tutorial that doesn't even un-pause the game (real-time strategy) for like 10 episodes because of the level of complexity you can go into to really understand the game.

Perhaps you're right. In this game I can see how I could put tutorial is very much needed. I should rephrase - it depends on the type of game. I really dislike games that have it but don't really need it.

[IntSys]

In a sense, you could say that games like Castlevania and Metroid still have "tutorial," just that it's disguised as clever level design that shows you the ropes before you can actually get into the real deal. And really, they were just one step away from having an explicit tutorial - they were just missing text prompts.

I do believe that intuitiveness should be considered in game design, which is why I believe it'd be great if all games can get away with the same kind of execution done by most platformers and even some RPGs, but I can't see the same being done to strategy games, which are only getting more and more deep and complex.

In the end, I don't necessarily prefer one over another, unless we're talking about specific genre-wise. I would hate to play a platformer that requires as much tutorial as a strategy game does, but I would also hate to play a strategy game that doesn't even teach you the rules of the game board.

[seki108]

Personally, at least a basic tutorial should be standard, even if it's made skippable.  I still remember finding out two Summers ago that Hydro Thunder had a way to jump that was required to win any races pass the bottom tier.    It was in the manual, I suppose, but what 5-7 year old reads every inch of the manual unless they made it somewhat unique (and the Hydro Thunder controls were just a small section in the dull thing).   This was almost two decades later I found out and could have been avoided by a short tutorial race, in this case.

 

Edit:  Do note the original Arcade version of Hydro Thunder came with no manual or tutorial, though it might have explained jumping somewhere......I didn't learn it, so it wasn't effective if it did try.

[5hift]

Having a tutorial is perfectly fine.

 

Having a tutorial that is 50%+ of the actual game only proves that existence is pain.

 

All of this depends on how complex the game is.

 

Few games manage to strike a perfect balance between having a brief tutorial that teaches you the basics well and allowing you to learn the little tricks as you play further into the game.

[Felicity]

Try playing Europa universalis blind without a tutorial then come back and ask yourself this question again.

[Chase]

I feel as if a tutorial should be optional where it can be. It isn't bad to tell someone how to play the game. It -is- bad to have telling someone how to play the game BE the game.

[Silvermyst]

I like a game with a very well-thought out tutorial teaches you things by putting you in situations that you have to figure out. Mega Man X is the best case of this. The entire first level, as well as the title screen, is a tutorial! It never tells you anything, but the way the level is set up, it throws one problem your way each time with plenty of room to try and solve it. Another good example is Cuphead (contrary to a certain 'journalist' who clearly needs to learn to play video games in the first place). You don't have anyone interrupting you, just a series of problems with the answers shown in the background, and you have to work the controls to figure it out. Tutorials that are not intrusive are the best kind. Or, it can be like The Bard's Tale, where there is a fourth wall humor element in it that makes the tutorial worth playing through, just to listen to the Bard.

 

Tutor "Now, let's teach you how to use that lute of yours."
Bard "What? Does my name not mean anything to you? The Bard? Did you not see me summon that rat just a few minutes ago?"

Tutor "Press the left trigger to open the menu."
Bard "You're not listening to a word I'm saying, are you?"

Edited March 24, 2018 by Silvermyst

[Kurotsune]

Aight, let's address this.

 

A game needs a tutorial. Any game needs a tutorial. And to illustrate that point, I'm going to clear a misconception: Every Dark Souls game has a tutorial.

 

At the start of EVERY dark souls games you're put in a zone with a very small amount of enemies, with most of them being passive. The zone is littered with messages about button presses and conveniently placed enemies near those that you can use these mechanics in to understand how they function.

 

Not only that, dark soul's tutorials stretch far into the game. In Dark Souls 1, in Sen's Fortress, you always have a lizardman walking into the boulder's path and getting killed so that you:
A. Learn that the trap is there
B. Learn that enemies can activate and be damaged by traps

C. Learn that not all traps are button presses on the floor

 

To further show this, you also have a lizardman pressing a floor panel and getting shot to death by the trap it activates. 

 

Even before that path - Dark Souls makes it a point to make you know well ahead of time what's coming. The whole premise of the game is "watch and learn" (which brings a whooole new discussion about how Dark Souls's passive gameplay creates a world where the player reacts to the world as opposed to most other games where the world reacts to the players and how this design philosophy effectively molds the entirety of Dark Souls) 

 

Before the drake shows up, the bridge is burnt.

Before the minotaur shows up, there's a fog wall and a long stretch of land that makes it obvious that a boss is coming.

You fight the Demon Firesage three times in three different forms with increasing difficulty as a way to prepare you not only for its final form but for Dark Souls's bosses as a whole

 

The very first NPC you meet tells you exactly what you need to do and serves as a way to show you that not all NPCs in the game are enemies - A notion that the game will later on subvert with Patches.

 

In Dark Souls 3 even further develops it by making the first boss fight something the player has to manually trigger, as a way to show new and old players that "hey, this time around sometimes the fog won't be directly before the boss arena and you'll have to do something to start it."

 

In Dark Souls 2 tones this down a bit in exchange for a more developed tutorial, but then it wasn't made by the original author so its design principles are slightly different.

 

Even in Dark Souls 3 you have, time and again, all the way up to the end game, messages and in-game displays of what enemies can do and how to fight them (You're shown directly in the cutscene for the Abyss Watchers fight that they can fight each other, and the walk-up to the boss arena is filled with sounds of swords clashing, to further drive home the point that they are fighting each other as much as they're fighting you.)

 

 

So let's clarify things:

Dark Souls has a tutorial. It has, in fact, one of the longest tutorials that you'll find in most modern games.

The difference is that Dark Souls uses its design philosophies to seamlessly incorportate its tutorial elements within regular play, using the age-old "show, don't tell" adage.

 

This allows Dark Souls to teach you exactly what to expect in a million different ways, and then punish you for not learning. That's what the game *is* about. Dark Souls isn't about expecting the unexpected. It's about observation.

 

 

Thus returning to my initial point: Every game needs a tutorial.  The lesson learned from Dark Souls is not that games should not have tutorials, but that tutorials should be incorporated in a more seamless way as to avoid dissonance between regular gameplay and "tutorial" gameplay.

 

Games like Nioh and the Witcher learn and show this application of concept, but older games like Super Metroid, Megaman and Megaman X and the Castlevania series, have been doing this for years.

 

There are several documentaries about how tutorials were designed back when games didn't have the space for a dedicated tutorial - If you want a dilluted version of this, you can see this video:

To conclude, then, I don't feel like the idea of "tutorial vs no tutorial" is even a question - The real question is which system is better designed; A dedicated tutorial or a seamless one.

 

Games without tutorials often end up unplayable; Games with seamless tutorials often teach you the game while making you feel like you're learning by yourself.

[FairFamily]

@Kurotsune Personally I think that your definition of what a toturial entails is a bit too expansive. 

For instance to me, mission statements are not part of the toturial in my opinion as is laying out hints in how mechanics might work.

Secondly controlling what skill level a player should have, by setting a certain bar is also not part of what in my opinion entails a toturial not is introducing new skills/mechanics.

 

To me a toturial is a section of the game where the game explicity states to the player how the mechanics function.

It's a moment where the game tries to reduce exploration and discovery of the mechanics and wants to make sure what information is relayed to the player.