So I come from the visual game medium, and this is something that I was talking about with both one of my friends (who does game testing) and my partners (who more or less study game design).
(Also sorry that this is so long. I’ve been thinking about this a lot. Also sorry if this sounds like a child trying to explain solutions to tax law.)
Visual Game Implementations
In visual games, tutorials are a bit of a touchy subject. The ideal is to set up a game that naturally grows from nothing to the full suite of game mechanics. The only downside is this approach can often make the entire game feel like one giant tutorial. Some people might not consider this to be a downside, though.
Some games just gives you occasional pop ups, which (theoretically) are unobtrusive for experienced players, but in practice are ineffective for new players and annoying for experienced players.
Other games have a dedicated tutorial mode, which lets experienced players jump straight into the full game, and let new players learn and practice. Arma 3, for example, also divides its tutorial into multiple individual missions, which allows a player to review skills they might be rusty on. The downside of this method, though, is you inevitably get players who refuse to play tutorials on principle, and expect all games to cater to their current skillset and knowledgebase. However, if we have the “let skaters skate” policy, then we should not set up the game to force players to go through a tutorial. If the player chooses to jump in and willfully skip the tutorial, then the experience they get is what they asked for. Not all games should be required to copy all the other games they have played, and games should be allowed to stretch beyond a constant state of tutorial.
Parser Implementations
So, if it isn’t clear from my (biased) tone, I prefer having a tutorial mode.
I feel like (in my opinion) the IF parser medium tends to amplify the factors of these methods. Everything is conveyed through text, which means simple graphical menus can become a lot more time-costly and verbose, when they must be conveyed through a text parser. (I’m assuming games which only use text, here, as I imagine screen-reader players would like tutorials as well.)
I imagine quite a lot of (puzzler) IF is a slowly-expanding tutorial, by nature of puzzle game design often arriving at this structure. However, I think the actual subject here is that the basics of parser IF is what needs a tutorial, so I’ll admit that this is not accurate to say these games are truly a “full” tutorial.
We also have seen games that have in-game popups, but these have to be reduced down to their smallest forms, as to not fill portions of the screen. The systems also need to be very intelligently-designed, as to not fall behind the boundless curiosity and power of the player. I feel like The Dreamhold does this rather well, as it uses a combination of map design and strategic popups to be as effective and unobtrusive as possible.
We also have seen games which have menu systems to learn the mechanics, before the player applies them in the full game. I think Kerkerkruip does this? I have a rather long to-play list, and this game is on it, and SpringThing has taken over my life for the past couple of months.
A Possible Solution From Conversation
So after talking about this with my tester friend and partners, we came to a conclusion. It might be admittedly-naïve (as we largely studied visual game design and theory), but is something I would like to put to the test. I’d happily volunteer as a guinea pig, at least.
IF has a history of feelies, and this medium is unique in that we come to these games to read, in some capacity. In the visual game space, “reading” is almost a derogatory word, and so a lot of visual game design theory tries to avoid it, whenever possible. This is something I’ve had to seriously unlearn while entering the IF space. However, I think we can leverage this for tutorials.
How would a stylized feelie handbook be received? It would be structured for fast reference and learn-as-necessary skimming and reading. It could be written in a way to be match the style of the game world, or try to approach it as close as possible. An example in visual games would be the Drone Operator’s Manual from Duskers, or literally any of the feelies from Zachtronics games.
In addition to such a document, the game could also offer a “mode select menu”, where the player could choose a practice version of the game (either toned-down or separate from the rest of the game), where they can try out what they learned in the document. Once they feel like they understand, they can play the primary game mode. The main goal of a “practice space” is to give some players the option to jump into the game world once they’re certain they can smoothly operate in it. If you are skilled in the usual mechanics and tropes of IF, you tend to enter new games with this level of confidence by default. Brand-new players might want a way to get to this point first.
If a player feels like they need help, the document is set up to be a reference. IF is turn-based anyway, so a player has time to look at quick notes. If the document is stylized to fit the game world then it won’t really break immersion too much (hopefully).
I’m not asserting any of this as fact, of course, because I still have a lot to learn in the IF sphere. However, this subject has been plaguing me a lot lately, so it’s kinda funny to see this thread appear when it did.
