One of the hardest things to do as a game designer is the balancing act between being clever and being obtuse. Sitting with our own ideas for too long we often start to subconsciously justify our decisions, thinking that they’re more obvious than they are. We’re then flabbergasted when other people don’t immediately grasp the things we thought were simple.
Brenda Brathwaite considers the same question on her blog, Applied Game Design, and comes to the conclusion: “change your design, not the player.”
While I think that a large part of games actually is about changing the player’s natural instincts and inclinations, or at least tweaking them a little, she is right when she maintains that the solution is not trying to press your point. It’s better to simply give in and try something different. There’s a good chance that in the end it’ll make for a better game. Failing that, it’s always good to work with tangible design challenges.
I’ve had my own share of problems reaching players, expecting subtle, in-game prompting would work for a set of mechanics that no new player would be likely to recognize without at first being flat out introduced to them through flat-out instructions. Having added such a tutorial, I can attest to the necessity of explaining new and unfamiliar gameplay to an audience. What bothers me, instead, is when games go out of their way to explain concepts that I’m already familiar with.
I’m curious as to what game she was talking about, here– was it a game with a new, unfamiliar play mechanic, or a game building from an established one?
@Bob - basically, the designer had established a mechanic and used it all places except for one. Whenever players encountered the situation that *didn’t* require that mechanic, they instantly tried to use the mechanic before being critiqued by the game/designer for trying to do what the game had actually trained them to do. In this case, it was an error on the side of consistency. Also, there wasn’t any logical reason other than designer convenience for it to be done the way it was done.
Okay, now my curiosity is overflowing. This is one of those times I wish I could actually play the game in question and see for myself.
Seems like this is a popular topic! Jesper Juul just made a similar post on his blog:
http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/?p=470
The player is always right. “If players are consistently doing something other than what you want them to do, change your design, not the player.” I do agree with this point, because: for a game as for a product, the final user is the game’s player, not the expert. We cannot use game designers’ experience to calculate the players’. There are lots of comments in the game that designers are familiar with, but the player, who plays this game first time, may not immediately grasp these things. Some of the players may lack patience when they face complex situations. As a result, they need good navigation to follow, and need instructions to explain the game clearly. The players need time to understand the rules and the structures of the game. A good game should provide some practice section or primary level for the players.
In my opinion, the game designer’s responsibility is to control the playability and fun factor of the game. The designers will use their skills to create the best game under the given circumstances, targeted specifically for the platform, the genre and the audience. The designer needs to meet players’ requirement when they conceive and design the rules and structures of a game. The players want adventurous experience, you give them adventurous experience; they want romantic atmosphere, you create an environment with romantic atmosphere; no matter what they want, you provide. So, designers cannot conceive the game only basing on their own experience, they also need to consider players’ likes and dislikes. For the game designer, players are always right.