![]() A game should do its best to cleanly and succinctly introduce a new player to what it is, but more and more anymore I hear people complain that what some games are is inaccesible to them by nature, and thus needs to change, which I find a rather toxic and entitled mindset. Nor do I really think that there's a good universal definition of that idea either. ![]() While there's a lot more some games can do to be approachable and legible, I don't know that 'new player accesibility' is really a very important goal, from any but a commercial standpoint. These the opposite to the above, where explaining themselves too much would destroy any semblance of the intended exerience. Applying base mechanics to novel or unexpected situations is sort of the point. Contrast a game like Starsector or Kenshi where "What is this and what does it do?" is central to the experience. The 'fun' is meant to be entirely in skillfull execution and the game's unafraid to make sure you get the point. Not because it's trying to hold the player's hand but because the process of experimentation is about zero percent of the point. ![]() Doom Eternal has tutorial pop ups every thirty seconds explaining its mechanics and how to defeat each enemy. Doom Eternal has been a great example of this. Which I find is part of that difference between old/new design styles. Especially because that learning process is, typically, a foundational part of the intended experience. ![]() Durendal5150 2 months ago I don't really see it as a downside, merely an aspect of what they are. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |