Will there be a tutorial with this game?

[Paulverisor64]

The latter half of this video (3:47 on) pretty much sums up my feelings on tutorials:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2454-Easy-Games

Although the subject matter of the video is games that are far less complex than something like Combat Mission.

This video really sums it up perfectly. I don't want to get into an argument with people who understand the mechanics of Combat Mission 2; I want to see the door opened to people who would love to experience realism in gameplay yet find this unapproachable because of the interface and gameplay features.

I will paraphrase one section from this video which really puts emphasis on this.

Approachability does not prohibit deep challenging and rewarding game play. Anyone on the hard core fringe saying real gamers are willing to work for their fun; cut it out. You are not helping people discover the aspect of a game that people really enjoy. You are not helping the type of games that you like get made. Deep but approachable.

If the game itself alienates people because of the learning curve it does not help the customer base, and consequently it makes these type of games less likely to be built with even greater depth.

This video does give examples of how to make a tutorial helpful. What would really be nice would be text context which would display within the tutorial at the point of when the description of a specific action would be most helpful. I am not even really asking for this; I am just asking that your tutorial would at least match the 15 page description that was used in CMBB. The reason that I ask is because of what I have experienced with CMSF.

[Erwin]

It's way too expensive and time-consuming to do an "in-game tutorial.'

But, a written guide through a scenario explaining the basics is essential if you want to broaden the base. I get the sense that some folks don't really want "outsiders" (non grogs/milpros) coming in.

[Alchenar]

It's way too expensive and time-consuming to do an "in-game tutorial.'

But, a written guide through a scenario explaining the basics is essential if you want to broaden the base. I get the sense that some folks don't really want "outsiders" (non grogs/milpros) coming in.

No, that approach is terrible and does nothing to broaden the base for the reasons given in the video and in the article I linked earlier. Written guides don't work because a) something unexpected might happen, 'show, don't tell' c) the game is fullscreen and most people will buy it online and not have a manual in front of them.

It might not be realistic to expect an 'in-game tutorial' but there is no satisfactory alternative that will make the game appealing to new players.

I'd also take issue with the suggestion that Combat Mission is more 'complex' than games like Portal. It really isn't, just different. Portal is a game about taking familiar mechanics (everyone understands newtonian physics) and applying them to continuously unfamiliar contexts (portals allow you to do things that aren't possible in reality). Combat Mission is about taking unfamiliar mechanics (no, it is not an acceptable solution to 'go away and read some books on WW2 tactics') and applying them to familiar contexts ('oh, it's a village').

That's why a front-loaded tutorial is so important. Unless you explain why something is happening then it's entirely a hit-and-miss affair as to whether the player will realise that what they are doing is wrong. Hills are a good example. Most people have a vague notion that 'the high ground' is a good thing to have. Unless you explain what 'hull-down' is and show what the difference between being hull-down and silhouetted I'll wager most new players will park their tanks on top of the nearest hill and then get all upset when they die.

[stikkypixie]

No, that approach is terrible and does nothing to broaden the base for the reasons given in the video and in the article I linked earlier. Written guides don't work because a) something unexpected might happen, 'show, don't tell' c) the game is fullscreen and most people will buy it online and not have a manual in front of them.

It might not be realistic to expect an 'in-game tutorial' but there is no satisfactory alternative that will make the game appealing to new players.

I'd also take issue with the suggestion that Combat Mission is more 'complex' than games like Portal. It really isn't, just different. Portal is a game about taking familiar mechanics (everyone understands newtonian physics) and applying them to continuously unfamiliar contexts (portals allow you to do things that aren't possible in reality). Combat Mission is about taking unfamiliar mechanics (no, it is not an acceptable solution to 'go away and read some books on WW2 tactics') and applying them to familiar contexts ('oh, it's a village').

That's why a front-loaded tutorial is so important. Unless you explain why something is happening then it's entirely a hit-and-miss affair as to whether the player will realise that what they are doing is wrong. Hills are a good example. Most people have a vague notion that 'the high ground' is a good thing to have. Unless you explain what 'hull-down' is and show what the difference between being hull-down and silhouetted I'll wager most new players will park their tanks on top of the nearest hill and then get all upset when they die.

A compromise might be video tutorials where things are shown. Like an AAR but more detailed.

[Alchenar]

A compromise might be video tutorials where things are shown. Like an AAR but more detailed.

I think perhaps the most practicable solution is to just accept that Battlefront have limited resources and make a push to do this as a community project. That would require a generally less elitist attitude and more inclusive attitude though.

[Wodin]

The more the merrier...I just can't work out how CMSF UI could be considered difficult...tactics and how to play does take time to learn and a lot of thinking and effort is required and I'm still rubbish, however the UI is, to me anyway, far from complicated. If you want to trounce the enemy in this game using the same tactics as other RTS style games your dead....I still plod along very slowly in any CMSF scenario...to me in WEGO anyway it's a slow moving game where you really have to think, which suits me to a tee...if I want faster less thought provoking game I play an FPS...

I agree a community project her eon the forum would be the best way to go.

[Guest]

I'd also take issue with the suggestion that Combat Mission is more 'complex' than games like Portal. It really isn't, just different. Portal is a game about taking familiar mechanics (everyone understands newtonian physics) and applying them to continuously unfamiliar contexts (portals allow you to do things that aren't possible in reality). Combat Mission is about taking unfamiliar mechanics (no, it is not an acceptable solution to 'go away and read some books on WW2 tactics') and applying them to familiar contexts ('oh, it's a village').

The first HALF of Portal is a "tutorial" where they hold your hand through every situation. A ten-minute tutorial isn't going to cut it for CM any more than it would have for Portal. Officers spend months learning to apply basic combat tactics, and they have experienced teachers and real ground to work with.

Unless you want us to have hours of scripted tutorials describing every facet (and possible variation) of combat tactics to the user, I don't think we're going to be able to give the player any more than a basic understanding of the movement commands. This in itself would be a good thing, but arguing that somehow in-game tutorials are going to make this game magically more accessible is not realistic.

That's why a front-loaded tutorial is so important. Unless you explain why something is happening then it's entirely a hit-and-miss affair as to whether the player will realise that what they are doing is wrong. Hills are a good example. Most people have a vague notion that 'the high ground' is a good thing to have. Unless you explain what 'hull-down' is and show what the difference between being hull-down and silhouetted I'll wager most new players will park their tanks on top of the nearest hill and then get all upset when they die.

They're going to do that regardless. Choosing "high ground" isn't as easy as slapping an icon on it. It changes depending on the situation. The "high ground" may not even be "high". You want us to create a map with lots of different types of "high ground" situations and hop around it, showing the player each one in detail? And do this for every possible archetype of tactical reasoning?

Who is going to remember all of that? What happens when they come across a situation we haven't "prepared" them for? How many tactical problems would we have to walk them through in total? Hundreds, I'd guess. When they could learn a great deal more through experience, either others' (hence the suggestion to read a book) or their own.

I don't consider this a strawman. If you want players to have a comprehensive grasp on tactics using in-game tutorials this is pretty close to what you'd have to do. The best way to get a grasp on tactics is to develop a) good instincts and the ability to plan. Neither of these can be handed over neatly packaged.

In-game tutorials are fine. They don't teach anything beyond basic mechanics unless they're ludicrously extensive, and I'd wager "basic mechanics" are NOT what is stumping the average player.

[Battlefront.com]

One of the most important things for any game designer to understand is this one question:

Who is your audience?

While Combat Mission certainly has a potential that is far broader than a traditional 2D, top down, IGOYOUGO wargame, it's still a wargame. And as such it will always have a very limited potential to penetrate the traditionally non-wargame type customer. We could invest a million Dollars into a tutorial, PR, advertising, etc. and we'd hardly change our customer base compared to what we could do without the massive effort to convert the uncovertable.

The primary reason is that people who have no inherent interest in a complex, realistic wargame will never play it. They won't even pick it up to try it out. A small percentage might try out the demo, but they'll likely give it a "pass fail" based on a fairly short amount of play time. They will never, ever spend time on a tutorial because they'll make their judgement on the demo (which they wouldn't play if it was a tutorial).

So who is the tutorial for? It's basically for people who have already decided that Combat Mission is a game that they are interested in. Therefore, the only thing a tutorial can do is help potential players get into the game comfortably before they give up on it due to perceived frustrations with things like UI, tactics, expectations for cause/effect, etc. This is both an important and worthy issue for us to deal with, but we have no illusions as to what it will do for our sales or increasing our audience.

From a development resources standpoint, we have a better potential to increase our customer base by putting our efforts into the game itself. Which is why we'll never do an ingame tutorial feature.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

In-game tutorials are fine. They don't teach anything beyond basic mechanics unless they're ludicrously extensive, and I'd wager "basic mechanics" are NOT what is stumping the average player.

Absolutely. What a Tutorial for CM:BN should focus on is getting the CMx1 guys, who have little to no CM:SF/CM:A experience, into the game as easily as possible. In other words, the Tutorial should assume the player is already convinced that the setting and type of game is for them, but not quite sure how to get desirable results from it.

The Tutorial, therefore, should focus on basic game mechanics as its primary objective. It can leverage then link those basic lessons with practical, common, tactical challenges that are pretty much standard for any CM battle. Fire and move, dislodging a dug in enemy, using artillery for suppression, etc.

Fortunately, we have a kick ass Tutorial already in hand, thanks to the hard and insightful work of one of our testers. Who, for now, shall remain infamously nameless

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Note that for CM:BN we have a unique situation that a Tutorial can, and should, help address. And that is easing the large CMx1 customer base, who had no interest in Modern warfare, into the new CMx2 environment. This is pretty much a one time affair as after CM:BN pretty much all of the CMx1 customers will have made a decision about CMx2.

Steve

[Gromit]

Just give us the tools, a short explanation of how they work within the framework of CM:BN and some examples of making use of the tools provided (cause & effect, likely outcomes etc.). Last but not least show how these tools affect one's situational awareness. I think the target audience is smart enough to figure it out from there.

...and there are always those tactics books we keep mentioning!

[Paulverisor64]

Fortunately, we have a kick ass Tutorial already in hand, thanks to the hard and insightful work of one of our testers. Who, for now, shall remain infamously nameless

Steve

Awesome! I can't wait.

I realize this can't be all things to all people but I trust you have built this with a good look at who your prospective customer will be.