Can We Make Better Tutorials for Complex Games?

I have a confession to make.

I’ve tried, many times, to play games like
Total War, Crusader Kings, and Endless Space.

I've bought them, downloaded them, made time
in my calendar for them.

And yet - the same thing always happens.

I get about 20 minutes into the tutorial,
and I start to zone out.

My eyes glaze over, and my mind drifts.

I start to think about all the things I could
be doing that are more fun than this.

Like filing my taxes or watching paint dry.

And this is a shame - because for the most
part, video game tutorials are actually pretty

good these days.

They’re interwoven into the world and narrative.

They’re well paced so as not to get boring.

And they’re cleverly designed to be subtle
and unobtrusive.

Even invisible at times.
*Impact*

But for certain genres like RTS, grand strategy,
and city builders - let’s just call them

“complex games” for this video.

For these complex games, the learning experience
can be pretty miserable - and at their worst,

these tutorials can stop people from ever
getting to the actual fun part of the game.

So I wanted to find out if there were ways
to improve this experience.

What techniques can we take from other genres
- in order to make complex games easier to

teach and easier to learn?

Well.

I'm Mark Brown, and this is Game Maker's Toolkit.

When we look at less complex games, I think
the biggest evolution has been a realisation

that the tutorial doesn’t have to be something
you do all in one go, before you get to play

the game properly.

Instead, it can be split up and sprinkled
throughout the entire experience.

And this approach has many advantages.

The big one is that, according to Plants vs
Zombies designer George Fan - a player's willingness

to learn grows along with their level of investment.

So when games dump a load of tutorials on
you at the start - that often exceeds your

willingness to learn.

By delaying these lessons, the game can wait
until you're more invested.

Another advantage is that you get to play
the “real game” almost immediately, instead

of having to sit through something that can
feel boring and academic.

And in fact, if each step of the tutorial
is small enough - you can sometimes teach

players without having a tutorial at all.

In Portal, for example, all of the early puzzle
chambers are actually inferring a small piece

of information about how the game works.

But as far as the player is concerned, they're
just playing the game.

And the third benefit is that by delaying
these tutorials, they can deliver messages

when it's actually relevant.

The game can pop up the crafting tutorial
when you first find a crafting table - instead

of telling you this at the start and hoping
you’ll have remembered by the time you finally

get to make something.

Now, complex games are typically still stuck
in the old format.

And that means players have to learn before
they're invested, they don't get to actually

play for hours, and they'll learn things that
might not be relevant for ages.

And, look - I can understand why this happens.

The reason it's possible to delay tutorials
in less complex games is that designers can

slowly introduce game mechanics throughout
the course of the adventure.

They can start you with a simple character
with very few abilities - and then slowly

increase complexity as you find new upgrades,
unlock new skills, recruit new party members,

and so on.

But complex games typically need to begin
with everything turned on.

As every system talks to each other - everything
needs to be online from the very beginning.

Right?

Bruce Shelley, who worked with Sid Meier on
the earliest Civilization games, coined the

phrase “inverted pyramid of decision making”.

The idea is that when you start Civilization,
you basically have one decision to make on

your first turn: where should you settle your
city?

And one decision on your next turn: what should
you build there?

But now you have two decisions to make.

What should you do with your new unit, and
what should your city build now?

Soon after, those decisions start to balloon
- and by the end of the game you're making

dozens of decisions per turn as you juggle
hundreds of units, cities, enemies, allies,

and resources.

The point being: over the course of a game
of Civilization, the complexity has organically

grown from a single settler in a foggy map
- to a massive empire of competing nations.

And so by virtue of its slow increase in complexity,
Civ is well placed to teach you its systems,

bit by bit, as you discover them.

An example of this in practice is the outstanding
city builder Frostpunk.

In this game you begin with one job: gathering
resources by hand.

And so the game gives you a quick tutorial
about that.

Then you turn on the generator… and the
game gives you a tutorial about that.

This carries on for the entire campaign, with
small tutorials for every major mechanic - but

all the way you're actually playing the game
for yourself.

Another avenue for this is the user interface.

From my own experience, at least, a complex
UI can be one of the most overwhelming things

to a new player.

But how many of these buttons, bars, windows,
and panels need to be there on the first turn?

So take a look at Mini Metro.

At the beginning, there's almost no interface
at all, meaning all you need to worry about

is connecting up train stations.

It's only when you start playing that more
information slowly appears - like the train

line menu, the clock, and the passenger counter.

Another example can be found in Animal Crossing:
New Horizons.

The tool wheel is a helpful, time-saving pinch
of UI design - but it could be difficult to

introduce players to two different types of
inventory, at the start of the game.

So, instead, you have to save up and buy the
tool wheel from the shop - meaning the player

gets to set the pace in terms of how complex
the game's UI is.

This does happen in some complex games - the
UI in Total War: Troy expands as you play,

for example - but I'd love to see designers
get even more aggressive with this technique.

So this is all about how a single campaign
can become more involved over time, allowing

the developers to withhold teaching until
it’s actually relevant.

But perhaps there's another way of thinking
about this.

If you want to get started with fighting games
- definitely a complex genre, but that's outside

the scope of this video.

Uh, if you want to try your hand at fighting
games, you don’t need to know about trip

guards, frame data, happy birthdays, turtling,
bivouacing, or pretzel motion in your first

fight.

And I only made up one of those.

All you need to know to get cracking is how
to do more than button mash.

So the designers of Mortal Kombat 11 considered
this when making the game's tutorial.

They broke the player base down into segments
- like couch players, dabblers, connoisseurs,

and online PvPers.

Then they figured out what people actually
need to know, depending on what level of player

they are - and put those lessons into three
tutorial brackets: basics, advanced, and strategy.

The important part is that these three brackets
aren't designed to be played all in one go.

Instead, the tutorial is specifically designed
to kick you out of the tutorial menu at the

end of each segment - with the intention that
you will now go and play the game, use what

you learned, and enjoy yourself.

You can always come back and learn more when
you feel ready to go to the next level - and

take your game from button mashing to bivouacing.

Oh wait that's the one I made up.

Anyway.
Here's my point.

Most complex games aren't meant to be played
though just once, like a story-driven adventure game.

They're designed to be played over and over
again - like a fighting game.

And so perhaps we can take this format, but
instead of thinking about peppering tutorials

across a single campaign - we can zoom out
and put tutorials in between entire playthroughs

of the campaign.

And I've got a story that could show how this
might work.

My first game in the Civilization series was
Civilization V - which was well received,

but some hardcore fans criticised it for simplifying
or outright removing features that had been

seen in earlier entries.

Stuff like espionage and religion.

But it was great for me because it was so
much easier to learn a game with fewer systems.

I was able to get into the fun relatively
quickly, and actually play through a few campaigns.

Later down the line, Firaxis would eventually
reintroduce those forgotten features - and

more - in expansion packs like Gods & Kings
and Brave New World.

And I found those pretty easy to learn as
well because I already knew the basics from

Civ V: I just needed to figure out the new
stuff.

And so these expansion packs essentially created
that gradual increase of complexity I've been

talking about - just with entire campaigns
in between the tutorials.

And so the same could be done for other games
- just, not necessarily through selling expansion packs.

What I mean is: instead of an easy mode just
being the same game but with dumb AI - it

could be a stripped back version of the game
with fewer systems to know about.

Then the player can play again, with more
systems turned on.

And keep going until they get to the full
fat version of the game.

I'm not saying it would be easy to do - and
the game would have to be designed this way

from the very beginning.

But, if done well, it could be very effective
at teaching players as their investment rises.

But okay.

Maybe it doesn't make sense for a certain
game to sprinkle the tutorial out across multiple

turns or multiple campaigns.

Perhaps the design just doesn't accommodate
that and it actually does need to frontload

the experience with a big load of learning.

Fair enough.

So - is there some way that we can make this
more interesting, more fun, and more effective

at teaching people the basics?

Something we see in almost every action game
tutorial is a bit where the game asks you

to perform the action you're being taught.

Like, you can't move on until you punch six
people.

It's a simple but effective way of teaching
because you're asking the player to get hands-on

and try for themselves.

We call this kinaesthetic learning - which
is where deep learning occurs via the process

of physically doing a task.

Now - complex games do try and do this.

You've probably played games where it walks
you through a sample campaign by pointing

arrows at bits of the UI and asking you to
click here, click there, select this, drag that.

And, well… you're involved!
You're doing stuff!

Aren't you clever?

But are they actually that effective?

I'm not so sure.

Asher Vollmer, who made the elegant mobile
puzzler Threes, says of these arrows - "As

far as the game is concerned; I have advanced.

But as far as my brain is concerned; I've
learned nothing".

Part of the problem is that blindly following
instructions just isn’t a very effective

way to learn.

So, in Asher’s game, he instead turns the
tutorial into a series of very small and simple

puzzles for the player to figure out.

Take, for example, this bit, which is about
telling you how to use the outside walls to

rearrange tiles.

He could ask players to “swipe to the left
twice”.

And now "swipe up twice".

But he doesn't: he says "Rearrange numbers
by pushing 'em into walls" and then "use the walls

to add 1 & 2 together".

It's a very simple task, but it's enough for
players to actually engage their brain and

start to do the sort of thinking that will
be used in the proper game.

Luckily, some complex games do a really good
job of this.

If we look at the first tutorial in Frontier's
Planet Zoo, the game starts by walking you

through the process of improving an animal’s
welfare.

NANCY: "Aww, poor dabs!

I'm sure it can't have escaped your attention
that the tigers look a bit miffed.

That's because they aren't too keen on the
type of terrain in their habitat".

It’s pretty hand hold-y and straightforward.

But then it asks you to improve the overall
welfare of all the animals in the park.

NANCY: "All of that should give you a pretty
good understanding of how to make animals

happy, so I'd like you to go check on all
the other animals in the zoo and fix up any

issues with their habitats."

And it just lets you get on with it.

At this point you're given hardly any guidance,
so you have to put into practice what you

just learned - and do some critical thinking
to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.

NANCY: "Right!

I'm off for a cuppa while you make sure all
the animals are well looked after!"

I found this really effective, and it happens
throughout the tutorial.

You're put into zoos with specific problems,
shown how to fix one of them, and then you're

asked to solve the rest on your own.

Offworld Trading Company is another good example
- in each step of the tutorial you are given

a list of objectives and have to solve them
for yourself.

Simply by removing the “click here” arrow
and making the player find the right option

themselves is enough to make them feel engaged.

And it feels like you're actually playing
a game, right from the word go.

But I won't pretend that this is a perfect
solution.

And that's because of feedback.

When we learn kinaesthetically, we use feedback
to see if we did it right or wrong.

Now, if you make a mistake in an action game
you’ll see that immediately.

But, in a strategy game, if you don’t balance
your economy correctly you might not realise

for many hours.

Complex games typically have a very slow feedback
cycle, which does make it hard to learn from

hands-on experience.

You may need to play an entire campaign to
understand how decisions and strategies will

unfold over the whole game.

Which is why the easiest games to learn are
those with short campaigns that you can repeat

often - compared to those that last hours
and hours.

But there are some potential solutions to
this.

Perhaps the quick game in Civilization, which
dramatically speeds up the campaign, could

be rebranded as a training tool?

Another answer is for these tutorials to use
advisor characters who can warn you if you're

doing something dumb that might have a negative
effect down the line.

In Offworld I got told off for selling
aluminium for less than $10 a pop,

and got a lesson in how the stock
market works.

The nice thing is: these two solutions also
help with another problem that strategy game

tutorials face.

Which is this: it's pretty teach to people
how to do things - but it's much harder to

explain why to do them.

I can tell you which buttons to press to build
something in Civilization, but there's no

simple way to explain what you should build,
or when you should build it, or where you

should place it after it's built.

So - like before, speeding up the feedback
cycle allows players to see the consequences

of those choices for themselves.

And advisor characters can offer recommendations
and warnings.

ECONOMIC ADVISOR: "I think we have enough
workers for the moment.

You may want to construct something else in your
city".

There's one more thing that games do, that
make them easier to learn.

And that's leveraging things that people are
already familiar with.

You know: spikes hurt, ice is slippery.

Coins let you buy things, keys open locks.

Skulls mean danger, and so on.

Plants vs Zombies doesn't need to tell you
that a zombie with a metal bucket on its head

is more resilient than one with a plastic
cone.

We know how these materials work in real life.

By leaning on stuff that players already know,
games can feel intuitive to play - and it

often means they don't require a tutorial
at all.

Now over in the world of complex games - one
way to do this is to use a theme that is grounded

or historical.

Civilisation is definitely a franchise that
uses this to its advantage.

People can bring their own knowledge of history
to make assumptions about how things will work.

Most of the time.

But perhaps the best place for complex games
to look for real world inspiration is in the

user interfaces we encounter every day.

Just like how Reigns copies the swipe left,
swipe right interaction from dating apps like Tinder.

And how Disco Elysium's dialogue boxes are
inspired by a Twitter feed.

So let's see all this in action and go back
to that bit in Planet Zoo where I was left

to improve the animals' welfare on my own.

How did I know what to do?

Well, I know that I can sort this list by
welfare by clicking up here... because thats

how a list works on most websites.

And I know I can click this to find the animal
because the same icon is used on Google Maps.

I can easily see where the problem lies, because
red indicates bad and green indicates good.

I know how to filter the items because the
funnel icon is used on apps like Google Sheets

- though I could probably make some assumptions
for what an animal wants just by my knowledge

of real-world critters.

On the flip side, here's an example of this
going very wrong.

In playtests for Total War: Troy, some players
really struggled to find the end turn button.

One player spent 40 minutes on the first turn,
unsure how to move on.

The culprit?

This button, which uses an hourglass to indicate
"end turn".

Now, people who have been playing strategy
games for years might associate an hourglass

with ending a turn - but I think most people
have a stronger association with something

loading, including the cursor in old versions
of Windows.

By the way, these loading animations are called
"Throbbers" and I'm really sorry to be the

one to have to tell you this.

Anyway - the devs swapped it for an arrow
before launch.

And I think we can take two lessons from this.

One: don't assume your audience has played
other games.

And two: play test your tutorials.

Like, a lot.

So there are a few more techniques I want
to touch on before I wrap up.

We all know the idiom "show, don't tell" - and
it applies to tutorial design too.

Massive walls of text can be hard to get through
- and an image or video can sometimes tell

you the same information in half the time.

Take these preview windows for weapons in
Into the Breach.

Designer Justin Ma said “You could type
out a hundred times, ‘Damages a tile and

pushes adjacent tiles,’ but showing that
little animation of them moving is a thousand

times more effective".

Now, sure - text is almost always necessary
in the tutorial for a complex game.

But designers should try to cut down words,
be consistent with language, avoid jargon,

and… maybe this is just a personal preference…
but I don’t really like this thing where

some pointless flavour text is spoken by a
voice actor but the actual important stuff

is left unsaid.

HOMER: "March north-west, towards the land
of Corinth.

For even now, the Corinthians plot your demise".

Another good technique is to provide ways
for players to find information when they

get stuck.

Things like tool tips - and tool tips within
tool tips.

An encyclopaedia of terms and the ability
to rewind or replay specific bits of the tutorial.

Ultimately, if someone gets stuck you don't
want their only solution to be Google.

Plus, this should give you more confidence
to let players figure stuff out on their own,

as the information will be there if they need
it.

And finally, it's good to remember that people
learn in different ways.

I won't deny that some of the ideas in this
video are biased by the fact that I am personally

a very kinaesthetic and visual learner.

And I have the attention span of a six year
old child.

So providing multiple avenues can be good.

Offworld, for example, has two ways to learn
- scripted tutorials that walk you through

each step, and practice challenges where you
can learn through trial-and-error.

Meanwhile, Total War is always good at providing
different tutorials for complete newbies and

returning players who just want to figure
out the new stuff.

Just like with the user interface in the last
episode of GMTK, the tutorial can be one of

those things that's undervalued, and left
until the last moment.

But, again: it shouldn't ignored because a
tutorial can be so important to a game's success.

For this video I spoke to developers at places
like Paradox and Creative Assembly and everyone

told me the same thing: teaching new people
how to play is the only way for a franchise

to grow its fanbase - and avoid withering
into irrelevance.

In this video, I've identified some techniques
that I think could make tutorials better:

Finding ways to break the tutorial up - either
across a campaign, or across multiple campaigns.

Finding ways to have the player get their
hands on the system and learn by doing, rather

than reading.

And finding ways to be intuitive, familiar,
and welcoming.

Thankfully, strides are being made in this
area, with more thoughtful tutorials and more

intuitive interfaces.

But there's still a lot of work to be done.

Until I can get through the Crusader Kings
tutorial without falling asleep, we're not

quite there.

Thanks for watching.

If you like what you just saw and want to
show your appreciation, please check out this

quick YouTube ad break.

Stick around afterwards for an indie game
recommendation.

My recommendation this time is Narita Boy
- a trippy, retro-tinged brawler with a killer

pixel art aesthetic.

It's a minor Metroidvania with a bigger focus
on fight scenes: which reminds me of Guacamelee.

And the strange, esoteric plot makes me think
of Sword & Sworcery.

The game's not without its problems - including
a floaty jump and simplistic level design

- but I just found the whole thing enchanting
and utterly engrossing.

Nartia Boy's on everything - including Xbox
Game Pass.