I have found out that my game seems more interesting if I make rules more complex. But the learning curve could became more streep and tutorials less transperent. What is your expirience, what is more important - fun or accessabilty ? Have average casual player enough patience to go through several screens of interactive tutorial ?

If your game rules are simple but not fun, perhaps they're the wrong rules. Increasing fun by increasing complexity only fixes the symptom, but not the problem. Your game will not reach it's full potential if you need to 'fix' it (hack it) this way.

You need to shoot for simple rules that are also fun, allows a lot of different gameplay and emerging complexity.

Think about chess. Simple rules, unlimited gameplay.

Here's a related thread:
http://www.dexterity.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1870

Chess's rules are very complex compared to a game like, say, Checkers --- which gets kinda boring (to me) due to it's simplicity. Or to a greater extreme --- Tic Tac Toe --- so simple that it can be mastered to the degree that it's impossible to lose.

So yeah - you have to find that fine line in there somewhere. My rule of thumb is to focus on complexity through DEPTH of gameplay, not breadth of what the player needs to do in order to succeed. Keep the interface as simple as possible. If you find your complexity adds an extra keyboard command or menu item or two that the player MUST know and use in order to succeed, then you need to think long and hard about whether or not its worth putting in.

Consider having 3 levels of difficulties.

Once the player thinks he mastered the rules of one level, introduce new rules in the next thus introducing a whole new game.

it should contribute to the playability and layered development of the game (finish easy level, medium is just another layer of rules).

We come up against the same problem with our current title.
In the end we made the challanges score based, and thus, not fatal if got wrong.
So the game can be played easily, with no concern for bonuses and score. Or challenging, where the player is going for as many bonuses as possible.
This way its up to the player how they would like to play.
At no stage do we penalise the player for getting anything wrong. They simply dont score as many bonus points.

Theres actually no such thing as GameOver in the game!

This way, any new rules we add dont force the game any harder. They just add an extra layer of complexity so the player can play harder if they want to, and get rewarded for it.

I've been wrestling with the concept of Game Over in Super Elvis. I'm just not sure about it. There already isn't a "score" as such, just a thing that tells you the % complete the game is and how long you've taken so far. Does it make sense to end the game for any reason?

Cas :)

Originally posted by serg3d
I have found out that my game seems more interesting if I make rules more complex. But the learning curve could became more streep and tutorials less transperent. What is your expirience, what is more important - fun or accessabilty ? Have average casual player enough patience to go through several screens of interactive tutorial ?

I think a lot of the problem with games is that they say "THIS IS THE TUTORIAL" rather than introducing the elements in a seamless fashion alongside the fun gameplay. I hate it when a level has been set up to allow me to do just one thing in a particular way and then it's off to the next tutorial level. I think that it's far more effective to show elements either through notes that you stumble upon in the game (like the signs in many Mario games) or by seeing enemies demonstrating the abilities (as in Metroid). Even if you have a board-game the tutorial should still be able to be programmed in a manner which doesn't stop the player every five seconds and lets them discover the game elements at their own pace.

Then it's less like "you should do this now" and more like "you *could* do this now" which gives the player more control.

Originally posted by GrahamG
I think a lot of the problem with games is that they say "THIS IS THE TUTORIAL" rather than introducing the elements in a seamless fashion alongside the fun gameplay.

Yep, that is the problem which have no easy solution. Why seamless itroduction is more difficalt ?

1. Lack of some gampeplay elements screw balance and make game looks worse then it is.
2. I'd have to write special code which identify situaton and suggest suiatbale action for a new element. For example I have a new element - al lever which rotate blocks. I can print out "This is a lever, if you rotate it thouse blocks will rotate too."
But what if it's impossible to rotate lever in this moment ? Or it's rotation will have adverse result ?
3. Reading the description of nessesary actions can take considerably more efforts then just be enforced to do this action.
Like "Move scope sothat the lever with gold star was in the scope." considerably less clear then just "Move left, Move left, Move Up" with all other moves blocked...

Originally posted by serg3d
Yep, that is the problem which have no easy solution. Why seamless itroduction is more difficalt ?

1. Lack of some gampeplay elements screw balance and make game looks worse then it is.
2. I'd have to write special code which identify situaton and suggest suiatbale action for a new element. For example I have a new element - al lever which rotate blocks. I can print out "This is a lever, if you rotate it thouse blocks will rotate too."
But what if it's impossible to rotate lever in this moment ? Or it's rotation will have adverse result ?
3. Reading the description of nessesary actions can take considerably more efforts then just be enforced to do this action.
Like "Move scope sothat the lever with gold star was in the scope." considerably less clear then just "Move left, Move left, Move Up" with all other moves blocked...

1. Personally in that case I'd say that the core gameplay (without the bells and whistles which need explaining) might be lacking a little. I think that we can assume that a player knows what the left/right/up/down/jump/fire keys do and there should be enough fun derivable from those alone to stop them getting bored while you introduce the more complex elements.

2. Given that the player is probably going to have to triumph over whatever elements need explaining in order to progress I don't see that it's necessarily difficult to know if the first lever they'll encounter will be a suitable one. And if it's booby-trapped (ie, as you say adverse results) then a separate note could pop up telling the user that not all levers are good for you. I don't think you need to say "this lever does that", anyway, I just think you need to say "this is a lever, press X to use it". You don't need all the context.

3. Good Lord! I wouldn't like "a bit to the left" and "no, a bit more". I think that as much of it should be done without words as possible through the use of symbols and linked colours which make it readily apparent what goes where and what's linked to what.

My game UBM is quite complex, much more than the average casual game.
Still, I provided a quickhelp in every screen in the lower part of it: every time the user move the mouse over a button or text or any active area of the screen, a quick description appear.
I'm having lot of success with this method, had even some female customers which for a boxing game is quite an outstanding result! :cool:

Yeah, i really like the context sensitive help popups, the only thing required is that your audience can read. I'm pretty cognisant of that, since my son loves to play computer games, but he can't play a lot of them because he doesn't understand the interface. Games that make him pres "f1" to start, or "Type your login" he get's totally lost. But if it's just a series of button presses he can memorize it pretty quick.