As I’ve gotten more into my games studies, I’ve started noticing a trend with game designers choosing to trim or forego tutorials, in order to “respect player intelligence.” I’ve fallen into this mentality too, but I want to talk about how it’s a problematic approach.

The root of this, which assumes that “intelligent players” will inherently understand your “elegant design,” is incredibly flawed. The conflation of intelligence and game literacy, or familiarity with common game mechanics and heuristics, dramatically limits accessibility.

As designers, we should aim to expand the medium, but designing without tutorials or with sharp difficulty curves is its own form of gatekeeping.

Designing in this way cuts down on who can understand and enjoy your game—at its core, it means the designer views a new player’s lack of game literacy as a lack of intelligence. This is so frustrating.

I’ve heard designers say, “If they can’t make it past my first level, they wouldn’t like my game anyway.” No! They wouldn’t be playing your game if they didn’t want to like it! High player drop-off is a failure to teach, not a mark of a successful challenge.

So I guess what I’m saying is, be conscientious. Don’t just design for yourself. Design for real people, including those who don’t have a broad history in playing games. Invite them in, be welcoming, and offer an experience that they can actually grow with.

I've since made a lil game that satirizes the problem of conflating game literacy with player ability. If you feel like laughing it off, check it out here: https://carolmertz.itch.io/video-game-a-videogame