Read on Twitter
Playing Okami again has got me thinking about how a lot of games (especially console games) in some ways rely upon people knowing how to play game already. Even if the game has a tutorial, there& #39;s often a lot of gameplay that is left unexplained because it& #39;s assumed you know it
For example, when I start a game, and I find out there& #39;s a jump command, I *know* that jumping is going to be part of the game at some point, and I should probably be on the lookout for platforms, ledges, etc. But that isn& #39;t something that is generally explained
If something seems especially shiny, or glows... hey, it& #39;s probably a treasure or something IMPORTANT. Even down to thinks like... you should talk to NPCs and attempt to go into houses. Often that& #39;s not even mentioned!
One particular care that comes to mind is when I got my dad to play Journey. I& #39;d picked Journey because... it& #39;s an easy-ish game, right? No combat, just walking and chirping and occasionally flying. No real puzzles. In my head, it& #39;s a really straightforward game.
It... really isn& #39;t that straightforward if you aren& #39;t familiar with games. We got to a small tower early on in the desert with a glyph on top. To me, with my understanding of the language of games, it& #39;s pretty obvious. There is a tower with a shiny thing! *Obviously* I have to
climb it! It was not obvious to my dad. Because why would he need to climb a ruined tower with a broken set of stairs? He isn& #39;t into gaming, so it isn& #39;t an intuitive leap to him.
A friend told me that a friend of theirs tried playing Journey. They spent 10 minutes trying to
A friend told me that a friend of theirs tried playing Journey. They spent 10 minutes trying to
climb and unclimbable sand dune, because they didn& #39;t understand that in game language, that means you& #39;re going the wrong way.
Another story was that someone got really stuck in the first section where you have to rebuild the bridge. Because to them, that bridge was broken!
Another story was that someone got really stuck in the first section where you have to rebuild the bridge. Because to them, that bridge was broken!
Why would you waste time on a broken bridge? Obviously that is a sign it& #39;s the wrong way. Whereas for someone who is more familiar with games in general... it& #39;s fairly obvious in that section that the bridge is IMPORTANT.
And it& #39;s not stupidity or anything. Just that there& #39;s
And it& #39;s not stupidity or anything. Just that there& #39;s
a whole unspoken language and set of signs and assumptions built into games that can be a little opaque to non-gamers. Because games are made by people who play games. I expect they& #39;re mostly QA tested by people who play games.
In the escape games I& #39;ve made I& #39;ve encountered this as well. The things that tripped me up were things I didn& #39;t expect. I used an old iPhone in one game which had to be unlocked and you& #39;d access the contact list to find a number.
For me, working QA for mobile apps, it never occurred to me that not everyone would be able to find that contacts on iPhone. *Obviously* you just tap on the & #39;Phone& #39; icon! Except the phone icon doesn& #39;t inherently imply that the contacts will be there. If you aren& #39;t familiar with
that specific design, you might assume it just brought up the keypad! Or a list of previous calls!
That part of the escape game was picked up on much quicker by my work colleagues who work on phone apps, unsurprisingly. And I know to rethink my assumptions about that
That part of the escape game was picked up on much quicker by my work colleagues who work on phone apps, unsurprisingly. And I know to rethink my assumptions about that
