Early, Critical Feedback, From RockPaperShotgun

[President Jyrgunkarrd]

What pc games did you play. the original march warrior had none. Crescent hawks inception had none. Star flight had none. civ had none. SIM city had a very basic one. They did have manuals though. A lol the info is out There. People just like there hands being held and I win buttons. Hence the simple difficulty setting of game.

Well, we don't have the old manuals anymore, because they are too expensive to produce compared to what benefits they offer. The games you rattled-off were produced during a very different period of time in games development, when people weren't making the best business decisions ever. Note that none of the development houses involved in those projects are still around.

Modern games, by and large, have in game tutorials. Throwing on rose tinted glasses and remarking about how 'Well, back in MY day...' is a great way to ensure that BattleTech retains the dubious distinction of being a property that is well recognized while having little to no mainstream appeal.

 

[Rhodium]

I don't think he ever claimed it's a solved game, just that it is not one that requires an advanced degree to play adequately.

you can count the number of games that fit that criteria on one hand.
1. EVE
2. I cant think of any more.

 

[FlavourBeans]

Well, we don't have the old manuals anymore, because they are too expensive to produce compared to what benefits they offer. The games you rattled-off were produced during a very different period of time in games development, when people weren't making the best business decisions ever. Note that none of the development houses involved in those projects are still around.

Modern games, by and large, have in game tutorials. Throwing on rose tinted glasses and remarking about how 'Well, back in MY day...' is a great way to ensure that BattleTech retains the dubious distinction of being a property that is well recognized while having little to no mainstream appeal.

There's a lot of more-recent rose-tint in this thread, too, as well as other threads about the tutorial. Rough tutorials are a very common thing in gaming and anyone who tells you there's a "right way" to do a tutorial is either lying or has a method that only applies to the one game that it was used with. Some games give you a handful of entirely separate missions for a tutorial, some literally link you to Youtube videos, some have you learn the basics and figure you'll figure out advanced components through trial and error, some assume you'll do some outside research or will come in already knowing about what the game's based on, some will use the entire campaign as an extended slow-drip tutorial to build you up for skirmish play and multiplayer.

If the tutorial is as rough for everyone as some are saying, then Battletech will not be the first game in the world to have tutorial issues. If that's the only major flaw of the game, that's worthy of celebration.

 

[President Jyrgunkarrd]

There's a lot of more-recent rose-tint in this thread, too, as well as other threads about the tutorial. Rough tutorials are a very common thing in gaming and anyone who tells you there's a "right way" to do a tutorial is either lying or has a method that only applies to the one game that it was used with. Some games give you a handful of entirely separate missions for a tutorial, some literally link you to Youtube videos, some have you learn the basics and figure you'll figure out advanced components through trial and error, some assume you'll do some outside research or will come in already knowing about what the game's based on, some will use the entire campaign as an extended slow-drip tutorial to build you up for skirmish play and multiplayer.

If the tutorial is as rough for everyone as some are saying, then Battletech will not be the first game in the world to have tutorial issues. If that's the only major flaw of the game, that's worthy of celebration.

Sure; but it is still a flaw. The rest of the game being brilliant doesn't somehow make a flawed tutorial not matter.

Also, while it is true there are many approaches to implementing tutorials, the preponderance of methods doesn't somehow mean that every method is equally good.

 

[Mystix]

I have to disagree. The point he criticized was, that the Tutorial is way too long and full of badly written (aka boring) dialogue. How you come to the conclusion, that he is not willing to "learn" (what exactly?) is not quite clear. And, again, the thread title is perfectly fine, since there is early and negative feedback, for there is criticism being expressed concerning the Tutorial.

The title is not perfectly fine and you yourself are stating the point in question it right there. There is negative feedback ON THE TUTORIAL. So why does the topic sound like it is overall negative feedback? I, too, would say that is clickbait, because a crucial point of info is omitted from the topic. (And I can agree to complaints about the tutorial)

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

It is not perfectly fine and you yourself are stating the point in question it right there. There is negative feedback ON THE TUTORIAL. So why does the topic sound like it is overall negative feedback? I'd too would say that is clickbait, because a crucial point of info is omitted from the topic. (And I agree to complaints about it)

I see where you are coming from, but critical feedback from RPS is critical feedback from RPS. The title is absolutely correct and in no way misleading. The really scary (although not unheard of) thing about this thread is, how people feel offended / threatened by public criticism. After all, it is just a video game.

 

[FlavourBeans]

I see where you are coming from, but critical feedback from RPS is critical feedback from RPS. The title is absolutely correct and in no way misleading. The really scary (although not unheard of) thing about this thread is, how people feel offended / threatened by public criticism. After all, it is just a video game.

I think a big part of the disagreement over the title is that 'critical' usually has very negative connotations, even though it's being meant, in this case, to just be 'critique', 'the opinion of a critic'.

 

[Mystix]

I see where you are coming from, but critical feedback from RPS is critical feedback from RPS. The title is absolutely correct and in no way misleading. The really scary (although not unheard of) thing about this thread is, how people feel offended / threatened by public criticism. After all, it is just a video game.

Pls don't take this as a personal attack, IMHO we two just make a great example right now:

"Stuckenschmidt thinks Mystix is wrong."

vs.

"Stuckenschmidt thinks Mystix is wrong about the thread title."

Both correct, right? But one is a little bit more on point and way less misleading on what you really posted (more context).


This leads to:

"Early Critical Feedback from RPS"

vs.

"Early Critical Feedback from RPS on the Tutorial"

... is it so bad to add these three words and just make it way clearer WHAT they complained about? I think the reaction would be different, too, if that differentiation had been made.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

I think a big part of the disagreement over the title is that 'critical' usually has very negative connotations,

Well, he was not really enthusiastic about the Tutorial, was he?

 

[Aeturnis]

The tutorial style I really like to see in games is one where the tutorial is broken down into specific bits and accessible from the main menu, and (possibly) from within the game.

Each tutorial is short, heavily scripted, and covers one specific piece of the game mechanics. An example for Battletech could be a short piece about melee where you control three different 'Mechs, one melees a vehicle and you get some discussion about selecting your melee facing, and how vehicles are weak to melee. Then you go to the second 'Mech and it melees another 'Mech, you can have some discussion about how different 'Mechs do different melee damage. Finally the third 'Mech, which has jump jets, does a DFA and there is some discussion of how DFA does damage to your legs, can only be performed by a 'Mech that has jump jets installed, and that it does more damage then a standard melee.

You make a number of tutorials that discuss things like movement, heat management, weapon ranges, direct vs. indirect fire, skill usage, the list goes on.

This way you can do all the tutorials if you want, or just review something that you may not be certain of, and you don't have to do the tutorial at the start of every campaign.

 

[Rhodium]

Pls don't take this as a personal attack, IMHO we two just make a great example right now:

"Stuckenschmidt thinks Mystix is wrong."

vs.

"Stuckenschmidt thinks Mystix is wrong about the thread title."

Both correct, right? But one is a little bit more on point and way less misleading on what you really posted (more context).


This leads to:

"Early Critical Feedback from RPS"

vs.

"Early Critical Feedback from RPS on the Tutorial"

... is it so bad to add these three words and just make it way clearer WHAT they complained about? I think the reaction would be different, too, if that differentiation had been made.

Why is this a big deal?

 

[Holy.Death]

Everything is "fairly simple" once you know the rules. The difference between something being simple, and something being complex, is how long it takes you before you find it "fairly simple".

I am inclined to disagree on that. Hearts of Iron 3 was a complicated game, in a bad way. It took a lot of time to play it properly; even after reading its instruction manual and a few games. Crusader Kings 2 was a complex game. Then there is a simple game: something like Tic Tac Toe. Each of them being on a different level.

To your first point: You're arguing semantics.
To your second point: I don't know if you've looked at the games industry lately, but Battletech is complex by modern standards.

1) The difference between "complicated" and "complex" goes beyond "arguing semantics". The first means convoluted. The second means, well, complex.

It's quite significant contradistinction, because nobody should want a complicated game (and the way you are using that word would suggest you did mean complex instead). Making it sound like the game is made for some kind of intelectual elite ("we backed a battletech game because we wanted a complicated game") and not "dumbed down drivel from the modern games industry" is unserious.

2) I am not saying it isn't complex. I am saying it isn't complicated (which you claim it is and should be). It simply lacks a good introduction into combat mechanics (hence the critique of the tutorial part of it).

 

[Mystix]

Why is this a big deal?

It is not. I would say it is a matter of principle (for me) and about beeing precise. Which helps in most aspects of communication. And if one argues "don't make a fuss about the topic", it is equally valid to argue "don't make a fuss about adding the precision to it" - 3 words ...

 

[Rhodium]

I am inclined to disagree on that. Hearts of Iron 3 was a complicated game, in a bad way. It took a lot of time to play it properly; even after reading its instruction manual and a few games. Crusader Kings 2 was a complex game. Then there is a simple game: something like Tic Tac Toe. Each of them being on a different level.


1) The difference between "complicated" and "complex" goes beyond "arguing semantics". The first means convoluted. The second means, well, complex.

It's quite significant contradistinction, because nobody should want a complicated game (and the way you are using that word would suggest you did mean complex instead). Making it sound like the game is made for some kind of intelectual elite ("we backed a battletech game because we wanted a complicated game") and not "dumbed down drivel from the modern games industry" is unserious.

2) I am not saying it isn't complex. I am saying it isn't complicated (which you claim it is and should be). It simply lacks a good introduction into combat mechanics (hence the critique of the tutorial part of it).

Yes and you are arguing semantics with me because you are trying to critique my use of language. If you understood my meaning but continued to pick at the language I used anyway, that is arguing semantics. Now you can assert, if you wish, that my abuse of language is an important subject to broach, but you are arguing semantics none the less and I happen to have no interest in debating semantics at this time. I know how to be anal about language if I want to be, and I don't want to be because I am thankfully not writing a paper right now.

 

[Rhodium]

It is not. I would say it is a matter of principle (for me) and about beeing precise. Which helps in most aspects of communication. And if one argues "don't make a fuss about the topic", it is equally valid to argue "don't make a fuss about adding the precision to it" - 3 words ...

It's also valid to argue that you can't compel the OP to change the title of a topic, unless he wants to, without it being an egregious offense. If it doesn't matter, standard thing to do is leave it alone.

 

[rip4ever]

My assumption is the tutorial like most of the game came down to resources.

Could it be better? Of course.

The question is would making it better be worth sacrificing resources from something else.

At the end of the day if something has to suffer because there simply weren't enough resources, the tutorial is the best place to sacrifice.

If the community is strong at anything it is documenting in excruciating detail every single command and tactic. I'd rather HBS focus on things we can't possibly do/improve.

 

[grumbold]

I'm sure they'll give it a fair review, no matter which way they come down in its conclusion. They've always been pretty good at playing enough of a game to get a more-complete picture of it, and they're nuanced enough (and, wonderfully, not married to a scoring system) to be able to say something like "Well, tutorial aside, this game is wonderful!" or whatever.

I mean, come on, they're fans of Crusader Kings and Plunkbat, and both of those are the epitome of chucking a kid into a pool to see if they can figure out swimming on their own.

Absolutely. They have staffers who like one or both of those games. But John Walker (who I believe is reviewing Battletech) is perfectly willing to rip into perceived poor design choices even if he likes the game as a whole. I'm not expecting RPS to tank the whole review but the enjoyment will be coloured by just how inaccessible they find aspects of the design.

 

[Mystix]

It's also valid to argue that you can't compel the OP to change the title of a topic, unless he wants to, without it being an egregious offense. If it doesn't matter, standard thing to do is leave it alone.

Well, I think it matters - as I said before, precision in communication. Your question before was if it was a big deal to which I replied no, not if it matters. And I am not trying to compel the OP. I did not argue with the OP, but with something Stuckenschmidt posted. If you ask, I personally would hope the OP sees my reason and agreeing with it changes the topic by his own accord. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else was and still is just a friendly discussion about the headline

 

[Holy.Death]

Yes and you are arguing semantics with me because you are trying to critique my use of language. If you understood my meaning but continued to pick at the language I used anyway, that is arguing semantics. [...]

The pot calling the kettle black?

I don`t think he meant "complicated" as in "difficult", but rather as in "annoying".

Complicated means complicated.

Listening to the part in question it's almost like he meant "awkward", but used "complicated" the same way you used "complicated" interchangeably (but when he says "complicated" it's "complicated". When you say "complicated" it's just "complex in a different word"). More importantly, this completely changes his position from being a simple dolt (that you painted him as, with your reply) to being a reasonable person. Because he isn't saying anything wrong there.

 

[Fox the Apprentice]

If literal rocket science is the standard by which you determine whether or not a game is complex, then no game is complex;
[...]

Rocket science isn't all that hard, once you know the rules. The computer solves most of the math for you once you figure out the equations.

Not a statement on this discussion, but an interesting aside.