Playing with a manual

I started this evening researching flight simulators.  A bit later I found the YouTube phenomenon of  Kiwi!

Earlier this summer Don Permedi posted his Master's Thesis project on YouTube.  Nearly four million views later, his tale about the distance one kiwi would go to simulate flight is now internet legend.

Don apparently simulated his kiwi and its flight using Maya and Adobe AfterEffects, yet these tools are hidden to the viewer behind a short minute or two of video.  Consumer PC flight simulators rely upon software such as Microsoft Flight Simulator and X-Plane (Fn1).

These tools come with manuals.

A year ago,  a question was posted on the AVSIM forums (for flight simulation enthusiasts).  One fragment of the argument follows, excerpted:

"I LOVE reading manuals. They often contain snippets of information you'd never discover for yourself or can explain simply ...not only the HOW-to, but also the `why`.

(A)n enterprising simmer could start a private helpdesk, charging a fee for reading the manual for those too lazy to do it for themselves... (or)  for someone to come round and fly it for us, thus creating Flight Passenger 10, but allowing us to observe the lovely wing views the whole flight.

But wouldn't that defeat the objective - simulating flight?

Implied is a tension between designing for what players know versus having them learn what they need to know. 

Game genres are often conflicted between a desire to innovate and building upon what came before.  Players already in the genre are 'locked-in' and newbies are hindered.  IMO, one consequence has been that game developers were allowed to be less careful with their documentation.  Geekdom in a niche has at least one virtue: there is less to explain.

In any case, I wonder how games and virtual worlds would look if their culture evolved with a less "seat of the pants" view towards knowledge aquisition.  What if players were brought along expecting to read  a manual, a really long one, before they could play.  I suspect there would be more freedom in what developers could design.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fn1. See  also  TN, "Whale watching."

/Ed 12/11,  see also:

Andy Havens has collected a few thoughts on this post.  The heart of his position is: "I think the separation of "manual" and "game" that exists in many Game Gods’ heads is something that bears reexamining. "  

For me this harkens back to the era of board-wargaming.  The disparity between the number of times I used to lovingly and ponderously set up Squad Leader over the number of times actually played...  Sometimes the anticipation is the adventure.  A few related themes discussed here:  "Is Love and War Turn-based,"  "The World in your Pocket."

Comments

[Thomas]

1.

Sure, if gameplayers were all intellectuals, we could have much more interesting and complex game worlds. But you know what? My good man, they ain't.

For the majority, manuals are a bore and a chore to be avoided unless in absolute trouble.

We're caught in the loop of players expecting games to be largely mindless ego masturbation, thus companies design their games to fulfill this desire of the market. And thus gamers come to expect this is what games are about.

(of course this is somewhat generalizing, and more than a little misanthropic, but this is my point of view. Merry christmas)

[ron meiners]

2.

Absolutely delightful notion - gives one a vision of a really rich experience, with the kind of depth not usually found in virtual worlds. I think you've got it, one of the defining characteristics of entering a synthetic world is the limited information about expectations, functionality, culture, etc. I think that's one reason voice has a lot of potential yet in this space: there's so much more information conveyed by tonality, inflection, etc.

Too though, some of the play experience is discovery, and some of the satisfaction, I think, is the imagination applied to a relatively skelatal narrative or play experience, enabling the creation of an idealized version. Still, I wouldn't be surprized if you're on to something here, especially with the interest in trans-media, where the core fan base has a rich knowledge of the source material. An approach like this could open the door to a really powerful interaction with an existing IP or narrative, which I think is one of the really interesting revolutions we're on the brink of.

[ron meiners]

3.

to Thomas: Ah, but if there were a platform where indies could develope niche worlds (in addition to the more well-established properties, of course), then the players looking for a richer experience, or just something different, could find St Nick, as it were, instead of Santa?

;-)

[Matt Mihaly]

4.

Nate wrote:

In any case, I wonder how games and virtual worlds would look if their culture evolved with a less "seat of the pants" view towards knowledge aquisition. What if players were brought along expecting to read a manual, a really long one, before they could play. I suspect there would be more freedom in what developers could design.

You don't have to wonder. Here are some virtual worlds that require that you submit an application to play that demonstrates you understand the world culture. You don't get in until the application is approved by a staff member.

* Armageddon: http://www.armageddon.org/
* Shadows of Isildur: http://www.middle-earth.us/
* Harshlands: http://www.harshlands.net

--matt

[Andy Havens]

5.

I wrote a really long-a** post in response to this over on my blog. For some reason, the track-back picker-upper isn't picking it up, or pinging it or whatever.

It's here:

http://www.tinkerx.com/index.php/2006/12/10/you-say-manual-i-say-treasure-map/

Enjoy.