I have begun to believe more and more, 'the tutorial is the game'. This is mostly true for new kinds of gameplay that cannot leverage their interface off of what games players already know. So if you're making YA platformer or YA FPS and you don't have time for a tutorial, then don't change the interface from players expect.

For my next game, I'm already laying out the code framework such that tutorial opportunities can be exploited anywhere in the game. That includes performance feedback and motivation, hints, tips, etc. when necessary.

There are a lot of games being released these days and while my gaming budget has steadily increased, the number of games I find myself enjoying has not. This leaves me with the rather tedious process of learning controls for game after game only to find out that more often than not, it was a waste of my limited free time. Too add to this, I've been playing games for long enough that most of what an instruction manual or a tutorial will have to say I have already learned in another game. This only further adds to the monotony of figuring out what (if any) few key changes or features I need to be aware of before I can start deciding if the game is going to be something I'm interested in.

While I'm still grasping for an elegant solution for this, I think that manuals are increasingly risky. Not only does a manual demand a chunk of that valuable evaluation time spent studying instead of playing the game, but it is also time arguably spent not having fun (as a good in game tutorial can be). In addition, it demands the time investment before I have a chance to identify any immediate deal breakers that might be obvious during game play.

While loading screens with instructions seem to be a fair compromise (allowing me to skim through what I should expect with the understanding that I can always pause and look up features as I need them), the best examples I can think of simply start off by asking me to perform core tasks in a penalty free environment, only breaking the flow of gameplay if I don't figure it out by myself in an appropriate amount of time. To make it feel like less of a tutorial, adding rewards or affecting the story line at the same time seems to help through that initial hump.

At the same time, you have to be really careful of avoiding the "starter island". Although I once loved the Zelda series, I don't even bother playing anymore because I know that the first couple of hours will be spent finding my sword and learning how to use basic equipment before I see my first dungeon.

It's hard to say what the best solution is but in an age where you only have a limited amount of time to make your demo stand out from the rest, relying on the player to read an instruction manual seems like a gamble at best.

Here's my question, and remember I'm a part of this internet generation who doesn't have time for reading pieces of paper stapled together with a touch of art.

Why would I bother learning the game that is confusing to me when I can play something else? There is no shortage of games--both old and new. If I think the confusing game has potential, then I'll probably go to the internet to figure things out. Why? Because I go to the internet for information all the time, and it seems like a logical step to me. Besides most of the instruction manuals I've read are not very helpful, or just repeat information that is presented in game.

Another reason I don't read instruction manuals is--well--confusion. I can read all about how to control X group to attack Y, but what if I have no idea what that means until I actually start playing? I'd rather jump in head first, see what's going on, and then figure it out either by myself or with some on-line help.

I also don't think all games need a "hand-holding interactive tutorial." In Batman Arkham Asylum gameplay elements are introduced throughout the game with simple text displays. Press Y to counter. Press B to stun. etc. etc. It was a very simple and effective way to communicate with the player.

I don't know if that answers any questions, or just makes you disappointed. I'm sure the situation is different for other gamers. Especially gamers who are a bit older, and may remember the good old days where games had excellent instruction manual.

A recent blog on this website dealt with this issue in Fable II. The person questioned whether the interactions within the game were adequate based on the fact that misinterpreting in-game language led her to an inability to adequately convey her character's attitude on the game world.
The specific example referred to the meaning of a ring icon. I felt very strongly that the writer was asking for much too much from anything that had been made or would be made.

It seems to me that a topic like this could have many different types of discussions, at the very least.
As a gamer, I have not been reading manuals for a long time. I don't play casual games on the whole, and have a tendency to reject things I perceive as overly complex, reward or no reward.
I like the idea that if it is worth figuring out, I should be able to do it myself, and fairly quickly, or, as in the case of the first comment, within the gameplay proper.

As an artist, I feel that it is essential (especially with the concept of Modern art, Post Modern art, or whatever the next label is) to use established, and even arbitrary language within a culture to communicate a concept efficently. Sonic the Hedgehog is a good design because he is just some 20's era cartoon character painted blue. Who doesn't "get" that?

Mario on NES is brilliant because there's nothing too clever about it. Tetris is enduring because... well, I don't know why exactly, but if there is a reason, it might be that the player invents the clever rules and strategies, and not the designer.
I'd be tempted to say that the happy medium in this case is giving players the videogame equivalent of Photoshop with its all too infinite possibilities, and then restricting them enough so that they don't start drawing all sorts of hideous things: creating the illusion that they are SUPER ARTISTS with much less effort.

Who would play shooters if they required the skill of an absolute ace operative to beat?

I think some games with complex gameplay mechanics, like some RTS's and such, should be allowed to print all of the commands used in the game. Even then, though, a pop-up sidebar could easily do the same thing! When a player plays a game, referring to a manual takes him/her out of the gaming world. It's funny, because I think players spit on reading a manual, but they'd gladly read the same information on the screen. Better yet, a tutorial level!

That brings me to the question, why do we still have manuals? Almost all games could easily go without them. I guess there are only a couple of things keeping them around. Collectibles in the game world for all of us OCD's are hard to introduce naturally in a game without breaking the flow. Well, that's my 2 cents.

I am somewhat odd, While the game is loading into the computer, I spend a few minutes thumbing through the game manual. It help ti understand what is going one, type of weapons and items used, controls, stuff like that.

I've written large chunks of the manual for almost every game I've worked on. Having done this, I can tell you that at it's very best, it's toilet reading while a game installs. Yes, I would venture to say that of the very few people who do read the manual it's either done while on the way home in anticipation of playing the game, or while sitting on the toilet and waiting for the game to install. The only other case where people read the manual is when something goes wrong and the game doesn't work like they think it should, or doesn't work at all.

It is this last case that makes manuals absolutely essential. If they can't play the game due to some fault of the installation process, then the manual needs to guide them on possible solutions to the problem. If it doesn't, the game will be returned.

That said, I am an adamant believer that the manual should never ever be required to teach gameplay. If gameplay is not intuitive or cannot be easily taught through the game itself, the designer has failed. Pure and simple. If your game is so complicated that it requires a manual, you need to take a step back and start introducing elements more slowly, or add on to a level in such a way that it ramps up more gradually or teaches critical elements in an unforgettable way. The most enjoyable games are the ones you just play. Best example I can think of (and the one I've enjoyed the most in the past few years) is Braid.

I'm in a game design class right now and I can tell you that I have fought long and hard for there to be visual instructions on the login screen (it's multiplayer).

How hard is to give the basic instructions as easy to understand diagrams during a loading screen? and shouldn't the game be designed to teach players how to play it? I agree that more subtle strategies and techniques should never be taught but still...

I'm with Dylan, why have manuals in the first place? if your game needs one then it's deserves the horrible review.

IMHO The only reasons for not teaching players how to play a game are if the game is a ripoff of a wildly popular game or part of a solid genre (fight games, for example).

Oh yes, forgot, Take a look at Medal of Honor heroes 2. They did a pretty decent job of teaching the player while making it interesting.

As gamers we expect to be spoon fed almost everything. Thats why most of these issues are tackled through tutorial start ups with in the game. Many will also argue that if you cant pick it up and play easily, its not for the masses and for a select few.

Just look at flight sims. These bad boys require you read the manual if you want the most out of it. Manuals do have a place but its with in a small percentile.

A couple of anecdotal thoughts that occur to me reading this, that I find interesting:
1. In Tale of Tales, The Path, if the player doesn't do anything for a brief length of time, a display of the games controls fade into view which I think is actually rather clever depending on the game (Admittedly its more suited to slower paced games like The Path than it is to many shooters where the player needs an unobscured view of the game world).
2. I get a certain amount of joy out of games like Dwarf Fortress & Wurm Online, games that would come with a manual if they were made and released around 10+ years ago but now instead have a sprawling wiki site with a handy search function that allows me to look up anything in an instant (In fact, Wurm Online allows you to right click pretty much anything in the game world and click "Whats this?" to get a simplified format version of the wiki page. Games like this are as much about exploring what you can do (Exploring the gameplay) as they are about deciding what to do or how to affect the game world.

In my mind, I think this loosely comes back to player types, the question is how many players will instinctively explore the gameplay/manual/wiki and how many prefer to just jump in there and ask questions or walk away when they get confused.

"I think that at some level, the player needs to do their part by checking the instructions if they have a gameplay question/concern."

The player did his 'part' when he bought the game. He spends his time and money to get the experience he's looking for. If that includes ingame tutorials because they are more fun than manuals (why are manuals not read? I think at the basic level, it's just not fun) than so better be it.

However, this begs the question what the relation between player and game is. I took the stance of a game catering to players (applied art), whereas the opening paragrahs sounds more like 'art', where the game is autonomous and then better be liked by players =)

Interesting post and discussion. I just want to mention Donald Norman's 'The Design Of Everyday Things'. This work would suggest, Yes, if a design is not intuitive enough or visibility, natural mapping and feedback is not clear enough to simply use without reading a manual, it's a failure of design. That said, I've been in early-middle of the production where I had (perhaps naively) fully expected the game to ship with a manual, only to discover that wasn't the case; then suddenly the in-game tutorial took on a whole new level of importance and urgency.

Personally, by in large, I jump into games first and only refer to a manual to try and recoup the game's value if I begin to stumble at all or much later if I'm feeling there is more than meets the eye, although this is part of how I judge the design. The more complex the game, the more I expect a manual to help establish the game world and my avatar's role in it, but I can certainly recall both cases where intuitive games needlessly shipped with a manual and where rather complex games didn't.

To get back to your original question, even if the game shipped with a manual, to expect the players to do anything but play is a dangerous assumption imho.

Imagine you go to see a movie and are "required" to read the introductory story or else you would not understand the plot?

I think Half-Life does it the right way, even in Episode Two, they put hints and build the level in a way that anyone can pick up the game and understand it. Playing a game is in effect a learning experience, learning to play the game is part of the experience.

Take the game Osmos, a very unusual game, introduces you to very complex game mechanics. But it is done in a way that is baby step by baby step. If you would be put in the later levels from the beginning you would put the game down immediately, because it would be frustratingly difficult and confusing.

If you say you don't have the time and money to do a tutorial, I think you don't have the time and money to do the game you want to make. (Yes it can be frustrating, but acknowledging the fact helps to focus and make the best of it.) A part of the problem lies in the fact that the game you want to make is to complex or difficult for your average player to get started. You need to scale the experience down, to they can start to play the game and learn to enjoy the game. If it is really good you can make an expansion that scales up to the experience you would like to have by using the money already made on the game.

No doubt when you design your game you ask yourself, "who is my target audience." Naturally you want to design your game so that it appeals to your target audience. So if your target audience also rejects the idea of having to read a manual to play, I think you must design your game so that the player can learn your game without a written manual.

I very ralely go to game manuals, unless I already know the game and wanna search for further expert knowledge, like to find out I could mix ammunition to make better ones, even though I can still play the whole game without it. Tutorials are even worse than manuals in the most cases, I always look for the "skip tutorial" button. If you wanna make a tutorial, it should be very, very, very short and/or seemless, it's another price to pay before starting the game.

The best way to make a tutorial, is to make it to work the same way like you were playing the game with somebody else who already knows it, teach you what you need to do, when you need to do, but not, never, doing it for you instead. On going, context-sensitive help with no pauses and no "click to continue", and the loading screen is a good place to use tips and helps.

Yes.

Know your audience.

Another issue not touched upon: ingame instructions tends to break the 4th wall, which depending on your intention and realism targets, may harm the experience you're attempting to create.