3 ms·
Most game designers understand that the act of play is an act of learning, and learning new things is exactly what makes games interesting. However, different g
by golergka 7y ago
Most game designers understand that the act of play is an act of learning, and learning new things is exactly what makes games interesting. However, different games assume that you get to learn some things in that manner, and other things are just a neccessary alphabet that you have to get as fast as you can to get things up and running.
In a classical example, you can spend your whole life learning chess, but no one expects you to figure out how different pieces move by trial and error - it's explained prior to the game. It's not because chess game designers are lazy: it's because figuring out how pieces move wouldn't be a fun gameplay.
- Kaiyou 7y agoIf you play chess on a computer, clicking on a piece will reveal it's movement option. Of course, just like when playing on a real board, moves like En passant are hardly ever explained to newcomers. In fact, none of the people I have played chess against even know that En passant is a valid move. It's kind of like the wall jumping in Metroid, just that knowing about it won't enable you to do all kinds of cool tricks.
- Tomte 7y agoI wonder how many online chess players thought their opponent was cheating and exploiting a bug, when they first saw en passant. It just looks like a plausible bug in indexing.
- Kaiyou 7y agoEspecially given that the possibility of using that move isn't tied to where the pieces currently are, but to what the opponents last move was. Wonder if anyone ever managed to write a bug report with the exact behavior only to be told that this is a feature and not a bug.
- dmurray 7y agoHere's an article featuring dozens of people complaining about just that: https://www.chess.com/article/view/his-pawn-cheated-and-killed-my-pawn https://www.chess.com/article/view/his-pawn-cheated-and-kill...