I found it ironic to stumble through this convoluted sentence on a UX site: > What designers call an “invisible tutorial” is simply a tutorial section that fit

I found it ironic to stumble through this convoluted sentence on a UX site: > What designers call an “invisible tutorial” is simply a tutorial section that fits perfectly in the flow zone, which values the preceding and succeeding events and respects player expectations. There will never be a situation where a player does not realise they are not participants of a tutorial, but an invisible tutorial will hardly be discernible from the game experience as it respects the pacing of all experiences around it. An attempt to avoid the triple negative: > What designers call an “invisible tutorial” is a tutorial section that fits perfectly in the flow zone, which values the preceding and succeeding events and respects player expectations. The player will always realise that they are not participating in a tutorial, but an invisible tutorial will hardly be discernible from the game experience as it respects the pacing of all experiences around it. I still don't get what this is trying to say. Isn't it true that the player will usually (always?) realize they're in a tutorial, but an "invisible" one will just feel well-integrated with the surrounding experiences? Or is this passage arguing that a tutorial that is "invisible" will by definition NOT be noticed as a tutorial?