View source for Every set is someone's first set

The Time Spiral block was designed around the concept of time, with a set to represent the past, the middle set to represent the present and the third set to represent the future. They mixed both new and old mechanics and rose the complexity level to astonishing levels. For the experienced players Time Spiral meant a lot of references to the old times, when they played years ago. For the newcomers it meant an overly complicated game, with many references and jokes that they could not get. The net result was a paradox. Tournament attendance went up, while sales went down. The lesson here is that every game has to face it: old players leave and new players join. That's just how life is. Developers and designers have to account for the continuous influx of players because, ultimately, this is what sustains the game. If the outflux is greater than the influx, we have a problem that could potentially kill the game.

<hr>

If you look at franchises which are at least a decade old, there is always this discussion about pleasing both old and new players. With level design the player always start at whichever point the story is being told at and that level is going to be the first for the player to experience. In regards to computer games we have the luxury to pre determine an order in which the player is going to experience the levels because every story has a beginning and an end. It's common for games to present training levels or tutorial levels to help new players. Now think about franchises with multiple games such as Assassin's Creed, Halo or Final Fantasy. Every new game in the series presents something new, while also keeping some key elements that are shared between all games of that franchise.

Many games span multiple entries such as Max Payne. Players are not obliged in any way to play the games in any order and each game is self contained. The story may begin in one game and continue in the next, but the players can skip the previous game if they choose to. It's not a good idea to release a game such that the player cannot properly play it if he or she didn't play the previous game. With level design this is less an issue because the game already forces the players to always begin at the same point. However, we have to be careful with being arrogant and not giving any directions for the players. Even when they are in a training level or a first mission we cannot expect that the players are going to figure it all by themselves.

Prey 2006 is an example of such mistake. The whole game was made with the assumption that the players are going to figure every puzzle or obstacle by themselves. Path of Exile is another example of leaving the player without explanations of anything in game. The company didn't care to put guides or training missions in. The player has to go to a wiki or watch other players playing to get it. Players of PoE often joke about this game requiring a PhD to be mastered. On the other hand, Jedi Outcast presents a training level for the player to learn how to use their jedi powers. It's a great example on how to introduce gameplay mechanics. Jedi Academy also presents a training mission in the beginning of the game. Jedi Academy is the sequel to Jedi Outcast but the developers weren't expecting every player of the sequel to have already played the previous game.

Can I take a life lesson in the same vein as Mark has done? Yes. With Path of Exile I've noticed that games are often deemed elitist and one reason for that is when a game requires a high skill level. As Mark noted, we often forget that to get proficient at something we have to learn it first. I remember some teachers in college who would assume that students were expected to already know the theory because it was the student's job to learn by themselves. Mark's lesson is about pride and arrogance. One of the dangers of knowing a lot is to assume that everyone else knows less than you. This is also related to statistical bias somewhat because we often feel that way because we are making comparisons against a group which is already below average. For example: if you live in a city where there are only two, including yourself, people that can play the piano. It's easy to feel that you are unique or the best piano player if you consider solely the city where you live in. This was very much my case when I began to experiment with level editing tools, because there were no others interested in level creation that I could relate to, in my country. In fact, there were others, but without large communities and instant messaging I didn't know where to find them.

One of the most glaring ways to identity arrogance is by noticing that someone is too much upset to have to learn and/or to explain to others. That's very similar to a teacher who throws tasks at students without giving directions and expecting all of them to figure it all out by themselves, as I mentioned before. Another sign is precisely the rejection of help and/or explanations. In one side we have someone who refuses to offer help, in other we have someone who refuses to accept help at all costs. This has relationships with shame, narcissism and trustfulness. If we are too ashamed to recognize that we don't know something, that's a sign of arrogance. People with high scoring traits of narcissistic personality and/or perfectionism tend to not trust others and be overconfident. I'm sure Mark understands what I'm going to say. If a designer purposely makes their game elitist, that cuts off large portions of your ''(potential)'' audience. It's unhealthy for the company and for the players. Both ends lose. Mark has a long career and talks a lot about understanding your audience's emotions. Arrogance and excessive pride are barriers to that understanding.