Easy Should Be Easy

[BoilingLeadBath]

We seem to have a lack of stories from people who suddenly moved to a _whole_new_level_ of game complexity, so I'll add mine before I continue:

I had prior experience with FPSs on the computer, but my friends wanted to do their LAN parties on x-boxes (for simplicity of networking reasons), so I went along with that.
This was my rather harsh introduction to 2-stick controllers... and it took me about 12 hours (two sessions) with them before I was reasonably good (actually had a chance to kill someone if I saw them). These could have been a rather frustrating 12 hours if I were someone else, as these where pretty good players, but I took it in good stride. This basically meant running away for the first 6 hours - trying not to get killed - but that's a minor note of how I learned the 2-stick control system.

****

So, the OP has claimed that it is a problem that it takes 12 hours to get to the "good enough to play the game on a level at which their attempts at playing the game look like a poor attempt at playing the game, rather than a bunch of random movements in reaction to events on the screen".
Maybe it is. What can we do about it? Frankly, if they want to play the game, the other people in the thread are right: they'll have to learn how.

Perhaps, though, we can teach them the details in isolation, so that they can learn to integrate them into a coherent whole much faster than they would otherwise.

*

So, let's break down the aspects of playing a modern FPS into its component parts:
1) Understanding the screen image as a 3-D environment.
2) Being able to manipulate the controls.
3) Manipulating the controls to move through that environment.
4) Learning a bunch of "shortcuts" to navigating the environment. IE, running into the wall to find it instead of turning around and looking at the wall.
5) Understanding the basic concepts of gameplay. IE, "in CTF, you do this...".

It is fully possible to teach all but #5 as isolation drills. Let me suggest some games (in order of introduction to the student):

Geowars genre games - two sticks used in concert. My favorite is Echos.

Driving games - if they are having trouble understanding the screen as a window into a 3-D world. (I've never encountered one of these people, but someone I know has parents who are like this)

Pedestrian movement game - there aren't really very many of these. Perhaps you could play the "race" game variant in Halo, or something. Or maybe that parkour game (what was it called?)

Let them play some FPS (with shooting! We haven't really taught them to aim yet - just given them all the skills they need to learn to aim.) on a low difficulty setting... congratulations, they can now play FPSs. They will need some time to get better - but they are well on their way.

I suspect total time for this training regime - if you can call it a "regime", considering that they are playing games that are basically within their skill set at all times, so it shouldn't be to frustrating - is probably about 40 hours; they can work through it in a month, while having fun every day.

 

[bjj hero]

I agree with this article. Gamers who complain that a game is too easy don't understand that difficulty is relative. It might be easy to you, but if someone who has little or no experience in gaming were to play it, would it be easy to them?

There needs to be more consistency in difficulty settings. My example would be ninja gaiden on the xbox. I would set that "normal" as the base for "normal" difficulty. It was a good challenge but didn't throw up any brick walls. By the time I had finished I had the skills to beat it at the next difficulty setting with a similar amount of effort.

Playing things like Assassins Creed are "too easy" compaired to Ninja Gaiden. I just want some sign posting so I dont breeze through some games on normal and feel unchallenged. Normal should be "normal" in that it is the best choice for a first time play through for most gamers. Right now my default setting is one over normal and I'm often disappointed by the challenge. It's not bragging, I just want to make an informed choice on difficulty.

Back on topic the controller is the biggest barrier to most new gamers. The amount of times I've handed a pad to a girlfriend and she's ended up stuck in a door way or staring at the corner like shes in the Blair Witch Project is untrue. FPS controls are alien to none gamers, is any game which needs both sticks used at the same time, constant camera control or a shoulder button/trigger held while pressing a face button to activate whatever.

The best thing you can do is have a pro help you learn the ropes. similar to Hansari's basket ball experience I learned American football while living in texas. It all came together by watching games on TV, locker room chat and asking questions and my friend giving me the previous years copy of Madden. I learned not just the rules but so much about strategy and play calling, the difference between man and zone marking, why you do each, the difference between 4-3 and dime, advantages of 3 man front, beating blitz's etc.

It is a steep learning curve on Madden if you don't understand the strategy. I've not bought a new Madden in 3 years but I was regularly beating Americans at their own game and there are some poor losers out there.

Skipping sections and auto play features are terrible ideas. You want to reel in new audiences but you also want them to become actual gamers. By missing the challenging sections they are not developing their skills and could get trapped into having to skip all driving sections as an example.

Imagine all of the great gaming moments and satisfying achievements you would have missed if you skipped every boss fight?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

And if some people never want to make the leap from rhythm games or "brain trainers" to real games, that's no skin off the marketing department's back because they can just sell more idiot games to more idiots.

I for one would love to see the cessation of this particular kind of conceit- calling casual or new gamers "idiots". It does absolutely nothing to help our industry and builds resentment from those outside of it.

Now, to address other points:

The "games should just be for gamers" ideal is an incestuous and zero-growth formula. Raising the barricades too high for new blood will only lead to a decline in gaming, as those already in the hobby wander off or find other priorities. It also closes out new ideas, as the hardcore gamers usually already know what they want and tolerate little diversion. Entry into gaming should involve a learning curve, yes, but not a minefield. This is not Sparta and we do not throw our babies off of a cliff.

Saying "just get a good gamer to show you how" assumes that a new or casual gamer has easy access to a "pro" gamer who has the time and inclination to walk these people through. Not everyone does. And watching a grainy, rap-music-overlaid walkthrough on YouTube is hardly a substitute for seeing first-hand how something should be done, and experimenting yourself.

I don't think anyone here wants to dumb down games. But let's face it, there's very few "intermediate" games to be found these days; everything's either "casual" or "hardcore". And sneering down at the "unwashed masses" from our ivory gaming towers and telling them "we don't want your kind unless you'll do all the work to become just like us"... well, like the royalty of many ancient nations found out about their serfs, we need them far more than they need us. Reaching a friendly hand out to the new guys, on ALL fronts of the gaming hobby, will help keep it alive much more effectively than laughing in their faces.

 

[Void(null)]

I'm not even talking about navigating in 3d space or being able to manipulate a many-buttoned controller, although those are huge skills in and of themselves. I'm talking about knowing that if you're playing a game with lots of jumping and cutesy graphics, you can probably jump on an enemy's head to kill it. You know that Sonic is safe as long as he has at least one ring. You know that if there's a bar in the corner of your screen, that it probably represents your character's health, and if there are two bars, the second one probably represents magic. You know what hit points, checkpoints, and spawn points are. Don't even get me started what you know if you play MMOs.

A new player is almost instantly overwhelmed by what he or she doesn't know. It's a daunting and sometimes humiliating experience. Nobody enjoys feeling stupid or inadequate and all too often, that's exactly how games make new players feel, even on the supposedly Easy setting. Now, some of you out there may think that so-called "casual" players have no business playing games if they're not willing to put in the effort to become good at them, but that attitude is elitist, exclusionary, and just plain mean. Do skilled players deserve to be rewarded for the time they've spent honing their skills? Damn straight, they do. But that doesn't mean that someone who hasn't had the opportunity or desire to achieve that level of excellence shouldn't also be allowed to enjoy a truly wonderful and exciting form of entertainment.

Isn't all the "Awesome information" that we gamers are supposed to posses... that baseline of understanding what the little bars do and the basic mechanics that allow us to jump into games... are not all of these things explained in the manual?

If an inexperienced gamer doesn't know what the little bars do... then they can RTFM like I did 20 years ago.

Is doing a tutorial or reading the manual... really that hard?

Exampli Gratia:

I'm talking about knowing that if you're playing a game with lots of jumping and cutesy graphics, you can probably jump on an enemy's head to kill it.

You know that Sonic is safe as long as he has at least one ring.

You know that if there's a bar in the corner of your screen, that it probably represents your character's health, and if there are two bars, the second one probably represents magic.

 

[veloper]

Is doing a tutorial or reading the manual... really that hard?

QFT!
If a newb is really that new to the hobby, he should play the tutorial or rtfm.
Unless it's a game like BG2, where the AD&D ruleset is misrepresented and poorly explained, you can for most other games expect anyone who can read english, to understand the rules of the game.

 

[FROGGEman2]

It's the little things. Like, how at the end of a Mario jump, you automatically turn backwards to make your jumps more precise.

 

[Void(null)]

It's the little things. Like, how at the end of a Mario jump, you automatically turn backwards to make your jumps more precise.

Yes, its those subtle nuances that come with practice and experience, but the main article was not about nuances... rather about the basics, basics that are covered in the manual.

I quote:

I'm talking about knowing that if you're playing a game with lots of jumping and cutesy graphics, you can probably jump on an enemy's head to kill it. You know that Sonic is safe as long as he has at least one ring. You know that if there's a bar in the corner of your screen, that it probably represents your character's health, and if there are two bars, the second one probably represents magic. You know what hit points, checkpoints, and spawn points are. Don't even get me started what you know if you play MMOs.

 

[Galletea]

I hated the jet ski in Uncharted too.
Anywho, I like the article, and I agree that it is difficult for new gamers to get started. I don't think the premise of easy mode helps. Dying on a game is one thing, but dying on easy is a whole new level of annoyance. I like the suggestions you made, and I would also probably use those features on a game I was finding too hard, or even just a few I'm only really semi-interested in. I used to use cheats to get through those before. Reading a manual is all well and good, but after a while you just get a feel for things in games, likely spawn points, checkpoints and the like that newbs won't know. It's a bit like playing online for the first time and getting owned because every other fucker knows all the maps like the layout of his house.

 

[Smokescreen]

There's a very interesting discussion here that I think is overlooking a possibly elegant solution.

We already have casual games; games that exist to bring people into the hobby.
We have lots of AAA games for people who love games and actively seek out and information on them, look to hone their skills, are already familiar with how they work.

But there doesn't seem to be many ways to bridge the gap between people who are starting off and people who are experts.

So what to do?

I think what this article addresses is the lack of bridges between the new players and the experts, and its attempt to build that bridge focuses on 'fixing' the AAA titles.

Now many of those ideas have merit-and as been stated in this thread-been implemented into games already. Some have more merit than others; I'm not sure that giving newer players the 'hey there are more trinkets' line would encourage them to play again on a harder difficulty (but I say this as someone who has never been encouraged by this.)

Prototype did something really cool here and it's similar to what Burnout does as well; you place in the top 3 of your challenge, you get points. It's worth it to replay for the gold, but if you just hate the challenge, you can get by with the bronze and still be rewarded. Whereas in Batman the grade is pass/fail. I recognize those are two very different games so if the reader could just bear with me I'd appreciate it.

All of the suggestions to make games more newbie friendly have up and downsides. But they all focus on one thing; 'fixing' the AAA titles.

Perhaps there should be a consideration and encouragement of B-list titles. As a movie analogy goes, think Evil Dead 2 or Big Trouble In Little China. Most people find them to be really enjoyable films, fun to watch, some quotable elements and they bring new members of the audience further into the genre without insulting the genre and people who love it and been watching these movies since they were 12. Very few people, however, would put either of those movies on the best horror or kung-fu flicks of all time.

Someone who like those elements of those movies though gets a vocabulary for how they work and will be more familiar with the conventions when they are used, so watching the next movie in the genre doesn't feel so alien, and they can join in with people who love it.

Perhaps games need a solid home for B-listers? Games that execute well and are very friendly but don't have the money and time behind them that Halo or God of War does but are more advanced and complicated than Wii Sports. For example: something that does the QTE thing well but not punishingly so, so that if someone really loves it fans can say to a new person: oh well if you liked THAT then try God of War which is really cool because of blahblahblah. Games like Braid are indy-but many people have commented on the punishing difficulty, so I'm trying to make a distinction there, if you get my drift.

Because gaming isn't just about gaming anymore; it's about the culture we deal with and on some level connecting to other people for advice, suggestions, and commiseration. Maybe b-list games could help them connect to us and us connect to them.

Edit; Sports kind of does this too-to bring up the NBA analogy from earlier. There are minor league teams and then casual teams all over that are comprised of people who like the sport but aren't and won't ever be great. However, they always need a body to fill in that slot. Why can videogames have a minor league of some kind?

 

[SideburnsPuppy]

The problem with "What do I do now" is that in games which feature it (Psychonauts, Metroid Prime 3) it blatantly gives you the answer to the puzzle and all challenge is lost. I would totally go for a game which includes cryptic clues available at any time, perhaps getting more specific for a small fee.

The original Spiderman game for the playstation 1 had a "kid mode" option underneath its easy.

I always chose it when I was young because I was both afraid of failure, and a kid. (although I would never choose easy for fear of looking like a pussy.)

Eventually, after watching my brother play on normal, I noticed that entire rooms were structured differently in Kid Mode, The electric pit, guarded by laserz that you need to swing across in a zig zag pattern? In Kid Mode there was a walkway there, turning one of the most frustrating challenges into a situation where it's almost impossible to die.

To this day I have only played that game all the way through in Kid Mode (several times might I add) and it was fun, effortless, but fun for pretty much that reason.

Super Easy mode definitely shouldn't be called easy though, it should be called something more relaxing and less humiliating. Words like rookie fit the bill pretty well.

I loved that game. I'm pretty sure I played it on Kid Mode as well as normal, but I can't remember anything except enjoying every second.

 

[justnotcricket]

Nice article, Susan =)

Now, I grew up the hard way through games - started on the 386, then the 486, playing through stuff like Breakout and Solitaire and Lemmings, then Silent Hunter and Sim City. Then I got a Game Boy, and the world of Nintendo was opened up to me (we were a non-console house) - I graduated to Gamecube, N64, PS1 etc on friends' machines, then finally acquired a PS2, a DS, a PSP of my own, then a PS3, and all the while my PC was steadily winding up to where it is today. I suppose, therefore, that I had a very gradual introduction to gaming in its multifarious forms, and never really needed to be introduced to the process. However, I did religiously read manuals, and paid attention in tutorial levels, which I suspect made up for a lot. And in the end, you know how I leanred most of what I know? Good old fashioned trial and error, as well as reading games magazines and haphazardly picking up terms like polygon count and abbreviations like FPS.

HOWEVER In hindsight, there were many instances where it would have been nice if there was a slightly gentler option. Now, I agree that there is value in learning by trial and error, incrementally gaining experience until you finally master a move set in Dynasty Warriors. And beat Lu Bu with nary a scratch. In Chaos Mode. Or whatever. However, I think Susan raises a valid point, that sometimes, a person might want to play a game famous for its depth, beauty, breathtaking action and immersive storytelling (if there is such a thing), without having to build up the skillset required to make the game easily accessible. And yes, I do know people, perfectly normal people, who don't know jack about games. They know all there is to know about other hobbies. Even a gamer who has previously only played turn-based RPGs - they might reasonably find the frenetic pace and the first-person perspective of an FPS a little daunting. Or, equally, a hardcore, oldschool platforming fan who is suddenly confronted with, I don't know, the Dresspheres board thing *shudder* form FFX.

OK, I think I'm getting confusing here. Bottom line, gaming should be friendly and accessible to everyone, from the most advanced player to the total newbie, and I think Susan makes some good suggestions for how to facilitate that. The key point, which some few people seem to be missing, is that we're all agreed that these 'aids' should be OPTIONAL, or in an extra 'rookie' mode, or whatever. If this were the case, leaving aside all practical dev considerations, there is absolutely no reason why newbies and veterans can't enjoy exactly the same game, rather than foisting the newbies off on so-called casual or 'idiot' games. Elitism is selfish, petulant and unbecoming - we should want to promote our favourite pastime to everyone, not restrict it!

 

[Nutcase]

HOWEVER In hindsight, there were many instances where it would have been nice if there was a slightly gentler option. Now, I agree that there is value in learning by trial and error, incrementally gaining experience until you finally master a move set in Dynasty Warriors. And beat Lu Bu with nary a scratch. In Chaos Mode. Or whatever. However, I think Susan raises a valid point, that sometimes, a person might want to play a game famous for its depth, beauty, breathtaking action and immersive storytelling (if there is such a thing), without having to build up the skillset required to make the game easily accessible.

Depth in a game means there is more to the game after you have learned the surface; it is not easily exhausted; you can keep getting better and better at it. Replacing the game with a simpler game is to remove the depth.

And yes, I do know people, perfectly normal people, who don't know jack about games. They know all there is to know about other hobbies. Even a gamer who has previously only played turn-based RPGs - they might reasonably find the frenetic pace and the first-person perspective of an FPS a little daunting.

And why do these people not start from a simpler game which has a lower number of main elements to keep track of, such as Doom? Such as Serious Sam?

OK, I think I'm getting confusing here. Bottom line, gaming should be friendly and accessible to everyone, from the most advanced player to the total newbie, and I think Susan makes some good suggestions for how to facilitate that. The key point, which some few people seem to be missing, is that we're all agreed that these 'aids' should be OPTIONAL, or in an extra 'rookie' mode, or whatever. If this were the case, leaving aside all practical dev considerations, there is absolutely no reason why newbies and veterans can't enjoy exactly the same game, rather than foisting the newbies off on so-called casual or 'idiot' games.

This is 100% wrong. It is not exactly the same game when you have eviscerated the complexity, the pacing and the difficulty; it's a different game sharing the graphics and sound of game #1.

I do not want idiot games for anyone. I want people to play simple, easy - but non-coddling - good games. Knowing they surpassed whatever limited challenge in there still gives them a genuine sense of achievement and opens up more challenging games. I don't want them to play a watered down parody of a good game, be even more confused by all the training wheel functionality piled on top, and get the plot/environment/etc of the real game spoiled for them in case they'd like to play it at some point.

Elitism is selfish, petulant and unbecoming - we should want to promote our favourite pastime to everyone, not restrict it!

If you aspire to be better than you are now, you are an elitist. If you prefer the opinion of someone who knows what they are talking about, instead of one who knows nothing, you are an elitist. You can either be elitist, or stupid.

What you and Susan are rooting for is the equivalent of a publisher including a Simple English and pictorial translation into every poetry book so that everyone can "experience" the poetry without being able to read, or a brewery offering their award-winning strong-tasting bitter mixed with tasteless lager so that everyone can "experience" the bitter despite not being able to handle its taste. That's actually hiding the experience from the newbies, not a shortcut to it, and fundamentally newbie-hostile.

 

[Void(null)]

What you and Susan are rooting for is the equivalent of a publisher including a Simple English and pictorial translation into every poetry book so that everyone can "experience" the poetry without being able to read, or a brewery offering their award-winning strong-tasting bitter mixed with tasteless lager so that everyone can "experience" the bitter despite not being able to handle its taste. That's actually hiding the experience from the newbies, not a shortcut to it, and fundamentally newbie-hostile.

Agreed in full.

I do however, believe it is up to developers to place more importance of level design and difficulty curve, not just for newbies but for everyone. But in no way, shape or form should games be watered down so that "everyone" can enjoy them for exactly the reason you listed.

 

[Susan Arendt]

You asked if we want games to be enjoyed by a wide variety of people.

I don't :\

Ok, I have to ask: why not?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Rockstar need to read this article.

Thier GTA games are one of the biggest selling, most popular games out there (barring one or two Halo sized juggernauts) yet continue to feature utterly frustrating game mechanics that drive both new and experienced players crazy.

At least they brought in checkpoints in TLATD though. That's encouraging.

 

[stonethered]

man, all the stuff in that article would be great.
i learned to game by watching my grandmother play LoZ: link to the past on the snes, asking questions whenever i didn't understand something. the whole time reading the manual and memorizing it. the first time i played halo 2 i played 1v1 with a friend, who was nice enough to tell me what button on the controller did what(i had to learn how to look down scopes on my own). by the end of the day i won my first match, no holds barred, rockets, headlong(24-25)
but for those who either lack the patience to study manuals, or the friends to lead them through; a navigator feature or even just the ever so subtle ocarina of time style hint system is invaluable(though annoying). if only because i get tired of showing my sister how to use the map.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I hear a lot about how games should be harder, but how they should be easier...?

I think vista was meant to be user-friendly, look how that turned out.

I think games are easier now then they have ever been, if people aren't willing to find out how to do something then obviously they won't be able to. I don't think we should pat them on the head and say "oooh, I'm sure you tried your bestest, let's just pretend you beat this segment!"

 

[justnotcricket]

Depth in a game means there is more to the game after you have learned the surface; it is not easily exhausted; you can keep getting better and better at it. Replacing the game with a simpler game is to remove the depth.

Perhaps, but there is a very fine line bwteeen the kind of depth you describe and impenetrability for complete newbies. And what if someone wanted to pick up and play a game, experience all of it, and then stop? Sure, if you discover that you want to hone your skills, you can switch to a normal mode, but if you just want a bit of high quality entertainment? And, I hasten to add, high quality and accessiblity are should not be mutually exclusive.

And why do these people not start from a simpler game which has a lower number of main elements to keep track of, such as Doom? Such as Serious Sam?

Yes, they could do this. Or why not have a normal game with a mode that serves as a constant gradual introduction? With hints/help/etc as intrusive as you want them to be? I know games have tutorial modes. Whny not extend the experience to the whole game, perhaps becoming proigressively less obtrusive as the player gains in skill, but always there without having to go check a guide/forum/wiki on the best way to do something? I also know that this is, development-wise, a practical impossibility at the moment. But it's an interesting concept, I think.

This is 100% wrong. It is not exactly the same game when you have eviscerated the complexity, the pacing and the difficulty; it's a different game sharing the graphics and sound of game #1.

Is it always? I apreciate that some games would lend themselves to this kind of thing more than others, but implementing a rookie mode doesn't have to detract from the story, the graphics, the sound, the mechanics or the pace - it just has provide these elements in a context supportive to new players, who are there to have a good time. I don't happen to think of compulsory difficulty and impenetrability are particularly attractive traits in a game. They should be there if you want them, in a Hard Mode. And for new people, these thresholds may be lower, so you might want a rookie mode.

I do not want idiot games for anyone. I want people to play simple, easy - but non-coddling - good games. Knowing they surpassed whatever limited challenge in there still gives them a genuine sense of achievement and opens up more challenging games. I don't want them to play a watered down parody of a good game, be even more confused by all the training wheel functionality piled on top, and get the plot/environment/etc of the real game spoiled for them in case they'd like to play it at some point.

First of all, a 'rookie' mode doesn't have to coddle you. It just has to give you a leg up a bit more often, or a few more suggestions. Secondly, how does Cooking Mama prepare you for Gears of War? You have to play a lot of games before you can literally just pick up any game and play it. Wouldn't it be nice for new people not to have to go through all the 'preparatory' games, if they just want to play a big new title? Thirdly, wouldn't you ge the same sense of achievement, if you wanted it, from playing rookie to get into the thing, then going and beating every other mode? What if the player isn't doing it for a Sense Of Achievement, but rather wants to play a game, fight all the bosses, and live to see the end credits without getting bogged down in the annoyingly difficult sections that inevitably exist in every game. And that's not to say a rookie mode should present no challenge whatsoever, it should simply not present head+wall frustration.

If you aspire to be better than you are now, you are an elitist. If you prefer the opinion of someone who knows what they are talking about, instead of one who knows nothing, you are an elitist. You can either be elitist, or stupid.

Oh dear! Extreme polarity of opinion isn't a good sign either...perhaps what you say about elitism is true. Another thing that's true of elitists is that they take the same view that you do here - that everyone who is not like them is a lesser being. Which is just bad.

What you and Susan are rooting for is the equivalent of a publisher including a Simple English and pictorial translation into every poetry book so that everyone can "experience" the poetry without being able to read, or a brewery offering their award-winning strong-tasting bitter mixed with tasteless lager so that everyone can "experience" the bitter despite not being able to handle its taste.

That's actually hiding the experience from the newbies, not a shortcut to it, and fundamentally newbie-hostile.

Snappy soundbite...but it's wrong. You're not hiding anything from anyone. If you select 'rookie' mode from a screen that also lists, say, 'Average', 'Tricky' and 'Chaos', you know exactly what you're doing, and that there are other ways to experience the game - which, if you feel so inclined, you can go and play through. There need be no ambiguity. However, if you're totally new, and you select 'Normal' and get completely blown out of the water, you can go back and give yourself an easier, probably more entertaining and enjoyable time by playing Rookie first. And tell me, who didn't start in life with illustrated books?

 

[Void(null)]

I miss the days when "Easy" meant you could only play the first 3 levels before the game would end, then tell you to play on Normal or hard.

 

[Banter]

Othello. A minute to learn, a lifetime to master.

I agree with this article, I was thrown back into the realms of newbie gamer when I played my first ever round of street fighter against a friend. Every couple of seconds I'd have to ask 'how do I jump/block/do a special attack/what's a shoryuken/etc'
Not a great example perhaps, it's a complicated genre but the fact is when something's completely new and there's a lot suddenly going on at once it's more than easy to get lost.


Games in my opinion should be flexible enough that you can play them and enjoy them whether it's your first ever game or if you're a professional gamer that's put more hours into gaming than they have into sleep for the past umpteen years.
It makes perfect sense for games to be like this as it generates the largest possible market, meaning more money to developers.
There is a problem in implementation of 'easy' in games, especially ones which already have a fanbase where simplification risks insults the 'elite' who just want the games to be harder and screw everyone who can't cope (any sequels trying to make things easier/simpler than the original are likely doomed to hatred by these people)

Optional tutorials are usually a good idea, being forced to do them is a chore when you know what to do.
A perfect tutorial to me is one that not only covers everything you NEED to know, and several things you don't NEED to know but are handy anyway, but also one that is fun itself.