I'm always immediately suspicious when a game developer feels the need to tell me how to enjoy their game, or if fans of the game feel the need to do the same. It makes me worried that there are design issues which will mar enjoyment - people shouldn't need to be told how to get the most out of a game because they'll discover for themselves if the design is good enough.

For example, even though I thouroughly enjoyed Dead Rising on the 360, I can see how many people wouldn't have realised that the game is supposed to present you with insurmountable odds at first. Many people didn't get the point that most gamers would only be able to get the best ending after repeat playthroughs, all the while levelling up their character. When I hear a friend complain about Dead Rising I often want to say 'Oh, but you see the way you're supposed to play at first is-' but then I stop myself and think: 'why should I have to explain how to play it?' The game, as much as I liked it, should have spoken for itself.

On the other side of the coin, I think it was very unnecessary for Jonathan Blow to plea on the Braid website that people don't use a walkthrough to get the most out of the game - the sort of people who will get the most out of Braid are already the sort of people who aren't too walkthrough-prone. In that case there was no need to tell people how to play the game, as the game already does speak for itself.

Every so often someone professes their dislike for a game like, say, BioShock because they didn't find the combat varied enough - they'd just use the one-two punch for the whole game, perhaps. For the record, I enjoyed BioShock just fine, probably because I wasn't in it for the combat. Nevertheless, I have to disagree with the standard response to this sort of complaint, which is something like: 'It's not the game's fault if you don't use all it has to offer.'

In the case of BioShock, people argue that the game actually is very varied if you're willing to experiment with all the different plasmids, for example. The thing is, there's a reason why people restricted themselves to certain plasmids - they simply didn't find they had enough of a gameplay incentive to do otherwise. You could get rid of everything very effectively with just a few different tactics. If the aim was to provide a richly varied combat system, then I have to concede that the game failed in that regard because many people just weren't feeling encouraged to use what was there. I believe that the Penny Arcade folks defended Assassins Creed on the same basis - that it was plenty varied as long as you make an effort to make it varied. In other words, instead of seeing fault with a game they like, people are more often inclined to cry: 'You're playing it wrong!'

Time for the sweeping generalisation: I say that people are rarely, if ever, playing it wrong, especially not through fault of their own. In order to be truly playing it wrong I think they'd have to be doing something as weird as playing Team Fortress 2 single-player (commentary excluded). Perhaps something even weirder. I guess someone might play TF2 like that to scout out maps... I guess. Anyway, my point is: if someone has given a game a fair shake and they're still not getting the most out of it, I think there are only two basic possibilities, either:

a) It's just not the game for them; it doesn't suit their playing style, OR
b) There's something wrong with some aspect of the design.

Now, as for b), I don't mean that it has to be a horrible, game breaking problem which means that the whole game sucks. I just mean that, like in the BioShock example, if a significant number of people find, say, the combat a bit repetetive, maybe it really is the game's fault for not finding a better way to show of the variety it has on offer. Developers like Valve, for example, know the value of paying attention to how players are playing the game and to work with that rather than simply expect the player to get find the 'right' way of playing on their own - you only have to listen to their Developer Commentaries to see how much attention was paid to how testers were playing the game.

But what about everyone else? Do you think that there are certain ways that gamers should be approaching playing their games, to do it properly? Are you more of my opinion that if it appears possible to play a game 'wrong' then that's usually the game's fault and not the gamer? Is there maybe something that you think gamers always do 'wrong' that gets on your nerves, or a game you think almost everyone plays wrong except for you? Discuss.