If players can not figure out what a game is doing, they will have a very difficult time figuring out what it might do (PerceivableConsequences)

In a prototype ComputerGame with computer controlled fighters, the early message system is very confusing. Each combatant acts independently, on it's own schedule, but there is only one message area, so many messages flash by before they can be read. There is not yet any animation or other feedback methods to convey this information. Without this feedback, the player cannot follow the events, and battles are uninteresting.

At minimum, the game needs either a pause for each message, or a separate message area for each source (as long as the number of sources remains very small.) Other animation and indicators will also help.

It is easy to look at the game and say that it is not fun. One reason is that the player simply cannot get into events that he cannot follow - the computer could resolve the fight in fractions of a second and announce a winner, but there would be no drama in it. (FunForThePlayer) Another reason is that the player has difficulty learning the game rules by example, and cannot exercise PerceivableConsequences (which lead to MeaningfulChoices.)

Systems which are as SimpleAsPossible are often easier to follow than ones which are complex.

According to Gonzo_Suarez? in Game_Design:_SotS?, "a) if something can't be perceived by the user, it better not exist at all; and b) if something can't be made to happen by the user, it better not be offered as an option (much less a seemingly attractive option)."

Therefore, make certain that the presentation of the game systems, if not the systems themselves, are clear and easy for players to follow.