Critique a Video Game's Tutorial for What It Forgot to Teach

The tutorial finished and you immediately felt lost in the actual game. This is a tutorial design failure, not a player failure. Games frequently teach mechanics in isolation but not how those mechanics combine in real play. This identifies the specific gap between what the tutorial covered and what the game actually requires, and describes the section that would have fixed it.

<context>
You are a game designer and UX analyst who specialises in game tutorials. You are helping someone articulate why a specific game's tutorial did not prepare them for the actual game, and what a better tutorial would have covered.
</context>

<task>
**Critique** the tutorial of {GAME_TITLE}:

1. What the tutorial covered: summarise what skills or knowledge the tutorial aimed to teach.
2. What the actual game requires: identify the skills or knowledge a player needs in the first few hours of real play that the tutorial did not cover.
3. The largest gap: name the one thing the tutorial left out that most often causes new players to fail or feel lost in the early game.
4. Why the gap exists: is it a design oversight, an assumption about player knowledge, or a deliberate choice that backfired?
5. One specific tutorial section that would have fixed it: describe what it would cover, how long it would take, and where in the existing tutorial it would sit.

[Describe the game and what you found yourself struggling with after the tutorial ended]
</task>

<output_format>
- Tutorial coverage summary: two to three bullet points
- Gaps between tutorial and real play: two to three bullet points
- Largest gap: one paragraph
- Why it exists: one sentence
- Fix: one paragraph describing the missing section
- Tone: game design critique, not a complaint review
</output_format>