Playtesting Atl and Ollin
Although a little overdue, in this post I want to reflect upon the playtesting sessions that were held for our projects. Specifically regarding Atl and Ollin and what differences we as a team noticed between the two sessions. In order to receive feedback from other players, we had questionnaires in place to be filled out at the end of each playtest. The questions chosen were based on what we felt would be most beneficial for us at that specific time in the development cycle. This included general questions helping to gain an insight into how players felt about certain mechanics or scenarios, to more specific questions regarding elements in the game that we wished to gain more clarification on.
The goal of the first playtest was to try and understand how players felt about some of the core mechanics that we had in place. Including character movement, co-op multiplayer and some of the primary game mechanics that we're already somewhat in place. Questions were intentionally open-ended as the design of the game at that time was still being shaped. The majority of feedback was helpful in clearing up what worked and what didn't. Unfortunately due to unexpected bugs and lack of player feedback however, that playtesting session was hindered from the beginning.
Our second session went much more smoothly. Thorough testing of our own before the playtest ensured that the game was in a more functional and playable state, a requirement when looking to gain useful feedback. This time around we kept some general questions as to allow players the freedom to express their emotions, along with more specific questions targeted at providing us with feedback for fine tuning certain aspects as we felt needed.
Having clear instructions in place from the beginning proved to be an important factor in determining whether a session was successful or not. If players can't understand what they are meant to do, any feedback given will be of little to no use. Players won't be able to convey their though processes accurately enough in this circumstance, having been unable to play the game in the way that it was intended.
The goal of the first playtest was to try and understand how players felt about some of the core mechanics that we had in place. Including character movement, co-op multiplayer and some of the primary game mechanics that we're already somewhat in place. Questions were intentionally open-ended as the design of the game at that time was still being shaped. The majority of feedback was helpful in clearing up what worked and what didn't. Unfortunately due to unexpected bugs and lack of player feedback however, that playtesting session was hindered from the beginning.
Our second session went much more smoothly. Thorough testing of our own before the playtest ensured that the game was in a more functional and playable state, a requirement when looking to gain useful feedback. This time around we kept some general questions as to allow players the freedom to express their emotions, along with more specific questions targeted at providing us with feedback for fine tuning certain aspects as we felt needed.
Having clear instructions in place from the beginning proved to be an important factor in determining whether a session was successful or not. If players can't understand what they are meant to do, any feedback given will be of little to no use. Players won't be able to convey their though processes accurately enough in this circumstance, having been unable to play the game in the way that it was intended.
Comments
Post a Comment