Game Journal

 

Playtesting
Tracy Fullerton (2008) writes that “Playtesting is the single most important activity a designer engages in”.

We playtested in two different stages of the process. The first time with the lo-fi prototype, and a second time with the digital prototype. We focused on what part of the game we wanted to test in the different stages, let the players play the game, and then questioned them about the parts we wanted to know more about. But between these two tests we of course tested it on ourselves. As Tracy Fullerton (2008) also writes, that when you are building your first prototype, the best tester is yourself. Mainly to test the functions and the main mechanics of the game and to make sure it is playable. This is exactly what we did during the whole game making process. I think I probably have played it a hundred times by now, and I think we are all a bit pissed at Tim at this point. But at the same time we love him! How could you not love this precious soul?

With the Lo-Fi prototype we wanted to find out how or if the voice interaction would work, if it was fun to play, and if our story we had set out for our main character was entertaining. The outcome of this was that it was indeed entertaining, and the story was fun, so we decided to keep working on the same story we had come up with for the Lo-Fi prototype. Visually we implemented the same type of drawings into the digital game as well, but with added colors and a bit more depth to the forest background. This way we got the same feeling of the game, that we wanted from the very beginning. The simple but detailed hand-drawn look.

Because of the fact that this is a multiple endings game, we wanted the testers to play it a second time, to see how their strategies changed, and how they managed the interaction after already had played it once. All of them changed their strategies and made Tim do different things the second time. As I think most people would do with this type of game. Mostly because you are excited to see what will happen next, and therefore you will change your tactics to be able to experience an other possible ending to the game.

When we tested the game with the Hi-Fi prototype, the game was not nearly finished, but we had gotten the basics of the game down. We again wanted to test the interaction in the game in this stage, but also the general feeling of it. At this point Tim didn’t give the user much feedback when they talked to him, and he also continued walking and making choices of his own, even without anyone talking or telling him how to act. This confused the player and most of them didn’t even know what they did to influence him.

The answers we got from the interviews made a big impact on our final product. Particularly from the Hi-Fi test. We had an idea of what was necessary to work on before the tests, but the playtests made it even more clear.
To clarify the interaction between the player and Tim we added basic animations, got Tim a few different facial expressions, and made his mood bar easier to notice. 

The biggest part we worked on was that we made Tim have more of a personality. Because of the uncertainty of how Tim would react when the player spoke into the microphone, we made him sort of predicting what would happen next by commenting on what he just did. He doesn’t just say random things all the time when the player talks to him anymore. Instead he hints to the player what choices he can make with the objects he has in his inventory for example, without taking away the mystery of the game. Not knowing what’s coming next or how your actions will affect the story, is one of the best parts of our game. It is a bit of a mystery.

Conclusion
When you play your own game you tend to get blind, and you don’t see the obvious flaws in your design. What’s clear to you, may not be clear to the first time player. This is important to notice in an early stage, so that you can make the necessary changes to your game. For the ultimate game experience. 

If we had more time, and had the option to playtest again I think we might have done it a bit different. We tested mainly on people in our class, and if we were to do it again, I think it would be great to test on people outside the class and perhaps people of different ages. To get a wider perspective on the game we were making, and to further develop the flaws that still exists.  

References
Fullerton, Tracy, Swain, Christopher & Hoffman, Steven (2008). Game design workshop: a playcentric approach to creating innovative games. 2. ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Morgan Kaufmann