Project Name: Harrowing in the Light

Playtest #1

Playtest Organizer: Sam Muller

Date: 1/8/2018

Setting:

Relaxed home environment, late at night after a few drinks. This could be seen to be somewhat representative of how a player might play Harrowing in the Light.

Method:

The gameplay and microphone input were recorded.The game was not explained and neither were the controls. Initially, the playtest was observed silently, specifically attempting not to offer suggestions or assistance, however the UI was not yet appropriately implemented and there were a number of bugs. As such, some controls need to be explained and there were some requests for the player to alter the  manner in which they interacted with the game. The playtester was very vocal about their experience and as a result they did not need to be prompted to further explanation.

Goals:

The goal of this session was to test the preliminary user interface. As the work over the coming week after this playtest was directed toward developing the UI further, it seemed necessary to investigate whether it was understandable. Furthermore, due to an increase in focus toward the gameplay loop, there was a desire to explore the readability of the two phases, or in this case, as the second phase was not yet implemented, there being some foreshadowing of the second phase whilst the player was in the first phase.

Playtester:

Journalism Student - Very little experience with digital games:

Presumably as a result of the playtesters lack of experience with games, specifically strategy games, the player struggle to understand the concept of the game. However, after a short amount of exploration, the player eventually developed an basic understanding of the game, specifically that their characters had actions and a limited number of them.

After a brief explanation of the some of the controls, the player realised that they were able to move the character a certain distance, an understanding which was presumably prompted by the grid.

The game did not have an end state and the characters could continue to move once their turns were expended, although the grid would no longer appear. Understanding this, the player questioned whether they were supposed to be able to move and what the eventual goal of the game was.

Avoiding the second question, the playtest continued with player eventually tapping seemingly random keys in order to see if they did something. Finding the rementents of a WASD movement scheme, the player found enjoyed by breaking what they understood to be the rules of the game by moving their character irrespective of the grid, through walls and eventually off the screen.

Whilst all the significant aspects of the game had been explored, the playtest continued to another 5 minutes, with the player being asked to refrain from using the WASD movement controls. This was done in attempt to gauge the reaction to the continued interaction with game. Eventually, the player was doing very little and thus the playtest came to a close.

Playtest #2 & 3

Playtest Organizers: Sam Muller, Chris Smith, Matthew Woods, Simone Rizio

Date: 7/8/2018

Setting:

Studio playtest session, located in 14.11.37 at RMIT city campus between 4:30 to 5:30. Perhaps playtesters are not as mentally attentive at this time of day? Relatively large number of people in the space, which resulted in a rather loud atmosphere. The setting is not inherently representative of a typical environment in which our game would be played.

Method:

As purely observational playtests, neither the game, its context, nor it’s controls, were presented to the players. The playtest was observed silently, refraining from offering help or suggestions, in a non confrontational manner, as the player engaged with the prototype. Whilst testers were not asked to vocalize their thoughts during their play through, it was not discouraged. This was done in an attempt to provide as comfortable environment as possible. Although notes were taken during the playtest, this was done in a considerate manner, in the hopes to make the playtest less intimidating and more relaxed. In specific, the notetaking focused largely on the player’s interaction and response to the game. If there was an area of interest after the playtest was concluded, a number of follow up questions were asked in an attempt to investigate further and empathize with the player’s interpretation and understanding of the game.

Goal:

The goal of this session was to test game readability at first glance. We wanted to see if players could sit down and engage with the game at its most basic level, free of flashy graphics and convoluted GUI elements, and see if players could understand what the game was trying to get them to do and what their role as a player was.

Playtesters:

Game Design Student - Some experience with the strategy genre:

Our first playtester started off by exploring the environment, noticing quickly that mousing over different parts of the level would bring up GUI text information. After looking around the level, the player then started inspecting the interactive UI elements such as skills, and the turn counter.

Once the player started clicking on the skill buttons they seemed to understand the context of the game more, noticing the turn based grid movement system pop up into view when the “move” action was selected.

While the player had obvious trouble understanding their initial role within the game, once they had expended all of their turn points, they quickly understood the tower defense phase, quickly adopting the in battle usable skills.

The playtester gave two attempts at playing through the game, on the second attempt after understanding the concept of the game, moved the player characters strategically for the upcoming battle. This lead to the player surviving longer during the battle phase and found more enjoyment through the overall gameplay. This player also began to switch between player characters mid battle to take advantage of cycling through player skill cooldowns.

In terms of overall usability this playtester was observed to take their time to check around the screen and investigate what did what, while the first run through took them approximately two minutes. Overall usability was present and the player did figure out how to play the game on their own, without instruction or becoming stuck or confused even though some elements of the GUI seemed to be misleading to the player.

Game Design Student - Some experience with the strategy genre:

The second playtester started out by reading the button tooltips across the GUI skill buttons at first, opting to start interacting with them, this playtester began moving around the environment faster than the first, quickly recognizing grid based movement.

While the player was quick to understand the initial functionality of the game, they were slower at realising how to switch players, missing the next/previous player button and started trying to click on the player characters to select them. However I feel that it’s noteworthy to add that even though the ‘player characters’ were nothing more than Unity capsules, the player immediately recognized them as the player characters.

However this playtester did start using the hotkeys after upon closer inspection of the UI buttons, while this player took a little longer to get to the battle phase, they quickly understood what was going on, and how to attack. However it was still unclear to the player that they could be swapping characters to avoid waiting for the cooldown to reset on that player character before using it again.

Overall this playtester took slightly longer to grasp the concept of the game, but managed to play through without aid and understood what the game was trying to get them to do.

Playtest #4 & 5

Playtest Organizer: Sam Muller

Date: 7/8/2018

Setting:

As per previous session, from 6:30 to 7:30. Significantly less people and thus less loud. Could be seen to be a more comfortable environment and thus more appropriate for our game.

Method:

As per previous session although significantly less focus on the observer being silent. However, there was still no explanation given with regard to the game itself.

Goal:

As per previous session.

Playtesters:

Game Design Student - No experience with the strategy genre:

This player tester began by looking for the responsive feedback of the buttons, utilizing the knowledge gained from that to generate their initial understanding of the game. Whilst the player recognized that text boxes with information appeared, they did not engage with them.

After having interacted with the buttons which provided the most direct visual feedback a number of times and clicking on those which did not occasionally, they expended all their turns and were thrown into the battle phase.

It seemed as though they were rather confronted by the change and quickly became stressed due to a lack of understanding. The player realized that object that were appearing were aggressive and made attempt to click some buttons. Whilst the player acknowledged that there was feedback, they were unable to understand the button did in time.

When the game was initiated a second time, the player interacted with the setup phase much more than their first play through, taking the time to read the text prompt for each button. They engaged with the phase in a seemingly more tactical mindset.

Aware that the change for the battle phase was coming, the player was prepared to begin absorbing information. Once it began, they carefully but with haste, interacted with the grenade button and realized they needed to target it. Whilst the player had developed this understanding the enemies still managed to overwhelm the player due to the time it taken to learn the mechanics. However they were eager to try once more.

The player interacted with the setup phase as much as they had with their second playthrough and seemed to position the characters based on their understanding of the battle phase. Undertaking the battle phase, they endured much longer and had a competent grasp of what was happening, finally recognizing that the grenade had a cooldown.

Game Design Student - Lots of experience with the strategy genre

This playtester remarked on the terminology used for the buttons in a positive manner before commencing the setup phase. They quickly developed an understanding of setup process and remarked on elements they liked and thought need improvement, providing specific suggestions.

After exploring all the set phase had to offer in a brief amount of time they engaged with the battle phase. Initially they were unprepared at the speed at which it began but quickly made sense of the grenade ability.

Having lost and played a second time, they realized that the grenade had cooldown and thus played the battle phase in a more considered manner, opting to swap between characters before clicking on the ability.

Conclusions / Synthesis

Overall, it is felt that sufficient relevant data was gathered from the playtesting with regard to the goals. Whilst the UI may not have been instantaneously readable and understandable, it was surprisingly appropriate given that it has the aesthetics of a placeholder. Realistically, this can suggest that some work can now be invested into the development of game ready UI. It would still be appropriate to continue testing the UI, as it is not guaranteed that the aesthetic quality will greatly improved readability. Furthermore there are a number of element of the UI which need significant work, such as the grenade cool down indicator, which is evidenced by not a single playtester recognising its relevance. This could be presented through the use of a spiral atop the button or a level of charge on the trajectory indicator in order to bring it closer to the player’s attention.

The initial playtest, whilst more focused on quality assurance than it should have been, was beneficial in finding the general direction and implementation of the UI. Given that the playtester was not experienced with digital games and yet was able to make sense of the information provided through the user interface, it can be suggested that it was being used appropriately.

There needs to be an increase in awareness in the change to the battle phase. This is because many playtesters were surprised when the change occurred and thus struggled to manage to handle the situation that was presented to them. Of course, this surprise could be suggested as being appropriate to the game and is indicative of learning curve, due to players typically understanding what is happening during their a second playthrough, however this such a core and basic concept for the game that it has been decided that it requires continued work.

It would be interesting to test a four screen view during in the battle phase for the next phase due to the feedback given with the grenade indicator. Since there is a desire to embody stress, presenting a large amount of information may be beneficial, especially with regard to the aforementioned conclusions drawn.