Skip to Content
 

Game testing myth

BAa'la-rena

The theory is that in game design 90% is in testing. I am not arguing this. I am arguing the time frame involved. I have gone from concept to published in one week. During that week 90% of the design was test playing, but it din't take years, it took days.

Comments

When I learned Game Design,

When I learned Game Design, granted is was Video Game Design, 70% was preproduction. Brainstorming the story, the setting, the thematic mechanics, concept art, flow charts and vocal/text scripts are example of that stage of design.

20% was production. This stage is assets creation, coding, compiling, testing and redesign.

The last 10% was the dreaded post-production. Last minute changes, marketing, distribution plans, packaging and release of the game. This stage is labeled Dreaded because it the part of design where you need to be VERY aware of scope creep and deadlines and no one likes either of those!

Published?

I'm just curious about your claim of having published the game. Did you publish via The Game Crafter or some other print-on-demand service?

It could also depend on the

It could also depend on the definition of "testing." I'll run through a game or mechanic in my head 100 times in a 100 ways in a mental "test" on whether or not the idea will work or improve the game. More often than not, I find holes in the idea and it's only the ideas that pass the mental testing that ever make it into an actual, tangible prototype.

However, the main issue with this type of testing is that it only involves me, and there are always things I'm going to miss and angles I'm not going to see. This is why blind play tests are so valuable and will shed so much light on a design.

My limited experience

Well, the game I have progressed the furthest so far was effectively complete inside of 24 hours. That was a year ago, and since then my time spent working on it has been patchy, and the amount of time the game has actually spent being played amounts to only about 10 hours or so (it is a short game), with many times that spent on revision and reworking. If I was to compress everything down to a period of full-time work, I would probably be on a couple of weeks, most of which is testing and revision. I need to do a LOT more before I am content that the game is sufficiently resilient in the real world. By the time I am "done", I expect the playtest percentage to be way above 90%, if you include the analysis of playtest data and revision of the game as a result.

BAa'la-rena looks like it might not have had very much blind test feedback as I think I might struggle to play the game based on the rules as currently written. I assume, though, that much of what is needed is on the character charts and score pads, which should make sense of the rules?

Agreed.

While testing has no real time table, the scope of the game can also determine how much testing you need.

If the game is a simple, casual game, then it shouldn't take a long time to test out bugs, though more testing will bring out more long term bugs. If you're testing a game like...Arkham Horror, you're not going to take days to test out all the bugs...it will take far longer.

Still, there are other types of testing that are invaluable. Blind play testing really puts your rules through the fire; whether or not people understand your rules.

Your post feels more like bragging than trying to tell us something.

Anyone can design a game and publish it within days, but whether or not it's a good game? That's for the audience to determine.

My personnal experience

My first encounter with playtesting:
"YOU HAVE TO PLAYTEST!!!"
:)
What they meant to say is that playtesting is adviced to do. And it can start prettty soon in the total amount of game designing. It depends on your game.

My personnal experiences:

Reasons for play testing; You will know for sure if your:
- game works correctly.
- game works in the expected time frame.
- game is fun.
- rules are understandable.

How to playtest:
- If possible/needed, make a plan in what and how to play test. Especially when you need to search for a balance. These are your personal tests.
- When "completed"; play test a couple of times.
- Test with players. You guide them.
- Watch a test with the same players. You don't guide them.
- Ask any player if they like the game. And ask if it is their genre. What they like to change. etc. etc.
- Ask new players to do a blind playtest. This is often the "final" test. You still only watch.

You kinda follow the list. But you step backwards very often. I have found myself stepping back to the first step when I asked players what they would like to change.

Good stuff

Some good advice from X3M there, though...

X3M wrote:
- Ask any player if they like the game.

I would argue that this is about the most useless question you can ask. If you are watching, you will have seen how the players are behaving... Are they checking their phones? Are they intently watching the board during other people's turns? Are they laughing? Is there banter flowing? Is someone acting like they don't care about the outcome of their moves? You should be able to tell how well a game engages or entertains the players just by watching them.

Henceforth the etc. etc.

Henceforth the etc. etc.

X3M wrote:Henceforth the etc.

X3M wrote:
Henceforth the etc. etc.

Yup. :)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content


blog | by Dr. Radut