After creating a design document for our game then subsequently developing a prototype based on the design, we were required to conduct a series of play tests of our game. Along with conducting these tests, we assisted our fellow classmates by testing their games as well. It was quite enlightening to play other team’s games as well as have individuals outside of the development team test our game, “Rainy Day Builder.”
The game that I play tested for another team was “Site Mark-Universal Protocol” and was aimed at teaching hospital staff about the universal protocol. I participated in the play test synchronously with one person administering the session. The individual gave a brief background on the game, subject of the game, and the expectations of the play test. I then played the game through the entire level that the prototype covered. Afterwards, the administrator of the session asked me a series of questions related to the game, thanked me for my time, and idly chatted about the experience of the class before adjourning. The biggest eye-opener for me when play testing “Site Mark-Universal Protocol” was the unique approach they took to teaching this subject. I would not have thought of the combination of a dialogue and “Operation”-esque style of play if the subject of the universal protocol was assigned to me. The incredible creativity and strong aesthetic of the game was very inspiring. It made me think of different ways that I could approach my team’s game and encouraged me to be as open-minded as when my team was conducting our first brainstorm session. There was not much about the play test experience that could have been improved. The only item that I would modify would be some additional background on the universal protocol as I am not a healthcare professional by trade. That being said, I was not the intended audience for the game and I am inferring that healthcare professionals would have a much greater familiarity with the methods referenced in the game than I do.
While administering the play test, I conducted a synchronous play test for my team’s game “Rainy Day Builder.” The play test I conducted used a questionnaire that was based on the survey my team created together to use in the asynchronous play test of the game. In this play test, I learned that a lot of the assumptions and shortcuts that I took when developing the game caused some frustration for the player. The level design was especially incriminating as the player had optimized the build very quickly within the three and four material options per green roof layer but still had to keep playing through levels that included the same goals and options. The player then tried to customize and express themselves creatively, but ended up being frustrated that they were unable to do so without failing the level. I would definitely make the three option and four option levels shorter before moving on to a three-dimensional grid and scaffolding in difficulty. The main thing that I would change for the play test if I was to redo it would be the modification of the questions. While I achieved a more conversational nature for the questions than using the Likert scale from the survey, the questions and conversation could have flowed much more naturally and perhaps provided even better insights if I reordered and reworded even further.