Good Games are Created through Play Testing
The developers of a game start with an idea of a gaming experience they want to deliver, but the success of this idea is not measured by how well the product matches the concept, but the degree to which the player enjoys the experience. This is best assessed through testing.
The author discerns four types of tests:
- Focus Groups - Interviews that get individuals to express their likes and dislikes, often conducted in advance as a way to determine whether an idea has merit
- QA Testing - Quality assurance testing, which isn't about player experience, but is more about identifying technical glitches
- Usability Testing - Determining if the interfaces and systems are easy-to-use: that a player can figure out how to play the game.
- Play Testing - Getting people to play the game to assess the experience of the game (ro some part of the game) with an eye toward qualitative assessment.
The author plainly admits that he hates play testing. It's really annoying when play testers don't' "get it," or when their feedback is clearly out of line with what the team is trying to develop - but the problem isn't the testing itself, but the way in which the results are often interpreted or used by those who don't understand the point of the exercise.
The important thing is to ask the right questions, and then ask follow up questions, and then more, to get to the nuts and bolts. Whether a game is "fun" is subjective, but you can dig at the roots to find out the specific things that added to or distracted from the experience.
It's also important to test with a wide range of individuals, and to seek out patterns in their responses. It could be that a given response is skewed to a specific market segment (men who are over 40 really hate this game, but teenage girls think it's the greatest).
There are four test groups to use:
- The developers - who will test the game as they develop it to make sure it works, and hunt for bugs. They provide good feedback, but are often too "close" to the game.
- Friends - It's not unusual to get the team to reach out to their personal; acquaintances to get "Fresh eyes" on the game ... but the drawback is that these people tend to be too gentle, too reluctant to be critical of your work.
- Expert Gamers - These are the "hardcore" gamers who have played a lot of games and represent some of your most rabid fans (or vehement detractors). They can give you a good idea of how well your game will stand up to others in the market, but they tend to be very opinionated and have distinct personal preferences. They are also the most likely to "leak" information in advance of the game's completion.
- Tissue Testers - People who have never seen your game, and are casual players. Hey are "tissue" testers because, like tissues, they can only be used once. These testers give you the impression of novice players, but they may have trouble with basics (how to work a controller) that will not be true of your market.
As for venues:
- Studio Test - Its' convenient to bring people into the shop to test, but it often makes the subjects uncomfortable being on your "turf" to criticize your product
- Testing Lab - A good lab is designed for testing, and has more equipment on hand than you probably do, and can provide expert staff to assist in conducting the tests, but it can be vey expensive
- Public Venue - The mall or campus test is generally a cheap alternative, but you often find the demographics are skewed and that the testers are distracted and won't give you their full attention
- In-Home testing - is good to get a perspective of the game played in it's intended environment, but it's difficult to get good observations in a persons private space
- Internet - Enabling testers to download and test your games is cheap, but you are limited in the type of feedback you can gather (can't do physical observation, for example) - and what's more, it's very likely the test version will be cloned and shared.