Play-Test Results

When designing a game, a Play-Test is conducted to see if the game is meeting the player experience goals (Fullerton, 2008). The objective of play-tests is to collect beneficial feedback and data on how to improve the game experience of the game for players throughout the game development process (Fullerton, 2008). We can collect the data qualitatively or quantitatively. For the design aspect of the game, we aim to make the game fun to play, balanced and inwardly thorough (Fullerton, 2008). Also, conducting play-tests gives us a different lens to view the game, from the perspective of someone who has not seen the game before and allow us to see the game more objectively as we may have been blinded to flaws of the game as it’s designers, because of our emotional attachment to the game or through our assumptions of the game that may come from being overly familiar it.

During the play-test, we observed how players played the game and this allowed us to get a better idea of the pros and flaws of the game.

After the game, a post-play-test survey is given for players to fill in after the game to collect data on player experience of the game, how to improve the game and other useful information such as information which will allow us to gain insight on the game’s marketability. The players were also asked for advice, opinions and possible improvements on the game. Reiterations of the game should be conducted based on the feedback received and data collected from the post-play-test surveys. The post-play test survey questions are attached in the appendix for reference purposes.

Some of the play-test results from the surveys and inferences we came to from these results will be shown. Note that some of the play-testers were not careful to answer all the questions, so the number of people may not be consistent.

Quantitative feedback

Chart 1: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

From Chart 1 above, we can see that generally people found the game to be fun, which is a great indicator for our game.

Chart 2: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

From Chart 2 above, most of the data we collected was from people with not much knowledge of Materials Science and Nanoengineering. We noted that we should take this into account when analyzing the results for our playtests.

Chart 3: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

From Chart 3 above, we can see that most people thought that the game was very Materials Science and Nanoengineering related. Hence we can infer that it has met its goal of being a game about Materials Science and Nanotechnology.

Chart 4: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

From Chart 4 above, we can see that most playtesters thought the explanations of the rules were clear. However, some thought that it was not very clear, hence the rule book may need some further work.

Chart 5: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

From Chart 5 above, we can see that players were able to make decisions relatively quickly, which is a good thing in the context of most games, including our game.

Chart 6: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

From Chart 6, we can see that most people can see themselves playing the game frequently, which is a good indicator for our game. However, some thought that it was not their type of the game and some thought it was too long.

Chart 7: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

Even though most people had fun playing the game (chart 1) and can see themselves playing the game frequently (chart 6); from chart 7, we can see that most people would not commit to buying the game and they do not think it is a “Must buy”. This suggests that we might have to improve our game further before releasing it to the market.

Chart 8: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

Chart 8 gives us an idea of the rough price we should sell our product in the market for. From Chart 8, we can see that most people would only pay 10-20 USD for this game, hence we have to try to reduce our selling price of the game to 20 USD or below if possible.

Chart 9: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

From Chart 9, we can see that most of the playtesters wanted more choices to be available when they were making decisions. This suggests that we should work on giving players more choices in the game. This was also expressed in the personal and qualitative feedback of the game, where some players expressed that they would like more agency and strategy in the game.

Chart 10: Results from Post-Playtest Survey

From Chart 10, we can see that most players did not need to make or use their own house rules to play the game. This suggests that the game has enough rules to be played without adding any, hence it indicates that the game is ‘internally complete’, at least in this sense, which is a good indicator for the game.

Qualitative Feedback (From survey and in-person feedback)

• Difficulty of questions is too high

• No element specific companions.

• Increased involvement of companions

• Include what directions players should go in

• Reward or include a game mechanism for players that reach the end before the other players

• Clarify questions

• Wanting to see other player’s device cards in order to have more strategic agency

• Decrease the amount of automatic points given by device spaces

We can see that the results of the play-test has given us much useful data that can be used to improve on our game through the creation of reiterations. It is also seen that playtests are an important part of the entire design process of the game.

We have demonstrated that our game was fun and works during the playtests and the in-class demonstration.

Future Directions

During the three play tests, we discovered that average college students without prior experience in Material Science can answer most of the level 1 questions we provided in the first prototype; while graduate students and professors in the Material Science department can answer most of the level 2 and level 3 questions. So for future refinements, we are planning to make different set of question cards targeting different age groups. We can make easier question decks for high school students and undergraduate students; while we can provide more challenging question cards for people in the field of Material Science and Nano-Engineering.

The number of companions and reaction cards in our first prototype was actually greatly limited by the time limit of one semester. So in the future we have decided to increase the number of companions and reaction cards in the game.

During the play tests, we received complaints about the difficulty difference between different device sets. We do believe that this mechanism is unfair to some of the players in the game and will interfere players’ game experience. So later on, we will consider standardizing the number of cards needed to complete a set of devices.

Finally, later in the future, we will be considering designing more types of game steps that will serve as game changers. We hope new updates in the game will greatly change the strategy and process of the game, providing players with new experiences along the way.