5 ms·

A crucial element that wasn't mentioned here was the lack of play-testing. Having a dozen people play the game and give feedback would have informed the makers

A crucial element that wasn't mentioned here was the lack of play-testing. Having a dozen people play the game and give feedback would have informed the makers that it was too hard, and where. It ties in with the lack of time and resources too -- if you don't structure your development to have time to do user testing, you won't magically find that you have time to do it at the end, either.

Kapura 9y ago
My first thoughts too, although my guess is that they did let other people play the game to find out if it's fun, but there's def a difference between that and a structured blind playtest with randos. It's super crucial early & late in development.
- Macsenour 9y ago
  And if they used the same people, they get better at playing the game, it gives the appearance of a game that is easier than it actually is.
  - SeanBoocock 9y ago
    That can be an asset though, and ideally you want to have both "longitudinal" testing with the same group of testers as well as frequently testing with people who are fresh to the game. The former can reveal trends that the development team is otherwise blind to. It can also help to exercise subtleties of the gameplay that a new player wouldn't discover, or aspects of the "elder game" if the game has a linear progression that takes significant time to unlock.
    - Macsenour 9y ago
      I agree with the value you're talking about, but they don't help evaluate how hard a game is.
zaphos 9y ago
They give an indirect nod to friends play-testing in the "Time" section: > "Friends around us were saying “it’s too difficult” right to our faces, but amidst our nonstop-no-days-or-time-off working, we were too dull to let it inspire action." So I guess they did have some people play the game -- but they didn't build in the time they needed to properly use the feedback, so it was almost the same as not play-testing.
kabdib 9y ago
My opinions: More play testing would have helped a great deal, IMHO. I played it for about 20 minutes. It seemed an okay game with a really awful user interface, and if they had ditched that mechanic they might have found themselves making something a lot more fun. I would up rage quitting in frustration over how artificially hard it was to control, thinking "These game designers hate their players, and it's a shame because they have something interesting hiding here." Maybe I quit two minutes before it became a glorious game. That doesn't excuse the terrible experience I had at the beginning, though.

Kapura 9y ago

My first thoughts too, although my guess is that they did let other people play the game to find out if it's fun, but there's def a difference between that and a structured blind playtest with randos. It's super crucial early & late in development.

Macsenour 9y ago
And if they used the same people, they get better at playing the game, it gives the appearance of a game that is easier than it actually is.
- SeanBoocock 9y ago
  That can be an asset though, and ideally you want to have both "longitudinal" testing with the same group of testers as well as frequently testing with people who are fresh to the game. The former can reveal trends that the development team is otherwise blind to. It can also help to exercise subtleties of the gameplay that a new player wouldn't discover, or aspects of the "elder game" if the game has a linear progression that takes significant time to unlock.
  - Macsenour 9y ago
    I agree with the value you're talking about, but they don't help evaluate how hard a game is.

zaphos 9y ago

They give an indirect nod to friends play-testing in the "Time" section: > "Friends around us were saying “it’s too difficult” right to our faces, but amidst our nonstop-no-days-or-time-off working, we were too dull to let it inspire action." So I guess they did have some people play the game -- but they didn't build in the time they needed to properly use the feedback, so it was almost the same as not play-testing.

kabdib 9y ago

My opinions: More play testing would have helped a great deal, IMHO. I played it for about 20 minutes. It seemed an okay game with a really awful user interface, and if they had ditched that mechanic they might have found themselves making something a lot more fun. I would up rage quitting in frustration over how artificially hard it was to control, thinking "These game designers hate their players, and it's a shame because they have something interesting hiding here." Maybe I quit two minutes before it became a glorious game. That doesn't excuse the terrible experience I had at the beginning, though.