ahandrewh teaches IAT-165game design and development

P3: Playtesting (due February 25)

On this page:

This is old content

Andrew is not currently teaching IAT-165. This material is left online for reference only.

Introduction

Every game requires testing to ensure it is playable and something that people want to play. For this project you will be assembling, running and responding to a playtest of your tiny game.

This project is completed individually.

P3: Playtesting is worth 10% of your final grade.

Weekly instructions

This project spans multiple weeks. Please read the weekly instructions carefully.

From February 11 to February 18

This week is about planning your playtest.

Please complete the following:

  1. Put together a written plan of your playtest. The plan must be written out to include everything you will cover during the playtest. The sections included in the playtest:
    • Playtest setup — Sketch or describe how you will set up the physical space for the playtest.
    • Introduction to the playtest — Your introduction and a description of what the playtest will entail.
    • Assemble questions to explore related game interests — Write out 2-3 questions that help explore the individual's interests in games similar to yours.
    • Playtesting plans — Write out what you will do to capture the player's experience during playtesting.
    • Questions on game experience — For use after the play session write out 2-3 questions to help you understand the individual's experience with the game.
    • Conclusion — Please write-out your script for concluding the play session.
  2. Identify five individuals (no names please) you believe you could have complete the playtest between February 18 and February 25. You will only need to run three playtests but having more individuals as options for completing the playtests will be important. You are not permitted to use classmates in IAT-165.
  3. Reach out to the individuals you are interested in having complete your playtest. Schedule a tentative time to meet for 30-45 minutes between February 18 and February 25 and closer to February 18 would be ideal as it provides you more time to reflect and respond to feedback.

Bring to your February 18 class

A playtesting plan and a list of individuals who may be suitable to complete the playtest.

From February 18 to February 25

During this week's class you will receive feedback on the playtest plan, after which you can proceed with the playtesting.

Please complete the following:

  1. Revise the playtest script. Use the feedback provided to ensure the plan is well formed before running the playtesting.
  2. Run the playtest session with three participants. Remember to:
    • Follow the script you have set for yourself.
    • Write-down notes on the player's experiences.
    • Capture or ensure you can re-create game states that help illustrate the player's experiences.
  3. Assemble a report on your playtesting. This report should include:
    • Your original playtesting plan.
    • Three key takeaways from your playtesting sessions (these can be per individual and/or communal). For each takeaway include a brief description of the takeaway and then supporting comments and in-game screens from playtesting that clarify and support the takeaway (up to 150 words total).
    • Your response to each of the takeaways that includes your thoughts on the playtesting and how to proceed with addressing the takeaway (up to 150 words total).
  4. Print or export the report to a PDF. This will be your final Canvas submission for the project.

Grading rubric

Please email Andrew with any questions about the rubric.

A B C D/F

Playtesting plan (3 pts)

The quantity of playtesting is as required and the takeaways demonstrate a strong depth of understanding the playtest sessions.

The quantity of playtesting is as required and the takeaways demonstrate a good depth of understanding the playtest sessions.

The quantity of playtesting is as or less than required and the takeaways demonstrate little depth of understanding the playtest sessions.

The quantity of playtesting is less than required and the takeaways demonstrate little depth of understanding the playtest sessions.

Playtesting quantity and quality (4 pts)
  • The quantity of playtesting is as required and the takeaways demonstrate a strong depth of understanding the playtest sessions.
  • Uses artifacts — images, quotes, etc — in combination with the text that make the outcomes of the playtesting very clear.
  • The quantity of playtesting is as required and the takeaways demonstrate a good depth of understanding the playtest sessions.
  • Uses artifacts — images, quotes, etc — in combination with the text that show the playtesting process.
  • The quantity of playtesting is as or less than required and the takeaways demonstrate little depth of understanding the playtest sessions.
  • Uses artifacts — images, quotes, etc — in combination with the text that show the playtesting process.
  • The quantity of playtesting is less than required and the takeaways demonstrate little depth of understanding the playtest sessions.
  • There is little to no effective use of supporting artifacts.

Playtesting response (2 pts)

Response to the takeaways demonstrates a strong understanding of the takeaway and presents an effective direction.

Response to the takeaways demonstrates a good understanding of the takeaway and presents an effective direction.

Response to the takeaways demonstrates a weak understanding of the takeaway and presents a somewhat effective direction.

Response to the takeaways demonstrates a weak understanding of the takeaway and presents an ineffective direction.

Polish (1 pts)

  • Headings, layout, and structure in the submission are used effectively to provide a clear overview of the process.
  • Document is proofread and edited with few errors. It consistently follows the rules of Standard English.
  • Headings, layout, and structure in the submission are used somewhat effectively to provide an understandable overview of the process.
  • Document contains many errors that interfere with meaning; generally does not follow the rules of Standard English.
  • Headings, layout, and structure are in the submission are used ineffectively, and provide a difficult to understand overview of the process.
  • Document contains many errors that interfere with meaning; generally does not follow the rules of Standard English.

Final submission requirements (February 25)

The final submission for P3 is a playtesting report as detailed.

Your project submission is due to Canvas before your February 25 class.

Please make sure double-check all your submitted URLs to ensure they can be opened. We want to avoid late or problematic submission penalties whenever possible.