For the playtest this Monday, we were tasked to get all 50 levels completed. We got around 40 of them done, which was enough for testing. For this playtest, we wanted to know if the level progression was good and if the structure of levels, creates the experience that we're going for.
Questions we asked were:
- Do you feel as if there was a steady increase in difficulty as the levels went on? (yes/no)
We wanted the levels to feel as if they were getting harder. The first stage is there to teach the player how to play the game, and the next 4 will increase in difficulty.
- How often did levels present multiple paths with different levels of challenge? (never-always)
This is a strategy game, so presenting the player will multiple ways to complete a level, each with a different level of risk vs reward is something that we're trying to achieve. Having just one obvious path would make the strategy aspect of the game obsolete.
- Do you feel that passing a guard was based more on the following... (skill/timing/chance)
Tension and stealth is the other part of the game that we want the player to experience. Having close calls with the guards vision cone creates that sense of excitement.
- What elements of the levels did you observe in the Planning Phase? (distraction radius'/guard vision cones/secondary valuables)
The Planning Phase is still something we need to work on. It is the moment where players can sit back and observe. Know the ins and outs of the level, where the guards move, to what extend their vision cones touch certain objects, etc.
So how did it go?
For this playtest, we unfortunately only had 2 testers, yet their results are still interesting.
- Do you feel as if there was a steady increase in difficulty as the levels went on? (yes/no)
50% yes, 50% no.
This is probably due to the way we made the levels. Each person on the team was assigned a stage (10 levels) to complete. Since we were doing these in our own time, not generally sharing difficulty curves with each other, the increase in difficulty probably stopped at the end of stage 1 and fluctuated from there. There was never a talk about how each stage will increase in difficulty, or how to create that increase. More guards? Larger levels? More complex guard patrols or less distractions? More distractions? These things were never quantified, never looked at and tested in the terms of difficulty.
Do we have time to do this? Probably not. It is something that we should have done quite a bit earlier on.
- How often did levels present multiple paths with different levels of challenge? (never-always)
Both testers were halfway between never and always.
A bit like the previous question, we never quantified how difficult something is from something else. Creating these multiple paths with varying difficulty is something that I done a bit with my levels. We talked about it a bit as a team, but with the close deadline, that was probably an afterthought.
- Do you feel that passing a guard was based more on the following... (skill/timing/chance)
50% skill, 50% timing.
With the visible guard patrols and execute button added in from the previous playtest, timing where guards will move and when is something that is easier to do now. I don't think it's 100% not chance though, as there are still bugs with the guard vision cones, but there is an improvement.
- What elements of the levels did you observe in the Planning Phase? (distraction radius'/guard vision cones/secondary valuables)
50% for distraction radius', 50% for guard vision cones and 0% for secondary valuables.
Last playtest, we changed up the Planning Phase quite a bit. An execute button was added, better accomplice route, glowing primary valuable, guard paths, etc. Still though, some of these elements are not the best. We found out in the playtest, that holding down on the guard to see their vision cone was awkward. Your finger covered up the guard and sometimes even the vision cone. To solve this, we could add in a button on the side of the screen to make all guard vision cones visible.
For the secondary valuable not being seen, that is still a problem. We want those objects to have a shiny effect but not like the primary valuable. If we make it shiny, yet less visible, then there's the chance that it may not be seen. Yet at the same time you don't want it being more visible than the primary valuable.
Some other changes made were...
On the day, we added in a "speed up" button. This button when held down, increased the time scale of the game to 2. Why? Well because in the earlier levels and some of the later ones where there is a large amount of open space, watching the accomplice move through it is a bit boring. The player doesn't really have a lot of stuff to do then, so having them hold down this button to increase the speed is good. It also creates moments where holding it down might make them run into a quickly turning guard, putting that risk vs reward sense into it somewhat.
questions for the future
From this point, there are still questions we'll need to ask for potential future playtests. Even though this test returned results, that does not finalise what we need to know.
The next playtest will most likely continue with asking questions about the level structure. Since they are our weakest part of the game at the moment, they will need much more iteration and improvements. This will require the team to coordinate and document what dictates a level's difficulty.
Questions for the future may be:
- How often did you have close encounters with the guards? (never-always)
This question will further give us insight on whether the intended experience is being met. The guards coming very close to the player, almost detecting them is what you want. It creates intense moments and excitement.
- When repeating levels, how often did you try out an alternative path, rather than just repeating the same one over again? (never-always)
The player taking alternate routes through the level is something that we want to happen. When one route fails that might mean that either: the route is bad or that you didn't tap on the distractions at the right time. We want to encourage this behaviour both to create variety and that risk vs reward feeling when going for secondary valuables.