Prior to CS 377G, I’d never made a game—let alone a serious game. I don’t consider myself to be a huge gamer, although I’ve always loved playing board, card, and the occasional video games with friends and family. I had never really considered what made a game engaging or not, and I didn’t really know what to expect going in, but I really wanted to try something new!
I learned the most from playtesting.
First, it taught me that in early iterations of (game) design, there is no place for perfection. Having to playtest so many low fidelity early game versions taught me that it is so important to get feedback on the core idea and mechanics of a game before investing time in higher fidelity components. Playtesting early also means I’m less attached to the game in its current state so the focus of playtesting is to genuinely improve the game rather than just confirm that what I have works. In the future, I’ll remain quick to playtest, even if my game is far from perfect!
Something else I learned about early playtests is that it’s better to focus on the core of the game early on and add things on later. For example, with Erosion, I dove right into using ChoiceScript and building out my narrative—but I only had the first few paragraphs of the game. As a result, players could evaluate the interface and the narrative so far, but the game’s core goal was to build empathy, and if they didn’t have a complete story, they wouldn’t be able to evaluate that properly. As a result, in addition to playtesting early, I will continue to be clear about what should go into those early playtests and what should not.
Playtesting also taught me that the game I intended to design and the game that players experience don’t always line up. Early on in the quarter, I found this disheartening, but as I grew more comfortable with making games and playtesting them, I learned to find this exciting. More often than not, this misalignment can unlock new approaches and ideas. In Not On My Block!, for example, strong misalignment in our early versions lead to us completely pivoting the game, and I’m so glad that we did because the game was better for it. These experiences have pushed me to have an open mind when it comes to any sort of playtesting/user testing in the future.
Another significant learning experience from playtesting came from balancing the game across multiple playtests for Not On My Block! First, I learned about balancing games not just in theory but also in practice. I also learned about pivoting mid-playtest to try out different variations and incorporating these changes on the fly. While it could be chaotic, it allowed us to maximize what we learned from playtests and go into revisions with a lot of insights. In the future, it could help to go in prepared to make changes if needed, ideally with multiple variations in mind.
CS 377G gave me loads of playtesting experience that will be very helpful going forward in (game) design. For example, I became more observant of player experience and where changes needed to be made to gameplay, even if players did not explicitly flag it.
Something else I appreciated about CS 377G was the space it gave me to try new things. In addition to game design as a whole being new, I didn’t have much HTML/CSS experience going in either. With my Erosion revisions (P4), I realized that what players (and I as well) felt the game was missing the most was design that aligned well with the game, so I decided to give custom design a try. I had been using ChoiceScript’s built-in UI, which didn’t allow for a lot of flexibility, and adding custom design components with Twine elevated the game both when it came to visuals and functionality. In playtests, the design changes I made sparked conversations about even more design changes, which helped me make the game even better. In my P2 version of Erosion, I can’t remember design being discussed much at all, although it is a key part of game design. This all reinforced for me the importance of trying new things, as they can lead to very rewarding results!
In a similar vein, I’d say that CS 377G really pushed me to think critically about how game functionality/mechanics tied in with visual components. I noticed that in the best games, both mechanics and visuals were highly customized to the game and its goals, and I will continue to emulate that going forward.
Finally, CS 377G taught me that games are more than about just “having fun.” Of course, that can be a significant component, but through making games that had a variety of other goals (e.g., teaching and empathy), I learned not only about the expansive possibilities of games but also how to go after those goals in my own games.
Overall, I had an amazing time taking CS 377G and learned many things that will be helpful going forward!
