Play the game
Html Export from Twine: Silicon Crossroads
Where things stood
In my last post I covered my first two playtests, with Rachel and Rupert, and how their feedback led me to move the game from paper into Twine. The Twine version had branching chapters, hidden consequences, dice rolls and rewinds. This week I put that version in front of two new players.
Playtest 3: Saharat (Game)
On Wednesday, October 21, Saharat (Game) played the Twine version. He found it relatable, but he raised a few problems. A lottery isn’t really something Stanford students would do. Some pages had much more reading than others. And the final scores meant nothing to him: he could see a network of 3 and a wellbeing of -1, but not whether that was good or bad, or why it mattered.
Playtest 3 with Game
Playtest 4: Maia
On Friday, October 23, my classmate Maia played. She liked that the decisions were interwoven, that it felt like the Stanford experience, and that the interface was simple.
Her biggest problem was that she didn’t understand the goal. She loves games and is competitive, so she played to optimize her score and only later realized the game isn’t about winning. That left her stuck, wondering whether she should be balancing her points. She didn’t know how many chapters there were, so she didn’t know when to use her rewinds. The instructions confused her, the rewind cost was described differently in two places, and she didn’t understand locked options or what negative wellbeing meant.
Some scenes told her how much of her grade a decision was worth and others didn’t, so she couldn’t judge how much each choice mattered. She couldn’t always see why she got the outcome she did, and she wondered why the dice odds were the same in every situation. Taking the Coupa shift because rent was due felt very emotional to her, but the only benefit was a random chance of meeting someone. What if she hadn’t? She suggested using something other than numbers.
She also felt the game was more about balancing student life than about AI, that the character didn’t feel like her, and that the second-person writing clashed with the subtitle “Own my every decision.” She expected a game to be more visually appealing, and even though it related to her life, it didn’t move her much emotionally.
Playtest 4 with Maia
What I changed
Saying the goal up front. The opening screen now says there’s no winning or losing, and shows a simple diagram of the four chapters, the final choice and the ending, so players know how long the game is.
Words instead of numbers. Following Maia’s suggestion, scores are now words: Knowledge goes from Shaky to Sharp, Wellbeing from Burnt out to Thriving, and Network from On your own to Well connected. The ending explains what your final state means for you, which answers Saharat’s question.
Clear stakes and clear results. Every scene now states its grade weight or real cost, and every outcome says what happened and how it changed you.
A fairer Coupa shift. Paying rent now always helps your wellbeing. Meeting someone useful is a bonus chance, and more likely if you’ve built a network.
Odds that depend on you. Most dice rolls now shift with your earlier choices, and the game tells you why. Higher knowledge helps a bluff or a hackathon, and low wellbeing makes you likelier to get caught cheating.
Clearer rules. Rewinds are described the same way everywhere, and locked options are explained on the opening screen.
A pitch competition instead of the lottery. A campus startup competition with a $25,000 prize fits Stanford better, and the game gives you an idea to pitch: an app you’ve had in mind since Week 1. This was from Game’s suggestion that lottery doesn’t resonate with Stanford students.
Leaning into balance. I took Maia’s point and embraced it. The game is now about balancing student life with technology everywhere, not just AI versus no AI.
Making it yours. Players type their name at the start, and the game uses it in the professor’s email, the job interview and the ending. The subtitle is now “Own your every decision,” to match the second-person writing.
Playtest demographics
Playtest 3: Game, a game design classmate. He played the Twine version on Wednesday October 21st.
Playtest 4: Maia, non game design classmate, She played the Twine version on Friday October 23rd.
Questions I’d like feedback on
- Now that scores are words instead of numbers, does the game still feel like it has consequences, or do outcomes feel arbitrary?
- Competitive players like Maia wanted something to aim for. Is that a goal to consider for IF?
- Is the theme clear? The game started as AI versus no AI and has become about balancing student life with technology. Does that come through, and does the title Silicon Crossroads still fit?
- @Lucas, Would you still suggest I remove the dice element after playing this new version? You had a comment about it from the previous feedback which I was hoping to clarify in this version.
