Where I started
In class I brought a paper prototype of Silicon Crossroads: four chapters, three options each, and a score card where players added up Knowledge, Wellbeing and Network. My first playtester, Rachel, picked option B in every chapter, applied for the job and got the “best” (subjective) ending. I wasn’t sure if this was a pattern or not. She pointed out that the three options could often all be done at once, so they didn’t feel like real choices. I wrote up details of that experience in my first playtest debrief post. Please take a look at it for more details on the observations and what I learned.
On Tuesday 20th October, Taking the feedback from Rachel, I played a refined version of the game with a second playtester (Rupert, LDT ’27). There was even much more feedback in this session. Rupert pushed further He proposed that the game:
- have much more outlandish options
- choices that build on earlier ones, and
- a way to undo a choice at a cost.
He also asked questions I hadn’t thought about: should options be shown all at once or revealed?
Rupert asked questions like, can I do 5 minutes of each? I care about all the options and feel like in real life I can try to do them all. How important is the course? Am I registered for/no credit for the course?
I could see emotions being evoked in the player, but at the same time the game scaffolding not being good enough.
Rupert Playtesting
What I changed and why
I moved the game from paper into Twine. Once it was branching, tracking scores, rolling dice and remembering past choices, paper meant too much bookkeeping, and Twine could hide all of it from the player.
Choices that actually conflict. Every scene now spells out the stakes, like an essay worth 25% of the grade due at 9 AM, or one free Saturday before finals. You can only do one thing, which answers the “couldn’t I just do all three?” problem.
Hidden consequences. Players no longer see point values before choosing. They find out what a choice did only after making it, so nobody can just pick the “good” letter like Rachel did.
Better branching. How you handle the essay in Chapter 1 sends you to one of three different Chapter 2s: a midnight battle with your phone, an email from your professor about an essay you didn’t write, or going viral with your dog. If you get caught cheating later, you end up at an Academic Integrity Board hearing instead of the regular Chapter 3.
Introducing dice to the game dynamics. Each scene has one riskier, more outlandish option, like submitting a video instead of an essay or asking AI to predict the exam. These are decided by a die roll. The game shows the odds first, then you click to roll, which adds a moment of suspense.
Rewinds with a cost. Rupert (second playtester) specifically requested for this. Players start with two rewinds. Using one undoes your last choice but costs Wellbeing, and you can’t rewind the same scene twice.
Every option now has a reason. When I played through, some options made no sense without context, like why anyone would submit a video instead of an essay. So I gave the student a backstory, a part-time job at Coupa Café and a dream of making science videos with their dog, and every scene now sets up a reason for each option.
Keeping the emotions connected. I wanted the game to feel like one emotional ride, not separate scenes. Each scene now opens with how the student feels about what happened last. If you turned down the brand deal, for example, Chapter 3 opens with what it feels like to have been almost famous. The ending also looks back on your key moments and tells you what your scores mean for you, rather than just showing numbers.
Smaller fixes. I added the “write it myself, then let AI polish it” option Rachel (first playtester) suggested, made it clear the phone in Chapter 2 is buzzing with Instagram, and added a week number to every scene. I also made the setting feel like Stanford: terms instead of semesters, Coupa Café, and Design 101.
Feedback I didn’t take. One suggestion was background sound. I decided against it, because it added setup without changing the choices, which are what the game is really about.
Palytest Demography
Playtest 1: Rachel, Female from Game Design class
Playtest 2: Rupert, LDT student at the RAIKES building reception. Afternoon of October 20
Both plays were on paper
Questions I still have
-
- Hiding the point values stopped players from gaming the choices, but does it make the results feel unfair? I’m not sure where the line is between surprise and feeling like they got to an ending they didn’t really like. Maybe I don’t have to worry too much about this.
- Are the rewinds worth keeping? If players rarely use them, they might just be clutter. I’ll decide after more playtests.
- Does the game come across as a lecture about AI? I’ve tried to reward using AI well, like using it as a tutor, but I’d like to know if it still feels preachy.
Note: I have another refined version of the game after the external playtest with Rupert yesterday. I haven’t playtested this 3rd version yet with anyone. Only a playthrough with myself.
