Playtesting Dates

Hello! Welcome to the playtesting page. I am making this page to showcase some iterative practices that I am attempting to implement and use to better my map as a whole. Below I will hold dates and information pertaining to the data collected during the play tests.

12/10/2020 - Greybox + enemy interactions

During this round of play tests I received a lot of useful information relating to the layout and enemy interactions that were in my map.

The version of the map that was tested was the grey box, with color coded textures, in addition to a rough draft of enemy interactions. This map included the complete geometry, enemy placement, doors, triggers, and secrets. There was no lighting or finalized texturing done on this version.

After having people lay test my map, I sent them a form asking some basic questions, receiving both a rating on certain aspects of the map as well as some written feedback. The main rating categories that I asked for were:

Layout

Problem:

• While watching the play testers, I noticed that a few of my implementations of triggers, for both secrets and generic level progression, were not very intuitive. For example, in the starting area, I had the player be able to platform to a secret button. This button would open up a panel on the wall that revealed another button. Pressing this newly revealed button would cause one of the lab equipment machines to move and reveal a hidden shrine. A common confusion that I received with this implementation was that the player could not see the panel sliding from where they pressed the button. This caused the play testers to continually press the button, thinking it may not be working.

Solution:

• To combat this faulty design, I wired the first button to open up the shrine instead of a secondary button. This created a wow moment as the player could actually see the cause and effect that the button had. Especially since the button was placed above the ground level, the player could see across the area where the lab equipment was being moved.

Pacing

• Overall, my map received an almost perfect score for pacing. I believe that this is due to the fact that a lot of the enemy placement is not final and that I had a good contrast between areas. If there was a large open area with lots of enemies, I would quickly give the player a small, movement constricting area with a few enemies. In addition, the rationing of health, ammo, armor, and weapons was received positively.

Immersion

Problem

• Overall, a score of 6.5/10 is very good considering that I had no texturing or lighting implemented in my map. Since there were no textures applied to object, I received a lot of confusion about objects and items that I made since the lighting was flat.

Solution

• In the next iteration of my map I will include extensive textures to ensure there is little to no confusion about the objects presented in the map.

Engagement

• The criteria for this category was the creativity, and interest in the map. I believe a 8/10 is great considering the temporary geometry and texturing applied to the map. In future iterations I will focus on texturing and lighting to make more engaging and interesting environments

Fun

• Just as it sounds, the map had an overall "Fun" of 8/10. In future iterations I will implement more secrets and explorable areas since the feedback I received was some parts were too linear.

Difficulty

• The criteria for the category was that a 1/10 was too easy, a 5/10 was just right, and a 10/10 was too difficult. So I believe that a score of 4/10 gives me more wiggle room to implement more enemies and obstacles for the player to overcome.

---

12/17/2020 - Gameplay + texturing / lighting

During this round of playtests I received the same feedback as the previous playtest but with the addition of feedback on texturing and lighting.

This iteration of the map included semi-finalized geometry, finalized enemy placements, finalized triggers, texturing, and lighting.

After having people lay test my map, I sent them a form asking some basic questions, receiving both a rating on certain aspects of the map as well as some written feedback. The main rating categories that I asked for were:

Layout

• For the layout, I received a 9/10 stars. This is a significant increase from my previous version of 8/10 stars. I believe this is due to the changes that I made from the previous play test. By changing some minor layout changes, adding more secret areas, and fixing some of my faulty triggers, I believe that the layout improved, making the enemy interactions more appropriate for the environment.

• I believe that the reason I did not receive a 10/10 was due to the fact that I have been unable to solve some of the trigger issues that I have had from previous play tests. This, I think, has lead to an interruption in both the engagement and immersion, which is why the layout may not be near perfect yet.

Pacing

• For this round of play testing, my maps pacing received an average core of 9.5/10. This is a minor improvement compared to last weeks 9/10 stars. I believe that adding textures and lighting had helped increase the players "wow" factor of a lot of the maps interesting areas. I believe that the pace of difficulty has been consistent and there is not much to fix, except for giving the enemies proper space for their pathfinding algorithms.

• I believe that by fixing a lot of the minor texturing issues I have had would get me to the 10/10 score that I am aiming for.

Immersion

• Compared to last weeks score of 6.5/10, this weeks 9.5/10 is a great improvement! This is mostly due to, from what I was told by the play testers, is the texturing and lighting that was done on the map. By having the textures that I used from my theme wad, and making a consistent aesthetic throughout the map, the score of my immersion increased by a good amount.

• To get to the 10/10 score, I was informed that I had a few minor issues with texturing and missing some faces, leaving the default non-existent texture. By going in an polishing the textures, I believe I will get my desired result.

Engagement

• This week I received a 9.5/10 stars for the engagement of my map. Much like immersion, I believe that by having the textures and lighting in my map, that the play testers were more engaged in both the narrative and the gameplay.

• To get a perfect score, I will need to go in, touch up some of the textures, in addition to fixing one or two faulty triggers that I have left.

Fun

• The overall fun of this weeks iteration was rated as a 9/10. This was due to the new visual stimulus from both the textures and lighting. The play testers commented on that having the new visually stimulating environments, the map was not only enjoyable to play but also to look at.

• To get the last star, I believe that I will need to adjust some of the trigger positions so that the enemy interactions are timed appropriately, in addition to fixing some faulty triggers.

Difficulty

• The criteria for the category was that a 1/10 was too easy, a 5/10 was just right, and a 10/10 was too difficult. The rating has jumped from a 4/10 to a 6.5/10. This is due to the fact that some of my triggers may have happened too early or too late. By having this inappropriate timing on my enemy interactions, the play would occasionally be flooded with enemies.

• Since last week, I adjusted some of the triggers and enemy amounts, I believe that by further playing the the trigger positions, and delays, in addition to the enemy quantities will give me a more desirable score.