Repository navigation
Playtesting
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.
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:
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.
Overall, my map received a 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.
Problem Overall, a score of 7/10 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.
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
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.
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.