Last week we playtested our group games in class. This was a very interesting process as my team had decided to make an analog game before physical classes were stopped. We decided to keep the analog idea even though we would be doing all the work remotely and this led to a lot of creativity, on our part, for visualizing gameplay and allowing people to playtest our game. I give a lot of credit to Jackson, one of my group members, for running the gameplay for the testers. He printed out the physical cards and was able to work with the playtesters so that he was moving the cards for them and they could fully be able to visualize and interact with the game. This allowed us to receive more detailed and accurate feedback than if we had just sent them the rules and had them visualize it themselves. We were able to get some good feedback from our participants and were able to incorporate that feedback into the final version of our game. Although we had many of the same issues playtesting as we did doing the project, communication, we were able to overcome this and produce a good final game. 

Although our playtesting was unconventional we were able to follow a lot of the guidelines from Fullerton. The playtesters were of our target audience. We had aimed for the game to be played by young adults, which our classmates are. We were able to write down questions beforehand and make sure they were not leading questions so that we could get true answers from our playtesters rather than an answer that we wanted to hear. We were able to leave ample time after we played two rounds of the game to collect some very good feedback.

Works Cited

Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: a Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. CRC Press, 2019.