Playtest Report

1. Project name: Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
   1. Version 0.1
   2. Version 0.2, 0.21
   3. Version 0.3
2. Playtest dates
   1. In-class playtests on April 26 for V0.1
   2. Playtest on April 30 for V0.2; playtest for May 1 for V0.21
   3. In-class playtest on May 3 for V0.3
3. Team
   1. Each member conducted their own playtests outside of class, during the in-class playtest on April 26, Caleb and Percy observed and took notes.
      1. Yifan Zheng
      2. Caleb Hall
      3. Percy Simms
4. State of project
   1. V0.1: basic foundation of the game, with random scene mechanism implemented, most scenes are still empty, trying to test if already-built scenes communicate what the game is about to players well.
   2. V0.2: the train cart scenes have been implemented, added textures, lighting and details, also a work-in-progress ending sequence, as well as some UI and transition stuff, however, all the carts still look the same at this stage. Testing players’ reaction to the overall atmosphere. 
   3. V0.3: Ending sequence finished, improved UI and transitions, a few carts filled with assets, still missing the rest of the carts/scenes, still working on sound effects and music. Testing players’ reaction to the ending, as well as the built cart scenes.
5. Primary playtest question:
   1. V0.1: Does player understand the random scene mechanic?
   2. V0.2: Does the player find the space dark and strange? V0.21: How does the player react to the environment around them? Does it make sense?
   3. V0.3: Does player find the ending & overall atmosphere of the game poetic?
6. No secondary questions.
7. Who we tested with?
   1. V0.1: tested with 2 students from our class, they would count as developer testers, who are familiar with the genre.
   2. V0.2: tested with 1 student from the same school but a different class, a friend tester, who is not familiar with the genre;  V0.21: I playtested this version with 1 friend who has playtested my games previously. He plays a lot of games, but only focuses on mainstream titles. His only frame of reference is the walking simulators I have shown him.
   3. V0.3: tested with 2 students and 1 teacher in class, all are relatively familiar with the genre.
8. How the tests were run?
   1. V0.1: tests were run in class, 
   2. V0.2: test was run on zoom by Yifan, no instruction given prior, only brief explanation of the state of the game, gathered feedback through observation and asking questions; 
   3.  V0.21: This version was performed by Caleb. While setting up the project a brief introduction was set giving general background to this project. Explaining just enough so this version makes sense. When it was set up I asked him to share his camera, and screen. Allowing me to take notes. We then had a detailed discussion.
   4. V0.3: tests run in class, Yifan communicated with testers, Caleb took notes, Yifan and Percy asked questions.
9. Questions:
   1. V0.1: 
      1. Thoughts on the scene transition mechanism?
      2. What could be added to the trains to make it weird/ diverting from a usual train experience?
      3. Thoughts on the timing of the UI disappearing and stuff.
   2. V0.2: 
      1. What do you think is happening in the game?
      2. Bugs, graphical glitches.
      3. What do you think of the poems at the beginning and end of the game, does it make the game feel “poetic”?
      4. What do you feel in general when playing the game?
      5. Other thoughts?

V0.21:

1. What is happening in the game?
2. Is it engaging to walk through?
3. What adjectives would you use to describe what you just experienced?
4. What needs to be fixed immediately?
5. What could be better enhanced?

1. V0.3:
   1. What kind of feeling do the poems at the beginning of the game give you?
   2. What kind of feelings do each individual cart (the ones that have stuff in them) give you?
   3. What kind of feelings do the ending scene give you?
   4. How would you describe the overall atmosphere of the game?

1. Results of the test:
   1. V0.1: players understand the game quite well, but were a bit confused since the scenes were so empty.
   2. V0.2: player understood the game quite well, felt curious when playing, and suggested that the title and ending screens might not match the atmosphere of the rest of the game, also found some graphical glitches;  V021: This player did understand the game. He had a lot of questions about what the goal was. He liked the concept of a train in space, but wondered why. He felt he needed some form of specificity inside the train. As this game is environmental, he is requesting more environments. He also noticed a couple of glitches throughout this playtesting. This game has little to no changes in path, so the environment is especially necessary. 
   3. V0.3: all three playtesters gave very different feedbacks, they interpreted the game very differently, but we think all three interpretations fulfill the “poeticness” we were trying to achieve. Each player also encountered different technical issues, one took too long to load, one felt that the mouse sensitivity was too high, one had graphical glitches, etc. Players also in a way told us what they would like to be in the game based on their interpretation of the game. But overall we are going the right direction judging from the feedback.
2. Conclusion:
   1. V0.1: players understand how the game works quite well.
   2. V0.2: players find the game to be more whimsical, than dark;  V0.21: This player finds the game to need more content. They liked what they saw, they just wanted more. They also saw some issues with the game as it stood, allowing us to see the glitches in more detail.
   3. V0.3: players interpret the game differently, some technical glitches/issues need addressing.
3. Next step:

We are going to finish the game. We don’t think we will change anything. We are first finishing up the remaining levels, and improving the existing ones based on the feedbacks we have gathered, and then add sound and music to the game, and then the final step is debugging and polishing all the details.