Week 2

This week we had two different types of playtest: playtesting the story and playtesting interactions.

Story playtest

Playtest description:

  1. Playtesters were told to choose one of three names (Liz, Sarah, Alison).
  2. They placed a posed it with said name on themselves.
  3. They were asked to wait while the room was set up: the bills envelope and the pregnancy test both had the character’s name on it. The right enveloped were put in place.
  4. They entered the room and sat down.
  5. The person conducting the playtest stands behind them.
  6. Players were instructed to pick objects, that a short text will be read when they do that, and that they can stop at any time.
  7. If a playtester picks up the picture of the two girls, they “unlock” an additional item – a bunny.
  8. If a playtester chose the pregnancy test, they unlock an additional item – the pregnancy results.

 

Playtest observations (4 playtesters):

  1. There wasn’t a specific objects or order or objects the players prefered.
  2. Players usually ignored the “unlocked” object and returned to it later. When asked, they said it wasn’t interesting enough and the story behind it was predictable:
    1. The box, for example, was obviously a ring.
    2. The bunny, obviously had something to do with a baby.
  3. Players picked up all the objects and managed to retain all the information they learned.
  4. Playtest lasted ~5min

 

Playtest survey:

  1. Players retained all the information.  
  2. They managed to build a narrative from all the details.
  3. It was unclear what was her financial state (1 playtester) while another suggested she had financial problems (1 playtester)
  4. It was commented that money is not a reason to not have a baby (1 playtester)
  5. It was too much information (1 playtest).
  6. At this point – playtestrs notice small stuff about the story that might not make sense. Like, being a doctor in NY, the bills address not matching where they live, or being a doctor and not having money, being a doctor and not getting yourself tested.
  7. It was understandable that she didn’t want the baby (1 playtester).  
  8. When asked “what do you want to ask the character”: what are her goals and dreams (2 playtesters).
  9. Players asked to rank the objects based on how much they felt close to them or liked their story. Ranking was averaged:
    1. Letter from the doctor: 4.75
    2. Stuffed animal: 4.5
    3. Picture: 4.25
      1. 5 (3 playtester), 2 (1 playtester)
      2. Note: the picture was of two white girls. Some playtesters commented that it was hard to relate to them. She suggested having a photo where the race is unknown (like halloween, from afar, shadows).
    4. Pregnancy test: 4.25
    5. Anatomy books: 4
      1. 4 (3 playtesters), 3 (1 playtester).
      2. Note: some flipped through it. It was relatively “interactive” object.
    6. Lab coat: 3.75
      1. 2 (1 playtester), 3 (1 playtester), 5 (2 playtesters)
    7. Bills: 3.75
      1. 3 (1 playtester), 4 (3 playtesters)
    9. Red box: 3.25
    10. Ring: 3
      1. 0 (1 playtester)
    11. Keys: 2.25
      1. 0 (1 playtester), 5 (1 playtester), 2 (2 playtesters)
    12. Phone: 2

 

  1. Suggestions from playtesters:
    1. Want a slower experience with less information (1 playtester)
    2. Photo was unrelatable because the girls were white (1 playtester)
  2. 1 playtester commented about experiencing her life through V.O. Not sure if this was a playtester who playtested before.

 

Conclusions:

  1. Too many items – experience duration was 5min.
  2. Make the “unlockable” items interesting and unpredictable.
  3. Suggest more than one reason for why she didn’t want to have a baby and emphasize all the reasons. Money wasn’t enough of a reason.
  4. Add a part about her long term goals and dreams.

Digital playtest

Description:

  1. Players were asked to try two different VR interactions:
    1. When player clicks on an object, the object come to them.
    2. When a player clicks on an object, the player’s hand goes to the object.
  2. All interactions had a setting of a desk with objects on it.

Playtest observations (4 playtesters):

  1. Both interactions were awkward and not easy to maneuver.
  2. The hand played a pointing animation when the pointer hovered on an object that you could interact with. Player didn’t notice the animations on the hand and couldn’t find the pointer.
  3. Interaction with far away object is different from the interaction with the object in your hand.

Survey:

  1. Which experience felt more natural:
    1. objects moving towards you (3 playtesters)
    2. Hand moving towards objects (1 playtester)
  2. How did you feel about the interactions:
    1. Objects moving towards you:
      1. One playtester felt that it was as if he had psychic powers and therefore weird.
    2. Hand moving to objects:
      1. One playtester felt that it was creepy.
  3. All commented on the height of the table.
  4. Indecisive: while one said the buttons were responsive and it felt good , and was only a problem with not seeing the tracker beam; another said that they wanted to reach out and couldn’t.

Conclusions:

  1. Hand in place of a pointer makes you believe that real world hand movement can be mapped on to the controller which is not the case as the position of the controller cannot be tracked. Thus, placing the hand in the scene introduces expectations of a it to  functions like that in real world.
  2. Dragging seems more natural. Next time, it would be helpful to ask if the players are used to ponting, clicking and interacting with objects.

For next week, we will try and test a digital version of the story playtest. We will try and include more “hopes and dreams” in the texts.