IT'S DA BOMB: MAZE PUZZLE
This first play test session took place with my fiancee (the image above was taken in the main play test session) whilst the puzzle was to developed. My hopes was for the puzzle to be as refined as possible before it goes into the final testing sessions.
Too easy to solve
At first the maze was simply too easy to solve. To fix this, I altered the routes so that the entrance the solver would find last was at the top of the maze. From this point, the route was further modified to ensure the confusion when exploring the maze. Hopefully this complaint will not pop up again.
Walls not clear enough/ Presentation not good enough
This can be blamed entirely down to the fact the puzzle had not be fully presented - the maze was drawn in faint pencil to leave room for alterations. This not only made it look ugly, but the solver could not differentiate between what was a wall and what was an entrance. Safe to say this was to be fixed before the main play tests sessions.
PLAY TESTS SESSION 2
"Oh my god. This is hard!"
By the end of this session, they did eventually complete the maze, however the fact that they panicked and struggled is a good sign that the challenge was there, proving the previous session's success.
Player retreading old paths
This is a great sign that the maze is challenging. It is exactly what I wanted to happen when I was developing the maze - once they get in, it's going to be hard getting out. However, as stated previously, this was the same session where the solver completed the maze.
Player stopping to think
A crucial aspect of any puzzle is that the player has to stop and think. This happened consistently throughout this session and in doing so, the solver managed to complete the maze. Another great sign that the puzzle has been designed successfully.
Player moves clockwise first/ started on entrance closest to entrance
From my previous assignment, I learned that players move clock wise. Thus, I made sure that the right entrance was the last one and the wrong entrance was the one closest to the entrance. The player chose the one closest to the entrance first, therefore, this intentional design choice paid off.
PLAY TEST SESSION 3
"I can't fault it. There's nothing really wrong with it"
This comment speaks for itself. It pretty much sums up that the puzzle is at its best.
"Possible competitive elements?"
This was a suggestion considering the player thought it was perfect. Competitive elements are something that could be implemented, however through research I have learned that puzzles are rarely competitive - rather they aim to test a single solvers ingenuity.
IT'S DA BOMB: MATH BOMB
"Like the idea, but actually doing it isn't as fun... makes me feel stupid"
The first thing to note is that the puzzle itself is a great idea, clearly the execution is at fault here. This issue must lie within the main mechanic of the puzzle - the mathematical puzzles. I wondered if these calculations would of been too hard to solve, clearly they were.
"Either make it just plus and minus, or take it down to 3 numbers instead of 4. Anything to make it simpler"
This is a suggestion resultant from the previous issue, and it's a valid one. The calculations were clearly too hard, therefore reducing the numbers would make the puzzle as easy as it would be by reducing the amount of mathematical symbols. The question is which to reduce to make is easier but still retain the challenge.
"Have a mechanic that gives the player the symbols use, like a clue."
I was actually baffled I hadn't thought of this beforehand considering clues are a major part of puzzles. I was told in a lecture that a puzzle is worthless if it isn't solvable - clues prevent such a scenario. Therefore, a clue system was added that aided the solver in the calculations, but also punished them by taking time off the solver.
PLAY TEST SESSION 2
"Yep, this is fine now, and it looks really good!"
After considering the criticism and suggestions from the previous play test session and finally improving the presentation, the puzzle looked like it was at its best. However that was just through considering suggestions from one solver.
PLAY TEST SESSION 3
"Really well presented"
Once again the presentation was complimentary, and considering understandability is key in puzzles, the presentation being one of the strong suits is a good sign the design is successful.
Not enough time for the solver to finish the puzzle.
In this case, the solver found it near impossible to finish the puzzle within the 5 minute time limit that was set. This was not just the case with this session however, almost all solvers struggled greatly with the time limit. Therefore it was suggested that the time limit should be heightened and so it was - to 10 minutes.
More puzzles to add variety
At this stage there were only 4 different mathematical puzzles. The result of this is that the puzzle (once played) became repetitive - once the solver had completed the puzzle, the puzzle could not be solved again. Thus, 3 more mathematical puzzles were made with potential for many more.
"Definitely increase the time limit, as although it would be a long puzzle, it's fun enough to want to spend more time on the puzzle"
This not only solidifies the second note of this session, but it also emphasises the puzzle's success as a whole. From this statement, I can now confidently state that the puzzle is fun and challenging.
Solver smiled when they unlocked a digit
I had completely left the solver to solve the puzzle on his own. When you consider this fact, the solver smiling when he unlocked a digit is phenomenal, as a person is more likely to reflect a positive emotion when in groups. This is a clear sign that the rewards in the puzzle are an effective motivator and measurement of progression.
IT'S DA BOMB: LIGHTS OUT
PLAY TEST SESSION 1
PLAY TEST SESSION 1
Possible larger field of view to avoid confusion
The view finder is the primary mechanic of the puzzle and thus, the most crucial part of the puzzle. This importance when compared with the extent the solver will interact with this, raised the issue of confusion. The solver seemed distressed when using the viewfinder, as it obstructed his view a little too much. However the solver did manage to solve the puzzle and instantly seemed pleased. A possible alteration here?
More time? 5 Minutes?
Although the solver did complete the puzzle, he was left with no less than 5 seconds left on the clock. Whether this was down to the solver using his time strategically of whether it was simple chance will be answered in further play test sessions. At least 1 minute could be added onto the time limit to be safe.
PLAY TEST SESSION 2
"No need for larger field of field. It's perfect!"
When questioned about a previous complaint, the solver replied with the above statment. At the end of the day, some people will find a puzzle difficult, where as other will find it perfect - it is meant to be challenging. Therefore the time limit will not be altered after all.
As you can see the play test sessions went perfectly. Both the positive and negative feedback gave me great insight into how I could refine the puzzles and push them forward for a great product. Within each of these puzzles, I believe I have succeeded. However, when looking over the play testing notes, it seems that the math bomb really had the most feedback - this was completely down to interest and how immersed the solvers were. They really wanted to give their opinion on it. As a result of this conclusion, "It's Da Bomb: Math Bomb" will be the puzzle that I refine and hand in as a final deliverable - it has the most potential.
NEXT POST: IT'S DA BOMB: MATH BOMB (INSTRUCTIONS)
No comments:
Post a Comment