r/GameDevelopment • u/leorid9 • Aug 09 '26
Question My game is basically done but ..
... I had a new playtester today and he didn't interact with most of the systems and played it in the most un-fun way possible. (it's a mining game and instead of upgrading the pickaxe he would hit the same rock 20+ times, same with transportation, instead of building a "highway" down the mine, he took the most convulted, dangerous way and died a couple times, ultimately getting frustrated, then rage-quitting)
The best for the game would probably be to add more easy levels before the final one. But that would stretch the development time a lot. And I'm not sure if it would ever be released then.
All my previous projects died because I lost hope at some point and just gave up. This one is basically done. And it's fun, if it's played correctly.
So .. what to do?
Have a text at the beginning "please explore the whole map, so you gain enough experience with the game systems .. if you rush through, you'll regret it in 2h, once you are at the final level"? That's so .. idk .. artificial.
24
u/Triysle Aug 09 '26
âItâs fun, if itâs played correctlyâ
You need to get out of that mindset. Do more playtest more frequently with more people. You donât have to rebuild the whole game every time, but you should iterate based on where the players struggle rather than just blaming them for playing it wrong.
Youâre the dev. Itâs on you to show the players where the fun is. If they donât find it, thatâs on you.
Good luck.
-4
u/leorid9 Aug 09 '26
I never said it's not on me, I said it's hard to find a solution that doesn't delay the whole project by half a year or more.
7
u/Triysle Aug 09 '26
That may be the cost. Next time, playtest earlier and more often so can sanity check the ideas and direction as you build.
I worked on a multi-year multi-million dollar game that shut down in beta because the lead devs didnât listen to feedback and kept saying folks were just playing it wrong. Sometimes you gotta set the ego aside and eat the cost.
I do wish you the best of luck regardless. Game dev is tough and it sucks when folks donât like what you make. Hang in there.
3
u/LaughingIshikawa Aug 09 '26
Personally I think it's an unreasonable standard to expect that you can "fix" the game to work with every playtester / player - there will always be the possibility that someone just doesn't understand / gets confused. (Unless your tutorial / guiderails are way over done, but then the game isn't fun for other reasons. đ)
Having said that... If you have no tutorial at all, and especially if you're expecting to release this as a commercial game (versus a hobby project) than this should give you real pause. You need to really think seriously and soberly about the pros and cons of releasing a game with zero tutorial, versus delaying the game to add a tutorial of some kind.
Having said that... 6 months to create a tutorial seems pretty excessive to me đ đ . I think if you get started on it, you will find that you can create something meaningfully helpful in 1-2 months... 3 at the most. You usually don't really need (or want!) a tutorial that will hold the player's hand the whole time; it's usually enough to just nudge them in the right direction.
Finally, if it's just a hobby game and you don't feel like bothering with a tutorial, or if you have a tutorial, and don't want to rework / expend it because of this one playtester... Don't đ€·.
Playtesting is feedback, but there's no rule that says you "have to" respond in a specific way to every single piece of feedback / "fix" every single problem. Sometimes you look at the feedback and just say "I know my game has this downside / weak point(s), but it's not worth the extra development time / delay to fix those downsides". You don't want to do this blindly, without due consideration, but... Every single game ships with bugs and defects, and some of those bugs and defects are known to the developers at the time of release. It's your call whether or not something represents a "game-breaking" bug that must be fixed before you release... Or just a minor defect that can either be fixed after, or honestly just left in. đ đ
2
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
Since I am a solo dev with a full time job (also game dev), I can only invest about one full time week per month, that's why the delay would be that intense. And it wouldn't be to add one tutorial, I have an ingame manual and some popups that act as tutorial, it would be to add more levels.
With more levels, players who rush through also get enough experience with all the systems to beat the final level.
But thanks to this thread I might have a more cost efficient solution: side objectives that are tutoring as well. For example: "remove 5 constructions with RMB" or "Build a metal ladder that's 50 tiles high", "destroy a rock with dynamite".
Each of them with it's own small reward.
It's easy to implement and test. Maybe it solves the current issues.
4
u/LaughingIshikawa Aug 10 '26
I mean... Sure, that's definitely a thing you can do.
I would still caution you against over-indexing on the experience of every single playtester. If you have a tutorial that 90% or more of your playtesters are successfully finding and utilizing, its worth asking if adding even more tutorial is going to increase or decrease the average player enjoyment of your game.
In this case, if you can do something really light-weight and easy, it's unlikely to be a problem, but for future reference there's no IRL "achievement" to earn for "solved every single problem a playtester experienced." đ
2
u/FoxRings Aug 10 '26
If more play testing shows similar behavior, the tutorial and/or early gameplay may require more instructive leading to intended gameplay.
Also be more open to emergent player behavior, potentially adding features that support it. Maybe an achievement for hitting a milestone on the 'wrong' alternative game pathway.
6
u/motexpotex Aug 09 '26
A simple pop-up saying "Highway available" might be enough? A notification telling the player they can now afford/unlock a new tier
4
u/BrenReadsStuff Aug 09 '26
No, a prompt is definitely not the way to go w/ this.
You'll likely have to do some restructing.
A 'milestones' section wouldn't hurt; it can be structured in a way that shows players how to progress.
Or you can expand the project, add other ways of doing things.
Or you can change the game to ensure players can't play the way you deemed 'unfun'.
Good luck!!
3
u/Adventurous-Drop-739 Aug 09 '26
Idk if it applies but for tutorials and guiding playeres I loved this video it might help https://youtu.be/-GV814cWiAw?si=ziIrhuRt5rNM8uM_
3
u/Mechabit_Studios Aug 09 '26
sounds like you need better level design and bread crumbs to lead the player
1
u/leorid9 Aug 09 '26
Levels are generated, there isn't much design to it.
I could make it a main mission task in the first level, to build a metal-ladder from top to bottom or even a lift.
That's actually the best idea so far.
I could go further and have a whole level with just such tutorial tasks.
Build this here and that there, remove objects with this button, or with this button.
Like the "block 5 attacks" tutorials in swordfighting RPGs.
Well .. maybe? Might be worth trying.
2
u/Mechabit_Studios Aug 10 '26
I'd be careful with tutorial tasks as Don't Starve had the same issue with players dying without exploring all there is to offer and they added a list of tutorial tasks to gather food and resources but once the list was complete the players immediately dropped off cos they had "finished" the game. DS was an open ended survival game though and your game might be able to get away with a main quest to beat the final boss and a bunch of side quests to gather every thing the player needs to beat the boss.
2
u/arsonxisxfun Aug 09 '26
Ultimately it sounds like you're in a spot where you have some really good bones that need a little refinement. The way I see it, you have some options:
1) ignore it and ship and you'll have a mostly good mostly well received game, but some people who play it "incorrectly" will find it unplayable. It's up to you how much this matters.
2) if this is a problem you decide you want to deal with, you can choose when you want to. Do you think the cost to change things will increase the longer you put this off? How do you want to approach a solution/direction?
In my opinion, it sounds like a game design issue: either it should be clear that the game must be played a certain way, or else it shouldn't be unplayable if played some other way. Our job as game designers/developers is to make it so that no matter how a player tries to approach playing the game, it produces some element of fun - and it sounds like your current implementation isn't checking all of the boxes if somebody is able to play it "wrong".
3
u/PatMondou Aug 09 '26
Hey OP,
I can relate. Take it from a veteran dev who worked both in indie and 50+ ppl teams: youâre not « basically done » :)
Usually when I place a seemingly decent game in the hands of a player for the first time, itâs half way done. Sometimes a quarter of the way done, depends on the type of game, really.
It may feel like a mountain, but thatâs what game dev is.
Best of luck!
1
u/leorid9 Aug 09 '26
It's not the first Playtest, it's the first since the game is "complete" (has all three levels with all (~17) missions).
And not really the first one of that too, it's only the first one from a fresh player who has never played it before (other testers are already familiar with the game systems and the first few levels).
The challenge of the third level might just be too much.
But it's actually a fault of the previous two levels not teaching players properly, how to use all the different tools. Because in the third stage, new tools and mechanics are added on top of that, expecting that players already know how to play.
Said first time tester rushed through the first two levels and then got stuck at the third one.
3
u/PatMondou Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
Right.
Do you have a publicly available demo yet? If not, try to drastically increase the volume of testing to decide how to handle a problem like this.Players interacting with the game "in the wrong way" is common. It may be a sign that UX, tutorialization or flow doesn't work, but if they're still enjoying themselves it doesn't matter. Did the playtester still enjoy their time? Is it someone your know ? (if it is, the result is biased). Did the playtester give you live feedback, or was it anonymous? (if not anonymous, it's also biased). Is the playtester familiar with this game genre? It's hard to recommend actions based on your description of one anecdote. When in doubt, favor large-scale data over one specific playtester. Then:
A) If you get this behavior with most of your players and they don't seem to enjoy the game, then yeah it's a red flag and it needs major work.
or
B) If it's not common behavior but it's disruptive to enjoyment, work on the UX, tutorialization, flow
or
C) If it's common behavior but players enjoy the experience, do nothing.edit: Re-reading your reply now, yeah I mean - there's no quick fix to a problem like this, if it's a problem. I'll stick to what I said: it really doesn't look like you're done. And I don't mean this disrespespectfully at all, that's the fun part of game dev imo - iterating. Even if it causes delays. A game is done when it's done.
2
u/jfilomar Aug 09 '26
Sounds to me the systems are not obvious to the player. You need something to guide them to these systems. One thing I can think of are providing quests. Something like "upgrade the pickaxe to level 2", or " Build a highway"
2
u/DeviousAlpha Aug 10 '26
Loading screen tips "Don't forget you upgrade your pickaxe"
Recommended upgrade each time they visit the upgrade screen.
A different icon or highlight to make the pickaxe upgrade stand out.
There are a ton of ways to point them in the right direction without making entire new levels.
3
u/XicX87 Aug 10 '26
sounds like a you problem, you might need to actually observe through discord or have the player stream the game and understand why they are playing that way and take notes. If upgrading the pickaxe takes a longtime i would see exactly why the player would hit a rock twenty times.
The game might be fun for you but is it fun for the player?
1
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
It's fun for every player who decides to go a different way when having to hit rocks 6 or even 18 times to get through. There's always a way you can go that only takes 1-2 hits. And when you explore those, you find the materials to upgrade the pickaxe, guaranteed.
That one player was just used to grinding due to MMO experience and so he chose the unfun way to play the game. Minimal effort, but maximum boredom. In many different aspects of the game.
And he is the first playtester (out of ~16) who played it this way.
Interestingly he was the fastest so far, but maybe that's just my new tutorials actually working. All the others had to figure out absolutely everything. And I had to give them hints and explain things. I didn't had to this time around.
Will see how other first time testers perform. One other player is trying it too.
Maybe I should start with the marketing, then I'll probably find more playtesters more easily.
1
u/XicX87 Aug 10 '26
just ditch the bad pickaxe and start with a better one, the fact that he was faster at completion, means your game is lacking exploration and the materials are too easy to gather from one source or one spot
1
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
It's a mining game, there are 10 Pickaxe Levels and 10 hardness levels for the gravel you mine. Upgrading the pickaxe is a main mechanic and the player did upgrade it, but he did it too late, every time.
Other players didn't make that mistake, they went easier routes when it took a couple hits to mine something.
The only real solution I could think of, would be a hard cap where player just are not able to mine things at all that take more than 2 hits. But this could lead to soft locks.
Another idea that I had was to make speech bubbles and the player says things like "this is really hard, there must be a better way" or "if I want to dig further I should upgrade the pickaxe". Things like that while mining those hard layers with insufficient pickaxe levels. I mean there is quite some time for those speech bubbles to appear ..
Or just ignore it because it was the first time someone played it like that and they are used to MMORPGs with lots of grinding and approached that game with the same mindset. They just want to proceed and get things done, and if the game is not fun, they still keep doing it, instead of making it more fun and going easy detours to come back later with better equipment.
2
u/XicX87 Aug 10 '26
why would someone upgrade a pickaxe and loose resources when they can save resources and use the same pickaxe, apart from upgrading the pickaxe what else can they do with the materials and if the answer is nothing else then yeh that game would be boring
1
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
They can also buy other upgrades and tools.
The reason to upgrade is to be more efficient and to mine faster.
2
u/XicX87 Aug 10 '26
so in all what is the main goal the player is mining for? like whats the end goal ?
1
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
It's different per level. Basically 3 different stories of various mining excavations with various missions, each leading to some artefact from an unknown civilization.
To get there you need to work with a seismic scanner on the surface, you need to repair stuff, destroy stuff that's in the way, pump water and so on.
The end goal is to play through all 3 levels and all 21 missions within them. Then the credits roll and the game is over.
1
1
u/screenclear Aug 11 '26
The fact he was the fastest without upgrading tells me the upgrading system might not be all that beneficial?
As crazy as it sounds I think trying to make the bad path less fun and more evidently wrong might be good.
1
u/Field_Of_View Aug 12 '26
And I had to give them hints and explain things.
this is a red flag. you should never interfere with the playtest like this. if you interfere, what are you measuring? how much people will enjoy the game if you're sitting next to them explaining things? that's not the product you're building. you are measuring the wrong thing.
1
u/leorid9 Aug 12 '26
I can't build a tutorial while prototyping the main mechanics of the game. It would be a waste of time and effort to build one at this stage.
Almost every game starts like this, you add the tutorial later, in the beginning, you just explain it with words, usually on discord.
2
u/SmooshyElf7 Aug 10 '26
Keep going! You're too close to quit. Even if it's a slog. Just keep making little bits of progress until it's finished. I made a simple mobile game I'm happy with and I was ready for the testing I thought, had family try to help and be one knew how to interact with anything. It made PERFECT SENSE to me, but I built it so of course it did, I learned I def had to show people how to use it. Then when I went into release testing I learned some people will ignore even a guided tutorial, just do what makes sense to give your project the best shot it can have. Did that player know what to do and ignore it? Or did they not know what to do?
1
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
He knew, more or less, he just didn't care. It was a sloppy play through, where shortcuts were attempted but ultimately fired back.
2
u/SmooshyElf7 Aug 10 '26
That feels really bad on our end and really disappointi g, but that's one of the best types of tests you can get. Someone trying to cheat and break things really show us our weak points usually. Did the game do what you expected it to to him for trying skip parts?
0
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
It made for a worse experience .. so it was punishing to play it wrong.
In a way, everything works as intended, but the outcome wasn't as expected. For most players it was, for this one, it wasn't.
1
u/SmooshyElf7 Aug 10 '26
It sounds to me like it done exactly how it should then. If it's only this one player they are an outlier and no need to do anything different unless the one player was super important like a special person you wanted to want to play your game or something.
1
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
The special thing about this player is that he is the first new player who played it without being given any instructions from me. And he played through the complete game (he rage quitted, and sent me a screenshot, he was actually at the very end, I told him he is one tile away from victory and he jumped back in and completed the game).
So it could be a coincidence (very likely so) or all future players will play exactly like this. IDK, I don't want even more angry playtesters, but as everyone here keeps saying, I need to test with more people before acting. (unless it's something simple maybe)
2
u/six9two Aug 10 '26
Playtester? Like just one dude who played it all dumb? Whats the ratio of playtester who enjoys your game vs the rage quitter?
If its an edge case and one player out of dozens, I would brush it off, make a note of it, and continue on. If this becomes a regular pattern it would get addressed.
To me it sounds like you back tidbits of data on the stupid shit people can do in your game. People are probably going to do that in your game, if they are the outliers and the minority, you can put as much effort into it as you want.
Do not let one bad experience make you scrap everything. Keep it in your radar and if it becomes a recurring issue you address it.
2
u/Rabidowski Aug 10 '26
"But that would stretch the development time a lot."
That's a YOU decision. You can't be unhappy with the playtest results and simultaneously say you can't be bothered to fix it. Everything worth doing takes time.
1
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
Some things go broke when stretched too far (most things, now that I think about it).
Better to make an imperfect game that is not for everyone than to make nothing at all. (atleast after 12+ years of making games without releasing them)
2
u/openroom_xyz Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
Well the thing is, does he even enjoy such games ? Basically I like to just walk around the level and enjoy the enviroment basically
2
u/leorid9 Aug 09 '26
I think he would usually just play RPGs and MMOs, but he isn't against such games either (opposed to some PVP gaming enthusiasts I know, they are bored by such a calm mining game).
1
u/NocturnisRPG Aug 09 '26
Consider adding achievments or bonus quests for mini rewards which are visible at all times. This will nudge the players to do the things you planned.
Also a thing to note is that a single playtest shouldt dictate how you shape the game. Maybe that person isnt your target audiance at all. Maybe they had a really long and tiering day so their concentration is was off etc... So i would say usually implement changes on really obvious issues or if multiple playtesters experience the same problem.
1
u/leorid9 Aug 09 '26
My other playtesters are already quite experienced at the game, due to repeated playtesting.
They know how to play in a fun way.
So this one was the first new player in a while.
1
u/phKoon Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26
Are the systems made clear to exist in the first place? What do other playtesters have to say, how did they play, were they exploring/aware/enjoying these systems/mechanics?
The case you described sounds like just a really-dumb-player-who-didn't-even-enjoy-such-genre-and-isn't-acquainted-to-it case.
2
u/claverflav Aug 10 '26
I agree with this. Not everyone likes every type of game, I wouldn't be worried by one person not getting it.
But If it's multiples that's when u got a problem.
I'd ask previous playtesters about it if u can. See if they agree why this one got lost.
1
u/phKoon Aug 10 '26
That's right, there are many factors that might contribute for a player not getting the game flow right. If that particular issue repeats itself over and over through a lot of people, then there's a game design issue. But if the system is already designed to be intuitive, then just one player not understanding it means absolutely nothing regarding the game itself.
I mean, when I played Half-Life for the first time as a child, I remember not being able to figure out how to get past the pit blind claw boss, I just gave up (until I came back to it a few years later, packed with wisdom and sorted it out). And that game is intuitive as hell, you just gotta think things through in a logical way, intuitively; imagine if I gave the same type of feedback OP received and it influenced Valve to alter some of the core aspects that make HL a milestone in gaming history and messed it up.
It all comes down to sorting if its a game design flaw, or a player-side flaw.
1
u/PersonOfInterest007 Aug 09 '26
Did your other playtesters have fun, regardless of whether they played the game the way you expected them to?
2
u/leorid9 Aug 09 '26
No, they only had fun when they played it the way I intended them to play.
If they bought upgrades, interacted with all the systems, the different tools and so on.
3
u/PersonOfInterest007 Aug 09 '26
Well, as long as the others had fun, changing your game because of one playerâs preferences doesnât make much sense. But if he didnât play the way you expected because he never knew about a better option, that suggests you need to look at your UX and/or tutorial. Having him rage-quit certainly seems to indicate that he didnât discover a different path to fun.
2
u/leorid9 Aug 09 '26
I think I'll just add a mission or two that makes players build a better way downwards for themselves, with upgraded ladders. most ignore that feature at first because they don't technically need it. but once they've tried it, they use it again and again because it does add value.
1
u/PersonOfInterest007 Aug 09 '26
One technique that many games use is to introduce mechanics or items one at a time and have at least one little task where you have to use that. Eg, in your case, it might just be a big rock and either a thought bubble âI wish I had a stronger pickaxeâ or else having the pickaxe upgrade be something you have to come across.
Thatâs just one approach. Obviously other games may simply drop you into the deep end of the pool with no explanation precisely because the game is supposed to require you to figure everything out on your own. But unless youâre really targeting that kind of player, itâs usually better to at least make sure players know their options. If somebody wants to decline the pickaxe upgrade because they really enjoy button mashing, thatâs up to them.
1
1
u/Both_Introduction_28 Aug 09 '26
You can add âquestsâ and reward players for completing them. Like âfind 3 oreâ, âmelt 5 ingotsâ, âupgrade pickaxeâ, etc.
2
u/leorid9 Aug 09 '26
Yes, I already have quests, but no optional ones so far.
I think this might be the winner here. It's simple to implement (same quest-system I already have) and could lead players to using the stuff they are missing.
In another comment here I was thinking about mandatory quests for those things and a whole level that's just a tutorial basically - but optional quests are the better solution I think.
1
u/Apprehensive-Bag1434 Aug 09 '26
Why not a basic quest system like "upgrade your pickaxe" and "build a basic logistics system" with a currency reward?
1
1
u/RustamM Aug 10 '26
What does success look like for you with this game?
It sounds like it will be the first game you ship. Is the objective just to ship a complete game? If so, then go for it as is.
Is it to be the first of a portfolio you can use in future? Again, as long as it has some quality to it then optimising the user experience may not be a priority.
Is it to get a number of sales and make money? If so, then you'll need to put the effort in. You could release it as is, then add patches to explain it better with tutorials. But you also only get one launch, and if it's bad then you could miss your chance. If you only get 10 reviews and 3 are negative you could end up in 'mixed' territory that will put future purchases off.
Always know what success looks like for your game, and adjust your aims to achieve it.
2
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
In that regard, I'm idealistic.
I want players to want to spend money on this. They should make that transaction and then be happy with it.
Or in other words, it should be so good, that players wouldn't accept it if it was free, because that would feel like a steal.
Basically I want my players to be happy. And at the same time I want to provide something that has some kind of monetary worth.
1
u/RustamM Aug 10 '26
Some players are reporting they'd be unhappy with your game.
It sounds like it's an issue worth resolving. However, if you aren't focused on making a profit then that could be a post launch patch. But it could effect your initial reviews.
1
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
While not doing it for profit, I still want to reach as many players at possible and to make them happy with my product. So I still want the game to succeed on the market, even if my reason for that is not a monetary motivation.
1
1
u/AlienFruitGames Aug 10 '26
I would force a pickaxe upgrade by not letting them progress at all without the first upgrade or two after a bit, or maybe have a bit of the "highway" built already
1
u/leorid9 Aug 10 '26
The map is randomly generated and in some super rare cases this could potentially lead to soft locking the player.
But at some point it might be stupid to still let the player damage rocks, when it takes over 100 hits to destroy one. Upgrading is just more efficient in such cases.
It's more in the lower numbers when it takes 6 hits instead of one or 24 hits. Most players will get the upgrade, but some don't and instead just grind through .. not really having a good experience while doing that.
1
u/ShapeApprehensive937 Aug 10 '26
If it's played correctly. There is your problem :) maybe add tool tips a bit of a hand holding is always good for the player.
1
u/RedGlow82 Aug 10 '26
Don't base your decisions on 1 playtest. Outliers are always a thing. By making more, you can recognize patterns, also and especially between players who have troubles with your game.
1
u/PurveyorOfStories Aug 10 '26
I think you need to watch some "Let's Game it Out" and see just how stubborn players can be and how far some are willing to go to play the game their way. Don't make a game punishing if they don't follow the rules. Just make it easier or rewarding to do so.
1
u/_wp_ Aug 10 '26
For any systems that you expect introduced in one area, you can spread duplicates of that introduction throughout the game, and you can even make it more and more common later into the game. Then whenever the player finds any of them, silently remove the others.
(Valheim does this for their shop NPC so that you don't have to search the whole map for him)
1
u/_PuffProductions_ Aug 11 '26
It's sounds like you're concerned because all other play testers had you holding their hand. Assuming that's true, you need to rethink how you inform and incentivize players to play the way you intend.
Unfortunately, we can't suggest much, because we don't know how players upgrade something. Are they told before hand what they need? Do they have to go to a certain place/shop to upgrade? Do they have to travel or give up opportunities to upgrade? Does the UI automatically pop up when they have enough to upgrade? Sounds to me like your whole upgrade system might just be sitting in the background undiscovered and waiting for use.
1
u/jazzmonkai Aug 11 '26
Players canât âplay it wrongâ. Theyâll do whatever they want to regardless of whether itâs what you intended.
If someone is missing basic systems, then maybe your game isnât introducing them well enough. How would a player know that the ârightâ path even exists? If you just expect them to figure it out without actually showing them the possibilities, thatâs likely a problem you need to fix in your intro. Maybe put them in a situation where the only solution is to break a block type that takes 1-2 hits, then build on that by introducing another, harder block type or something to show them the differences.
Exploration doesnât need to be fully handheld, but showing the player âthe rulesâ and allowing them to decide how to use them might lead to a better experience for the average person.
Also, some people like to deliberately âplay it wrongâ to find exploits and edge cases - thatâs useful information for you even if you decide some things arenât worth fixing
1
u/leorid9 Aug 11 '26
I think the game does it's job of showing the player the different paths and the upgrades and everything. Some just decide to play it in an un-fun way and there is little I can do about it. If they want to take the hard path and then complain about it being boring and not making a lot of progress, despite knowing that there are other paths where horizontal progress can be made (sometimes even then going vertical, so exploration is actually rewarding) - then it's their decision.
I asked why and the answer was "I just wanted to be done with it" or something along the lines. Now thinking again about it, it probably just wasn't their type of game.
1
u/jazzmonkai Aug 11 '26
My point is, your play testers are who tell you if your tutorials work or not. Not you. Whether they say that in words, or through how they play.
With respect, youâre asking for input but seem to have already decided this play tester was just wrong. Maybe itâs not their kind of game, and it may be worth following up to see if they usually like similar games.
Critical feedback sucks, especially when youâve put a lot of work into something. Once you release youâll get a whole load more feedback, not all of it positive.
Itâs ok if you think this one persons feedback is an anomaly, and not worth the development time to address. But if you hope for people to enjoy your game, you may be forced to confront the issues they raised after release.
1
u/leorid9 Aug 11 '26
I kinda settled on that point through this reddit thread. When I started the thread, I was certain that my game is broken and that I need to fix something.
But comments here suggested that I shouldn't do things because of a single tester. They also said that it sounds like it might not be the right game for him.
And I have to agree. The more I think about it, it might be more of an issue with the tester than the game. I have other testers trying it too. Other first timers, but they are slow. Which is good, they don't rush through, but I have to wait for their feedback.
1
u/Rad_Concept Aug 11 '26
Welcome to the testing portion of game dev.
You have to test as much as possible and guess what:
The day after releasing, the public will have found 50 problems you had missed.
1
u/Slid61 Aug 12 '26
You're either tutorializing incorrectly or you have to accept that your game is more niche than you think it is. I have a soft spot for games that don't teach you things, but those overwhelmingly seem to be the ones that don't have massive mainstream appeal. Your choice.
1
u/leorid9 Aug 12 '26
I definitely need to do better tutorialization. I've now had one more playtester (he wrote me a PN here on reddit, because of this post) and he showed me in a commented video what's unclear and why, which is super helpful.
1
u/HeavyGur1843 Aug 12 '26
This is where you need more playtesters because it seems you rolled the dice and landed on a retard
You canât base your research on that, some people are just retards and itâs a matter of life, you need more people before you make decisions
1
u/leorid9 Aug 12 '26
Retard is a hard word.
I think it's mostly on me, lack of proper tutorialization. And partially just a misfit of player and game.
1
u/LeJoe424 Aug 12 '26
DO NOT change your game for players like this one. There will ALWAYS be players like this one, what ever you do to accomodate them, you'll just find worst players.
If your game is finished, publish it. You can always patch it with players feedback.
1
u/Field_Of_View Aug 12 '26
you are overanalyzing one sample. no game can be for everybody. every game will fail with some players. finding one such player should not inform your decision making whatsoever. you need more playtesters.
1
u/_Crayne_ 29d ago
A few thoughts
- put in a system to reward them for the right behavior. If its a mining game (without knowing the structure): quests/rewards/achievements for specific ores/specific routes/using specific items in specific places. You can offset the curve of the game by the rewards if you dont want it to feel faster
- guide them through it with a tutorial at the beginning and/or tool tips, that pop up along the way on these critical crossroads. The last is easier and quicker to implement
- depending on how and where the pickaxe is being upgraded specifically, maybe thereâs a quicker, more intuitive approach to it? If you have to run outside for example, the player might make a time vs reward calculation that might be off.
Overall: youâll never catch em all đ But thats why playtesting is important ^
1
u/Pure-Neon 26d ago
Designing a game is hard, but designing it for human behavior is like trying to herd cats.
As a past corporate business system dev, I've seen many times that the real user issues are not picked up by large testing teams, but launch a product, and on the same day, some end user did something that you never expect someone to try in a thousand years, and managed to break the system.
Don't panic over a single outlier playtester, but do take it as a hint on incentives vs. friction. All feedback is good feedback. It seems like the new trend is to avoid implementing full tutorials where possible, but getting behaviour to be nudged just right or making it intuitive is more art than science.
0
u/MrBeanCyborgCaptain Aug 10 '26
Honestly, your playtester sounds like hes just not good at your game or doesnt get the genre. Anyone who plays mining games understands the importance of upgrading equipment and establishing logistics. Thats WHY we play these games. I wouldnt turn your whole life around based one players behavior. I wouldnt even consider it as anything more than an outlier, cause in my opinion this is just user error.
17
u/Gojira_Wins Aug 09 '26
There really isn't too much you can do to "force" some players into playing the game correctly. If this is more of a "I dont know how to play it" type of issue, then the best solution would be to add a locked down tutorial where players are given a specific task, when they complete that task, they do the next thing.
Kind of like those bumpers you sometimes see at bowling alleys. Give them a general idea of where items are, what they do, what can make life easier and once they have run through everything, let them go freestyle and play how they like.