作者：Wesley Rockholz

游戏测试一直就是评估游戏状态的一个有效方法，但重要的是观察到正确的标志，并提问正确的问题，这样才能得到客观而有价值的反馈。

我目前在一个游戏设计和开发班级授课，他们经常测试模拟游戏，我注意到许多调查问卷出现了相同的肤浅问题：“你觉得有趣吗？”“你理解游戏规则吗？”“你觉得游戏公平吗？”“你认为游戏太难还是太容易？”这些问题并不总能得到诚实而客观的回答，而除了这些反馈之外你也得不到什么对你有利的回答。“你觉得有趣吗？”“没错，我觉得有趣！”好吧，那又怎么样呢？这就能说明你的游戏是完美的，并且你可以发布了？“不，你的游戏太烂了！”好吧，那现在就该改善下你的游戏了。但要怎么做？在这种情况下你就该根据测试来做个假设性的决定，并且只是假设这个答案是否定的。

向游戏测试人员提问的目的是获得作为开发者的你无法通过自身角度所得到的对于游戏的洞察力。我决定头脑风暴一系列问题来激发测试者的洞察力，并生成人们对于游戏的新见解，以便将游戏设计和开发引向一个更有意识的路径。

playtest(from gamasutra.com)

1.你觉得自己玩了多长时间？

可以将这个问题取代“你觉得有趣吗？”。如果你真想知道自己的游戏核心机制是不是一个富有娱乐性的系统，这个问题可以让你获得一个比单纯提问玩家是否觉得有趣更准确的答案。要记录玩家实际玩游戏的时长，如果他们觉得时间过得很快，那就说明他们乐在其中。如果他们觉得花了一定的时间，那他们就有可能因游戏而抓狂或觉得不知所措。正如爱因斯坦所言：“当你用一个小时追求一位美女时，时间就好像只过了一秒。而当你坐在烧得发红的炉渣上时，一秒钟也觉得像一小时那样难熬。这都是相对的。”

2.是否觉得自己在同其他玩家交朋友或者交战？

显然这个问题仅适用于多人游戏，但这个问题的答案将让你更了解自己的游戏所创造的社交氛围。例如，你的游戏具有高度的竞争性，寻径你的玩家回答就应该体现一种竞争感。而如果你的游戏具有协作性，你的玩家却觉得他们在相互竞争，那就说明你的游戏机制并没有提供你所计算的社交氛围。如果你并没有植入社交氛围的打肯德基，而玩家却认为他们在交朋友，则永远是一种积极的标志。

3.你可以不看规则重玩游戏吗？

有时候这种情况是不可能发生的，因为极为复杂的桌面RPG总是含有地下城手册，但如果你的玩家理解回合步骤等重复机制（游戏邦注：例如出牌、丢骰子，移动棋子，玩牌等），那就说明你的规则设置妥当。要根据你游戏的情境调整这个问题，但这个问题的确值得一提。如果你的玩家每次轮到自己时都需要再看一次规则，那么你可能就需要想想是否该简化规则或者设计一种更清晰、可记忆的规则表达方法。

4.你的战略是什么？

这是我在测试过程中最喜欢提的一个问题。让玩家演示一遍他们的玩法战略，分解他们的思维过程，这样可以让你看出整个过程中的障碍，以及你的设计在哪些方面有助于促进玩家对游戏流程的理解。有些测试玩家会告诉你他们没有什么玩法战略 ，对此反应的一个正解就是他们刚接触你的游戏，并不能看出什么清晰的战略，或者你的游戏并不能促使他们创造自己的策略。如果玩家能够分解自己的思维过程，那么你的游戏就成功促进了批判性思维，你就可以在自己的设计情境中评估他们的策略。

5.你可以提前多少步预测对手的行动？

这个问题与第4个问题相似，它可以让你了解你的玩家对游戏策略的理解能力。但是，这个问题与玩家策略的复杂度及玩家投入游戏测试的深度密切相关。如果对手完全无法预测，这可能意识着你的游戏对玩家来说太复杂了，或者你的游戏需要改进和响应性。如果对手的行动太容易预测了，这就意味着你的游戏具有可预测性，并且很简单。这可能产生井字棋效应，即游戏一开始就有可预测的结果，或者总是打成平局。

6.你回应对手行动的程度如何？

这一点相当于第5点的扩展问题，它让你更进一步了解游戏战略的节奏。如果你的玩家可以预测到对手行动，但却并不觉得有必要通过改变自己的策略来回应对方，那么你的玩家真的是在以一种有意义的方式互动吗？你该如何创造一种让玩家被迫回应对手行动，从而产生有意义交互行为的石子剪子布情境？

7.你能否解释玩家胜利的原因？

这个问题相当于第4-6个问题的修订版本，它肯定了玩家对你游戏的战略性思考的理解。但是，它还有另一个目的，如果你的玩家可以成功回答这个问题，那么它就肯定了游戏中的动态战略思维，也肯定了你的确向玩家呈现了足够的信息，以便他们了解对手行动从而做出合理的反击。有时候你的玩家发清楚何时及如何做出反击，但并没有关于对手的足够信息（例如雾霾战，太多随机性等）。如果你的玩家能够认识到自己拥有次级战略，或者他们拥有不幸运的骰子点数和牌组，那么你就知道你的玩家是否做出了合理决策或糟糕决定。

8.你觉得自己控制游戏结果的把握有多大？

这要取决于你想让玩家感觉自己获得多少控制权，平衡性良好的游戏总能让玩家制定最理想的决定。如果玩家犯了错误，就应该惩罚他们，正确行动则应有所奖励。如果玩家觉得游戏太多时候要靠运气，或者觉得另一名玩家更有势力，那么作为设计师的你就应该检查玩家制定决策的过程对游戏结果的影响程度了。玩家的力量是否掌控了全局以致其他玩家无人能及？你的游戏是否过于依赖骰子或抽纸牌的随机性？或者你的游戏还不够随机性？

9.是否有什么因素阻碍你吃透自己的战略或计划？

对手采取的一步行动或反击是否阻碍了一名玩家深入推进自身策略的机会？玩家是否希望执行一个特点的玩法，但受到资源限制而无法采取合理行动？玩家是否掌握了所有的好牌，但独独缺少那决定全局的一张王牌？根据游戏情境的不同，这个问题的答案可能会有主观性的不同理解，但如果反复多次听到抱怨那你就要注意了。也许你的资源生成机制不一致或者太稀少。也许你必须为抽纸牌或丢骰子这种随机性机制提供更多调整策略的选择。

10.请列举与你试玩的这款游戏最为相似的其他游戏。

这是一个简单的问题，可能从玩家那里得到易被疏忽的反馈，但有时候你设计了一款针对特定群体的游戏，最后却会发现它偏离了目标。如果玩家可以分清你的游戏和其他游戏之间的相似之处，那你就可以确定自己瞄准的目标市场是准确的，也就可以分辨出玩家沉迷于某个控制机制、回合顺序、以及核心机制的游戏来源，并根据未来玩家已知的信息开发出能够引导他们的系统。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

10 Insightful Playtest Questions

by Wesley Rockholz

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.

The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

Playtests are always a valuable way to evaluate the state of your game, but it’s important to observe the right signs and ask the right questions in order to get objective and worthwhile feedback.

I’m currently TAing a game design and development class that is playtesting analog games on a regular basis, and I noticed the same shallow questions appear on multiple questionnaires: “did you have fun?” “did you understand the rules?” “did you feel like the game was fair?” “did you feel like it was too hard or too easy?”. These questions don’t always yield honest, objective answers, and beyond that the feedback you receive isn’t necessarily profitable to you. “Did you have fun?” “Yes I did have fun!” Ok, so now what? Your game is perfect and you can release? “No your game sucked!” Ok, so now make your game better. But how? In this situation the proactive decision would be to take this question out of your playtest and just assume the answer is no.

The objective in asking questions of your playtesters is to gain insights into the state of your game that you can’t see from your viewpoint as an experienced developer. I decided to brainstorm a set of questions to stimulate insights and generate a new perspective of your game to redirect design and development onto a more aware path. Feel free to comment and share your own!

1. How much time did you feel like you were playing for?

This question is simply a replacement for the question “did you have fun?”. If you’re truly questioning whether or not your game at it’s core mechanic is an entertaining system, this question will give you a more accurate answer than asking whether or not a player enjoyed themselves. Keep track of how long they were actually playing for, and if they feel like it went by quickly, they were enjoying themselves. If it felt like it took a while, they may have been frustrated or felt awkward or confused. Like Einstein apparently said, “When you are courting a nice girl for an hour it seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder for a second it seems like an hour. That’s relativity.”

2. Did you feel like you were making friends or enemies with the other players?

Obviously this only applies to multiplayer game, but the answer to this question will give you insights into the social atmosphere your game generates. If your game is highly competitive, for example, your players’ answers should reflect a sense of competition. On the other hand, if your game is cooperative and your players feel like they are competing, your game mechanics do not provide for the social tone you aim to generate. If you don’t have a targeted social atmosphere, players commenting that they felt like they are making friends is always a sign of positivity.

3. Could you play the game again without looking at the rules?

Sometimes this is impossible, as in the case with extensively complex tabletop RPGs where a dungeon manual is always necessary, but if your players understand repeated mechanics like turn steps (draw a card, roll the die, move the piece, play cards), then your rules are in a good place. Tailor this question to the context of your individual game, but it’s always worth asking. If your players always need to look at the rules each time they take a turn, you might need to think about either simplifying the rules or designing a more clear, memorable way of conveying them to the players.

4. What was your strategy?

This is my favorite question to ask in a playtest. Having a player walk through their gameplay strategy breaks down their thought process into steps and allows you to identify where there are bumps in the road and where your design clarifications are working to facilitate an understanding of the game flow. Some playtesters will tell you they didn’t have one, and the proper response to this is to recognize that at first glance your game does not present clear strategies to the player or facilitate their creating their own. If a player can step through their mental process, your game is successfully facilitating critical thinking, and you can evaluate their strategy in the context of your game design.

5. How far in advance could you predict your opponents’ moves?

This question is similar to #4 in the sense that it gives you a perspective into how critically aware your players are of the strategy of the game, However, this question delves deeper into both the complexity of the strategies available to the players and the depth to which your players were invested in the game during the playtest. If opponents are entirely unpredictable, it can mean either that your game is too complex for its’ players, or that your game is about adaptation and responsiveness. If opponents are too predictable, it means that your game is predictable and thus simple. This can cause the tic-tac-toe effect, where often the game begins with a predictable outcome or always ends in a tie.

6. To what extent did you react to your opponents’ moves?

As an extension of question #5, this question gives you further insight into the pace of strategizing in your game. If your players can predict your opponents’ moves, but don’t feel any need to react to them by altering their strategy, then are your players really interacting in a meaningful way? How can you create a rock-paper-scissors scenario where players are forced to react to their opponents moves to generate meaningful interactions that redirect gameplay?

7. Can you explain why the victorious player won?

This question is somewhat a validation of #4-6 in the sense that it confirms an understanding of strategic thinking in your game. However, it also serves another purpose; if your players can answer this question successfully, it confirms dynamic strategic thinking but also reassures you that you are presenting the players with enough information about their opponents to make logical counter-moves. Sometimes your players are aware of when and how to make a counter-move, but don’t have the proper information about their opponents (fog-of-war, hidden hands, too much randomness). If your players can recognize that they had the inferior strategy, or that they had the unlucky rolls and draws, you can be certain as to whether your players are making informed decisions or flipping coins.

8. To what extent did you feel like you were in control of the outcome of the game?

Depending on how controlling you want your players to feel, the outcome a well-balanced game always leans towards the players making the most optimal decisions. If a player makes a mistake, they should be punished, and vice-versa. If a player feels like too much of the game was left up to chance, or they felt like another player was more influential, you as a designer should examine the extent to which player decision-making impacts the outcome of the game. Is one player’s power snowballing out of control to the point at which no other players can catch up? Is your game too reliant on the randomness of RNG, dice, or card-drawing? Or, in an edge case example, is your game not random enough?

9. Did anything hold you back from seeing your strategy or plans through?

Did an opponent make a move or counter-move that prevented a choice that would have furthered a player’s strategy? Was a player looking forward to enacting a particular play, but was too resource-starved to make the proper moves? Did a player have all the right cards but one to make the perfect, game-decisive move? Answers should be interpreted subjectively within the context of your game, but hearing the same complaint multiple times should always be a flashing red light. Maybe your resource generation mechanics are inconsistent or too sparse. Maybe you need to provide more options for adapting a strategy to random mechanics like card drawing or dice-rolling.

10. Name the game you have played that is most similar to the game you playtested.

This is a simple one, and can produce negligible feedback from uninformed players, but sometimes you design a game focused on a particular audience only to realize it’s far from the target. If players can draw parallels between your game and another, you can both confirm that your targeted market is spot-on by proxy, and you can identify the games that players are using to intuitively sink into control schemes, turn orders, and core mechanics, and develop a system to teach incoming players given what they likely already know.（source：gamasutra）