Game development · 6 min read
Get playtest data you can actually make decisions with
Choose a question, observe behavior, keep a useful log, and turn a playtest into a smaller, clearer next experiment.
In this article
Choose the question before inviting people
'Find out whether the game is fun' is too broad to guide a useful session. Choose a decision you are genuinely willing to change. Can first-time players identify the exit? Do they understand what consumes stamina? Does a second route create a meaningful choice? Write down what behavior would support or weaken your current assumption before watching anyone play.
Limit a session to a manageable set of questions. If you change the tutorial, enemy behavior, movement speed, and reward structure together, a different result may be difficult to explain. That does not mean every playtest needs to be a controlled experiment. It means recording what changed and avoiding a claim that one specific adjustment caused the outcome when several plausible causes changed together.
Recruit for the question, not convenience alone
A colleague who knows every shortcut is useful for finding a regression and poorly placed to judge first-time comprehension. Recruit people who resemble the intended audience in the ways relevant to this test: genre familiarity, control method, platform, accessibility needs, or experience level. Write a short screener using neutral questions about recent behavior rather than asking people to declare themselves the perfect fan.
Keep different groups visible in the results. Beginners and experienced players may struggle for different reasons, and averaging them can hide both. A small qualitative round can expose a problem worth investigating, but it does not establish how common that problem is across the whole market. Avoid universal sample-size rules. Choose enough sessions to support the kind of decision you are making, then state the limits of that evidence.
Explain participation clearly
Before starting, explain who is running the test, its purpose, what will happen, what you plan to record, who can access those records, and how long you expect to keep them. Make clear that the participant can pause or stop. Obtain informed agreement for the activities and recordings you actually intend to perform, rather than treating willingness to download a build as permission for everything.
Collect only the personal information you need. Use participant codes in working notes and keep contact details separately with restricted access. Check that screen recordings will not capture private notifications, desktop files, or unrelated accounts. Agree on an appropriate retention schedule and deletion process. These are practical research safeguards, not a substitute for understanding your local obligations or the additional arrangements needed when involving children or other vulnerable participants.
Use a repeatable opening and neutral prompts
A consistent introduction reduces accidental coaching. Explain that you are evaluating the game, not the player's skill. Give a goal rather than a sequence of buttons: 'Try to reach the next area' tests discovery better than 'Open the map, follow the yellow line, and use the lift.' Check the build, controller, audio, recording permissions, and reset procedure before the session begins.
For interface questions, asking players to describe what they expect can reveal their mental model. Continuous think-aloud can also interrupt flow, reaction time, or immersion, so use it deliberately. For an action sequence, you may prefer quiet observation followed by a replay discussion. Keep prompts neutral: 'What are you looking for?' is less leading than 'Did you notice the door?' Record any assistance because it changes what an apparent success means.
Separate the event from your explanation
Record observable behavior before interpreting it. 'Player walked past the lift twice, opened inventory, then asked how to leave' is an observation. 'The lift needs a flashing arrow' is a proposed solution. Several explanations remain possible: the exit shape is unclear, the goal is forgotten, the interaction prompt is too small, or the player thinks lifts are decorative.
Use timestamps and the exact build identifier so another teammate can inspect the moment. Quote the participant accurately when a phrase matters, and label paraphrases. Do not record imagined feelings as facts. You can ask what they expected and how they interpreted the situation, but their retrospective explanation and your observation are different kinds of evidence. Both are useful when kept distinct.
Build: courier-0.6.2 | Participant: P04 | Question: can a new player find the lift? 07:12 — Walks past lift; camera faces delivery marker. 07:41 — Opens inventory and closes it without selecting anything. 08:03 — Asks, 'Is there another floor?' No assistance given. 08:22 — Finds lift after approaching its control panel. Interpretation to test: the lift entrance is not readable from the approach route. Candidate experiment: change entrance silhouette while keeping prompt and objective unchanged.
Use telemetry to locate behavior, not invent motives
Log events that answer a question: objective started, route entered, damage taken, checkpoint retried, settings changed, session ended. Record the build and relevant configuration. Define each event so it means the same thing across versions. If a completion event fires before the reward screen appears, its name should not suggest that the player saw the result.
Counts need denominators and context. Ten failed jumps means something different across ten attempts and five hundred attempts. A session ending does not automatically mean boredom; it could be a crash, interruption, completed task, or planned stopping point. Connect telemetry with observed sessions and follow-up questions. Before adding an event, ask whether its decision value justifies collecting it and whether a less intrusive signal would answer the same question.
Ask about the experience without asking for a redesign
After play, ask what the player thought they were trying to do, which decisions felt meaningful, and where the game behaved differently from what they expected. Ask for a concrete moment behind a broad reaction. 'The combat felt unfair' becomes actionable when connected to an attack they could not read, a missing sound cue, or a recovery rule they misunderstood.
Treat feature requests as clues to needs. A request for a minimap may express difficulty remembering routes, anxiety about missing rewards, or confusion about the objective. Those problems need different responses. Do not promise every suggestion will be implemented, and do not debate a participant into liking the current design. Your aim is to understand the experience they had, including experiences you did not intend.
Close the loop with one inspectable decision
Group findings by the question and the underlying problem, preserving examples and exceptions. Prioritize issues by their effect on the intended experience, severity, and confidence in the explanation. Note whether a finding occurred independently or only after assistance. A severe save failure deserves attention even when it appears once; a preference expressed by several friends still needs context.
For each chosen change, record the evidence, proposed cause, adjustment, and next test. Repeat the relevant task with new participants when first-time discovery matters. Keep an archive of build-specific findings so a solved issue does not repeatedly return. Steam Playtest can help distribute and gate a test build separately from the main game, but distribution is only infrastructure. The useful part remains a clear question, careful observation, and a decision someone can explain afterward.
Sources & further reading
Primary material behind the discussion and useful places to go deeper. The recommendations and worked examples in this article are our synthesis.
Working through a software or game-development problem of your own?
Talk to Winnitude! ↗Explore our tools ↗