Providing Feedback on Prototypes: The WinQ
There are multiple reasons to evaluate game designs. One of the most obvious reasons is to grade students' work, hopefully as their designs progress as well as a final grade. Other times, you have playtesters evaluate games, with the designer in attendance or not. I have collected (and created) game evaluation forms from a variety of sources, and I share them below. Please note credit to these game evaluation forms belong to the creators, not me. Teachers can use these to evaluate their students' games in a number of different ways, which can be helpful.
The "WinQ"
This is a form I created with the Stanford Design School's design methods and mindsets:
The WINQ.
The purpose of playtesting is primarily to challenge designers to reflect on their ideas, design choices, and design process, and to provide feedback on how clearly they are expressing those ideas.
The purpose of game design feedback is to enable designers to understand how others experience their game, and to give honest descriptions of what is good or bad about the player experience.
If you want to hear me talking about student feedback using the WINQ, take a listen!
Games in Schools and Libraries Episode 53: Feedback using the WINQ form.
DOS AND DON'TS
THE PROCESS
FEEDBACK CATEGORIES
I have used a lot of different feedback forms in the past (see down below) but this is by far the best for us. Students can usually provide what works and what needs improvement pretty well, but they have to really think more critically to generate new ideas and especially questions for the designer.
The feedback grid is used by playtesters and the designer to jot notes as they play the game. This is really helpful to ensure the game can be played as much as possible without having to stop so players can give verbal feedback. This way, they can provide a lot more feedback, and as a teacher I evaluate them on the type of feedback they give to help them think more deeply about the game's design.
Both designer and playtesters fill out a WINQ. They turn them into me, get a grade, and then I give the forms to the designer. Students really, really like getting this feedback.
The WINQ Self-Reflection is completed by the designer after the designer receives all the feedback forms. The designer reads the reflections, summarizes the most helpful information and then immediately writes and sketches how the feedback will be incorporated into their games. This system of feedback has been the most helpful of all the ones I've used in my class.
The WINQ.
The purpose of playtesting is primarily to challenge designers to reflect on their ideas, design choices, and design process, and to provide feedback on how clearly they are expressing those ideas.
The purpose of game design feedback is to enable designers to understand how others experience their game, and to give honest descriptions of what is good or bad about the player experience.
If you want to hear me talking about student feedback using the WINQ, take a listen!
Games in Schools and Libraries Episode 53: Feedback using the WINQ form.
DOS AND DON'TS
- Be honest! Restricting all your comments to positive feedback won't be as helpful for other designers.
- Be constructive! Saying something purely negative doesn't help the person figure out what to do about it. Try to offer suggestions. For example, instead of saying "I'm bored" you could offer "I don't have enough choices; this part of the game is uninteresting." Describe a specific problem that they can then seek to solve.
- Be specific! Explain clearly what you don't understand or how something could be stronger, as well as why you're making certain suggestions.
- You are critiquing the game, not the designer. It takes courage to offer up a work of design, and ask for feedback; respect the work your peers have done.
- There's no need to argue with the designer. Once you've made your case for your suggested improvements, move on. Ultimately, it's up to the designer to be willing to take the feedback and incorporate it in order to improve their work.
- Accept critique gracefully: the peers who have taken the time to review and discuss your work are taking to help you out.
- Designers should prepare at least THREE questions to ask playtesters about the game.
THE PROCESS
- Remember the expectations for playing games in class.
- Quiet during explanations
- Don’t talk to the active player
- Write down feedback, rather than discussing as you play.
FEEDBACK CATEGORIES
- What WORKS:
- Praise the strengths you see in the work.
- Point out specific features and explain why you think they are great ideas.
- What needs IMPROVEMENT:
- Critique the elements you think could be improved.
- Describe examples in which features might not work as intended.
- What NEW IDEAS can you offer?
- What could be added to the game that you think would fit the theme, mechanics, and conflict?
- What QUESTIONS do you have?
- Ask about anything that is missing, needs further examination, or needs to be explained more fully. Also, identify any features that may be extraneous or confusing.
- Question the designer with what if and why did you questions, from the little details to the big design ideas.
I have used a lot of different feedback forms in the past (see down below) but this is by far the best for us. Students can usually provide what works and what needs improvement pretty well, but they have to really think more critically to generate new ideas and especially questions for the designer.
The feedback grid is used by playtesters and the designer to jot notes as they play the game. This is really helpful to ensure the game can be played as much as possible without having to stop so players can give verbal feedback. This way, they can provide a lot more feedback, and as a teacher I evaluate them on the type of feedback they give to help them think more deeply about the game's design.
Both designer and playtesters fill out a WINQ. They turn them into me, get a grade, and then I give the forms to the designer. Students really, really like getting this feedback.
The WINQ Self-Reflection is completed by the designer after the designer receives all the feedback forms. The designer reads the reflections, summarizes the most helpful information and then immediately writes and sketches how the feedback will be incorporated into their games. This system of feedback has been the most helpful of all the ones I've used in my class.
Other Game Evaluation & Rating Forms
Open-ended rating forms that allow for players to assign a numerical rating and provide written feedback can be helpful. Game design contests, large-scale playtesting events, and other events when you want user-generated numbers can have their place. Below are the files from the Chicago Toy and Game Fair used by Rio Grande when it had a design contest (won by my now-honey, Mark Sellmeyer, for Spin Monkeys!), the player feedback form we used for Geekway to the West's game design contest (modeled after the Rio Grande form), and Game Salute's more extensive form.
| Rio Grande ChiTag form.pdf |
| rio_grande_judging_explanation.pdf |
| geekway_design_contest_score.pdf |
| game_salute_playtest_form_-_fillable.pdf |
A More technical game design evaluation form
I found this one a few years ago, a form created by Mike Compton and posted here: http://bgdg.awardspace.com/main/Game_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf. I found the same form modified by Wade McGrath, and I later made my own modifications to it as well. These forms really address more technical aspects of games that most playtesters don't really consider. I have attached a variety of forms that I have modified based on this above form--it's hard to determine how specific you want playtesters to be while allowing open-ended feedback.
| game_evaluation_criteria_mike_compton.pdf |
| game_evaluation_criteria modified.doc |
| game_playtest_evaluation.doc |
