Devlog #3 - Progress and Playtesting

Greetings, Friends! Our team has had an exciting week of progress on research, character development, scenario building, and more. And the most exciting news - we’ve completed our first official playtest. Below we give detailed updates, share what we’ve learned due to playtesting and discuss the next steps in our journey. At the end of the post, there’s a link to download our prototype and play it for yourself.

Our Game Dev Progress

As explained in earlier posts, the team had decided on a coffee shop theme to frame our game. We began exploring the aesthetic setting through mood boards and researching an array of dating sim games for inspiration. Because our game aims to include the widest spectrum of gender, sexuality, and abilities, we decided that we would create a “species” of character within our game that would embody characteristics without being literal.  

Setting 

Since then, we have elaborated on the player's universe in several ways. First, we became more specific about the setting and the cultural operation of our imagined universe. Our game is set in modern-day Chicago, Illinois, and is grounded in reality. Yet, there is a magical fantasy element that makes the environment unique. The Right Brew is a coffee shop where fantastic creatures can stop hiding and be themselves. 

Character Evolution 

The team continued to develop the characters for the game. We looked to mythology for our first iteration of the romantic partners to give the shape of our character. We had determined that up to five romantic partners would embody different sets of characteristics that would tie into the research. For prototyping purposes, we chose to begin with developing one to two characters in detail and sketch the remaining character for development in later iterations of the game (See Figs 1, 2 & 3). 

Fig. 1 Range of romantic partners 

Fig. 2 Character profile

Fig. 3 Character profile

Preliminary Research, Scenarios & Game Goals

Throughout the previous week, the team continued to research the target audience's needs and identified preliminary insights that would inform our first scenario. Our first scenario included a romantic partner who would provide an opportunity to explore body image and acceptance (see Fig.4). 

Fig. 4 Preliminary finding summary

From our review of an academic study on teen dating anxiety, informal interviews, and reading of Gina Roussos’ article “When Good Intentions Go Awry The counterintuitive effects of a prosocial online game,” we understood that there is a great deal of pressure and social status involved in having a relationship for those whose cultural norms include dating before marriage (more on that later). Our goal as designers is to help players better understand their own needs and boundaries and communicate with partners in a healthy way. We didn’t want our game to send or reinforce the message that being in a relationship is the ultimate goal, regardless of how healthy or unhealthy it may be. As a result, our game ends with the player making one of three decisions about the relationship they have explored: 1) continue the romantic relationship, 2) shift to a friendship, or 3) disengage completely. In this way, the player’s goal aligns with our intentions for the purpose of the game (see Fig. 5).

Fig 5. Game ends with one of three choices to align with the game’s purpose

Our team is in the process of the analysis and synthesis of the players' interviews, survey, and secondary research. We aim to complete that phase by Friday, May 20, 2022. This research will continue to inform the development of the story, environment, goals, and game mechanics. 

Playtesting Our First Prototype

On Tuesday, May 11, 2022, between 6:00 pm-8:45 pm CST, our team observed a series of playtests performed by classmates of Games with a Purpose Spring 2021-2022 at DePaul University. Our team consists of five members. Two teammates, Santiago and Lynn, observed in-person playtesting sessions. The three remaining team members, Maelanny, Janet, and Irandy observed remote play sessions via Zoom. Playtesters had previously seen presentations about the game leading up to the play session, so they had some orientation on the topic, goals, and approach. However, we considered them new players since this was their first interaction with our prototype. In addition, the majority of our playtesters are in the Game Design program, so we also consider them to fall into the category of game developers.  

What We Tested

Santiago had written an initial scenario and translated it into a branching narrative using the platform Twine. Our playtesters download the Twine file locally and play as individuals. Players were presented with screens containing written scenarios and response choices. The first screen allowed players to give themselves a name (see Fig. 6) which is then integrated into the story (Fig. 7). Subsequent screens allow the player to progress through the scenario by making a series of decisions by choosing from a prepopulated set of choices (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 6 The player may enter a custom name

Fig. 7 Custom player name integrated into the story

Fig. 8 Players choose from a set of pre populated choices.

Our Playtesting Questions

• Does the story/scenario resonate with players?
• Do the characters and their interactions feel authentic?
• How do players interpret the intentions behind the response choices?

Our Observations

Quality of the Storytelling

Participants reported that the game painted a vivid mental image of the environment and the character, although the play experience was limited. In the in-person play session, we observed a participant chuckle at the section where the pattern reveals their tail because it amused them.   

Specific Setting

A playtester shared that they liked that the game was set locally. They asked if we would name our fictitious coffee shop after a famous Chicago coffee shop.  

Pronouncing Names

Several participants struggled with pronouncing the character’s names or species type, e.g., Nereus, Nereid, and sylph.

Reading Ratio

At times, the player can choose to learn more about a character (see Fig. 9). A participant commented that the amount of reading was a lot and would prefer to learn about the character differently.

Fig. 9 Background detail about the romantic partner. 

Scoring

The game has a numeric score, a mechanism for the developer to assign variables to respond to recored the nature of the relationship between the player and the character. This feature is intended to be hidden from the player. However, in our playtest, it was visible (See Fig. 10), and several playtesters commented on it. Those who noticed the scoring said that it would affect their playing strategy. They would look for ways to score well, which could distract from the game's purpose.

Fig. 10 Visible score

Guessing Your Way Through the Good Path

A participant questioned whether a player could guess their way through an optimal path because it’s possible to pick up on what’s the socially desirable choice. He suggested some choices were obviously the “better” choice and that it could bias players’ actions.

Integrating Choice for Toxic Players

A participant asked if the game would account for players who come with unhealthy behaviors. This question was mirrored by survey respondents as well - participants are curious to know if the relationship is supportive, intimate, or codependent in cases where they, themselves, may not be able to tell.  

Scope

Because our playtesters are also game developers, we discussed scope. One participant, in particular, was concerned about the team's ability to execute a game of this size and scope. 

Game Development Platform

A participant discussed Ren’Py (Python) as an alternative platform to Twine. 

Discussion

Integrating More Showing Rather than Telling

The prototype didn’t include a visual representation of the characters or the scenes. As a result, we needed to rely on the text to communicate a lot of information. In future interactions, we’ll let the visuals convey the romantic partner’s emotional state, reactions, etc., and set the scene.

Accounting for an Inner Dialogue

A player had asked if we were going to include an inner dialogue. In the original iteration, we avoided giving a player a voice that is not their own. However, we decided that we could use dialogue to prompt a question to self-reflect in a directed way towards the topic we are addressing in this decision node without putting thoughts in their head. 

Character Development

The team had discussed the issue of finding a system for our mythical creatures in parallel to the prototype development. So some decisions were out of sync with the playtest. We decided to move away from specific mythical creatures from history and use them only as an inspiration for our own original set of characters. We wanted to avoid potential insensitive cultural translations or tying the game too close to an existing belief system. We also aim to minimize the use of names or make them more accessible. 

Specifying the Setting Further

Our coffee shop has magical rules of operation, so we plan to avoid naming a specific real-life coffee shop.

Opportunities for Unhealthy Behaviors

We plan to provide players with choices that would provide space to exhibit unhealthy behaviors and receive feedback.

Moral Choices and Bias

We understand that responses can signal a moral stance, which will bias the player’s choices. For example, an unkind response will be avoided because it’s socially acceptable to do so. We also understand that there are stereotypes about responses. We aim to be subtle enough to hide the morally “correct” choice. In addition, some responses are more emotionally intelligent than others, for example, stating an opinion vs. validating the partner’s feeling or privileging active listening, empathy, etc., which may not be obvious to inexperienced daters. We will also encourage exploration since there’s no real-world consequence to choosing an answer to learn what’ll happen. As the scenarios become more robust, we’ll add rescue paths for players to get back on track if they start to spiral downwards.  

The Role of Scoring 

The numeric debug is an internal mechanism to evaluate the player’s progress through the experience; we would not show the score. Showing it would make it more important than it is. The player will get a reaction to the speech or behavior of the character, not a numeric score, once the art is built out. In our point earlier about showing rather than telling, once we have visuals, we’ll be able to provide feedback to the player on their progress in more subtle ways that tie into real-life cues.  

We did note that Monster Prom, a dating sim we’ve reviewed, includes a score for the character but has a different purpose than our game. Monster prom has relationship values (see Fig. 11). But It doesn’t tell you if the other character is into you or not. The stats are about evaluating your behaviors. In real life, you don’t get numeric scores. You have to interpret others' behaviors based on your frame of reference.  

Fig. 11 Monster Prom score

Scope

We aim to choose a scenario and character, or two, to develop in detail. We will “sketch” additional scenarios and characters, but they will not be developed in high-fidelity in this phase. We are also choosing a look and feel which can be executed within our current team’s skill set.

Alternative Game Development Platforms

We investigated Ren'Py. However, it relies heavily on art which is an area that has yet to be developed for the game and is unlikely to be developed by the end of this game design phase. Therefore, we plan to stick with Twine.

Next Steps

• Develop visuals: we are in the process of sketching the POV of the main player, our barista, which will include the background of the coffee shop.
• Story development: mapping the initial scenario to a visual flow for ease of editing and development (in-progress).
• Completing the analysis and synthesis of research: affinity board and report.
• Character development: the team is working on sketching the array of characters and their traits. We plan to have five sketches completed in the next iteration to allow us to choose the one to move into high fidelity. Then, Santiago will translate the representations in Twine.

What to try it out for yourself? Download the Twine file here: The Right Brew. If you do, please comment below with feedback. 

Thank you!

Team Healthy Relationship