Last night at the Toronto IGDA meeting, I got in a bit of a chat with a few other guys about playtesting to determine how fun a game is. I was bringing up a lot of usability testing examples involving Microsoft’s Usability Labs, and their methods of gauging user reaction to products. (While never having been there, I have read about how they do things, and it’s very sensible.)

Personally, I think there’s no better way to determine if something is fun or not, other than trying it out. But the developers and publisher of a game are biased, as is anyone who has seen and tried the game before. So the only way to really test for fun in a game is to bring in people who’ve never seen it before, sit them down in front of the game, and observe.

Of course, not all of us can afford those big see-through mirror walls. However, are they really necessary? A webcam on top of the computer monitor focused on the player, plus a few others around the testing room, should allow for observation of player behaviour. A microphone can be set in the room so the player can talk as he or she plays, which can allow for further analysis. The whole idea is to not see where problems lie in the game but observe the player and his/her reactions to what’s being played. Repeat a few times with other playtesters, and you’ll have some ideas of what works and what doesn’t.

Like everything else, this is no silver bullet. Testing this way can become expensive, and there’s no guarantee that you’ll find everything unfun with your game design. Or you might find there’s nothing fun about it, halfway through development. This kind of testing can only help you find potential issues with your game. But that’s better than nothing.

The whole purpose of testing is to find bugs. This kind of playtesting helps you find bugs, but not those in the code. This kind helps you find those in the game itself.