We’re currently developing a mini open world local co-op called Bugging Humans. It has a shared asymmetrical UI — where one player doesn’t see the screen but they have the controller, and the other player sees the screen and they have the keyboard. This means best practices, for instance in level design, have to be adapted. It also means blind and low-vision players can play with sighted players. The game could involve many innovations, unless we stuff it up by avoiding player discomfort. We know what we need to do, but perhaps our playtesters can meet us half-way.
It’s a negative reaction that is easy to do, makes sense at the time, and is what we’ve done ourselves. We’ve thought, heard, or said: “You should have your gameplay sorted first!” “It doesn’t give me the gamey vibes I love.” “It looks and sounds bad.” “It isn’t working, you need to make it more like [insert existing game].” Back in 2013, designer Daniel Cook of digital games such as Triple Town, and Alpha Bear, talked about such player responses during testing. He said, “Early controls or programmer visuals or being a toy instead of a game tend to throw people off. They’ll comment on superficial items or get hung up.” This is why he, and some other devs, recommend testing later. The thing is, even then, these hang ups can continue. In his handout “Your Board Game Critique,” designer Sen-Foong Lim of tabletop games such as Avatar Legends: The RPG, The Legend of Korra: Pro-Bending Arena, and Belfort dissuades innovation because of this. “More often than not,” he explains, “players want something that they know and understand with a twist, not something that comes out of left field.”
