Concentrated Playtest
Concentrated Playtest
[p][/p][p]Hello everyone,[/p][p][/p][p]After the last playtest, I ran another session with a much smaller setup before the final open test. Just three players, longer sessions, and direct observation. This wasn’t meant to be a stress test or a balance pass. The goal was to sit back, watch people play and see where the game naturally pulls them in or pushes them away.[/p][p][/p][p]Each participant played the demo for between 2 and 3.5 hours, which turned out to be enough time for both strengths and weak points to surface.[/p][p][/p][h2]General Experience[/h2][p][/p][p]All three players managed to stay in the game without dropping out early. That doesn’t mean the game felt easy. It didn’t but the core structure was understandable enough to keep them moving forward.[/p][p][/p][p]One player mentioned that even though they don’t regularly play strategy games, they were still able to spend over an hour without getting bored. Another pointed out that the game isn’t immediately clear, but starts to make sense once you push past the first couple of decisions.[/p][p][/p][p]The difficulty was generally rated around 7 to 7.5 out of 10: not trivial, not overwhelming, but demanding attention.[/p][p][/p][hr][/hr][p] -- [p]Weapon production depth
Players paid attention to what they were producing and why. Weapon stats, purpose, and usage context mattered. Decisions weren’t random, and mistakes were usually understood after the fact.[/p][p]Logistics options
Being able to choose between trucks, trains and ships made a noticeable difference. Trains were described as reliable and comfortable once unlocked, while trucks required more constant attention due to fuel management and planning.[/p] - [p]Multitasking and consequences
Players noticed that actions tend to have follow-up effects. Forgetting fuel, misjudging time, or producing the wrong item usually led to small failures rather than instant punishment, which helped with learning.[/p] - [p]Atmosphere and presentation
Sound design, weather, and the world map contributed to immersion. One player specifically mentioned that moving across the map felt closer to “being on a route” than navigating a menu.[/p]- [p]I more or less understand what this means, but I still find it a bit interesting. I’ve put a lot of effort into increasing immersion overall, but when it comes to the terrain, I’ve always been somewhat skeptical. I often feel that it doesn’t reach the visual quality I’d like and that it might be pulling the overall quality down a notch or two. That said, I can’t really say I’ve received direct feedback pointing in that direction. I’m genuinely curious what you think. Feel free to leave a comment and share your perspective. 🙂[/p]
- [p]Time awareness
When time acceleration is used, mission deadlines can approach faster than expected. Players felt that the game doesn’t always communicate urgency clearly enough, especially during story related tasks.[/p] - [p]UI scale and readability
Some icons and map symbols were considered too small, particularly on laptop screens. This didn’t stop play, but it slowed down decision making.[/p] - [p]Shortcuts and batch actions
Features like Shift / Ctrl actions exist, but players didn’t naturally discover them. Multiple participants said these should be taught more clearly, especially early on.[/p] - [p]Minor technical issues
A few mechanical inconsistencies were noticed (for example, production elements stopping unexpectedly). These didn’t break the session but were noted as things that could become frustrating over longer playtimes.[/p]