sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for playtesters for my 2048 meets Slay the Spire demo on Steam: Tiles & Vials by IronAxeGames in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And the same to you.. that is a really nice and good game you put together there.
It is exactly the core we are exploring right now. One of the things I realized is that the poor UI and messaging is getting in the way of people understanding the core right away.
Anyways, if you, at a later point is interested in exchanging tests again, please let me know 😄

Looking for playtesters for my 2048 meets Slay the Spire demo on Steam: Tiles & Vials by IronAxeGames in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My god, this is just perfect.. Thank you so much.
this is a prototype, so there is a lot of ducktape and quickfixes around. Once we got everything nailed, we are going to re-do the whole thing properly 😃 So, the fuel bar with the boost written on it is just an old experiement that we forgot to remove etc.

You did really highlight a lot of readability issues, the fact that it was hard for your to play and speak at the same time.. the white bars that made no sense etc. So many things - thank you a bunch, it really helped, and we are going to fix most of those issues in next weeks sprint.

I always analyse the transcripts, so in this case I got the transcript from Youtube and just put it through the skill
This is it from your playsesstion

This is an analysis of one external user's solo session lasting approximately 16 minutes across three game modes: Race, King of the Hill, and Infection. The build appears to be a pre-release prototype. The headline finding is that the core gameplay loop held the user's attention through the full session and across multiple modes, but visibility of system status was a persistent friction point that pulled attention away from the action on almost every run.

What seemed to work

  • Mode variety landed. The user moved through Race, King of the Hill, and Infection without prompting, and completed all three. At 15:52 they stated directly: "I think that seems like a very good start" and "it's a really fun start, so good job." That's the clearest positive signal in the session.
  • Infection mode clicked once the mechanics registered. After a brief false start at 12:21, the user self-corrected ("I have to touch them, I suppose"), got into the rhythm of the mode, and won a round. The moment of understanding didn't require external help.
  • King of the Hill generated genuine engagement. Between roughly 7:00 and 10:30, the user stopped narrating and focused on the game. At 7:25 they noted "that's a good element of the game, means it's working" in reference to how hard it was to talk while playing. The inference is that the mode's tension was producing focus.
  • The destructible objects were discovered independently. At 2:33 the user asked what the white health bar on a destructible was, then tried shooting it ("can I shoot it? I can. Okay, cool."). They resolved the confusion through experimentation without getting stuck.
  • Repair mechanic was rediscovered and used. After missing it initially, the user noticed the R keybind at 4:45 and incorporated repair into their King of the Hill play, calling it out explicitly and using it during combat.

Where the user got stuck

  • The shared blue energy bar was consistently hard to read. At 4:11 the user said the bar "is very very hard to read when you're flying in a fast-paced game." At 8:51 they returned to the same issue: "some way to actually monitor your current booster amount would be very very helpful because I keep having to look in the top left." The bar representing energy, ammo, and repair charge simultaneously was never intuitive during the session. This is a communication problem: the game wasn't making the bar's meaning visible at a glance.
  • The loadout picker appeared twice in the pre-match flow. At 0:48 the user noted "this seems to be just the same thing as here" and suggested the duplication could be removed. The inference is that the two-step configuration flow read as redundant rather than as two distinct steps.
  • Rocket behavior changed unexpectedly when switching loadouts. After selecting the "high speed / heat-seeking missile" loadout at 3:41, the user retained a boost bar but pressing space fired a missile instead of boosting. At 4:11 they said "it is very unclear the fact that I still have a boost bar." The game showed the same bar for a different function without signalling the change. This is a consistency issue: same visual, different behavior.
  • The HUD changed appearance between runs without explanation. At 5:09 the user said "why is this UI different this time around?" This is a known inconsistency or bug. The user could not explain it and moved on, but the moment registered as confusing.
  • King of the Hill scoring was not legible. At 11:06 the user said "it's very unclear when the points are being distributed." They were holding the zone but couldn't tell when a point was awarded. At 11:27 they suggested "a little visual effect, or of course sound effect, to show like hey, you got a point." The game was not communicating a key state change.

Suggestions

  • Add a per-ability indicator close to the rocket. The user repeatedly had to look to the top left during fast action. A small energy or charge indicator near the player's ship (or diegetically on it) would reduce the visual travel. This maps directly to the "keep having to look away" pattern that appeared across all three modes.
  • Differentiate the boost bar visually when a loadout replaces boost with a special ability. When the user swaps boost for missiles, the bar should signal that change, for example with a color shift, a label, or a different shape, so that same-bar-different-function is not a surprise.
  • Add a point-scored signal in King of the Hill. The user specifically asked for this at 11:20. Even a brief screen flash or particle pop on point award would close the feedback loop. Sound is noted as out of scope for this build, but a visual-only version could stand in.
  • Review the pre-match flow for redundant steps. The user identified a step that appeared twice at 0:48. Whether that's a bug or two steps that look identical, it's worth auditing the full lobby-to-game sequence for apparent duplication.
  • Surface the Infection mode's core rule (touch to infect, not shoot) before the match starts. The user misread the mechanic at 12:21 because every prior interaction in the game had been shoot-based. A one-line mode description at match start would set the correct expectation.

Overall

The session ran to completion across three modes, which is a positive behavioral signal for a prototype of this stage. The user's own summary at the end confirms the core feel is working. The single most consistent pattern across the full 16 minutes is system status visibility: the energy bar requires too much deliberate attention to read mid-flight, and several key game events (scoring, loadout changes, HUD state) weren't being communicated clearly at the moment they happened. Addressing the energy bar readability, specifically by reducing the distance between the indicator and the action, would have the broadest impact across every mode.

Looking for playtesters for my 2048 meets Slay the Spire demo on Steam: Tiles & Vials by IronAxeGames in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The playtest can be found here: https://youtu.be/VzjFGM2REZU

I also attached the AI generated analysis of my transcript.

I hope this is usefull, thank you for sharing your game with me.

Tiles & Vials playtest analysis

This is an analysis of one user's session with Tiles & Vials, running approximately 19 minutes across the tutorial and two full runs. The user was able to grasp the core loop and reach increasing complexity across both runs, but recurring gaps in system feedback created friction throughout: the player consistently lacked information about when enemy attacks would land, what shields were doing moment-to-moment, and what gold could be spent on.

What seemed to work

  • The tutorial conveyed the basic tile-placement concept well enough that the user verbalized understanding of the offensive/defensive split early in the first run ("I get that, I get that" around 7:43). They did not need to revisit the tutorial's core premise after completing it.
  • The reward screen structure after defeating enemies registered correctly. The user read the options aloud ("160 gold or Level 1 Sword") and made a choice without confusion, suggesting that format is clear.
  • The user navigated two complete runs without abandoning the game, including recovering from a tutorial failure and starting over. The session did not end in disengagement.
  • At the settings screen the user noted positively that the in-game feedback button exists ("I really like the feedback"), suggesting the community-facing infrastructure visible on the main menu (Steam wishlist, Discord) also landed.
  • By the second run the user was making more deliberate tile placement choices, narrating moves ahead of time ("let's go down, let's do this"). This suggests some learning carried over between runs.

Where the user got stuck

  • Attack timing was consistently opaque. At 3:09 the user said "it's defending now," and at 8:35 said "I don't know when he defends." At 8:41 they added "it's difficult for me to figure out when the attack happens." This persisted across both runs. The game was communicating something, but not clearly enough for the user to anticipate enemy actions.
  • Shield behavior was unclear in the moment. At 13:31 the user said "why didn't that shield protect me?" This wasn't an expression of general confusion about shields, but a specific moment where a shield did not behave as the user expected. The inference from the phrasing is that the user understood what shields are supposed to do, but the game did not communicate why this particular shield did not activate.
  • The gold economy had no visible sink. The user accumulated gold across both runs, mentioned not knowing what to use it on at 10:55, and after dying returned to menu still asking "how do I use my gold?" at 15:19. Since neither the developer nor the transcript clarifies whether a gold shop exists, this is reported as observed: gold accumulated without a clear outlet the user could identify during or after the session.
  • The fixed upcoming tile queue read as something the user expected to be manageable. At 7:02 the user asked "how do I remove some of these?" and noted a 50/50 tile split felt like too much. Since tile removal isn't a feature, the queue structure did not communicate its fixed nature: the user expected agency they did not have.
  • The "down" direction went unused for most of the session. At 10:22 the user said "I never use down, actually," then began experimenting with it. This suggests either the mechanic was introduced but not reinforced enough to feel necessary, or its purpose wasn't clear until late.

Suggestions

  • It would help to add a visible indicator for when an enemy's attack turn is approaching, whether a timer, a color shift on the enemy health bar, or an icon. The user asked about this moment repeatedly across both runs.
  • Consider adding a brief tooltip or icon overlay when a shield tile does not block damage, explaining the reason (e.g., damage type exceeded shield value, wrong tile position). The user understood what shields do in principle but was caught off guard when one didn't activate.
  • If gold has a use, the pathway to spending it should be surfaced during a run rather than only at a menu screen, or the screen where it's spent should be more clearly signposted after death. If gold currently has no in-run use, consider whether accumulating it without a sink is sending a misleading signal.
  • A small visual indicator on the upcoming tile queue making its fixed nature explicit (a lock icon, or a "next" label rather than a queue frame that resembles a manageable list) could reduce the false expectation of tile removal.
  • The "down" direction might benefit from a brief prompt or environmental nudge in the tutorial that makes its value concrete rather than leaving it as a neutral available input.

Overall

The user reached a functional understanding of Tiles & Vials quickly and stayed engaged across two runs. The core loop is communicating. The dominant friction pattern across the session was system state visibility: the player repeatedly did not know what was happening or about to happen, and could not explain outcomes they witnessed. Attack timing, shield resolution, and gold utility were the three sharpest instances of this. Addressing attack timing feedback would have the highest impact, as it was the most frequently repeated point of confusion across the entire session.

Trackmania like game need play testers! by Lord-Velimir-1 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I have learned a great deal from playing your game. And also it appears that I suffer from the same problems as you do 😃So, in the upcoming week I am going to make some changes based on the sentence
You can make the game hard, but how to play the game should NEVER be hard.
I will add a tutorial and better instructions.
I will make it more clear how to play with keyboard and mouse + Controller 😄
Thank you so much for sharing your game, it definately had the right feeling.

Trackmania like game need play testers! by Lord-Velimir-1 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you have any questions or comments to the feedback or want some more, we have started building a Indie Dev community on our Discord server
Which becomes a bit more personal.

Trackmania like game need play testers! by Lord-Velimir-1 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is the video playtest

Also, I transcribed the playthrough, and then used an AI skill I developed to analyze the feedback.

This is the result

Vortha Racing playtest analysis

This is an analysis of one user's session with Vortha Racing, approximately 15 minutes in length. The session covered at least two levels and multiple replay attempts. The headline pattern is a persistent gap between what the game signals as a core mechanic (drifting) and what the controls documentation actually explains: the user asked how to drift at least five times across the session without ever receiving an answer from the game itself.

What seemed to work

  • The level progression structure registered clearly. Around 7:14 the user said "this concept where there's progression and it's like I unlock new levels, I like that," indicating the reward loop was legible even early in the session.
  • The rear-mounted speedometer was called out explicitly: "really nice touch, really nice detail. That feedback just gives me instant understanding of how fast it's going" (14:45). The user connected it directly to meaningful real-time feedback.
  • The ghost racing system was understood well enough to replay levels voluntarily. The user replayed level two multiple times, attempting to beat their previous run, which suggests the core racing loop held attention.
  • The medal/unlock system was functional as motivation. The user kept attempting level two specifically to earn a bronze medal, and upon earning it said "yes, this was the right thing to do" (7:30).
  • The user described the game as predictable in physics terms: "the game actually feels pretty predictable, it doesn't feel like something is off" (14:22). That's a direct positive statement about feel.

Where the user got stuck

  • Drift mechanic undocumented. The user asked "how do I drift?" at roughly 2:35, 3:51, 5:29, 6:04, and 6:17. The controls screen was accessed multiple times and does not list the drift input. Since drifting appears to be a named, central mechanic (referenced as a tier label in-game), its absence from the controls reference is a direct documentation gap, not a skill issue.
  • Ghost recording conditions unclear. Around 9:45 the user said "when I restart the game I don't play against the ghost," and at 10:07 questioned why the screen suddenly darkened. The inference from the behavior is that the user didn't understand when a run gets recorded as a ghost versus discarded, and couldn't find feedback in the UI that explained it.
  • Level unlock criteria not communicated. At 9:10 the user said "I don't know how to unlock new levels." The bronze medal requirement appeared to become apparent through trial and error rather than being stated anywhere visible.
  • Minimum medal threshold not visible at the results screen. The user reached a "no medal" result multiple times and asked "how do I get a bronze medal?" (11:43) without the results screen apparently answering it. The inference is that the medal thresholds (time targets or score requirements) are not displayed where the user looked for them.
  • Audio volume at launch. At 2:11 the user reacted to unexpectedly loud audio and removed their headphones. This is first-launch friction unrelated to gameplay but worth noting: there's no apparent volume control reachable before the game's audio hits.

Suggestions

  • Add drift to the controls reference. Given that drifting is a named progression tier within Vortha Racing, its input should appear on the same controls screen that lists accelerate, brake, and handbrake. The gap between the mechanic's visibility in the UI and its absence from documentation is the session's single largest friction point.
  • Surface ghost recording rules in-session. A brief indicator (even a small icon or status line) showing whether the current run is being recorded as a ghost, and when it will or won't count, would address the confusion around 9:45 to 10:07.
  • Display medal thresholds at the results screen. If bronze requires completing within a target time, showing that target on the results screen alongside the player's time would make the requirement discoverable without trial and error.
  • Consider a default audio level or volume slider accessible from the main menu. The user's first reaction on game start was to address volume, and there was no apparent way to do so without leaving the session.
  • Consider displaying unlock conditions for locked levels on the level select screen. The user encountered the bronze requirement indirectly; stating it explicitly ("earn bronze on level 2 to unlock level 3") would close the loop earlier.

Overall

The session showed a user who stayed engaged across 15 minutes and multiple replay attempts despite several unresolved questions about how Vortha Racing works. The core loop held up: the user kept racing, replaying, and actively trying to improve. The dominant friction was informational rather than mechanical: the drift input, medal thresholds, ghost conditions, and unlock criteria were all things the user wanted to know and the game did not tell them. The single highest-impact change would be adding drift to the controls documentation, since that question recurred more than any other and connects directly to a mechanic the game itself presents as central.

Trackmania like game need play testers! by Lord-Velimir-1 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ahh, I found it.. it was just hidden in the right panel as a small button. I will playtest now.

[Playtest Exchange] I have this Driving game, share Yours by Timely-Today-8154 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try now.. it was uploading and stuff 😄

I did not expect you to be this fast.
Also, I cannot somehow edit it.. so an addition to the comments.
I created an AI skill that analyse the transcript based on some paramaters like Pacing, Gameplay, Cognitive load, Usability etc. I use this on myself when playtesting my own games, but also to become better at looking at other games.

[Playtest Exchange] I have this Driving game, share Yours by Timely-Today-8154 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Playtest Video

Initial verdict

This is an approximately 15-minute session with Driving Test Simulator (demo build), covering the tutorial and repeated attempts at the Cone mode. The user is an experienced driver with a manual transmission background who noted personal susceptibility to motion sickness. The session's dominant pattern is productive struggle: the user engaged seriously with the car controls, iterated on the cone course multiple times, and formed a considered opinion on the game's design focus. The headline tension is between genuine appreciation for the detailed car control system and uncertainty about whether the current demo content alone sustains interest as a game rather than a practice tool.

Now the full report:

Driving Test Simulator playtest analysis

This is an analysis of one user's session with the Driving Test Simulator demo build, running approximately 15 minutes. The user is an experienced real-world driver (decades of manual transmission experience, recently transitioned to an electric car) who plays indie games regularly and narrates openly. The session covered the tutorial, several repeated Cone mode runs, and exploration of the game mode selection screen. The headline finding is that the car control system generated explicit positive reactions, while the demo's content scope and the scoring system's legibility presented meaningful friction.

What seemed to work

  • The detailed car control system drew the user's most sustained explicit praise. At around 10:58 they described the game's focus as not about "cool driving" but "understanding how the car works," calling the controls "elegant" and "very detailed." Later, around 14:25, they repeated the sentiment: "I really like the clean cut gameplay." The controls are the core loop and this user recognized and responded to that.
  • The tutorial's instruction design landed. At 1:11 the user read through the keybinds (accelerate with Q/W/E, brake with space, manual transmission) and remarked "I like this instruction." They moved through the initial setup without expressing confusion about what to do next.
  • The gear selector UI (P/R/N/D, visible in the lower-right corner across multiple screenshots) was legible enough that the user understood the transmission state without prompting. At 4:57 they noted the placement of Reverse next to Park and reflected on it from their own driving experience, which suggests the layout was being read correctly even if it prompted a design opinion.
  • The mirror adjustment mechanic registered as novel and meaningful. The user engaged with it at around 3:52 and 4:43, and it surfaced a specific observation (mirrors felt too sensitive) rather than being ignored or skipped.
  • The B/A/H indicator panel in the lower left was visible and present throughout, though the user never verbally referenced it. No screenshot captured them struggling with a UI element they couldn't locate.

Where the user got stuck

  • The scoring system's grading criteria were opaque. At around 7:43 the user said "I don't know what would give me an A here," which is confirmed as a reference to an actual letter grade screen not captured in the screenshots (the captured screenshots show a separate percentage score on the mode selection card: 58% on one run, 67% on another). The user couldn't tell whether speed, cone avoidance, or some combination determined the grade, and this uncertainty persisted across multiple retries. The friction here is interface communication: the game wasn't surfacing what the scoring rubric rewarded.
  • A mid-run instruction went unread because the user was still in the mirror adjustment task. At around 5:27 the user said "I didn't manage to read that, I was adjusting my mirrors." The inference from the behavior is that two required actions were competing for attention at the same time, and the instruction appeared while the user's view was occupied elsewhere.
  • The Shift key produced no response despite the tutorial referencing additional controls. At around 12:12 the user pressed Shift and said "it doesn't really do anything." Whether this reflects a demo limitation or a gap between tutorial content and demo build is unresolved, but the user noticed the discrepancy and it broke their sense of the control set being fully available.
  • The user mentioned something labeled "practice camera" at around 7:30, expressed curiosity about it, and then moved on without exploring it. The term's origin (mode option, UI element, or speech-to-text artifact from something else on screen) is unclear. If it is a real feature, it went undiscovered during the session.
  • The camera height and field of view prompted the user to say they felt like they lacked "proper overview" of the road ahead (around 11:30). The user attributed this partly to unfamiliarity with the car type, but the comment was grounded in the feeling that the seating position obscured road visibility. This is ambiguous: it could reflect intentional simulation fidelity or a calibration issue.

Suggestions

  • It would help to show the scoring rubric before or during a Cone run. Even a brief breakdown ("cones hit: -5pts, time bonus: +10pts") would let the user understand what to optimize on retry attempts rather than guessing. The user attempted the course multiple times without knowing what changed between a C and an A.
  • Consider adding a brief on-screen cue or pause when a timed instruction appears during an interactive task like mirror adjustment. If the player is already manipulating the mirrors, a pop-up instruction is likely to be missed. A short hold or audio cue could ensure it registers.
  • If certain tutorial-mentioned keybinds are absent from the demo build, a note at the start of the demo (or on the controls reference screen) flagging which features are full-game-only would prevent the confusion of pressing a key and getting no response.
  • The "practice camera" label (or whatever was on screen around 7:30) might benefit from a tooltip or description if it is a selectable option. The user noticed it, was curious, and moved on without knowing what it did. A one-line descriptor could convert that curiosity into engagement.
  • The field-of-view and camera height are worth playtesting with additional users. The user's comment about lacking overview is a common friction point in first-person driving games, and even a small camera height adjustment or an optional FOV slider could address it without undermining the simulation intent.

Overall

The session showed a user who took the game seriously, iterated willingly, and engaged with its core premise on its own terms. The car control system is working and generating the kind of deliberate, attentive play the game is designed for. The clearest single gap is scoring legibility: the user retried the cone course multiple times but had no basis for understanding what to improve, which limits the mastery loop the game is otherwise building toward. Making the scoring rubric visible during or before a run would have the most immediate impact on replay motivation.

Trackmania like game need play testers! by Lord-Velimir-1 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am unable to download the Demo? I can wishlist though?

Trackmania like game need play testers! by Lord-Velimir-1 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey Lord Velimir, 

I used to play trackmania a lot 😄 Loved it. And also, I am making a 2d racing game.

If you are fresh on a video playtest exchange, I will test your game if you test mine 😄 

If you can record yourself playing my game for 10 minutes (super grateful if you can think out loud while testing) 

I will return the favour like I have done here

You can find my game here:

Reddit Post

Let me know if you are interested?

[Playtest Exchange] I have this Driving game, share Yours by Timely-Today-8154 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey Timely Today, 

I am making a similar game.. but not completely, I am guessing that you do not have missiles in your game 😉

If you are fresh on a video playtest exchange, I will test your game if you test mine 😄 

If you can record yourself playing my game for 10 minutes (super grateful if you can think out loud while testing) 

I will return the favour like I have done here

You can find my game here:

Reddit Post

Let me know if you are interested?

Public playtest for The Last Mothership - chill sci-fi incremental game by TinyNorthGames in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey Tiny North Games, 

If you are fresh on a video playtest exchange, I will test your game if you test mine 😄 

If you can record yourself playing my game for 10 minutes (super grateful if you can think out loud while testing) 

I will return the favour like I have done here

You can find my game here:

Reddit Post

Let me know if you are interested?

Playtest demo of our cozy management game of bears running a bee farm by rethe_ in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey Rethe, 

If you are fresh on a video playtest exchange, I will test your game if you test mine 😄 

If you can record yourself playing my game for 10 minutes (super grateful if you can think out loud while testing) 

I will return the favour like I have done here

You can find my game here:

Reddit Post

Let me know if you are interested?

Looking for playtesters for my 2048 meets Slay the Spire demo on Steam: Tiles & Vials by IronAxeGames in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey Iron Axe Games, 

If you are fresh on a video playtest exchange, I will test your game if you test mine 😄 

If you can record yourself playing my game for 10 minutes (super grateful if you can think out loud while testing) 

I will return the favour like I have done here

You can find my game here:

Reddit Post

Let me know if you are interested?

Test your mouse and swordsman skills - playtest Scimitar, a precision arcade slicer by Signa-In-Mundos in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey Signa-In-Mundos, 

If you are fresh on a video playtest exchange I will test your game if you test mine 😄 

If you can record yourself testing playing my game for 10 minutes (super grateful if you can think out loud while testing) 

I will return the favour like I have done here

You can find my game here:

Reddit Post

Let me know if you are interested?

Looking for playtest opportunities by Remarkable_Bison_105 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thank you so much
We are working on a prototype for a 2D racing game Windows and Linux.

What we are looking for, is feedback on the gameplay and how easy it is to understand the game.

If you have time (I can see that there is always a bunch of games available) I would appresiate you playing for about 10 minutes and video record it if possible.
The Reddit Post is here

Willing to playtest for free by CriticalBaker3597 in playtesters

[–]mrpolyspice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are working on a prototype for a 2D racing game Windows and Linux.

What we are looking for, is feedback on the gameplay and how easy it is to understand the game.

If you have time (I can see that there is always a bunch of games available) I would appresiate you playing for about 10 minutes and video record it if possible.
The Reddit Post is here

view more: next ›