Sandy's Soapbox
A classic Goethe review criteria asks what the game is about, whether it execute that task well, and whether the task was worth doing. You could restate that is 'what is the game', 'did you verify the game design', and 'was it fun' (validation).
V&V are formal steps in most robust software and engineering processes. In game design, the process of verification is straightforward, but validation turns more to an art form. Note that "game" can refer to a computer game, a board game, a roleplaying game, a training scenario-- any game.
Once you've built something-- anything, a game or a computer program or an aircraft-- you need to verify and validate your finished product. Verification asks 'does it work'-- a check that it follow your design plans and match your original specifications. Verification is all about following the design, about ensuring the process used is correct. If an item pasts verification, that means you did a good job following the plan.
Verification is a well-defined task involving proofing and testing. Methods can range from informal read throughs and editing up to formal inspection and rigorous beta testing. Typically done in-house, verification can involve people familiar with the game or outsiders. Their job as testers is to run the game through its paces, find problems, and ensure consistency.
But does the plan achieve the original goal? Validation takes a result-oriented stance. "Does it accomplish the desired result" is the most important question an end user or customer asks. The most seamless, well constructed game that uses the glossiest and shiniest of artwork along with the most brilliant use of story and text will completely fail if it isn't just plain fun.
Put another way, if the goal is to make an awesome game about zombies, verification ensures that players see a well constructed, coherent game experience that includes zombies. But validation ensures that the resulting zombie smashing is actually fun. In short, 'fun' is a pass-fail test.
The issue with game validation is that 'fun' is hard to predict. Fun is a quality that can be measured-- it's easy to tell if a gaming group is having fun with a test. It's disappointingly easy to tell if the gamers are clearly not having fun.
The better game designers fall into two camps. One set have an intuitive sense of 'fun'. The other possess understanding of how people are wired, of what things set off the pleasure centers; their game design then works to push those buttons. Both approaches can co-exist, indeed, I suggest any great designer has both the intuitive sense of fun as well as an understanding of what brings people pleasure.
But we need not leave V&V to chance or assume only a few greats can do it. There are known processes that let you test for both good game design and for the elusive 'fun'.
In game design, the gold standard of V&V testing is the blind playtest. For a blind playtest, the game is handed to a group who have no familiarity with or pre-knowledge of the game. They must play the game based solely on the materials and instructions included.
No inside info. No over the shoulder commentary by the game designer. It's about playing the game as it is, not as it was intended. And finally, you should be able to spy on them. Or, as a fallback, survey them afterward. You must capture whether the experience was 'fun'.
The output from blind playtesting provides both verification of the game, and validation of the play. I'll suggest that just about anyone can verify that a game is solid, that it meets its design goals, and that it is coherent and consistent. Being willing to validate that your creation isn't just well-made, but is 'fun', is an extra step. It can be a difficult and occasionally ego-deflating task, but is is necessary.
Ultimately, we don't sell games. We bottle and sell fun. Ensure your games are fun with V&V.
Until next month,
Sandy
sandy @ rpg . net
