Valve's "Secret Weapon"

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
About a year into the development of Portal,   playtesters kept giving  Valve very similar feedback. Something along the lines of "that was a great  tutorial, I can't wait to play the actual game". *VCR Pause Sound Effect* Uh. Slight problem. That was the actual game. Despite playing through 14 or so  hand-crafted puzzles, players were   clearly missing some vital element that would  tell them this was, indeed, a video game. And so after a lot of discussion, Valve  decided that the game needed an antagonist: someone to push back against the player,   to provide motivation to keep moving,  and to put these puzzles into context: this was all training in order to defeat a boss. The end result was, of course, GLaDOS: a loopy AI overlord with a  biting, passive-aggressive wit. She teases you, taunts you, tricks you. And the whole game leads up to a climactic  one-on-one showdown in her central chamber. GLaDOS: "Well, you found me.  Congratulations. Was it worth it? Because despite your violent behaviour, the only  thing you've managed to break so far is my heart." Thanks to sharp writing and killer voice acting,   she has become one of the most iconic  video game villains of all time. But, says Valve's Robin Walker, "her  genesis begins with a straightforward   process of us trying to solve the  core gameplay problem in Portal". Now if you ask me, the fact that  GLaDOS may never have existed if   it wasn't for this feedback goes  to show the value of playtesting. Not to be confused with quality  assurance - that's for rooting out bugs. Or focus testing - that's for market research. No: playtesting is simply watching  people play through a chunk of the game - sometimes with a questionnaire  or interview at the end - and then using what you see and hear  to drive changes in the game's design. For example, if Valve sees that  players are routinely getting   themselves killed when trying  to redirect these energy balls - perhaps they should make a change - like having it so you can only place portals on  walls that are way above the player's height. And so on Portal, this approach was used to  touch up almost every aspect of the game. Valve used playtesting to make sure  the learning curve was perfect, they used it to remove moments of frustration, to make sure players noticed key objects, to improve the pacing, to tweak the difficulty, and to ensure the storyline was coherent. Playtesting even led to the game's iconic visual  style, with those sterile white walls and floor. Originally, the game featured  cluttered and grungy environments,   but playtesters found it hard to  identify the key puzzle elements. In one test, a player spent half an hour trying to   push a shelf onto a button - while  completely ignoring a nearby box. Kim Swift - one of the key developers  on the project - calls playtesting   "the most important thing that we  learned since coming to Valve". You see, if you didn't know, Portal  started life as Narbacular Drop: a student project made at  Digipen University in Washington. hey were invited to show the game off at  Valve's headquarters and about halfway   through the demo, CEO Gabe Newell stopped the  presentation to offer the entire team a job. Their goal was to remake the game in the source  engine, and within the Half-Life universe. And to help, Valve introduced the small  student team to its game development process. Here's how it works. You start with a goal: perhaps, in this case,   to make a puzzle that is clearly  readable, and satisfying to solve. You then take a stab at reaching that goal,   by designing something - in  this case, a test chamber. Next, you evaluate whether your design  reached that goal by doing a playtest. And if it doesn't meet the grade,  change the design and repeat. Valve keeps going with this  iterative process until it   is "no longer excruciatingly painful to watch  the playtests", says developer David Speyrer. GLaDOS: "Fantastic! You remained  resolute and resourceful in an   atmosphere of extreme pessimism." Perhaps, given the subjects  of its most famous games,   its apt that Valve sees game development as  an engineering problem or a scientific study. Valve's former in-house psychologist,  Mike Ambinder, says "we see our game   designs as hypotheses and our playtests as  experiments to validate these hypotheses". Now, it should be said that playtesting  is by no means exclusive to Valve. And indeed, every game developer sources  player feedback at some point in the process. But the difference is that Valve is obsessed  with it, to an almost religious degree. Ambinder calls playtesting "the most important  part of the game development process". Newell calls it "our secret weapon". And a designer who joined the studio in 2018 said   “I always heard that Valve does a lot of  playtesting before I came to work here,   and I was not prepared for the amount  of playtesting this company does". Valve does playtesting early. Swift and her team started running playtests of  Portal after just one week of starting to build   the game at Valve, even though they only  had one half-finished room to show people. And then do it often. Portal was playtested practically every week. They'd do a playtest on Friday,  discuss the results on Monday,   apply the lessons the rest of the  week, and test again on Friday. It sounds extreme. But I think this devotion to playtesting  makes a lot more sense when you learn   about the disastrous development of  Valve's very first game, Half-Life. About two months before  Half-Life was supposed to ship,   Valve realised that the game... well, sucked. The developer said "you couldn't play the  game all the way through, none of the levels   tied together well, and there were serious  technical problems with most of the game. As a whole the game just wasn't working." The only real option on the table was to  scrap the whole thing and start from scratch. But this time, they would do things  differently - which lead to two game   development philosophies that are  still present in the studio today. One is the idea of the cabal: where  the staff is split up into tiny,   multi-disciplined teams who each take complete  ownership of a small chunk of the game. But the other is frequent playtesting, from  the very earliest point of development. This time, if the game sucked,  they wanted to know right away. So, about three months into development of the  restarted Half-Life, they started playtesting. They found random gamers in video game shops,   and contacted people who filled in those little  registration cards you got in old PC boxes. They'd sit them down in front of  the game and just watch them play. Each test would result in dozens  of things that needed to be fixed,   changed, added, or deleted from the game. Like, after watching some playtesters break  every crate in a level, Valve realised it   probably needed to stuff some of those boxes  with goodies like ammo and health packs. And this new process obviously worked: this  version of Half-Life was a huge success,   and is now seen as one of the most  important and influential games ever made. And, as such, Valve would use playtesting  extensively in all of its future games. On Half-Life 2, Valve planned to give out  the gravity gun towards the end of the game,   but players loved using it so much, the team  decided to make it available much sooner. On Left 4 Dead, playtesters found it hard  to find teammates who were in trouble,   which led to the x-ray outlines  of your fellow survivors. And on Portal 2, a paint type that  let you walk on walls was scrapped,   when it made multiple playtesters feel queasy. The arrival of Steam allowed Valve  to go further - converting millions   of online players into post-launch playtesters. When Steam's data showed that lots of  players were getting stuck in Episode One,   they released a patch to reduce the  difficulty of a tricky siege battle. Plus, playtesting was instrumental  when exploring an all-new technology,   virtual reality, for Half-Life: Alyx. For instance, Valve learned that a player's  tolerance for standing around watching people   talk was significantly lower in virtual  reality, so had to speed up the game's pace. "Player behaviour helped us navigate VR  development," says Valve's Christine Phelan. "You could almost think of the player as another  designer. There is barely a moment in the game   that wasn't improved by what playtesters told  us and showed us through their play behaviour". So, from Half-Life 1 to Half-Life: Alyx,  playtesting has been an invaluable tool for Valve. So I want to share some tips from the developers,  to show you how to playtest more effectively. Though it should be stated: Valve  is not like other companies. From its unorthodox organisational  structure to its near infinite resources,   there are very few companies on  Earth who can copy what Valve does. And also: this approach may work best on super  linear, extremely hand-crafted story games - and other techniques, like heat maps,  may work better for other types of game. But, with those caveats out of the way,   perhaps their experience can still  provide some useful guidance. So, tip number one is test early. Valve says "playtesting is where we make   the vast majority of our most  important changes to our game. So we try to do it as early as possible on  the project, to get the most value out of it." When you identify a problem early  on, you have time to go back to   the drawing board and develop an  effective solution to the problem. But do it too late, and sometimes the only way to  fix a problem is with a flimsy band-aid solution. Like, uh, I dunno, having the characters just  tell you the solution to a crummy puzzle. Valve may start testing within a few days of  prototyping a mechanic or designing a level. Even if it looks hideously ugly, with programmer  art or bright orange textures on all the walls. But this actually helps them avoid  wasting time on other aspects:   there's no point investing heavily  in art or audio if the game mechanic   is gonna be completely changed  - or cut from the game entirely. Number two is test often. Valve typically tests every single week,   to make sure that they are constantly  iterating on player feedback. This also leads to a huge amount of data. Each Half-Life 2 chapter had about  100 playtesters, for example. And that mass of information can be invaluable. By having a huge number of people look  at the game, Valve can look for common   trends in the feedback, and avoid tweaking  the game based on a few weird outliers. And the more experience you have seeing  people interact with your designs,   the better you'll get at preempting  this feedback in the future. Gabe Newell says "after you've watched a couple  hundred playtests, you start to develop a much   better sense of what are successful  and unsuccessful design strategies". So, some famous lessons learnt  at Valve include "players don't   learn when stressed" and "players don't look up". Number three is shut up and watch. A playtest should try to simulate the  actual experience of playing the game. Which means the observers need to stay  quiet for the duration of the test: no hints, no guidance, no  answers to burning questions. "Nothing is quite so humbling as being forced  to watch in silence as some poor playtester   stumbles around your level for 20 minutes,  unable to figure out the 'obvious' answer   that you now realise is completely arbitrary and  impossible to figure out", the studio has said. Post-game interviews and  questionnaires can certainly happen - those were instrumental in solving  the GLaDOS problem after all - but you'll often learn more by watching  players than by talking to them. Swift says "they may tell you later  that they like the game but you'll   really tell by their body language whether  or not they actually enjoyed themselves". It's also a common game design trope that   playtesters like to offer potential  solutions to the problems they face - but as they don't have insider  knowledge of your vision or constraints,   those solutions are usually better left ignored. Number four is designers should run playtests. Valve does not outsource testing to a special  department or leave it with a publisher: playtesting is done by the people  who are actually responsible for the   design and execution of the  level or mechanic in question. The cabal, from earlier. This shows the developers  exactly what needs fixing,   and can give much-needed  motivation to improve the game. And player behaviour might inspire new puzzle  solutions or ideas for the designers watching. Like, in Half-Life Alyx, players would  instinctively cover their real-life mouth   to stop Alyx from coughing, and alerting  a gigantic blind zombie named Jeff. So Valve turned covering your  mouth into an actual game mechanic. Number five is get the right people. Valve gets feedback from a huge  variety of different playtesters,   from fellow staff members to  little kids to pro gamers. But its learned to always have a target  audience in mind when making changes. Like, when Valve was figuring out how to  make a climactic boss fight against GLaDOS,   they initially got feedback  from hardcore FPS players,   who said the level needed more action,  more challenge, and more skill. But that idea was a dud: when facing this tricky boss  fight, says Erik Wolpaw,   "the vast majority of playtesters who  had gotten used to the slower-paced,   cerebral nature of Portal were just  frustrated, confused, and dissatisfied". They still wanted to satisfy  those hardcore FPS players,   but did so through optional content, like  Portal's advanced chambers and challenge maps. Number six is to challenge your assumptions. Okay, so maybe the GLaDOS boss fight  didn't need to be a test of skill. So, perhaps it needed to be the most  complex puzzle in the entire game? Surely that would be a suitable climax. But, here's the thing - playtesters  thought the game's mid-point escape,   that bit where you use a portal to  avoid falling into a pit of fire - players thought that was  incredibly climactic and satisfying. Even though it's basically  the easiest puzzle in Portal. But Valve realised the time  pressure, the visual impact,   and the high drama all made it  way more exciting to players. So maybe they were overthinking  the final boss, too. "We've been holding on to this idea that  we need a complex puzzle at the end and   it simply wasn't true", says Swift, and so  they settled on a pretty simple sequence. It's very easy for game designers to make  wonky assumptions about how players will act - I recently made a whole video about  doing this in my own puzzle game. I'll drop a link to that one in  the end screen of this video. Perhaps the most important tip, though,  is that playtesting feedback is just data,   and it's up to the designer how that data  is interpreted, filtered, and applied. For example, Half-Life 2 originally  had a very short introduction before   Gordon Freeman grabbed a gun and started shooting. Playtesters loved it. Who wouldn't be excited when  jumping into the action? And so, given this good feedback, it would be  easy to keep the game exactly like that. But, despite the positive sentiment, writer  Marc Laidlaw says Valve decided to keep working. They thought it would be better to delay combat. "We wanted you to witness the cops doing  something horrible, and feel like what you   were doing was a response to that - not that  you were just a killing machine," says Laidlaw. And they thought it would lead to  a better emotional pay-off if you   had to wait a much longer time before  finally getting Gordon's iconic crowbar. BARNEY: "Oh, and before I forget. I think  you dropped this back in Black Mesa. Good luck out there, buddy." Here's the thing: playtesting  is as useful as you make it. If you just bend the game to the whims and  desires of every playtester who comes through,   you'll end up with a dumbed-down game,  or bland, design-by-committee sludge. But if you go in with a clear goal. A specific game you want to make, for a  specific audience you want to entertain. And then use playtesting to validate  whether you are hitting that goal,   you can use feedback to unlock the  incredible game you are trying to make. Oh, don't click off. I've got one last Portal story  while the Patreon credits roll. So, the invention of GlaDOS is actually not  the most dramatic change that Valve has made,   in response to player feedback. During an internal game jam, held  shortly after the release of Portal 1,   a bunch of Valve developers came up with  an experimental puzzle game called F-Stop. In this game, you use a camera  to take photos of objects. Then, you can spawn that object elsewhere in the world  - perhaps at a completely different scale. Gabe Newell loved the concept, and said it  should be developed as a follow-up to Portal - meaning each game in the series would feature   a different piece of technology  developed at Aperture Science. But, after nearly a year of development,   playtesters were very vocal in their feedback:  Portal without portals just didn't work. And so Valve decided to scrap the game  and start Portal 2 all over again. In recent years, we've been able to  see what F-Stop might have looked like,   as fans have used leaked assets and code  to make various recreations of the game. But Valve never returned to the concept. If you want to play something similar,   check out Superliminal, or wait for the  upcoming photography puzzler, Viewfinder. Thanks for watching.
Info
Channel: Game Maker's Toolkit
Views: 1,411,229
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords:
Id: 9Yomqk0C6kE
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 17min 31sec (1051 seconds)
Published: Wed May 24 2023
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.