RUNNING A SUCCESSFUL PLAYTEST.

When I playtest (or review) games for others, I tend to jot down notes in a very stream-of-consciousness manner. Along the same lines, being able to see somebody play your game, and hearing how they react to various situations (ie: a "Let's Play" video, or what-not) is exceptionally helpful!

*Edit: Though, if I must be honest, I have a lot of trouble watching videos of games that I've made, and the few attempts I've made of making videos for other games have ended in embarrassment.

I think it would be helpful to have a list of priorities - you focus on finding and correcting the top problems first and foremost, then focus on the points lower on the list:

1. Major bugs that render the game in a bad state or unplayable

This one should always be on top - your game is not going to succeed if the person can't play it. Crashes, memory corruption and wall clipping are common among these.

2. Spelling and Grammar

This one's very important for presentation as having lackluster grammar makes your game look amateurish. It can also undermine the tone you're trying to set. I guess the most famous example of this is the localization of Zero Wing.

3. Balance Issues

A game can also be ruined by severe exploits or the player noticing his skills are all useless. This is only when the game becomes too easy/hard, or makes a broken/garbage character in competetive multiplayer. If the exploit allows serious sequence breaking or doing unintended things, it falls under point 1. Psychic-Types in Gen 1 are a well-known example for this.

PS: Intentionally over-/underpowered elements need no adjustments if they work as intended (such as Dan Hibiki and Akuma from Street Fighter).

4. Minor problems

This is all stuff that irritates players but doesn't majorly hamper the game. This category is mostly like 1, except that the issues are much less problematic.

author=Sated

author=LightningLord2
(such as Dan Hibiki and Akuma from Street Fighter).

I was never great at any of the Street Fighter games, but I could beat a bunch of my friends with Dan in SF: Alpha 3. He's actually really fun to play in that game, but anyone with a super-combo taunt would be fun to play!

It's often possible to win with a weak character if you know what you're doing. I only know that he was intended to be a bad joke character. Anyways, this proves that you can indeed have fun with a character that is imbalanced.

author=korb_toombs
There are 2 different kinds of play testers:

1) Those who dedicate their time to playing games.

2) Those who are familiar with the engine your using.

You forgot the 3rd which is people who don't know how to play RPGs (or respective genre) at all. While you may not be tailoring your game for non-RPG players there is some useful information you can gleam from.

Adding to Marrend. Try to get recorded footage if you can, anything from a stream or prerecorded. Maybe even a live viewing. I reccomend OBS as it's pretty lightweight and is light on filesizes, it requires some user setup but it's worth it. Sometimes a player will have trouble with something and won't be able to articulate why. They might mention the results rather than the process, or might omit certain details. Sometimes what a player says differs from what they do.

author=RedNova
- Don't send it out to all of them at once. Otherwise you're going to get a bunch of repeat reports. Send your first build out to about 50%-75% of the group first. Read their reports, correct their issues, then send it out to everyone. Fresh eyes that haven't played your game before will be more apt to stumbling around and break a part of your game.

100% agree with this. Too many times that I've gotten duplicate reports/problems in testing. You should always be looking for new people to play your game. Sometimes testers will get good at the game after several builds, and it becomes hard to tell if they've adapted to the game or if you actually improved it.

I saw a good baseline of how to rate characters on Smogon in the in-game tier lists:

Character Name:

Availability: When is the earliest point in the game you can get this character. If going for the character later yields a different kind of boon (as with Riolu vs. Korrina's Lucario in XY), they're treated as different characters for the tier list.

Capabilities: What this character can do in terms of stats and skills. It should be noted when the character is good at one thing, but another character can do it better. Also, if there's permanent buff items that could make this character better, weigh this against the opportunity cost of giving those items to someone else.

Matchups: Note how useful a character is in the notable fights in the game. Remember that it's not a good thing if a character needs lots of support to function.

Overall Rank: Can be put on top or bottom. Values a character with a letter.

S - The character is significantly useful across most or all of the game and can provide plenty of support for other characters. In extreme cases, other characters' usefulness is degraded to how they can complement this character.

A - The character is solid throughout most of the game or exceptionally useful during a certain section. She appreciates support, but is often a cornerstone in your party.

B - A useful character overall, but with notable flaws or lack of a notable strength. She can shine in several places, but is mostly in the back.

C - A rather weak character useful in a select few places. She needs support in many places, but has strengths that cannot be overlooked.

D - This character is only viable in a few niche situations. Most of the time, a different character is a better choice as she can barely function outside of her niche.

E - Completely useless character. Having her around is always a bad idea.

I once saw a tier list with a "Grandmaster of Disaster" tier - the character in question was so broken that all other characters are completely pointless to have.