With Judgement Day now fully developed, our team entered the final phase of the design cycle: playtesting. Up to this point, we had iterated internally—refining mechanics, narrative flow, and learning alignment—but this was the first opportunity to observe how an actual player would experience the game from start to finish.
The goal was simple: does the game work as intended—not just technically, but cognitively? Does the player understand the system of judgment we’ve built, and can they apply it?
🧪 The Playtester & Setup
For this playtest, I selected a participant who falls within our target audience: someone familiar with games and narrative experiences, but not deeply familiar with Dante’s Inferno. This made them a strong fit—they would approach the game with curiosity rather than prior knowledge, allowing me to observe how well the system teaches itself.
The playtest was conducted asynchronously; the player tested the game independently and reported their findings afterward. This approach allowed me to analyze their reported decision-making process while identifying specific moments of hesitation, confusion, or engagement through their feedback.
The session lasted approximately 15–20 minutes, covering a full playthrough of the experience.
🎯 Playtesting Focus
The playtest centered on a few key areas:
- Understanding of the core gameplay loop (read → judge → receive feedback → progress)
- Clarity of moral distinctions (especially between categories like Fraud and Violence)
- Effectiveness of feedback and learning passages
- Overall flow, pacing, and usability
To capture data, I relied on a combination of:
- Direct observation during gameplay
- Informal follow-up questions after completion
- Notes on player reactions and decision patterns
⚙️ Technical Performance
From a technical standpoint, the game performed well. The browser-based format via Itch.io allowed for smooth access and play without installation barriers.
There were no major technical issues during the session, though minor observations included:
- Occasional hesitation in navigating between passages
- Brief pauses when interpreting more complex scenarios
These were not system errors, but rather moments tied to player comprehension—which, in many ways, is exactly what we wanted to evaluate.
🧠 Experience Running the Playtest
One of the most interesting aspects of the playtest was watching how the player approached judgment.
Rather than immediately adopting the structured logic of Dante’s system, the player initially relied on personal intuition and emotional reasoning. This led to a few incorrect classifications early on—not because the player wasn’t engaged, but because they were applying a modern moral lens instead of the framework presented in the game.
However, as the playthrough continued, a shift began to occur.
The player started to recognize patterns. They began questioning their assumptions. Instead of asking, “What feels right?”, they started asking, “How would this be classified within this system?”
That shift—from instinct to structured reasoning—was one of the most important confirmations that the game’s learning objective was working.
📊 Playtest Findings
Several key takeaways emerged from the session:
- The core gameplay loop was quickly understood and easy to follow
- The narrative scenarios were engaging and immersive
- Players responded positively to feedback that explained the reasoning behind correct answers
- Some confusion remained around subtle distinctions between similar sin categories
In particular, cases involving overlapping interpretations (such as necessity-driven theft) prompted deeper thought, but also highlighted where additional clarity could strengthen the experience.
🛠 Design Improvements
Based on the playtest, several opportunities for refinement became clear:
- Strengthen explanations distinguishing similar categories (e.g., Fraud vs. Violence)
- Reinforce learning through slightly more explicit feedback language in key moments
-
Consider subtle enhancements such as:
- Additional context cues for each Circle of Hell
- Slightly more guidance earlier in the experience
These changes would not alter the core design but would help smooth the player’s transition into the system of judgment.
🔄 Reflection
If I were to run additional playtests, I would make a few adjustments:
- Include multiple playtesters with varying familiarity in literature and games
- Use a more structured survey or questionnaire to standardize feedback
- Observe additional sessions with minimal intervention to better capture natural player behavior
Each of these would help build a more complete picture of how different players interpret and engage with the system.
🎯 Final Thoughts
Overall, the playtest confirmed that Judgement Day successfully delivers on its core goal: engaging players in critical thinking through moral classification.
More importantly, it demonstrated that players could move beyond instinctive judgment and begin to understand—and apply—a structured philosophical system through interactive design.
In a way, the playtest mirrored the experience of the game itself.
At first, judgment is uncertain.
But with time, patterns emerge.
⭐ Additional Playtesting Reflection
(I had this post ready to go, and then I get a phone call. I just had to add this section to it)
Following the initial playtest, I had the opportunity to conduct additional playtesting with two more participants—my parents. While they fall outside the intended target audience, their perspective offered valuable insight into how accessible and intuitive the experience is for a broader range of players.
The playtests were conducted asynchronously, with each of them playing through the game independently via the Itch.io build. Afterward, I gathered feedback through informal discussion.
Both playtesters found the beginning of the game easy to follow, indicating that the onboarding and core mechanics were clearly communicated. As they progressed, they noted that the later cases became significantly more challenging, which aligns with the intended scaffolding of the experience. The increasing complexity required more careful thought and interpretation, suggesting that the difficulty curve is functioning as designed.
One of the most consistent pieces of feedback was their appreciation for the visual presentation and overall polish of the game. They specifically commented on the artwork and atmosphere, noting that it contributed to a strong sense of immersion.
While their interpretations of some cases differed from the intended classifications—likely due to differences in familiarity with Dante’s framework—this further reinforces the importance of clear feedback and learning reinforcement within the game.
Overall, these additional playtests supported earlier findings while also confirming that Judgement Day is accessible to players outside the core audience, with a difficulty curve that encourages deeper engagement over time.
🎮 Play the Game
You can experience Judgement Day here:
Judgement Day by Darthnihilious
