Evidence-backed playtesting for indie games

Find the player friction
your team is too close
to see.

Playtest Pilot runs structured playtests with genre-matched players and turns recorded gameplay, survey data, and player behaviour into a clear insight report, so you can approach your next demo, milestone, or launch with confidence.

Genre-matched players Evidence-backed findings Confidential and secure

Playtest Report · Emberwake Hollow v0.3

Priority Finding ● High

Players are not sure where to go next.

7/10

Players

Clips

Surveys

Impact: High Evidence: Strong 02:34

Gameplay Clip · Enchantment clarity Navigation

02:34

08:12

Player wanders past the first objective without interacting.

The problem

You know how your game works. New players do not.

After months of development, it becomes hard to see your game like a first-time player. Objectives feel obvious. Mechanics feel natural. UI labels make sense because your team already knows what they mean.

But new players bring no context. They miss prompts, misunderstand goals, overlook key information, and sometimes lose interest before they reach the best parts of your game.

Not knowing where to go

Players wander without understanding the objective or next step.

Missing the objective

Key goals get overlooked entirely, even when displayed on screen.

Missing interactables

Objects and triggers players can interact with go completely unnoticed.

Understanding mechanics too late

Core systems click only after players have already disengaged.

The solution

Playtest Pilot shows you what players actually experience.

We handle the test setup, player matching, gameplay footage collection, survey analysis, evidence review, and final report, so you are not left sorting through scattered feedback or hours of raw footage.

Real players, right for your game

Players are matched to your game's genre, target audience, and playtest goals.

Recorded gameplay and survey data

See what made sense to players, what didn't and what they had to say about it.

Curated clips and timestamps

Review the key moments without watching every full recording yourself.

Human-reviewed insight report

Findings are grouped, prioritised, and supported with clips, timestamps, survey patterns, and clear recommendations.

Playtest Report · Emberwake Hollow v0.3

Executive Summary

Players tested
Matched to your game

62%

Completion rate
Avg. across players

7.6/10

Enjoyment score
Average rating

Top Priority Finding

Players missed the first objective

Most players didn't notice or understand the first objective, causing confusion and aimless exploration.

High Priority Evidence: Strong

Issue Evidence Overview

Issue	Players	Evidence	Priority
Missed first objective	8/10	Strong	High
Combat feels unfair	6/10	Moderate	Medium
UI hard to navigate	4/10	Moderate	Medium
Unsure what to do next	3/10	Limited	Low

Survey Snapshot

How enjoyable was the experience?

9–10

40%

7–8

30%

5–6

20%

3–4

1–2

Recommended Focus

Make the first objective unmissable

Clarify early UI and on-screen prompts

Guide players with stronger early feedback

Gameplay Evidence

02:14

Player 07

Missed first objective and explored the wrong area.

Watch clip →

Interactive · All 7 sections included

The package

Player Insight Playtest

A fixed-scope playtest for indie developers preparing a demo, milestone, or launch.

€499

Introductory package · Fixed scope

10 genre-matched players

45 minute structured play sessions

Recorded gameplay and audio

Player survey and feedback

Curated clips and key timestamps

Human-reviewed insight report

Recommended focus areas

7-day delivery after sessions complete

Introductory fixed-scope package. Additional testers, longer sessions, full recording delivery, or a debrief call may require a custom quote.

Best for

Playable PC builds before an important release moment.

Best for playable PC builds where you need to understand onboarding, clarity, pacing, difficulty, or early engagement.

🎮 Preparing a public demo

⚡ Steam Next Fest

📊 Publisher or investor pitch

🚀 Kickstarter demo or launch

🔄 Early access update

🔍 First-time player onboarding review

The process

How it works

We handle everything from build setup to final report delivery, so you can focus on your game.

You send your build

Share your PC build, genre, milestone, and playtest goals.

We define the test focus

We agree on the key areas the playtest should focus on.

We run the playtests

Genre-matched players take part in playtest sessions and complete surveys.

We analyse the evidence

We review gameplay footage, survey data and create the insight report.

You get the report

You receive a clear report with evidence-backed findings and recommended focus areas.

Genre matching

Feedback is only useful when it comes from the right players.

A cosy sim player, a roguelite player, and a tactical RPG player bring different expectations. If the wrong players test your game, you can end up with feedback that is technically honest but commercially misleading.

Playtest Pilot matches your build with players who actively play your genre, so the feedback is closer to the audience you are trying to reach.

We match based on gameplay habits, not just genre labels.

Roguelite

Understand repetition, builds, challenge, and run variety.

Cosy Sim

Notice pacing, clarity, comfort, and routine gameplay loops.

Horror

Respond to tension, atmosphere, sound design, and vulnerability.

Strategy

Focus on readability, planning, information quality, and decision-making.

Transparency

AI helps us process evidence faster. Humans make the final call.

We may use AI-assisted workflows to organise transcripts, survey responses, timestamps, and repeated feedback patterns. Final findings, priority levels, and recommendations are reviewed before delivery.

AI is used to support evidence processing, not replace player testing.

Priority findings are backed by real player behaviour.

Reports are human-reviewed before delivery.

Client builds and test materials are handled confidentially.

FAQ

Common questions

A few things developers usually ask before booking.

Playable PC builds for teams preparing demos, milestones, early access updates, publisher pitches, Steam Next Fest, or launch.

Testers sign NDAs before receiving access to unreleased builds. Build access, footage, and feedback are handled confidentially.

No. This is player experience playtesting. Severe bugs may be noted if they affect the session, but the focus is clarity, onboarding, friction, pacing, and player understanding.

The target is around 7 days after sessions are completed. Final timing depends on scope, build access, and tester availability.

Get started

Ready to see how real players experience your game?

Tell us about your game and what you want to learn from players. We'll review your submission and confirm fit within 24 hours.

Player Insight Playtest

Know what real players experience
before your build goes public.

A focused playtesting package for teams preparing a playable PC build before a demo, milestone, Steam Next Fest, publisher pitch, early access update, or launch.

Real players, right for your game Evidence-backed, not opinion-based Done for you, start to finish

Genre-matched PC players

Minutes per session

Day delivery after sessions

€499

Introductory package

Is it right for you?

Built for teams with a build and real questions.

A good fit if you are…

Preparing for Steam Next Fest, a publisher pitch, or a Kickstarter demo

Shipping an early access update or approaching launch

Trying to answer questions about onboarding, clarity, pacing, or first-player engagement

Working with a playable PC build before a public release moment

Looking for evidence-backed findings, not scattered opinions

Not the right fit if you…

Need bug QA or technical testing only

Do not yet have a playable build

Need console or mobile testing at launch

Want hundreds of testers or a self-serve analytics dashboard

Expect exact design instructions without reviewing trade-offs internally

What's included

One package. Everything covered.

We handle recruitment, sessions, evidence review, and report delivery. You receive clear findings backed by real player data.

Genre-matched players

10 players selected for genre fit and recording readiness.

Recorded gameplay

Full session recordings captured with audio.

Player survey

Structured surveys completed after each session.

Curated clips

Key moments with timestamps. No need to watch every recording.

Insight report

Human-reviewed findings backed by player behaviour and evidence.

Priority friction list

Player-facing issues ranked by frequency and impact.

The report

Evidence your team can use to make better decisions.

Your report brings together player behaviour, survey feedback, gameplay clips, timestamps, and priority findings, so your team can understand what happened, why it matters, and where to focus next.

Test setup and player profile summary

Session config, build version, and tester panel details

Executive summary

Top-line metrics, retention rate, and overall sentiment

Top priority findings with impact levels

Critical and high-impact friction points with evidence

Issue evidence table

Zone-by-zone observations with player counts and timestamps

Survey results and key player comments

10-response post-session survey with scored dimensions

Gameplay clip references and timestamps

8 annotated clips from 450 minutes of recorded gameplay

Recommended focus areas

Prioritised fix list with effort, impact, and sprint sequencing

Playtest Report · Emberwake Hollow v0.3.2

Test Setup

Game

Emberwake Hollow

Build

v0.3.2

Genre

Roguelite

Platform

PC (Windows)

Players

Session length

45 min

Milestone

Steam Next Fest Demo

Test Objective

Evaluate first-time player clarity, onboarding, objective understanding, and early engagement during the first 45 minutes.

Player Profiles

JoshK

Roguelite · PC

maya_r

Roguelite · PC

7 more

10 total

Issue	Players	Evidence	Freq.	Priority
Missed first objective	7/10	5 clips, 6 survey	70%	High
Tutorial too long	6/10	4 clips, 3 survey	60%	High
Resource icons unclear	5/10	3 clips, 4 survey	50%	Medium
Map legend not understood	4/10	2 clips, 3 survey	40%	Medium
Menu navigation slow	3/10	1 clip, 2 survey	30%	Low
5 issues · 6 findings total	15 clips · 18 survey responses

High-level preview only. The full report contains all findings, evidence, and clips.

The process

From build submission to final report.

Six steps, a clear timeline, and no surprises. You always know where things stand.

Submit project details

Share your game, genre, build version, milestone, and what you most want to understand from players. The more context you give us, the sharper the test we can design.

You ~5 minutes

Confirm scope and fit

We review your submission, confirm that Playtest Pilot is a good fit, agree on the core questions the test should answer, and lock in the session scope before anything is booked.

You and us Within 24 hours

Recruit genre-matched players

We handpick 10 players from our verified pool who match your genre, target audience, and platform. Players are briefed on the session format and confirmed before any sessions begin.

Us 2–3 days

Run sessions

Players each complete a structured 45-minute session, playing your build with screen and audio recording enabled. Each player then completes a post-session survey. You do not need to be present.

Us 3–5 days

Analyse the evidence

We review all recordings, identify repeated friction points, curate the most relevant clips with timestamps, cross-reference survey patterns, and write up prioritised findings with supporting evidence.

Us 2–3 days

Receive your report

You receive a structured report with an executive summary, priority findings, issue evidence table, curated clips with timestamps, survey results, and recommended focus areas. Delivered around 7 days after sessions complete.

Delivered to you ~Day 7

Player matching

Why genre-matched players matter.

Genre-matched players understand your audience's expectations, speak the same language as your future players, and give you feedback that's actually relevant to the game you're making.

Genre-matched feedback

Understands the genre's conventions and expectations

Spots what breaks immersion or feels off for the audience

Gives feedback that is closer to your real target player

Easier to act on: findings reflect relevant expectations

Random feedback

May miss genre conventions entirely

Feedback can be technically honest but commercially misleading

Harder to judge which findings matter for your actual audience

Less actionable: difficult to separate signal from noise

Evidence-backed

Opinions are useful. Behaviour is stronger.

When a player says they were confused, that is useful context. When 7 of 10 players miss the same objective marker, that is a finding worth acting on.

The report connects what players said with what they actually did, with survey responses supported by gameplay clips, timestamps, and repeated patterns across multiple sessions.

What players did, and where they hesitated

What they missed, repeated, or misunderstood

Which issues appeared across multiple players

Supported by clips, surveys, and timestamps

Opinion

"I was a bit confused about where to go."

Useful as individual context. Hard to prioritise without knowing how common it is.

Behaviour

7 of 10 players missed the objective marker.

Supported by 5 gameplay clips, 6 survey mentions, and repeated observed player behaviour.

Transparency

AI-assisted processing.
Human-reviewed insight.

AI helps organise transcripts, survey responses, timestamps, and repeated feedback patterns. Human reviewers validate findings and judge impact before anything is delivered to you.

AI supports evidence organisation

Clustering, transcripts, and pattern grouping.

Humans review priority findings

Every finding is validated before delivery.

Client data handled confidentially

Your build and test materials stay private.

Real players remain the source

AI does not replace player testing or behaviour.

Pricing

One clear package.

Fixed scope, fixed price. No guesswork on what's included.

Player Insight Playtest

€499

Introductory package

Fixed scope

10 genre-matched players

45 minute structured play sessions

Recorded gameplay and audio

Player survey and feedback

Curated clips and key timestamps

Human-reviewed insight report

Recommended focus areas

7-day delivery after sessions complete

Best for: Playable PC builds preparing for a demo, milestone, Steam Next Fest, early access update, or launch.

Final scope and timing confirmed before booking. Additional testers, longer sessions, full recording delivery, or a debrief call may require a custom quote.

FAQ

Every question, answered.

If something isn't covered here, you can ask when you submit your booking request.

No. This is player experience playtesting. The focus is onboarding, clarity, engagement, pacing, difficulty, friction, and player understanding. Severe bugs may be noted if they affect the session, but bug finding is not the service.

Yes. Testers must sign an NDA before receiving access to any unreleased build.

No. You need a playable PC build with enough content to support the agreed session length. Vertical slices, demos, early access builds, and milestone builds all work.

Yes. Before testing begins, we define the main questions you want answered. You can direct the focus toward onboarding, pacing, clarity, engagement, or any specific area of concern.

Not always. If we cannot recruit suitable players for your genre, we will let you know before taking the booking. We would rather be honest about fit than run a playtest with the wrong players.

The standard package includes curated clips and timestamps. Full recordings can be made available depending on scope, upload requirements, and file size. This can be discussed when confirming your playtest plan.

The target is 7 days after sessions are completed, and we aim to deliver ahead of that where possible. Final timing depends on tester availability, scope, and build access.

If a tester experiences a technical issue that prevents a valid session, they will be replaced. You are guaranteed 10 completed sessions for every playtest.

Findings are based on repeated player behaviour, survey data, and supporting evidence. A single comment from one player is not treated as a priority finding unless it is supported by wider patterns across multiple sessions.

PC builds only at launch. Console and mobile testing are not available at this stage.

Build access, footage, survey responses, and report materials are handled confidentially. All testers sign NDAs before accessing unreleased builds.

No. AI may support transcription, clustering, and evidence organisation. Final findings, priorities, and recommendations are reviewed by Playtest Pilot before delivery.

Get started

Find out what real players actually experience.

Real players. Real behaviour. Real insight.

Sample Report

This is what you receive.

This report for Emberwake Hollow v0.3.2 is fictional but representative. Every Player Insight Playtest delivers the same depth of evidence, analysis, and guidance.

10 genre-matched players 45-minute sessions PC playtest Tactical Roguelite Delivered in 7 days

All player data and game details are fictional and created for illustration purposes only.

Player Insight Playtest Report

Emberwake Hollow v0.3.2

Tactical Roguelite Sample Report

Report ID

PP-2026-0089

Delivered

7 Mar 2025

Contents

Session Summary

Players 10 / 10

Session length 45 min

Total gameplay 450 min

Clips curated 12 of 24

All testers signed NDAs. Player identities are anonymised in all reporting.

01Executive Summary

Emberwake Hollow v0.3.2: Overview

68/100

Overall Engagement Score

90%

Session Completion Rate

Critical Issues Found

7.2/10

Avg. Fun Score (survey)

3.8/10

Objective Clarity Score

5.1/10

UI Intuitiveness Score

450

minutes of gameplay

raw clips reviewed

post-session survey questions

priority findings raised

Emberwake Hollow v0.3.2 shows genuine potential in atmosphere, combat depth, and core loop engagement. Players who pushed past the first combat encounter stayed invested; 9 of 10 reached Level 3 and 6 completed the Boss Zone encounter, with fun scores averaging 7.2/10 overall. Atmosphere, audio, and art direction were named as strengths unprompted.

The primary barrier is first-session onboarding. The enchantment mechanic, the foundation of the game's progression, was missed by 7 of 10 players during the tutorial. This single gap produced a cascade of downstream friction through Levels 1 and 2. Addressing the top three findings before your next build milestone would substantially change the first-player experience.

Positive signal: Players who passed the first combat encounter had an 80% session retention rate. Atmosphere, dungeon art direction, and ambient audio were consistently praised. "Atmospheric" was the most common single-word descriptor in open responses.

Watch: Three players reported confusion about their objective at the Level 3 entry point, suggesting a secondary onboarding gap beyond the tutorial zone. Objective clarity was the lowest-rated dimension in the post-session survey (avg. 3.8/10).

Critical: 7 of 10 players did not engage with the enchantment mechanic during the tutorial, the central mechanic of the game's progression system. Players who missed it expressed confusion or disengagement during Level 1 encounters.

The atmosphere is really strong. Once I understood what I was doing in the second dungeon, I got properly hooked. I just wish the start had been clearer about what I was supposed to be doing.

Tester T05 · Roguelite Specialist · 45-minute session

Build Readiness Assessment

68 / 100

Demo-ready with targeted fixes recommended before release.

Core combat feel and atmosphere are strong enough to ship. Resolving P1 (tutorial enchantment gate) and P2 (inventory UI) before your next public milestone is strongly recommended; these two changes directly address the friction that impacted 7 of 10 players in this session.

Ship as-is

Combat feel, visual atmosphere, dungeon art direction, ambient audio

Fix before launch

Tutorial enchantment gate, inventory UI onboarding, Level 3 objective signal

Post-launch polish

Hit feedback clarity, boss audio mix, combat feedback at range

Key questions this report answers

Do first-time players understand what they're supposed to do?

Partially. The broad objective is understood, but the enchantment mechanic, the core progression gate, was missed by 7 of 10 players in the tutorial zone.

Does the core combat loop feel good?

Yes, consistently. Combat feel was the most common unprompted positive. The issue is feedback clarity, not feel: players enjoy the rhythm but can't tell if their attacks land on faster enemies.

Will players stay engaged for the full session?

90% session completion rate. 9 of 10 reached Level 3. The drop from Level 3 to Boss Zone (9 to 6 players) is worth monitoring but not alarming for a demo build at this stage.

02Priority Findings

5 findings, ranked by player impact

Each finding below is supported by observed behaviour across multiple sessions. Single player comments are not treated as priority findings unless corroborated by wider patterns.

#1 Critical

Tutorial Zone

Tutorial fails to establish the enchantment mechanic

The enchantment mechanic is the core of the game's progression, and 7 of 10 players missed it entirely during the tutorial zone.

Players walked past the enchantment station without interacting, even when the prompt was visible on screen
Players entered Level 1 with base-level abilities and no understanding of how to empower themselves through the core mechanic
3 of the 7 affected players expressed direct frustration or confusion during their first combat encounter that traces back to this gap

4 clips 7 survey mentions 7 of 10 players

"I didn't realise I could enchant anything until I was halfway through the second floor. I thought I was just bad at the game."

#2 High

Level 1

Inventory UI causes a significant confusion window on first item pickup

8 of 10 players spent an average of 47 seconds unable to equip their first item, cycling through menus with no visual guidance on where to go.

No visual cue or tooltip highlights the available equipment slot when an item is first picked up
Players opened and closed the inventory repeatedly, or attempted keyboard shortcuts, before finding the equip interaction
One player spent over 90 seconds before succeeding; two others asked aloud "how do I equip this?" during their session

3 clips 5 survey mentions 8 of 10 players Avg. 47s delay

"I picked up the sword but had no idea what to do with it. No arrows, no tooltip, nothing. I just sat there clicking through menus."

#3 Medium

Level 3

Pacing drops noticeably between Level 3 and the Boss Zone

4 of 9 players who reached Level 3 lost momentum and began backtracking, with no re-engagement beat to redirect them toward the Boss Zone.

Two players backtracked to Level 2 expecting content they hadn't found; neither found anything and returned at a noticeably reduced pace
Player engagement indicators (movement speed, verbal tone) dropped markedly between Level 2 exit and the Boss Zone entry
3 of 9 players who reached Level 3 never entered the Boss Zone; pacing is a likely contributing factor alongside other friction

2 clips 4 survey mentions 4 of 9 sessions at L3

"Level 3 felt like a corridor with nothing in it. I stopped and thought: is this it?"

#4 Medium

Level 1–2

Combat hit registration feedback is unclear

6 of 10 players could not reliably tell whether their attacks were landing, directly undermining their perceived control during combat.

No consistent hit flash or impact sound; enemies show no visible reaction to being hit until they die
Most severe on faster enemy types, where attack animation and enemy movement overlap in ways that obscure contact
Players verbally questioned their own effectiveness in 3 separate sessions ("is this working?", "am I even hitting it?")

3 clips 6 survey mentions 6 of 10 players

"I kept swinging and couldn't tell if I was hitting anything. The enemies didn't react until they just died."

#5 Low

Boss Zone

Audio mixing overwhelms atmosphere during boss encounter

The atmospheric audio that players praised in earlier levels was effectively cancelled out by the boss encounter's SFX mix, turning a strength into a complaint.

4 players noted the boss SFX as jarring or disruptive, specifically in contrast to the dungeon atmosphere they had just come through
One player lowered in-game volume mid-encounter, visible in the screen recording via the system volume overlay
Audio is named unprompted as a genuine differentiator; preserving it through the boss encounter would protect a real strength

4 survey mentions 1 clip

"The music in the dungeon was genuinely great. Then the boss started and it just felt like noise."

03Player Behaviour Patterns

Where players spent their time and where friction emerged

45-minute session timeline

Tutorial

Combat

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Boss Zone

0:00 6:30 10:22 20:50 29:24 36:08 45:00

Key friction moments

1:22 F#1 Enchantment station passed without interaction · 7 of 10 players · Tutorial Zone

11:45 F#2 First item pickup triggers 47s average inventory confusion · 8 of 10 players · Level 1

24:30 F#4 Hit registration unclear; 6 of 10 players verbalise combat confusion · Level 2

32:15 F#3 Level 3 backtrack begins · 4 of 9 players lose forward momentum · Level 3

37:40 F#5 Boss SFX spike; 4 players reduce volume or express discomfort on entry · Boss Zone

Player progression by zone

Tutorial

100%

First Combat

100%

Level 1

100%

Level 2

100%

Level 3

90%

Boss Zone

60%

Zone	Avg. Time	Players	Observations
Tutorial Zone	6m 30s	10 / 10	7 players re-read the tutorial prompt at least once. 3 skipped the tooltip entirely and moved to First Combat.
First Combat	3m 52s	10 / 10	3 players died on first attempt. 2 expressed frustration audibly. 1 paused for 90 seconds before continuing.
Level 1	10m 28s	10 / 10	First item pickup confusion peaks here, averaging 47 seconds. Hit-registration issues begin to emerge in the second encounter group.
Level 2	8m 34s	10 / 10	Inventory friction largely resolved. Combat clarity issues reach their peak with faster enemy types in this zone.
Level 3	6m 44s	9 / 10	1 session ended before reaching Level 3. Backtracking observed in 4 of 9 sessions. 3 players did not advance to the Boss Zone entry.
Boss Zone	4m 48s	6 / 9	6 of 9 players who reached Level 3 entered the Boss Zone. Audio spike noted on entry. All 6 completed the encounter within the session.

Common friction points

First item pickup: inventory UI hesitation (avg. 47 seconds)

Enchantment mechanic not signalled clearly in tutorial

Uncertainty whether attacks were landing during combat

Unclear objective direction at Level 3 entry point

Boss encounter audio mix cited as jarring or disruptive

Average engagement across the session (composite of verbal cues, pace, and observer notes)

Critical friction Medium friction Engagement peak

Per-session observations

ID	Duration	Key observation	Reached
T01	45 min	Missed enchantment in tutorial; adapted independently mid-Level 1 after 3 failed encounters. Voiced frustration once, then recovered.	Boss Zone
T02	45 min	94s inventory hesitation on first pickup. Strongest atmospheric praise. Described the dungeon art unprompted as "genuinely eerie."	Boss Zone
T03	43 min	Noticed enchantment station but did not interact. Objective confusion resurfaced at Level 3 entry; paused for 67 seconds.	Level 3
T04	45 min	Only tester to discover enchantment during the tutorial. Highest engagement arc in the cohort; no significant friction moments recorded.	Boss Zone
T05	45 min	Most vocal tester; provided detailed real-time feedback. Session yielded the most actionable verbal data on tutorial and enchantment confusion.	Boss Zone
T06	41 min	First session to reach Level 3. Backtracked twice before locating boss entrance; did not enter Boss Zone within the session window.	Level 3
T07	45 min	Combat hit confusion most visible in this session. Adapted by Level 2 midpoint; completed boss encounter. Named combat pacing as a highlight.	Boss Zone
T08	39 min	Longest time in tutorial zone (8m 22s). First tester to reach a visible disengagement state at Level 3. Session ended before boss entrance.	Level 3
T09	45 min	Smoothest overall run after inventory click resolved. Identified by the observer as the most natural-feeling progression arc in the cohort.	Boss Zone
T10	45 min	Replacement tester; less genre experience than the brief specified. Engaged but moved more cautiously. Level 3 reached; did not complete Boss Zone.	Level 3

T10 row highlighted: replacement tester, slightly outside the original genre-match brief. Results weighted accordingly in aggregate scores.

04Survey Results

Post-session survey: 10 responses

Each tester completed a structured post-session survey immediately after their play session. Questions were scored on a 0–10 scale unless otherwise noted.

How clearly were the game's objectives communicated?3.8 / 10

2233445567lowest rated

How fair was the difficulty throughout your session?6.8 / 10

5566777889

How would you rate the overall fun of the experience?7.2 / 10

56777888910highest rated

How intuitive was the user interface?5.1 / 10

3344556678

How well did the game communicate what actions were available to you?4.4 / 10

2334455666

How would you rate the visual feedback during combat?5.5 / 10

3455566777

Would you continue playing this game after your session?

Yes: 6 players

Maybe: 3 players

No: 1 player

Open response: top themes

From: "What would you most want changed or improved?"

7×

Tutorial clarity / enchantment mechanic introduction

6×

Combat feedback / hit registration clarity

5×

Inventory UI / item pickup and equip flow

4×

Level 3 pacing and content density

3×

Boss encounter audio mix

Player voices: selected verbatim responses

What worked

"The combat just feels right. I don't know how else to describe it, it's snappy."

T07 · Action RPG specialist

"I kept expecting the atmosphere to get old but it didn't. Every room felt like it had something to discover."

T02 · Roguelite specialist

"The boss fight was genuinely exciting. I wasn't expecting that from a demo."

T09 · Strategy / RPG crossover player

What needs attention

"I didn't realise you could enchant anything until the second dungeon. I thought I was just bad at the game."

T05 · Roguelite specialist

"Is this hitting? I can't tell if I'm doing damage. The enemy just kind of... stands there until it doesn't."

T07 · During Level 2 combat encounter

"I feel like I went the wrong way. There's nothing here. Did I miss something back there?"

T06 · At Level 3 entry, 32:15

05Gameplay Clips

12 curated clips from 450 minutes of gameplay

24 clips were reviewed across all 10 sessions. The 12 below were selected because they directly illustrate a priority finding or a notable positive moment with observable, specific behaviour. Timestamps reference total session time. Full recordings are in your secure delivery folder.