I always assume that when people is asking for feedback, they are looking for the truth, and not just nice words ;)

Other than that, once you have a playable exe file or something that will run on my windows machine, I will play your game and give some feedback. 

On the "waiting for the next build" .. my advice here is to not wait.. it will never be done (and that is ok, no game is ever truly done :) ) 

Use the page to see if there is interest, that is the first step. 

I think there is some things that makes it so that few people have a hard time playing your game.

The first thing that you need to fix I think is that this does not have an exe file, so most people who do download it, will not be able to play it, unless they install Java Virtual machine.

Your page on itch is not really clear about what the game is about, and the video is not informative at all, and have nothing to do with the game. 

I think that if you changed these two things then I believe that more people will play your game.

Thanks for testing the game, can you maybe help me by explaning what exactly is difficult?

In other words - how are you expecting things to work? And how are they actually working?

How long did you play before you gave up?

Did you record a video of you playing as required for the "a test for a test"? ;)

About Localization - we will have all the languages in the final game!

Testing your game now

Hey inalhasoft, 

If you are fresh on a video playtest exchange I will test your game if you test mine :) 

If you can record yourself testing playing my game for 10 minutes (super grateful if you can think out loud while testing) 

I will return the favour like I have done here

You can find my game here:

https://itch.io/t/6447486/rabbit-rocket-racing-prototype-testing-windowslinux

Let me know if you are interested :)

Hey Tiny Thought, 

If you are fresh on a video playtest exchange I will test your game if you test mine :) 

If you can record yourself testing playing my game for 10 minutes (super grateful if you can think out loud while testing) 

I will return the favour like I have done here

You can find my game here:

https://itch.io/t/6447486/rabbit-rocket-racing-prototype-testing-windowslinux

Let me know if you are interested :)

Hey, 

If you are fresh on a video playtest exchange I will test your game if you test mine :) 

If you can record yourself testing playing my game for 10 minutes (super grateful if you can think out loud while testing) 

I will return the favour like I have done here

You can find my game here:

https://itch.io/t/6447486/rabbit-rocket-racing-prototype-testing-windowslinux

Let me know if you are interested :)

This is the 3rd round of testing Rabbit Rocket Racing

If you test my game with video for 10 minutes, I will test your game if you have anything to test.
I can only test Windows games
You can see my past testings here

https://polyspice.itch.io/rabbit-rocket-racing

This is still a prototype, so we are  investigating gameplay and what is fun. We are not investigating visuals. 

It is a racing game, so what we are seeking feedback on is:

• What is hard to figure out?
• Is the game to easy, or to hard?
• What was the most exiting thing playing the game?
• What was the thing you would change if you could?

We are also working on the artwork, so here is a small teaser on a style we are experimenting with :)

Really fun idea, its a long time since I played a memory game, and this one is thinking on it in a new way :) Thanks for sharing your game. 

This was perfect, thank you so much for this feedback :) Its valuable 

Sorry for the delay, had some technical problems I needed to solve last night. 

Here is the playtest and below I have an AI agent analyse and identify the gameplay through the lenses of Usability, Agency and Pacing :) 

Please post your feedback to my game in this thread - https://itch.io/t/6349918/show-me-yours-and-i-will-show-you-mine-rabbit-rocket-r...

Thank you for wanting to test my prototype :) 

Geogon playtest analysis

This is an analysis of one user's first-time session with Geogon, roughly 10 minutes long, played on desktop. The headline pattern is a sustained struggle to build a working model of the scoring and life-gain rules, set against a quick grasp of the core lock-shape-with-space mechanic. Visuals and music drew direct positive statements. The session ended just short of the 500-point threshold needed to unlock level 1-2.

What seemed to work

• The user understood the basic action loop early. After the "press space to lock shape in place" prompt at 0:30, they began placing shapes without hesitation and never lost track of how to commit a placement.
• Direct positive statement on audio: "The music is really nice" (9:00).
• Direct positive statement on visuals: "The visuals is actually really, really nice. I like that simple vector type graphics" (9:06).
• Direct positive statement on overall potential: "I really enjoyed it and I see a lot of potential here" (10:02), with an unprompted suggestion that it "could even be a mobile game."
• By around 6:30 the user had derived part of the rule set on their own ("if I put a square on top of a circle" leading to death) and was actively testing hypotheses against the game's behavior, which suggests the core systems are legible enough to be reverse-engineered through play, even when not communicated explicitly.

Where the user got stuck

• Life-gain rule. Between roughly 2:00 and 3:30 the user repeatedly asked aloud "why am I losing life" while shapes were on screen. The rule that hitting the yellow line grants life had been shown in the tutorial but did not register, and there was no in-game feedback that helped them recover the rule during play. The friction here is interface, not challenge: the user could not see cause and effect at the moment a life was gained or lost.
• Scoring rule. At 3:33 the user articulated their partial model: "I have to do that and then outside there I get 20, but I lose one point." At 10:00 they were still uncertain: "I had the notion that using the yellow one would give me life and using the red one would give me points, but still a little bit unsure on that." The user did not converge on a stable scoring model across the full session.
• Overlap rule. Around 6:27 the user said "shapes overlapped okay, so I can't make..." and at 6:39 tested it directly: "so if I do this, I die." This is the only rule the user appeared to lock in by experimentation. From the time spent reaching that point (over six minutes), the inference is that the cost of learning it through trial is high.
• Speed control. At 1:13 the user said "I don't know to speed or slow down." At 5:17 they rediscovered it: "I could use the arrows to slow things down." This control was shown in the tutorial, so the friction is memorability: the information was presented once and did not survive contact with active play.
• No way back to the tutorial. At 8:17 the user said "I can't now go back to tutorial and see that one more time." Confirmed by the developer that tutorial replay is not currently available. This compounded every other rule-learning problem in the session, since the user had no path to re-read the rules they had missed.
• Progression gate visibility. The user did not notice the 500-point unlock requirement until 9:32 ("Ah, okay, so I have to reach a score"). From the behavior, the inference is that the score-to-unlock relationship was not visible while they were playing, only on the level-select screen after the run.

Suggestions

• Add in-game feedback for life changes: a flash, a sound, or a brief text cue tied to the moment a life is gained or lost, with the triggering element (yellow line, overlap) highlighted. The user's repeated "why am I losing life" suggests cause-and-effect is the gap, not the rule itself.
• Add a persistent tutorial replay option from the main menu or pause menu. The user explicitly asked for one mid-session.
• Consider a brief, always-visible legend or HUD hint for the first few runs, summarizing the three core rules (lock with space, hit yellow for life, no overlaps). The user retained the space-bar rule but not the others, which suggests the tutorial alone is doing too much work.
• Surface the unlock threshold during play, not only on the level-select screen. A "next unlock: 500" line near the score would let the user calibrate their effort. They came close to 500 without knowing the target existed.
• Consider staging the rules across the first few placements rather than front-loading them all in one tutorial pass. The overlap rule was the only one the user discovered through play; the life rule and scoring rule were not.

Overall

The session shows a strong core mechanic and a strong audiovisual identity sitting underneath a learnability problem. The user reached a workable understanding of the game by minute six or seven, but most of that time was spent guessing rather than playing. The highest-impact change is in-game feedback at the moment a life is gained or lost, since that single gap drove most of the confusion in the transcript. A tutorial replay option is the cheapest second win.

Super glad you liked it :) 

How was the aI generated analysis? I am trying to refine the AI skill to analyze me playing, I find that it often find things that I missed while playing. Was it useful ?

Nice, I did not know you already played it :) If you could leve a few words in the new thread, that would be great. If you tested it a while back, a new update is out, whit a lot more balance and refinement (boost and repair and other things) 

About the credits, haha.. thank you so much ;) That is a real honor. I was a bit scared that the critique was to rough, but I strive to be honest and straight, because that is the most useful. 

Thank you again for sharing your game with me :)

Great, thank you :) 

I will start running the test on your game now :)

Hi Error-404

I am running a "Test for a test" on my game, would you be interested in playing my game and give feedback, if I play yours?

My game is here: Rabbit Rocket Racing - Nonvisual gameplay prototype

And you can see an example of the type of feedback I give in HopFall

Let me know if you are interested.

Hi dslevi

I am running a "Test for a test" on my game, would you be interested in playing my game and give feedback, if I play yours?

My game is here: Rabbit Rocket Racing - Nonvisual gameplay prototype

And you can see an example of the type of feedback I give in HopFall

Let me know if you are interested.

Hey Classical Frog. 

I have played your game, and you can see the recording of my playthrough here. 

I have created an AI agent that analyze transcripts and screenshots of me playing the game, so that will be put below the videos. 

Unfortunately, I had disabled mouse cursor when playing the game, I am sorry about that :(

You can find my game here: Rabbit Rocket Racing - Nonvisual gameplay prototype ;)

Analysis pass — mapping transcript moments to lenses

Strong moments / DELIGHT:

• 0:30 "So far it's like I'm understanding everything. There isn't really anything that I is unclear" — onboarding works
• 1:11 "the clicking thing was unclear, but quite a fun idea" — delight at taming despite friction
• 8:04 "I like this minigame actually of taming" — repeated delight at taming
• 11:00 "Normally I don't play these kind of games but this is actually really enjoyable"
• 11:11 "it has the right amount of challenge"
• 12:07 "it's super easy to learn this game"
• 12:39 "There is some sort of repetition but it's not tedious"
• 13:17 "The pacing of the game is really good. I haven't seen any errors"

STRUGGLE moments:

• 1:11 "What does this mean? Do I have to do something?" — claim screen unclear
• 2:02 "Why can't I? Can I do like this... Why can't I charge this?" — confusion about item use
• 2:23 "So why can't I click this one now?" — node availability unclear
• 2:50 "when I pick a path, I can't go back and do the things anymore. I would actually have liked to be able to do that" — AUTONOMY loss
• 3:50 "What does this mean?" → "why does it say 15?" — unclear stat/number
• 5:11 "How do I get back to my camp?" — navigation unclear
• 6:48 "Crit chance and armor... not so cool fight. I'm probably gonna die" → 7:18 "I wanted to go back to the pond a little bit earlier" — AUTONOMY (can't retreat when wanted)
• 7:36 "What does this do? Defeat six frogs progress" — unclear progression
• 8:04 "I don't know how to unlock this" → at this point game forces continuation
• 10:03 "what do these mean?" "What was this? This was healing again, right? How do I heal?"
• 12:39 "I still haven't understood what the arrow up and down means"
• 13:00 "Some sort of autonomy over which enemies I attack first would be nice. I don't know if there is that" — explicit AUTONOMY request
• 15:00 "So there's no way for me to understand where to put my stuff" — positioning unclear
• 15:48 "how do I decide which one to go?" "I can't decide which of these attacks who. Well I wanted all of them to attack this one first" — repeating the targeting issue
• 17:27 "Can I change? No, I can't" — preparation locked once battle begins
• 20:34 "I don't see why the fight needs to be there, Because it kind of... I can't do anything or prepare anything, and I would love to be able to do that before"
• 21:35 "It would have been nice that I could just take that, but I guess should have thought of that before"

Suggestions player explicitly raised:

• Fast forward / auto-calculate for trivial fights (12:39)
• Target selection (13:00, 15:48)
• Ability to return to pond/retreat (7:18)
• Preparation step before elite battles (20:34)
• Understanding of arrows/up/down indicators (12:39, 13:41)

Game name: HopFall (confirmed by image text). Speech-to-text mangles it as "Hub fall" — clean up to "HopFall" in quotes.

Now I'll write the forum reply. Roughly one page, em-dash-free, addressed to the developer, leading with positives, anchored to specific timestamps.

HopFall playtest, my notes

Hey! I played HopFall (playtest 0.1.1) for about 23 minutes as a first-time player. Going in I'll say I don't usually play this kind of game, but I had a really good time and came away thinking you've got something with real potential. Most of my notes below are about little places where I got confused, not about the core, which I think is solid.

What I liked about the game

• The onboarding is genuinely smooth. Around 30 seconds in I caught myself saying "I'm understanding everything, there isn't really anything that's unclear." That's rare. I figured out the basic loop without having to think about it.
• The taming minigame is the best part. I called it "quite a fun idea" the first time at 1:11, and by 8:04 I was actively looking forward to it. It feels different enough from regular combat to be a real hook.
• The difficulty curve felt right. Around 11:00 I said "this is actually really enjoyable, it has the right amount of challenge." The game is welcoming without being trivial.
• The pacing is good. At 12:39 I noted "there is some sort of repetition but it's not tedious," which is the test a roguelike has to pass and you're passing it.
• It's easy to come back to. I said at 13:00 that if I came back to this tomorrow I'd understand it pretty fast. That stickiness is hard to build, and you have it.

Where I got stuck

• Targeting in combat. This was my biggest one and I kept coming back to it. From 13:00 ("some sort of autonomy over which enemies I attack first would be nice") to 15:48 ("I can't decide which of these attacks who, I wanted all of them to attack this one first") I kept wanting to direct my frogs. This is a learning problem, not a difficulty one. I think the system exists or could exist, but I couldn't find it.
• No way to retreat to the pond. Around 7:18 I realized I was about to die and said "I wanted to go back to the pond a little bit earlier." Once I was committed to a path, I felt I'd lost the option to bail out and regroup. This felt like the game taking the steering wheel away from me.
• Elite battles start with no prep window. At 20:34 I said "I don't see why the fight needs to be there, I can't do anything or prepare anything, and I would love to be able to do that before." For a regular fight that's fine, but elites felt like they punished me for not having read the future.
• Several small icons and numbers I never decoded. "I still haven't understood what the arrow up and down means" (12:39), "what does this mean? why does it say 15?" (3:50), "what do these mean?" (10:03). None of these blocked me, but they accumulated. Learning problem, not a depth problem.
• The claim screen confused me the first time. At 1:11 I asked "what does this mean? Do I have to do something?" I worked it out, but a tiny prompt on the button would have saved me the pause.

What I would improve on the game

• Add a "target this enemy" tap so I can direct attacks. Even a soft priority (the next frog to act will go for the targeted enemy) would solve most of my 13:00 to 15:48 complaints.
• Let me retreat to the pond from the map. Maybe at a cost (lose some progress, lose loot, whatever fits your design), but give me the choice. The fix here is autonomy more than rules.
• Insert a quick "prepare for battle" beat before elite fights. A short loadout/positioning screen would make those moments feel like a strategic decision instead of a surprise tax.
• Tooltips on the up/down arrows and the small stat icons. Hover or tap-and-hold would do it. Right now I'm guessing at meaning, and I'd rather learn than guess.
• A fast-forward or auto-resolve for trivial fights. I floated this at 12:39 and immediately worried it would take the fun away, so I'd put it behind a toggle rather than as a default. Just an option for when I've already won the fight in my head.

Overall

Good game. The fundamentals (loop, art, pacing, taming) are working, and the things that tripped me up are mostly about giving the player a bit more agency: target choice, retreat, prep before big fights. If I had to pick one thing for you to focus on next, it would be targeting in combat, because it came up the most and it's the biggest gap between "I'm watching this happen" and "I'm playing this." Nail that and I think a lot of my other complaints quietly go away.

Thanks for letting me test it, I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.

Hi, I played your game :) Thank you so much for sharing. 

You can test my game here  - Rabbit Rocket Racing Forum Post

Here is the video playthrough, and below that I created an agent that analyze playtests based on basic usability, Autonomy and Pacing

Hope this helps you :)

Anatopia playtest, my notes

I spent about 20 minutes with Anatopia doing a think-aloud session. By the end I still didn't understand how to play the game. Every time I thought I'd figured something out, I was still in doubt, because nothing was telling me whether I was right or wrong.

What I liked about the game

• The game looks great. The scenes are readable and the art has a lot of personality.
• The puzzle prompts themselves are written clearly. "What should I put under my head for support?" is the kind of question I can read and understand instantly.
• The detective framing (cases, evidence, companions, Detective Frog) is a fun wrapper for the core idea.

Where I got stuck

• The opening dump. The first screen had Trust Score, mission hub, dojo, case board, training mode, and an automatic walkthrough all happening at once. Around 2:43 I said out loud that I was already giving up. The game wasn't letting me discover anything on my own.
• OVR, STM, BND. Around 4:50 I was staring at the companion screen with no idea what those abbreviations meant or why one number was red. I picked Detective Frog because of the name.
• No clear right/wrong feedback. After every round I got numbers like "Precision Recall 580," "Accuracy 90," and references to a "performance core," but I couldn't tell if I'd done well. At one point I asked out loud "why is it not giving me the bombs?" because I genuinely could not read the feedback.
• Money and diamonds with no purpose. I got $10,000 and 12 diamonds early on and never figured out what they were for. There's also a PvP option I noticed but never understood.
• The little companion icon on the right (I called it "the Nintendo looking thing") never explained itself. I could see it reacting but I couldn't decode what it was telling me.
• The window size broke during account creation. After the password save prompt around 1:26, the top of the screen disappeared and I had to resize manually to recover.
• Even on puzzles I thought I'd solved, I had no confirmation. I'd pick an answer, see a number, and move on without knowing if I was learning the game or just guessing.

What I would improve on the game

• Strip the first 5 minutes down to almost nothing. Show me the scene, show me the question, let me click. Hold back the hub, the stats, the currencies, the PvP, and the companions until I've actually played a few rounds.
• After each answer, tell me clearly whether it was right or wrong before showing any stats. Precision and recall numbers are fine for later, but I need a basic correct/incorrect signal first.
• Spell out the abbreviations the first time they appear, or just use full words. OVR and STM are fine once you know, but they're a wall on first contact.
• Defer the economy. Don't show me money and diamonds until there's somewhere to spend them and a reason to care.
• Give the companion icon one explicit moment in the early game to say what it does. A single line of text the first time it reacts would be enough.
• Fix the window resize issue during account setup so the top UI doesn't disappear.

Overall

The biggest issue is that I finished the session without knowing how to play. The puzzles look approachable and the art is appealing, but with no clear feedback on whether my answers are right and a hub full of systems I can't decode, I never reached a point of confidence. If I had to pick one change to focus on, it would be a clear correct/incorrect signal after every answer. Everything else builds from there.

Thanks for letting me playtest it.

Hi all, 

Yet another round of prototype testing of my Racing game.
I am not looking for feedback on the visuals, as they will be very different. 

Game can be found here

 I am looking for the following type feedback.

1. Just play the game, I will get analytics that tells me something about how the game plays.  
2. Levels are different in terms of rocket drifting, which level do you like the best?
3. What is most fun, Ghosts or AI (With ghosts, you have to play at least one round first)
4. General ideas and feedback

I will test your game

I will test your game with "Speak out loud" testing in a video og around 10 minutes  + a summary

Let me know in the comments, if there is anything specific you are looking for feedback on! 

Thank you :)

Right now, we do not have Web platform available. If it is a "working out of the box" to do a web version, we will do it during the coming week. But since this is a prototype only, we will not spend a lot of time on things like this :) 
Thank you for taking the time to write here :) 

Perfect, thank you.
I have used your feedback (but forgot to respond... been a bit too busy I guess)
- The AI racers have been updated, and are now a bit better, so they should work a bit better now
- I have updated the ships, and I believe you should be able to tell the difference. If you still have problems, you should try to play against your own ghosts, and you should be able to see the difference.
- Thank you so much, I think that we are closing in on using that scheme 

The reason why it is zoomed out, is that this should be played with controllers in couch mode.. so its designed for sitting together and playing against each other. We have considered also making a follow around camera, but that would be in the final game, it is important that it works well without it :) 
Thank you again for testing the game, it is super appresiated. Let me know if you have a major update on your game, and I will test it again. 

Damn, I dont know how I could have missed responding to this. I took the feedback, but forgot to reply.  thank you

The UI now have bars that show the different stats. 

I will release a new version in a few hours. This version also have ghost and bot racing, there will be boosts and stuff. 
I am going to create a new testpost for that :)Thank you so much for your feedback again

Hey everyone,

New build of Rabbit Rocket Racing is up. This one's a prototype update (v0.3.0) and there are three big things in it that I'd love to get your eyes on.

Ghost rockets. You can now race against your own ghosts. The game records your single-player runs, stores up to 5 per level, and replays your personal best as a non-colliding ghost on your next attempt. It's the first time the game actually pushes back against you when you're playing alone, and it changes the feel of a session a lot.

AI bots. Single-player now also has a bot racing mode, three AI opponents that follow the level's path and actually give you something to chase. They've got tunable pathing per checkpoint so they don't all run the perfect line. I've spent a lot of time tuning their feel, but bot difficulty is genuinely hard to get right solo, so this is one of the main things I want feedback on.

What we really like feedback on:

• Game feel - how the rockets handle, the weight of the controls, how a run *feels* moment to moment. This is still the core thing we're chasing.
• Level sizes - every level is a different size. Which sizes felt best to race on? Which felt too cramped or too sprawling?
• Bot difficulty - per level. Too easy? Too brutal? Inconsistent between levels?

Not looking for art / visual style feedback yet, that's still in flux. But if you've got strong thoughts there anyway, we won't stop you.

Thanks for taking the time

— Lance and Thorbjørn

(I will be on a business trip for this week, so I will get back next weekend if anyone tests and I will test back)

I have now uploaded a Linux build :) 

Slime Pop playtest, my notes

I'm a tester, played about 13 minutes through a few chapters in your build. Quick headline: the core merge-two-and-combine idea is genuinely fun and feels different from match-three in a good way. The slimes are charming, the falling animation is satisfying, and once I clicked into a rhythm in chapter one I wanted to keep going. Most of my friction was about reading the board and understanding goals, not about the actual puzzle.

What I liked

• The merge-two-then-combine concept is a smart twist on match-three. By the end of chapter one I was thinking "what can I set up next" instead of just hunting for triples, which is the right kind of thinking for a puzzle game.
• The slimes themselves are adorable. The chapter-one cauldron-and-potions menu screen made me smile before I even hit Play.
• Physics on the falls feel right. Around 5:30, watching pieces cascade down through gaps when something cleared was the most satisfying moment of the session.
• The move counter is a nice touch and I felt the pressure it created in the back half of chapter two.
• Chapter one is well-paced as a first impression. I hit the target score on the first try without really understanding the system, which is exactly what a chapter one should do.

Where I got stuck

• The first 40 seconds on the chapter-one screen were rough. I saw the trophy/slime image change when I tapped the < and > arrows and thought it was telling me something about the game, not realizing I was paging chapters. Then when I went back, it had changed again ("Oh, why did it change?"). That's a learning-the-interface problem, not a learning-the-game problem.
• Color progression is opaque. Around 6:00 I said "the color change doesn't really mean anything other than it's just a different color." Red+red gave me orange, and I genuinely could not predict what blue+blue or green+green would yield. Without a hierarchy I can read at a glance, I'm guessing instead of planning. Learning problem.
• Boulders blindsided me. In chapter two the goal popped up as "Goal: 2 boulders" but the game never told me how to break them. I spent most of the level matching slimes hoping something would chip them, then realized late I needed a rainbow piece adjacent. By 8:18 I said "I really don't get how do I kill these boulders," and at 9:15 I worked out "I have to make a red one right next to this one, somehow." That's a feedback-and-onboarding problem.
• Direction of drag felt inverted. Around 11:00 I noticed that when I drag piece A onto piece B, B animates as the active one instead of A. It's small but it kept making me feel like the game was overriding my intent.
• The difficulty curve from chapter one to chapter two is steep. Chapter one is gentle, chapter two introduces boulders, the rainbow piece, and a tighter move limit all at once with no in-game explanation. I went from "I get this" to "what am I doing" in one transition.

Suggestions

• Consider hiding or graying out the < and > arrows on the chapter screen when there's nothing on the other side, and maybe label the screen "Chapter Select" so the navigation reads as navigation. The mantra I kept coming back to: the game should be hard, not figuring out how to play it.
• Give the slime tiers a visual progression, not just a color shift. As I floated mid-session: a small dot, then bigger, then eyes, then a smiley. Anything that lets me see "this one is higher tier than that one" without having to remember the color rules would unlock my ability to plan ahead.
• For the boulder objective, a quick first-time hint on what breaks them would go a long way. Even one line saying "rainbow slimes can shatter boulders" the first time a boulder appears, and a small visual cue on the boulder itself (cracks getting deeper, a count of hits left), would close the feedback gap.
• Flip the merge animation so the dragged piece is the actor and the target is the receiver. It will feel like the game is doing what I told it to do.
• Stagger the chapter-two introductions: introduce boulders in one level with extra moves, then introduce the rainbow piece in the next, then tighten the move budget. Right now they all land at once.

Overall

There's a real game here and I think you could ship this game. The merge-two concept is the hook, and the slimes give it personality. If I could only pick one thing to fix, it's making the slime hierarchy visible at a glance, because almost every other "I don't know what's happening" moment in my session traced back to me not being able to read the board. Get that right and the rest of the polish (boulder onboarding, drag direction, chapter-two ramp) becomes much easier to tune.

I gave you some feedback on your game here : https://itch.io/t/6273292/if-you-test-mine-i-will-test-yours-rabbit-rocket-racin...
Hope its usefull

Hi Lordricker

I was unable to find your get feedback thread, so I will just give it to you here :) 

Thank you for sharing your game with me, it was a pleassure.

Cadence Blade playtest, my notes

Hey, thanks for letting me try this. I played for about 10 minutes, died three times (best run was 2:10), and ended up genuinely engaged once I figured out what was going on. The core idea of defending the castle from a hero you control directly hooked me really fast. The friction I ran into was almost all in the first couple of minutes, before I understood the controls and the flow bar. Once I did, the game felt good and I wanted to keep going.

What I liked

• The premise lands instantly. You spawn inside the castle, you can see the healer and the blacksmith right there, and the moment you step out and there's an enemy you're already invested. I liked it from the first screen.
• Having a hub inside the castle where you can heal or upgrade, and then go back out to fight, is a really nice loop. It's a smart spine for the whole game and I think you can hang a lot off it.
• Once I worked out the rhythm, hitting the green part of the flow bar felt satisfying. That's the moment where it clicked for me ("oh, so the purple one is bad, now it makes more sense").
• Two playable characters at the menu (the green-hat archer and the red knight) is a cool touch this early. I tried both, they feel different.
• Visually it's charming. The pixel art castle, the enemies marching up the path, the little shop interior, all of it has a clear style.

Where I got stuck

• The very first screen (Play menu) confused me. There's a "Private" toggle and a Session ID and I had no idea what either meant or whether I needed to do anything with them before pressing Play. This is a learning problem, not a difficulty one. I just clicked Play and hoped.
• I started the game without reading the Help screen, and immediately got punished for it. WSAD plus J/K/L plus Shift plus the flow bar plus a shop is a lot to discover by guessing. About a minute in I literally said "I regret now that I did not read the instructions." The Help screen exists and is actually really clear, the problem is I didn't know I needed it before I needed it.
• The flow bar was the biggest thing I bounced off. For a while I was attacking, seeing red, getting hit, and not understanding what I was doing wrong. I thought the purple state was something I was supposed to hit, not avoid. The realization that I had to time my second press for the green portion came pretty late, and the gap between "attacking randomly" and "understanding the rhythm" felt punishing.
• The difficulty in the first 30 seconds felt steep. Enemies arrive fast, I die fast, and I'm still figuring out what buttons do. This is mostly the same learning problem as above, but the early enemy pressure makes it harder to experiment.
• Inside the shop I wasn't sure how to actually buy anything until I'd died a couple of times. The Help screen explains it (J for left, K for right) but in the moment I was standing next to the blacksmith going "okay how do I buy that."
• Quitting / restarting flow felt awkward. I tried to quit early and couldn't tell how, ended up just letting the castle die so I could get back to the menu.

Suggestions

• Surface the controls in-game at least once on the first run, even just a small overlay on the first screen ("WSAD to move, J/K/L to attack, watch the flow bar"). Right now the Help button is the only path and players like me will skip it.
• Consider showing what the Private toggle and Session ID do, or hide them on the first launch. As a brand new player I just wanted to start the game, and being asked to make a decision I don't understand made me anxious before I'd even pressed Play.
• The flow bar is a great mechanic but it needs a moment of dedicated teaching. A tiny first-encounter prompt on the first attack ("press again on green for full damage") would have collapsed maybe 90 seconds of confusion for me.
• I'd lower the early enemy pressure a little, or at least the frequency, just for the first 30 to 45 seconds. Right now you're learning and being punished at the same time. Easier start, ramping difficulty, lower frequency early on. Keep the game hard, just give people room to learn the flow bar before throwing waves at them.
• For the punish on a missed flow press, I'd tune it down or rework it. As I said in the moment, "it feels like a lack of control, because I clicked twice and it fired." I'd rather get reduced damage on a bad timing than feel like I'm being punished for trying. Reward the green hit with bonus damage instead of punishing the miss with a penalty if you can.
• Add a clear Quit / Back-to-menu option from inside a run. I couldn't find one and dying was my only exit.

Overall

I had a good time. The concept is genuinely fun, the loop of fight/heal/upgrade/fight is a great foundation, and the rhythm-based attacks are a smart layer on top of a tower defense, once you understand them. The single highest-value change I'd point at is the first 60 seconds: that's where you're losing players who would otherwise enjoy this. Get the controls and the flow bar across before the first wave hits, and the difficulty I described stops being learning friction and just becomes the game being satisfyingly hard. As I said at the end of my session, the game should be difficult, not how to play the game. You're really close.

Thanks for sharing it, looking forward to seeing where this goes.

Hey AhhGamesI played the game, and really enjoyed it, thank you for sharing, 
I have recorded the playthrough where i speak out loud, and that should give you a few pointers on where I struggled with the game, and where I enjoyed the game. 

I am using AI to capture the feedback in text form (there is still some work to do on shaping this skill :) )

Here is the AI summary

Japitown playtest, my notes

Hi Alan, thanks for putting this out and for inviting feedback. I went in cold (didn't read the page first) and played a single ~13 minute session as a think-aloud test. Quick framing: I'm not the target audience for visual novels (I'm more of a French/Belgian comics reader and I don't usually play story-driven games), so take that into account, but I genuinely enjoyed the session more than I expected. The art and the opening scene with Papa carried it. Most of my friction was onboarding: figuring out what the game is, who these people are, and what I'm supposed to be doing in any given scene.

What I liked

• The line art is the standout. Clean outlines, expressive, very alive. It's the first thing I noticed and the reason I wanted to keep going.
• The Papa goodbye scene genuinely landed. I have kids around that age and the "smile and be happy when all you want is to hear them say I love you" beat is a real feeling. If you can hold that emotional precision through the rest of the writing, you have a real anchor.
• Reading-wise it has the cadence of a graphic novel I'd want to keep going with. The framing of the panels and the dialogue rhythm work for me even as someone outside the usual VN audience.
• The premise (returning home, rebuilding relationships with people whose dynamic has changed) is a strong hook on paper, even where the specifics didn't land for me in-session.

Where I got stuck

• I never understood who the people in the house were. I figured out Papa, and I figured out I'd been away traveling. But once I arrived at Mónica's house I couldn't have told you the names or the relationships. I literally said out loud "I want to reconnect with everyone, but I don't know still who they are." For a relationship-driven game that's the foundational layer and it wasn't there for me. Onboarding/learning issue, not difficulty.
• Nothing tells me what's clickable in a scene. In the very first Papa scene I sat there clicking around trying to find the interaction. The cursor turns into a hand on basically everything, so the cursor isn't signal. I get that the bed and backpack icons later are the navigation/action menu, but in dialogue scenes I couldn't always tell whether I needed to click the character, click somewhere on the panel, or wait.
• The day/time system wasn't legible to me. I hit "too late for activities," the inventory was empty, the chat and relations panels closed when I clicked them, and I genuinely didn't know if I was stuck or just done for the day. I ended up clicking the bed because I'd run out of guesses. I now understand from your page that there are 4 time slots and characters move around the house autonomously, but none of that was visible to me as a player.
• The "skip" button and several UI affordances are unlabeled. I couldn't tell what skip would skip, and several panels (chat, relations, map) gave no real explanation of what they were for. The "map content in development" placeholder is fine for early access, but the live ones could use a one-line description.
• A few smaller bugs / polish notes from the session: the dialogue switched to Spanish at one point ("nada" type lines mid-sentence), at least one character kept smiling through dialogue where the emotional beat read as sad or angry, and the backpack contents seemed to change between a scene and the next in a way I couldn't trace.
• I didn't pick up on the adult/romance framing during the session. I see now from the page that romance and 18+ content is core to what this is. From the playthrough alone, I read it as a relationship-drama story game. Not a complaint, more a flag that the in-game tone in the early scenes doesn't telegraph what kind of game I'm in. That might be intentional pacing and that's fine.

Suggestions

• The tutorial that's already on your 0.1.5 roadmap would have solved most of my problems. I'd push it earlier if you can. Even a one-screen "here's the time system, here's your phone, here are the people you live with" would change the first session a lot.
• Introduce the household by name and relationship on first contact. A single line per character ("Violet, Mónica's daughter, the quieter twin") the first time I see them would have grounded me. Right now I'm meeting people whose role I'm supposed to infer.
• Make the time-of-day state explicit and tell me what to do when nothing is available. A small persistent indicator ("Evening, slot 3 of 4") plus a nudge when all options are exhausted ("nothing more to do tonight, sleep to continue") would have stopped me from clicking around lost.
• For dialogue scenes, consider a subtle highlight on the thing the player needs to click to advance. The hand cursor isn't doing enough work on its own.
• Audit the scenes for expression/dialogue mismatches. The art is strong enough that when a smile holds through a sad line, it really pulls me out. Worth a sweep.
• On the AI disclosure: you've been transparent about it on the page, which I respect. The art holds up, the line work doesn't read as generic to me. Where it shows is mostly in small inconsistencies (a background detail here, a character expression that doesn't track the line there). Those are the things to keep hand-editing.

Overall

Genuine compliment first: there's something here. The art is good, the opening scene is emotionally real, and the premise has room to grow into the relationship system you're describing on the roadmap. For an Early Access 0.1, the foundation is more solid than I expected. The single highest-leverage thing you can do, in my view, is the onboarding layer: make the time system, the household, and the basic interactions legible in the first 5 minutes. The story bits are working. The interface is in their way.

Good luck with the development. Hope the feedback is useful.

Thank you so much, this was really solid feedback :) 
I am coming out with a new version this weekend, where things are a bit clearer. 
Your stuff about the different control schemes is perfect, and just what I was looking for.

I will fix the stuff about the stats, that is important. 

And yes, have been thinking about if we should do the A+D only because it is wonky.. it depends on what direction we are taking the game in though. :) 

I will test your game as soon as I can, it might not be tonight, but tomorrow morning maybe before I go to work :) 

Thank you again

Awesome feedback.
Yea, I wanted to have a few options to choose from, so the AD controls are harder, but also makes the rocket fly faster. Which of the schemes did you enjoy the most though?

Also, do you have a game that I can test?

I will add a linux build in the next iteration, thank you so much for your suggestion.

Thank you so much for this amazing feedback, I am working on a new version. 

Notice that this is a prototype, so we are just seeing how the levels are working.
Can you tell me what controler you were using? (Keyboard vs. Controller) and also, which scheme you were using (engines, Triggers or Joystick) 
Lastly, do you have a game that I can test in return?

Thank you so much for the feedback. This was really helpful :) 

Yes, you are right this is VERY early stage. What we are testing here is how the different controls works, and which of the levels have the best level to rocket size ratio. 

The QWOP is not what we are going for, but it suddently made us discuss a lot of things, and wether this is where we are going to take the game, because you are right, that this is a place we could take the game. 

If you dont mind me asking - what rocket did you play, and what level did you play? And did you use a controller or keyboard?

Thank you again for testing.

And for anyone reading this message, being interested in testing synaut's game, you can find that here: https://itch.io/t/6163142/dark-roguelike-with-dominoes-and-rituals-need-feedback

I have tested your game and really enjoyed it. I have recorded it, while speaking out loud, and I am working on a Skill for Claude to analyze my session transcripts and have attached that below. 

I would be really grateful if you could test the mechanics of my game as well, you can find the game here: https://itch.io/t/6273292/if-you-test-mine-i-will-test-yours-rabbit-rocket-racin...

Here is the video of me playing your game:

Dominot playtest, my notes

I gave Dominot a 12-minute solo run and recorded my thoughts as I played. Once the loop clicked I genuinely wanted to keep solving boards.

What I liked

• The puzzle loop itself is satisfying once you understand it. From around the 8-minute mark I was narrating moves like "this one needs a three and a one," which is the moment a game stops being instructions and starts being play.
• Strong genre fit. I like board games and puzzle games and Dominot scratches the same part of my brain.
• The progression goal (get to 15, advance) reads cleanly once it's visible. By the end of the session I had figured out the loop and was happy to chase the next level.
• The game let me recover from a bad state. Around 5 minutes in I thought I had broken something, restarted, and worked out on the second try that I needed to update all the pieces before resolving. The retry path was forgiving.
• It held my attention well past my usual stop point. That's not nothing for a prototype.

Where I got stuck

• The intro lost me. In the first minute I was narrating things like "I'm not really sure what that is" and "lost, we are doomed," and at 1:09 I said outright "that intro was a little bit confusing." This felt like a learning problem, not a difficulty problem. The game hadn't told me what I was doing yet.
• I couldn't tell when "resolve" was available. Between roughly 3 and 4:30 I asked "why can I not resolve" three times in a row and never got an answer from the UI. Definitely a learning problem.
• Even when resolve fired correctly, I couldn't tell why. Around 6:30 I said "I don't know why they've resolved, all of a sudden it came up." The mechanic was working but I couldn't connect cause to effect, which is a feedback gap.
• There's a blue indicator I never figured out. At 7:49 I asked "what's that blue one, now I don't know what that means," and at the end of the session it was still unresolved.
• I forgot what wax did and couldn't look it up. Around 10:45 I said "I forgot what wax was," and a minute later "I can't remember what it was, something about replacing something." Once a tooltip is gone, I couldn't get it back. Pure learning friction.

Suggestions

• Replace the opening with a guided first move. Teach the basic loop with one piece on the board before introducing flavor or world setup. The intro felt like flavor first, gameplay second, and I needed it the other way around.
• Make the resolve button tell me why it isn't available. A greyed-out button with a tooltip ("update all matching pieces first" or whatever the rule actually is) would have saved me the entire 3 to 5 minute confusion stretch.
• When a resolve triggers, briefly highlight which pieces caused it. That single bit of feedback would have closed the loop on the 6:30 moment where I succeeded but didn't understand why.
• Add a hover or click-to-inspect on every UI element, especially the blue indicator. If it's important enough to be on screen, it's important enough to label.
• Make mechanic descriptions (wax, etc.) re-readable. A glossary, a hover on the affected piece, anything. Forgetting what a piece does halfway through a level shouldn't end the run.
• A sound volume slider would be nice. Pretty minor, but I noticed it.

Overall

I had a good time, which is the most important thing. The core game is genuinely fun once you're in it, the design is working. The whole experience is essentially gated behind one problem though: I couldn't tell when or why "resolve" worked, which is the central verb of the loop. If you fix that one thing first, I think most of my other complaints will quietly go away with it. Excited to see where this goes.

Thanks for letting me test it.

Hi everyone

If you test my game, I will test yours!! Test for a test! 

Edit: Version 0.3.0 is out, and it now includes Ghost racing (race against your own ghosts) and AI bot racing. 

Download the prototype here: https://polyspice.itch.io/rabbit-rocket-racing

This is a pure mechanics test. we are trying to learn is how the game feels.

Specifically, we'd love feedback on:

• The control schemes - we have three (Joystick, Trigger, Engines). Which feels best? Which feels off?
• Level size/design - Level 1 is the biggest and level 4 is the smallest, which one do you like the best?

Rocket Rocket Racing is a controller-first game. It's built around Xbox or PlayStation controllers.
Keyboard support is in there, but it's secondary. If you can, please test with a controller.

Thanks for playing!

----------------------------

Test for a test games - these are the games that were part of the test for a test You should really give them a go!

Dominot

Slime Pop

Japitown

Cadence Blade

@dpolk - there is a comment on the video that you might want to see ;)

So happy that you could use it :) Looking forward to hearing what you have to say about our game ;)

I answered Classical Frog :) 
And, yes, this was intentional designed to be random. We will discuss this in the team ;)

1. Oh my.. whow.. I remember DeathSpank.. I loved this!! For some reason, I had not seen this.. but you are right. You can see our references and thoughts here: https://polyspice.atlassian.net/wiki/external/ZDI4YTM1Y2RlMmNkNDI0NGJjMGU1NzM3MD... This is our reference and inspiration.. moodboards and stuff.

2. Damn, thats annoying - was this in the browser build or the Windows build?
The minigame is an interesting conversation, we had a lot of back and forth on this one. Should it be random or skill based? So, we did a small survey, and the interest was on random - and I do believe that you are right in point 3.. random is a more "phony" approach, where skillbased is more for other platforms like windows. We are moving from phones to Steam, and we made this game with the contraint that it should be playable on the steamdeck. 

3. Thank you for this, I will share it with the team, and we will talk about this. 

This was great feedback, thank you so much! 

Thank you so much!! :)

Hi, we played your game

What I liked:
The unique setting, The consistent artstyle, The retro look and the unapologetic nature of the game

What I would improve:
The Controls, The controls felt like they were working against me most of the time, Add difficulty options and better difficulty scaling, Items names in world or when looking at them, Better guidance to the mission objective if its not to search for something hidden

Hi, we tested your game, and here is the feedback :) 

What I liked: 
The concept, The multiple levels in the demo, The theme and how the menu and everything is coherent 

What I would improve:
Have the two worlds compliment one another, Feedback on what happens or might happen when swapping worlds, Slight time slow effect between swapping worlds to better react, more guidance on where to go, Have completing the level be enough to unlock the next level and collecting the hidden item count towards unlocking special levels or something else

Watch the video for all of the feedback