There are two types of testing/feedback types that I’ve found useful to request:
- Testing from people who write games and know the system (Inform or Twine, or whatever). If you can catch them when they have time to do extensive multiple playthroughs, and if they have insider knowledge they can often make valid suggestions how to make the game better and re-test updates based on their feedback. These relationships are sometimes hard to establish because this level of testing requires a lot of time and investment. Often these are the testing situations where you need to reciprocate testing for your tester or have done a favor for them that they can pay you back for. This is where being well-acquainted with your tester and establishing and maintaining an authoring/testing relationship comes in handy. This often works best if your tester is entering the same Comp as you are and you both are invested in mutual testing.
- Testing from people without a major commitment, essentially asking them to “Play the game once and transcript it (or screenshot errors/give feedback for non-parser).” This is valuable from less-experienced play testers who may not write games or know the system, but can be useful to see how the general public bounces off your game or not. This feedback can be easier to attain, especially if you make it clear that you just want one play through and they aren’t going to be bashing their head against your game for an extended period. Downside is you can burn through one-time testers quickly, and often this means sacrificing a potential official score/vote/review for your game when they’ve tested the game prior to release. But if you’re good at interpreting nonspecific feedback and can make the game better based on that, it is very helpful.