A 👍/👎 in a channel tells you nothing you can act on. This survey turns “how was the playtest?” into a number you can track and a set of reasons you can fix, in the time it takes a player to tap four faces.
Run it right after a playtest, beta weekend, or content drop. Players rate fun, engagement, polish, and how likely they’d recommend it, then tell you in their own words what landed and what didn’t. Subo scores every session so you can see whether this build actually beat the last one.
A number and a story, not just raw answers
Most feedback forms leave you with a pile of answers and no summary. Here the answer to each rating is a number, so a calculated field averages the four into one satisfaction score per response, between 1.0 and 5.0. Compare that score across playtests to see the trend, then drop into the open answers when you need the why behind the move.
Each of the four scales also reports its own average and distribution, which is the part a pile of option counts can never give you: a build that scores 4.4 on fun and 2.6 on polish is a very different problem from one that sits at 3.5 across the board.
The example runs four ratings and two open questions on a studio’s beta weekend. Rename the dimensions and it fits any build you’re testing.
Variants
- Product or beta CSAT: rename the scales to setup, performance, value, and recommend for a SaaS beta check-in.
- Event feedback: repoint it at a tournament, workshop, or community event and ask how it went.
- Classic NPS: swap the recommend rating for an NPS question and branch detractors into a “what went wrong?” follow-up. The NPS template already builds that.
- Words instead of faces: swap a rating for an opinion scale where the wording of each point matters more than the tap target.
- Quick pulse: keep only two ratings and one open question for a 20-second post-session pulse, and divide the formula by two.