Week 5 Group Work Discussions and Chat

—Write By Nam

This week is the playtesting week. We were unable to decide which mechanics to use, so we made a paper prototype for both mechanics and tested them at the same time

The word ordering mechanics:

We printed out some dialogue in a scene so the player can have some context on what was happening, and we cut out each word of the puzzle into different paper pieces for the player to reorder. We also had a timer to calculate how much time, on average, it takes the player to finish a puzzle so we would know what a reasonable time constraint is to put in the actual game.

We also had sticky notes informing whether the player gained or lost friendly points, so players would know if they made a correct answer.=

Shape matching mechanics:

We made a few rectangles of paper, and from them made a few different shapes based on my drawings on the whiteboard.

Maria also printed out one of her characters and made a paper layout of how she imagines the UI would be.

In addition to the shape-matching mechanics, we also had a color-matching mechanic to add a small variation to our puzzles.

Maria and Cindy were in charge of monitoring the playtest, gave them instructions, and deciding if they made a correct answer, while I took note of their feedback and recommendations.

Word ordering mechanics:

Problems:

• There are too many different combinations of words lead to a large number of different answers, sometimes even we are confused whether the player gives the correct answer or not
• The player was confused about what the pictures were meant to represent. A difference in interpretation might lead to a wrong answer, and that leads to more confusion. (Which could be fixed with a clearer, higher-quality image. I think this is just the downside of a paper prototype)
• Overall, they understand the objectives, but we need to do a lot of explaining
• Players sometimes can not say what they want to say and want freer ways to communicate, like just smile or nod. Sometimes they don’t want to engage in the conversation at all.

Recommendations:

• Should add more verbal cues like “Yes” or “No”
• Want the options to just say “No” or not say anything
• At this point, when the player answers correctly, they gain a point, and they lose a point if it is wrong. But sometimes the answer is right, but not in a full sentence, so we should add a system where they gain or lose half a point

Shape matching mechanics:

Problems:

• Too easy. The objectives are pretty clear with little to no confusion. Need a faster challenge curve
• The shapes are not distinguishable enough; sometimes, there are two pieces with similar shapes, and they can get confused by that.
• The NPC is talking in 2 shapes, while the player has to put in 3 shapes, which might confuse them because they know they have to match the shape, but they don’t know if they have to match the number of shapes as well.

Recommendations:

• Need a faster challenge curve.
• When matching colors, instead of having the colors as pieces as usual, we could use the color of the NPCs themselves, because they also have colors
• More variation, prototype deeper into the game
• Game recommendation: Souls of Sojourner, Chants of Sennarr.

Group discussion:

We all thought that both mechanics were not as good as we expected them to be, and we were still in conflict on which mechanics to use. Maria and Cindy were leaning more towards the word ordering mechanics, and I towards mine. Mine was too easy, needed better pacing and a lot of sound and animation to really shine. Meanwhile, Maria and Cindy were trying to simulate a conversation, which is very abstract and may cause misunderstanding and confusion. The good thing is we understand our differences, and we all agree if we did not come up with any better ideas, we would go with the word ordering one and try to make it less confusing, and then add more variation to it to make it less repetitive.