This sprint was much quicker than the previous sprint, as expected all of the planning and preparation of sprint 1 really accelerated the efficiency of creating, implementing and testing the levels.

However, this sprint more so suffered the exact same issue as sprint 1. The levels weren’t iterated on enough and weren’t as creative as they could have been. But I believe I did well to introduce new mechanics slowly throughout level 2 and 3, and then build up to more difficult uses as the levels progressed.

Summary

What went well:

1. Levels were developed well to allow players to get comfortable with new mechanics
2. I’m getting more comfortable using C# to implement more abstract features
   • (Not just simple things like player movement and damage scripts)
   • Development on the room manager script for increased quality of life
   • Player Manager singleton to retain information about the game state
3. This sprint was particularly quick and allowed us to get back on track towards finishing on time
4. The use of tilesets has proven to make asset implementation much quicker

Critical analysis

1. Levels could have differed a lot more from the initial designs I made
   • Would have resulted in more creative levels
2. Playtesting was too objective
   • I asked players about what worked and not explicitly what would be fun