Week 5

WEEKLY JOURNAL

After the Week 4 showcase, I had questions about the controls and puzzle difficulty. The Week 5 materials added another one: who am I making Canvas of the Past for? I used the audience research slides and Ricky Haggett’s talk to think about what to develop next.

1. Who might play this game?

The slides ask about players’ habits, motivations, other games and things that might stop them playing. ‘People who like puzzles and art’ is probably too broad for my game. I need to be more specific about what they would enjoy doing.

I want the player to be curious about the painting first, then become more interested in the artist as they find memories. This goes back to the GRIS analysis in Week 2. It was one reason I chose to let players repair the world at their own pace instead of escaping a timed collapse.

The difficult part is finding players who enjoy both sides. Someone could like the shadow puzzles and skip the memories. Someone else might care about the story but struggle with the precise alignment. I need to see whether the two parts work together for the people I am aiming for.

2. Games I am comparing it with

I am using GRIS, Viewfinder and Superliminal as comparisons for different parts of the idea.

GRIS: I am interested in how changes to its world support an emotional story. It uses exploration and simple puzzles to carry that journey. In my game, I want repairing the painting to have a similar connection with what the player learns about the artist, although the main puzzle interaction is different.

Viewfinder: Placing pictures into a three-dimensional space changes the world around the player. This made me think about how an image could change the space the player walks through. In Canvas of the Past, the player would reconstruct an image with shadows, then find a memory linked to it.

Superliminal: Its first-person puzzles use forced perspective and optical illusions. This connects with my pillar ‘Perspective reveals hidden paths’. I like the idea of something becoming understandable when the player looks at it differently. In my game, I want the player to change the light or viewpoint to complete a shadow image that matters to the artist’s story.

Each comparison helps me explain a part of my idea. I cannot assume that their audiences would also enjoy my game.

3. What makes my idea different?

The lecture describes gaps in experience, audience and design. At the moment, I can explain the combination I want to try, but I have not shown that there is an audience being overlooked.

The part I want to focus on is repairing an image and finding a memory through it. That is what I meant by ‘Repair uncovers memory’ in Week 3. The change to the room should help the player understand something about the artist, rather than just mark the end of a puzzle.

4. Keeping the scope manageable

Haggett’s discussion of limitations made me reconsider my plan to add pigment puzzles. I had been worried that the shadow mechanic would become repetitive. Before adding another system, I should find out how much I can do with the one I already have.

The prototype has house, candle and bird targets, but changing the shape does not automatically explain how the player learns or how a puzzle gets harder. I would start with one clear adjustment, then introduce another action while keeping some familiar rules. Pigment is still an option if it gives the player something useful to work out. For now, two focused rooms with a memory after each would let me test the main idea.

5. What I want to learn from playtesting

Haggett also talks about showing unfinished work and watching people play. That seems like a useful next step after the showcase. His point about sharing creative responsibility reminded me of how much I got from other people’s questions. I can listen to their ideas and use the pillars to decide what fits my game.

For the next playtest, I would like to watch someone select and move the pieces without repeated instructions from me. I also want to note when they think a shadow is complete and compare that with when the game accepts it.

After a memory appears, I could ask what the player thinks happened and why it matters to the artist. That would tell me more than simply asking whether they liked the puzzle. I need to know whether they understood the connection I was trying to make.

6. Accessibility and next steps

I would like to try remappable controls, clearer prompts and an optional target outline. If I keep pigment puzzles, colour should not be the only way to tell important details apart. I still need to test these options in the prototype.

The two things I want to check next are:

1. Can a new player understand the opening shadow puzzle, and does completing it feel fair?
2. Does the memory make them curious enough to continue?