Antlion
Their original idea seemed difficult to finish by the end of the term. They said they were narrowing their scope, and I think that was a good idea. Instead of doing a real-time strategy, they decided to step back to a turn-based strategy. This would greatly simplify the amount of scenarios they would have to take into consideration with respect to game play, game design, and programming.
They had a good choice in test subjects. Although there were a variety of different people, they made sure that every one would be able to properly critique the prototype and give constructive feedback.
One part of the presentation I disliked was that although they went into good detail about the testing of the prototype and the materials the prototype was composed of, they did not actually explain what the prototype WAS. Having not explained what it was, they were unable to show that their prototype actually tested the mechanics of the digital game they were planning to make.
After testing, they took their feedback into consideration and looked into whether the player should be able to choose to play an ant or an antlion. I think used their feedback well in this case.
Overall, it was a fairly strong presentation.
13/15.
They did not explain the mechanics very well in the presentation, and I got a bit lost. They also failed to specify what genre the game is.
Although I didn’t understand a big portion of the presentation, they did seem to delve deeply into the feedback they got from their testers. They took several suggestions into consideration with respect to scope and mechanics (even though I don’t know what the main mechanic of the digital game will be). Perhaps they were using the prototype to define the mechanic itself. Either way, they made good use of their test.
Had I some background knowledge about what their game, I think the presentation would have been fairly good. They just needed a better introduction.
12/15.
Mizu
They were very thorough, going in depth about several things including their influences and sources. Their story seems very well thought out and makes it look like narration will be one of the main aspects of their game. They also had nice concept art.
They explained their mechanic very well, and I was pleased to hear it as the first two presentations failed to do this. They very clearly stated the limitations of paper prototyping their game, and the difficulties of translating their digital mechanic into a paper form. I think their work-around was a fairly decent idea.
15/15.
Untitled
They need to think of a title (or at least a temporary project title).
They said that they would be simplifying their stages in order to decrease scope. It’s always good when a team recognizes that they’re aiming too high.
Their paper prototype tried to combine too many mechanics. They should have isolated one or two to test on paper.
It’s an action game, but had many puzzles. They really had to choose one and develop it. Through feedback, they realized this error.
As their testers went through the prototype, the team kept changing things as they went along in accordance to the feedback. Although this is a good way to provide a good experience, it makes it difficult to get consistent feedback. Multiple opinions are necessary on the same subject.
They greatly re-developed their game based on the feedback they got. I’d say the paper prototype did more for this team than any of the previous three. They used it well, and received good critiques.
14/15.
