{"id":739,"date":"2021-03-26T06:02:13","date_gmt":"2021-03-26T06:02:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patricioland.com\/?p=739"},"modified":"2021-05-14T15:07:55","modified_gmt":"2021-05-14T15:07:55","slug":"gdd710-week-8","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patricioland.com\/?p=739","title":{"rendered":"GDD710 \u2013 Week 8"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"A new entry focused on the different kinds of research and some useful techniques that can be applied to the field in which we are involved. We always have to take into account the criteria and ethical limits throughout the process, especially because the participants\u2019 data gathering is a fundamental component related to these studies. Also all about the very last phase on the Rapid Ideation 2 project!<\/span><\/p>\n

Rapid Ideation Two (part 2)<\/span><\/h1>\n

After having presented the idea during the last Wednesday 17 March session and kept developing the program\u2019s basic structure, some things started disturbing me.<\/p>\n

First of all, the concept itself had some weaknesses…<\/p>\n

During the brainstorming phase, we had planned on introducing different elements on the scene that the piranha character might use as food to survive in a very polluted environment. Some of these items might be less toxic than others (for example, a worm or a bunch of shrimps would be less harmful than a rusty bike wheel or an oil slick). Consequently, the harmful elements would take life points away from our character, and the other ones would add life points.<\/p>\n

In this scenario a doubt arose: why a player would eat the most harmful elements instead of getting into their stomach those less deadly ones?<\/em><\/strong><\/span>
\nIt didn’t make any sense.<\/p>\n

Looping for better prototyping<\/span><\/h1>\n

Instead of panicking, after reading chapter eight of ‘The Art of Game Design – A book of Lenses<\/strong>‘ by Jesse Schell, I wanted to experiment his approach on this prototyping cycle.<\/p>\n

“At this point in the process, you have thought of many ideas and chosen one, and now it is time to move on to the next step: Try it out. And many designers and developers do just that leap in and try out their game. and if your game is simple such as a card game, board game, or very simple computer game and you have plenty of time to test it and change it, over and over, until it is great, you probably should do just that”. (Schell 2015)<\/p>\n

By the end of this chapter, the author also gives good advise about how to conduct a productive prototype. From the 10 tips he explains I decided to focus on the first two in order to find a solution to our problem.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Prototyping Tip #1: Answer a Question<\/strong>
\nEvery prototype should be designed to answer a question and sometimes more than one. You should be able to state the questions clearly. If you can\u2019t, your prototype is in real danger of becoming a time-wasting boondoggle.<\/p>\n

Prototyping Tip #2: Forget Quality<\/strong>
\nWhen working on a prototype, all that matters is whether it answers the question. The faster it can do that, the better , even if it just barely works and looks rough around the edges.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In our case, the question to take into consideration was clear: are the rules consistently (logic) enough?. For the second tip we decided to stop making any more art or addition animation and start testing right away.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

“The process of game design and development is necessarily iterative, or looping. It is impossible to accurately plan how many loops it is really going to take before your game passes all eight filters and is \u201cgood enough.\u201d This is what makes game develop- ment so incredibly risky\u2014you are gambling that you will be able to get your game to pass all eight filters on a fixed budget, when you really don\u2019t know if that will be possible”. (Schell 2015)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

I also \u00a0decided to \u00a0put into practice something that we learned when studying the agile method approach for the creative process.\u00a0As I recall, during the evaluation phase you look back over your work in progress\u00a0to look for strengths and weaknesses, in a positive way, constantly reassessing and applying changes if necessary (more about this practice on my entry for the second week<\/a> of this CRJ).<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

We don\u2019t want to change the plan just for the sake of changing, but we want to change be- cause change means we\u2019ve learned something or that we\u2019ve avoided a mistake. (Cohn 2006).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

So I grabbed pen and paper, start thinking over a little better and setting out improvements for the artifact gameplay and content level. After submitting the idea to Debbie Norton <\/strong><\/a>my partner in this project,\u00a0\u00a0she agreed with this right away.<\/p>\n

After having reflected on it, the new modifications to the rules that we had established for the first version of the game are:<\/p>\n