We did it again...With lots of struggle.
We culled our five game ideas down to three.
Game Idea Title
Physics/Blink Game - "Blink"
Garbage Game - "Wasteland"
Sight Game - "Out of Sight Out of Mind"
At which point we expanded, discussed gameplay ideas, concerns about iteration, and confusion we had about these choices.
And that's where the trouble happened.
Then we had to get rid of one idea from the previous list, and make sure we were all okay with it. We rewrote all of our game documents as smaller groups of the whole team. The professors were then going to read over the documents and give us feedback.
We had some reduced time in our meeting with the professors, due to other great EAE news on campus. But, it didn't help the decision making.
The professors gave us little feedback other than, "I think the Wasteland game is the weakest idea."
When it finally got down to the point we had to remove a game we tried to decide what game we were all in agreement on. I was very concerned about Blink. I really love the idea mechanically, but I have no investment in the game when it comes to design and thesis. I was honest with the group about it, and as we were discussing it, it was decided to be safe from removal.
Now to remove one from either Wasteland or Out of Sight Out of Mind. Out of Sight Out of Mind was my game pitch.
We could not come to an agreement on which game to remove from our prototypes. The professor's suggested making three prototypes, but we knew that was a bad idea with our limited numbers.
So, it finally came down to a vote. 7-6, Wasteland. Out of Sight Out of Mind has been removed.
I am throwing myself behind the Wasteland discussion, but I am honestly hurt to see my game go.
Onward and upward. Besides, I can always build it as a side project.
We have our prototypes due in one week, and we are starting this weekend. We are working on the objects that are interact-able as well as the character movement and control scheme.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Post 19 - Synergy
We have done it.
We were able to cull 100 great game ideas down to five!
We first developed 100 great game ideas last week. This process was pitched to our teams as an idea of coming up with candidates for the upcoming IGF competition. We had game ideas change, morph, mix together, and thrown in the garbage.
We quickly learned that we had to ban together to form our idea into a group effort, rather than have one person pitch their game idea. The mixing of mechanics, emotions, visuals, and edgy ideas allowed us to come up with games that would fit into the form that works for IGF games.
Then, we had to kill off many of these ideas. We had to separate our ideas down to five total. We first separated it down to 32. Then down to 20. Then 15. Then 6.
This is where I believe our team had troubles. We had to deal with a major time constraint in the day, as well as with our idea being fairly discussed. We finally removed the Portal Tower Defense game. I am concerned that some of our team is very hurt over the loss of this game. We will make it through, but it is going to make sure we can keep everything fresh, fun, and not personal.
The five games we narrowed it down to were:
Game Idea Title
Outcast Game - "Ousted Outcast"
Physics/Blink Game - "Blink"
Grinding Game - "The Grind"
Garbage Game - "Wasteland"
Sight Game - "Out of Sight Out of Mind"
These previous games all dealt with an interesting game mechanic, or emotional idea. We decided that the person who had the original game idea should give the pitch, or at least head the game document creation. We had to agree on this quickly, and lacked good communication via Facebook, as was decided initially.
I honestly felt like I received useful feedback from maybe three team members, but only received actual help on the document from two people. This was stressful, and I let everyone know that I didn't appreciate it.
Aside from this, I believe our pitches for our games were good. Some felt more prepared than others. My idea was off the cuff, but it felt like a good pitch idea. It allowed the audience to view the game in their mind.
I received great feedback from Roger Altizer and Jose Zagal regarding my pitch, as well as the groups' pitches as well. We need to have our pitches feel like a team creation and collaboration, rather than a single person's idea being pitched. I am going to discuss this with the full team on Tuesday (1-21-2014) of next week.
I am not discussing other groups' ideas, because I cannot remember all of them. I will discuss them further when we move farther into the semester.
I know I learned a lot, and I look forward to the coming weeks. Let's do it.
We were able to cull 100 great game ideas down to five!
We first developed 100 great game ideas last week. This process was pitched to our teams as an idea of coming up with candidates for the upcoming IGF competition. We had game ideas change, morph, mix together, and thrown in the garbage.
We quickly learned that we had to ban together to form our idea into a group effort, rather than have one person pitch their game idea. The mixing of mechanics, emotions, visuals, and edgy ideas allowed us to come up with games that would fit into the form that works for IGF games.
Then, we had to kill off many of these ideas. We had to separate our ideas down to five total. We first separated it down to 32. Then down to 20. Then 15. Then 6.
This is where I believe our team had troubles. We had to deal with a major time constraint in the day, as well as with our idea being fairly discussed. We finally removed the Portal Tower Defense game. I am concerned that some of our team is very hurt over the loss of this game. We will make it through, but it is going to make sure we can keep everything fresh, fun, and not personal.
The five games we narrowed it down to were:
Game Idea Title
Outcast Game - "Ousted Outcast"
Physics/Blink Game - "Blink"
Grinding Game - "The Grind"
Garbage Game - "Wasteland"
Sight Game - "Out of Sight Out of Mind"
These previous games all dealt with an interesting game mechanic, or emotional idea. We decided that the person who had the original game idea should give the pitch, or at least head the game document creation. We had to agree on this quickly, and lacked good communication via Facebook, as was decided initially.
I honestly felt like I received useful feedback from maybe three team members, but only received actual help on the document from two people. This was stressful, and I let everyone know that I didn't appreciate it.
Aside from this, I believe our pitches for our games were good. Some felt more prepared than others. My idea was off the cuff, but it felt like a good pitch idea. It allowed the audience to view the game in their mind.
I received great feedback from Roger Altizer and Jose Zagal regarding my pitch, as well as the groups' pitches as well. We need to have our pitches feel like a team creation and collaboration, rather than a single person's idea being pitched. I am going to discuss this with the full team on Tuesday (1-21-2014) of next week.
I am not discussing other groups' ideas, because I cannot remember all of them. I will discuss them further when we move farther into the semester.
I know I learned a lot, and I look forward to the coming weeks. Let's do it.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Post 18 - New Start
The semester begins today!
A new group of people, who all seem fantastic!
We are all now working on our thesis game projects. More posts to come this week. Here we go!
A new group of people, who all seem fantastic!
We are all now working on our thesis game projects. More posts to come this week. Here we go!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)