FINAL POSTMORTEM
Joynisha SumpterPOSTMORTEM
In general, I have to say that I am please that I was able to complete my project, but I can’t say I was please with my execution. I feel like my execution for my projects is an on going work in process and troubles me for my entrance into the professional world.
To branch off I feel that the projects strengths was in it’s collaboration with another classes assignment, meaning that it was killing two birds with one stone. Another strength of my project was that I was deciding to take an existing game and work on building my own game off of that, instead of trying to create a whole new one.
I feel that the social interaction I was trying to create between players was strong, I think the new additions I made to the game snake would definitely increase interactions between players but it remains to be tested. I did attempt a user test with my mother an sister and I must say it was quite amusing but not effective enough to document anything useful about the game. A working prototype will be needed in order to test the game in the future.
I feel another strength for this project, was even though I really would have liked to finish attempting to build the game, I had to push that desire aside and build my presentation. I at least had to have something to show and if It wasn’t going to be the game, I wanted to be able to at least show what I was thinking.
Overall, the most pleasing thing about this project for me is the understanding I gained on the difficulties I will face within myself and with the software for building a game in the future. I was made aware of my flaws of thinking and now I understand my weaknesses and I am prepared to work on those.
That brings me into the weaknesses of this project. Though I believed I could built the game, it was a theory based on false knowledge. I had previously made an attempt to built this game in the past with an engine that one of my professors had built. I actually had a product at the end of the day, but it still wasn’t complete. I had hoped to take that knowledge I had gained from that experience and complete the game the way it should be done. Unfortunately, none of the many engines I played around with during the six weeks were nearly as comprehensive as his was, therefore I failed.
I also failed in not realizing sooner that the project was just something that unfortunately within the time limit could not be done. I hated to go back on my word on a project and that is not a behavior I wish to capitalize on in the future whether at thesis or at work. I would like to be able to produce what I say I will produce.
Another weakness of the project was I wasn’t able to user test the prototype. It would have been valuable to test the prototype to gain info on what social interactions worked and what did not, as well as how the user interface worked.
I am planning, as I still have to build this for Thursday since I did not finish, to continue to work on this game straight on into the summer whenever I get a spare moment of time. I feel it will be of great use to me to do this in preparation for my thesis.
Some key moments in the process as I mentioned above was when I had to decide to put down the building of the game and start focusing on how to get my idea across since I wasn’t being successful with the game engines. Another key point was when I had to scrap building in the multi-player part of the game. That was a really hard decision to make for me but I managed to make it even though I really wanted to build it.
Some trouble spots, was the entire week I wasted on trying to get an engine up an running. I feel perhaps if I didn’t have to had spent so much time getting an engine running I might have had a game built. This was valuable information though for my thesis, since now I have an idea of what is out there in terms of building a game. I am still determined to build a successful game if applicable and possible in an development tool other then flash.
To finish off, two new media project that are related to mine are “Video games and Computer holding Power” by Sherry Turkle and “Star Raiders: Dramatic Interaction in a small world” developed by Douglas Neubauer. Sherry Turkle’s project is related to mine because she noticed when video games became a major force in popular culture in the early 1980's that the computer allowed people to enact personae that are different from the ones they use in the non-computing world.
My scenario for my project was just about this very point. My character David was a 30 year old business man who to the naked eye would have never been perceived to go home and spend his time playing casual games, and vice versa. Games and the computer allow him to take on this other persona and have some social interaction with other players.
Star Raiders, by Douglas Neubauer, is an animated action game developed for the Atari in 1979. This game won best video game for three consecutive years, what is similar to my project and this game, is the focus on interaction for the user. This game is focused on actions for the user, whether it is refueling a ship, or defending star bases. The user is doing something and in turn getting a response or feedback for that action.
This was what I was trying to attempt when designing my game, to come up with actions that created a desire for the player to keep playing ,whether it was effecting their opponents game or saving their own. Actions are what makes a game, therefore it has the power to break it as well, if they are useless.
From these projects I can learned how to make my project affect the user more socially, which in turn would help me create newer and better actions that result in greater interaction between players.
posted by Megumiaraki @ 8:21 PM
0 comments
