So, in Prac B several people including a tutor tested out the product. And along the way i interviewed them with these questions which are from my SOD. Each questions will have the answers of the users and also a reflection from my point of view.
a) Is there any problem with the interactivity of the physical board when the game is being played? If yes, any suggestion to improve on the concept/idea of the physical inputs?
- I didn't encounter any problems with the interactivity, it seemed fine to me.
- I did have trouble pressing the playdoh as different marks appeared on the computer. but that was easily solved when a small error was found out (some makeymakey connections were touching when they are not supposed to touch with each other).
- No problems at all. very good and easy and understandable interactivity.
- No, I think it works fine
- I don't have any problems at all, the controls are incredibly intuitive.
Reflection:
It was pretty surprising to me that nobody had problems with pressing the playdoh-made buttons except for one where the makeymakey connection was touching which caused a problem. It seems that most users who tested the game was not very rough at the game. Many pressed gently and nicely instead of smashing the buttons. eg. Smashing a particular button really hard may cause another button to appear on the game. But with the middle wires having smaller playdoh buttons compared to the side ones, it was proved that the problem was rectified.
- I didn't encounter any problems with the interactivity, it seemed fine to me.
- I did have trouble pressing the playdoh as different marks appeared on the computer. but that was easily solved when a small error was found out (some makeymakey connections were touching when they are not supposed to touch with each other).
- No problems at all. very good and easy and understandable interactivity.
- No, I think it works fine
- I don't have any problems at all, the controls are incredibly intuitive.
Reflection:
It was pretty surprising to me that nobody had problems with pressing the playdoh-made buttons except for one where the makeymakey connection was touching which caused a problem. It seems that most users who tested the game was not very rough at the game. Many pressed gently and nicely instead of smashing the buttons. eg. Smashing a particular button really hard may cause another button to appear on the game. But with the middle wires having smaller playdoh buttons compared to the side ones, it was proved that the problem was rectified.
b) What do you think of the current method of connecting the ground wire to the body using wristbands as finger ring holders? What about methods such as using sponge as a ground/ selector and also making an area on the physical board as ground connection?
- I would like it if it could be done without having the user connected to ground, but I don't mind the way it is now.
- putting the ground on the board works well too, as users will free up their hand. with this then each time a user makes a move, he need to touch the 'ground area'.
- I don't have a problem with the player being the ground, although You could maybe make the ground between the two wires you want to connect, so that when you push down, all 3 connect at the same time.
- Using a potato would be better!
- I would prefer if players didn't have to hold onto anything when they played. If a more convenient way for the cables to ground could be found it'd be a perfect interaction. I'd suggest a common grounding layer on the bottom.
- I would like it if it could be done without having the user connected to ground, but I don't mind the way it is now.
- putting the ground on the board works well too, as users will free up their hand. with this then each time a user makes a move, he need to touch the 'ground area'.
- I don't have a problem with the player being the ground, although You could maybe make the ground between the two wires you want to connect, so that when you push down, all 3 connect at the same time.
- Using a potato would be better!
- I would prefer if players didn't have to hold onto anything when they played. If a more convenient way for the cables to ground could be found it'd be a perfect interaction. I'd suggest a common grounding layer on the bottom.
Reflection:
Some users preferred the ground not to be connected to the user, but still feels that the current method works well. During the testing session, instead of using wristbands as ring holders to users' fingers, i brought potatoes in and connected the ground to it (see figure above). users will then instead hold the potato while the other free hand presses the buttons to play the game. i realized that potatoes were really good conductors as ground compared to sticking. Some users said holding potatoes does actually give them more freedom as they could put down the potato whenever it wasn't their turn.
c) Is there a better way to make sure the floating wires are always tight and not becoming loose over time? Does putting a separator in between the buttons help?
- I think the way you have it currently works well
- A separator could work, you could also try attaching springs to the sides of wires to let them go back into place.
- the same one works fine. Dont see the need to why a separator is needed.
- Smaller more flexible cables could be used to control cable tension for each button precisely.
Reflection:
As I received feedback upon this question, I realised I had alot of extra unused sponges from daiso, which worked really well as separators. Although most of the users who tested the prototype said that it is fine as it is, I think after having these sponges as separators, there would not be any wrong marks appearing on the screen would happen anymore.
- I think the way you have it currently works well
- A separator could work, you could also try attaching springs to the sides of wires to let them go back into place.
- the same one works fine. Dont see the need to why a separator is needed.
- Smaller more flexible cables could be used to control cable tension for each button precisely.
Reflection:
d) What do you think of the freedom given to choose how the scoring system works? It is better than providing all the rules to the players?
- I think it works quite well for the way the game is played, due to how casual and locally it is played.
- I think it works quite well for the way the game is played, due to how casual and locally it is played.
- It certainly allows for many variations of the game to appear
- Very good for players to just want to play casually.
- I like the freedom given to players. But in the standards of almost all computer games, the rules should probably be set.
Reflection:
Based on the feedback that I got, majority of the users agreed that giving the complete freedom to the players to set their own rules are good enough to match the game. a particular user said that as there are no exact rules to playing, players could just play the game until eventually one of them just gives up as the score may go up to 11-1 or 11-0. So, i've decided that the gameplay will remain the same with no specific rules to the scoring system.
- I like the freedom given to players. But in the standards of almost all computer games, the rules should probably be set.
Reflection:
Based on the feedback that I got, majority of the users agreed that giving the complete freedom to the players to set their own rules are good enough to match the game. a particular user said that as there are no exact rules to playing, players could just play the game until eventually one of them just gives up as the score may go up to 11-1 or 11-0. So, i've decided that the gameplay will remain the same with no specific rules to the scoring system.
e) Any other suggestions that could improve the gameplay of the physical interaction?
- As I've said before, some way of detecting the mines beforehand would be very useful for making the game less luck-based
- I think to improve the interaction, a smaller controller should be made, with no playdoh involved, perhaps foil instead to stop inconsistency.
Reflection:
I do agree that the game is quite luck-based. So with the upcoming interactive prototype III, I will make increase the interactivity of the game with something more interesting. What i will aim for is to decrease the luck/chance based game into a more strategic and skilled game play.
OVERALL REFLECTION AND PROTOTYPE III PLAN:
All in all, i think I received quite a good response from the testing of this prototype. I believe that there are alot more improvements that I can make especially making the game less chance based and use another sort of button reactions. STAY TUNED FOR PROTOTYPE III! I plan to use the same game concept but this time implement beer pong into the game! (:
- I think to improve the interaction, a smaller controller should be made, with no playdoh involved, perhaps foil instead to stop inconsistency.
Reflection:
I do agree that the game is quite luck-based. So with the upcoming interactive prototype III, I will make increase the interactivity of the game with something more interesting. What i will aim for is to decrease the luck/chance based game into a more strategic and skilled game play.
OVERALL REFLECTION AND PROTOTYPE III PLAN:
All in all, i think I received quite a good response from the testing of this prototype. I believe that there are alot more improvements that I can make especially making the game less chance based and use another sort of button reactions. STAY TUNED FOR PROTOTYPE III! I plan to use the same game concept but this time implement beer pong into the game! (:
No comments:
Post a Comment