Project 2 Post Mortem
Up Ship Creek Expansion - Raffertys Reaping
Topic:
Constant Iteration and Acceptance of Change
What happened?
Before project 2 got under way i had already spent some personal project time brainstorming and planning out a board game. When undertaking that process i found it to be a huge undertaking and far more design work that i had expected. Unfortunately i never got the game i made to a testing phase because i would have really been able to see the amount of iteration that is necessary after play testing. Once project 2 had begun my teammate and I went into the brainstorming phase with a strong concept which we were both happy with. This early choice of concept gave us an amazing building block to work off, even before we got to play testing we spent our time breaking down the ideas into crisis synopses and that gave us the idea to split our scenario into three separate mechanics for the A,B and C threads. Our first being the Fear mechanic, the second being a Sanity mechanic and the Third being a fleshing out of the existing oxygen mechanic from the core ruleset. It was soon after that we realised the lack of commonality between the threads made it extremely difficult to tie the threads together in the end crisis. These realisations of problems and coming up with quick on the fly fixes became a core aspect of our project. Even in the final week of the project the entire ending crisis was completely rewritten and after giving it a playtest on the final day was iterated upon from both player and mentor feedback.
Why did it happen?
My teammate and I throughout the project saw other teams struggling to lock down ideas and squabbling about deciding on what aspects they would bring to the table. We learned from this and decided to run with the policy of coming up with an idea that we both agreed could possibly work and testing it multiple times both in class play sessions and out of class together or with friends and family. We found the most useful approach to iterating the parts of the game we had created involved one player testing the game with two new players while the other member of the group took detailed notes. If the players failed to reach the end of the scenario we would take a 5 minute intermission. During this time utilising the detailed notes taken we would make hand written amendments to the crisis or item cards or even sometimes the fear mechanic itself that needed tweaking and only once the changes had been completed did we restart the game. This process worked incredibly well as both team members were on the same page when it came to making constant changes to the game, knowing that it was absolutely pivotal to the game's evolution and ultimate success.
How to make sure it does happen again?
The main thing that i will try and replicate in every project moving forward is from the very beginning of the project have a clear idea of what the end product is going to be and make sure that it's a common idea between the members. I had struggled with this during my first project as my vision for the game became blurred with too many additions to the game came far too frequently in the process. However with this project constant iteration was key but although it was frequent it was all towards a singular goal which we were working towards. Once we are given the brief for the third project of this studio i plan on sitting down with my team member and brainstorming ideas which would fit the brief, after that single brainstorming session i aim to have a clear image of the game we are going to make together which we can later iterate upon through the feedback given to us after our pitches.
Topic:
Team Discussion and collaboration
What happened?
One of the most successful aspects of the project was the high level of communication and collaboration of work completed by the two of us. Every bit of work added to the project was planned together and even though our hack n plan separated tasks, both members were involved in its completion. After the work had been planned instead of going away to separate houses and completing work on different schedules, all work was completed together in the same place. Not only did we utilise the university assets of classrooms and library outside of class time but we designated a high percentage of our time to completing work at the Edge creative space in southbank. All of these quality creative spaces gave us the opportunity to stay on the same page on tasks that needed to be completed and have input in every decision made throughout the constant iteration of the task.
Why did it happen?
The core reason why the team worked so well was because not only did we have common ideas and design processes but through the project we realised how much in common we both had and actually became friends. Although this was a possible liability to move the project off course, in fact it did the exact opposite. Our friendship spurred the project forward and we would look forward to working on the project at every stage. Because in the early stages we saw that we were both hard workers and were both keen to produce quality work, once we were friends there was no sense of stress to the project.
How to make sure it does happen again?
As i've found with this project, getting to know your teammate on a more personal level can create an incredibly positive outlook on the project and instill positive processes on the team. I will aim to utilise this not only in any upcoming group projects but especially when working as a professional in the field. A sense of comradery can change the entire tone of a project and through getting to know the other person or members and finding common ground it's far easier to create this productive creative state that i had previously realised.
Topic:
Reluctance to shut down ideas
What happened?
As can be seen in the previous paragraphs, a bond between me and my team member was formed through the process of project 2. Although overall it was incredibly rewarding and made the project a joy to be a part of there was also a difficulty that it brought to light. Because the friendship was so newly formed and the project required constant iteration and not only amendments to ideas but completely new ones aswell, it became incredibly hard to veto any idea from my partner. Although i never vocalised this with my team member, i personally felt nervous at the thought of squashing my team members creativity in their ideas and would agree to run with any ideas which came up.
Why did it happen?
This problem wasn’t so much a problem for the team but more a problem caused from my personal lack of confidence. I found myself unable to oppose ideas as i didn’t think any idea i came up with would have been better than it or thought my team member was possibly thinking the same way about my work.
How to make sure it doesn’t happen again?
I have known for quite a long time that i have low self confidence when it comes to my creative work. This had never interfered with my work in a major way before and especially when being is such a fantastic group it's incredibly disappointing to let myself down with those kind of thoughts. The best way i have found of overcoming this is to actually show my work off to more people and get feedback on it. I have multiple side projects that i am currently working on and am planning on showing them to my peers which i'm hoping will give me more confidence in my own abilities. In projects moving forward i'll also be far more open with my teammate about how i feel in regards to this issue which i'm hoping will create discussion which again will help me make positive changes.