Selected Project

WHAT IS CRUMBLERS?

Crumblers is an interactive, multiplayer video game experience with a target demographic of seven to eleven-year old children. The game provides both an enjoyable gameplay experience while promoting some form of social good, in this case the value of teamwork. Both players each have a unique form of input to play the game, facilitated through two distinct controllers.

SITUATION

TIMELINE

Winter 2020

10 weeks

CONTEXT

MHCI+D program at

University of

Washington

Prototyping Studio

TEAM

Jeff Rosen

Emily Campbell

Jacob Burke

MY CONTRIBUTIONS

User researcher

Research analyst

Project manager

Physical prototyping

Prototyping insight analyst

3D modeling/printing

Engineer

Report writer

DELIVERABLES

Two unique controllers

Playable game

Final presentation

Game overview video

OBJECTIVE

THE TASK

Create an interactive, multiplayer video game experience in ten weeks
Game could be installed in a public space, and people could just walk up and play it
Target player demographic of 7-11 year-old children
At least two unique controllers that incorporated some kind of physical input

THE TEAM

Randomly assigned to teams of three with two fellow members of the MHCI+D cohort
Varied skill sets and backgrounds across each team member
Each of us had to explore and develop skills outside of what we already knew in order to meet deliverables

IDEATION

Brainstorming

Considered game content from both enjoyability of setting and personal interests.

Identified balance between social and educational value.

Narrowed down to more detailed selection via group voting.

Downselecting

From initial list of game concepts and settings, settled on 10 to further develop.

Conceptualized game mechanics and respective social values for each concept.

Created visualizations for each concept to convey mechanics and multiplayer inputs.

Dot Voting

Received feedback from peers and studio course instructors on viability and detail of each of the ten concepts.

Feedback focused on plausibility, depth of mechanics and overall enjoyability.

Combined feedback with the team's preferences and narrowed concepts down to two possible games.

A plethora of possibilities for what we can make a game about

...narrowed down to ten more fleshed out concepts, complete with mechanics and intended social values

...and what our instructors and peers thought about all of them

CODESIGN

Testing Concepts

Tested the appeal of the top two concepts with members of the target demographic.

Developed physical prototypes of potential forms of input for both game.

Testing included gauging interest in the game's premise, activity and setting.

First we wanted to see if the kids liked our top two game concepts: flapping arms like wings in a flying simulator

...and digging for buried gems and other treasure using a variety of tools

How We Tested - Treasure Hunt

Target users were presented with the treasure hunting prototype and a number of tools and objects they could use to dig.

They played with the prototype and were questioned on their overall reactions, appeal of searching for buried treasure and how they used the provided tools and objects.

Users enjoyed the idea that the treasure they might find had value, enjoyed satisfaction of finding it.

The silly fantasy setting given to the users was engaging, even if just because they poked fun and laughed at it.

How We Tested -

Flying Game

Users took turns wearing the prototype bird wings and "flying" around the room

Users were asked if they were having fun what they thought would happen if they were flying like that in a game.

Users got caught up in seeing who could flap their wings the most times in a minute, which became the focus of their attention for duration of codesign.

The cardboard controller prototypes were totally demolished during the codesign, informing the need for well-made and sturdy controllers.

What We Learned

The Treasure Hunting game appealed more to the users and held their attention longer than the Flying Game.

If there was perceived value in what they were looking for, users were more eager to spend time trying to find it and more excited to succeed in doing so.

If left alone with no guidance on how to use the tools provided, children will come up with creative ways to use the tools to accomplish their tasks.

Users quickly lost interest in the Flying Game premise and focused more on competing with each other. This clashed with the goal of building a cooperative game.

Prototyping Controllers

After first round of codesign, the Treasure Hunt game was the clear preference among target users, so the Flying Game concept was dropped.

Later in design process, engaged in second round of codesign with users with much more advanced controller prototypes and a game demo simulated via Wizard of OZ testing method.

The feedback received here would be used to guide the final stretch of the game's development.

Later we tested some controller prototypes with the kids

...next time we'll make them a bit sturdier

How We Tested

Users used a shovel prototype with a fake sensor attachment to play what they thought was the actual game, but was actually a series of slides that simulated our gameplay experience.

As they performed actions that correlated with the intended controls, slides were changed to reflect their progress.

Users were also presented with a joystick controller prototype to gauge their preference between that and the shovel.

While the users played, they were asked to voice their thoughts about the game's difficulty, enjoyability, what they wished was happening and any other thoughts they had.

What we learned

The game prototype didn't have much variety in what things could be dug up, and almost everyone playing it wished there were more types of rocks and gems they could find.

Just digging up rocks wasn't engaging by itself, some added measure of challenge would make it more fun.

There was mixed interest between the shovel and joystick controller prototypes, though the actual act of using the shovel was fun.

Overall, the game was well received, and some of the suggested changes were for things which had already been considered.

Feedback from the first group of three kids on the second round of codesign testing

Feedback from the second group of three kids on the second round of codesign testing

Feedback from the third group of three kids on the second round of codesign testing

DEVELOPMENT

Building the Controllers

Based on feedback from the codesign sessions, implemented both a joystick and shovel controller for the final game.

Designed, 3D printed and assembled both controllers.

Coded in Arduino and soldered in order to complete controllers.

Team communication ensured game code, visuals and controllers were all completed in line with each other.

Early prototypes of the shovel controller scaled it for use with one hand

Initial concepts for the joystick tied it in with the rock and buried gems theme of the game

Controller functionality was set up using an Arduino device

The final shovel controller, with an added handle to allow for two-handed use if preferable

Wires were soldered into the buttons and breadboard, which were then incorporated into the 3D printed controller base

THE GAME

Video overview of Crumblers, submitted as part of the final project deliverable. Voiceover done by Jacob Burke

LEARNING NEW TECHNIQUES

Learning unfamiliar skills in a very short period of time with minimal direction from instructors was necessary to ensure project completion.
Exercise in incorporating novel and newly developed skills with more refined and established ones.
Now feel much more comfortable doing this again with another new tool if necessary in the future.

LOOKING BACK / MOVING FORWARD

CODESIGN WAS INVALUABLE

Working directly with members of target user demographic provided very useful insights and design direction.
When designing for specific users, it makes sense to hear directly from them their opinions on a project's progress.
Important to remember that users aren't designers, so their feedback needs to be taken at face value.

VALUE OF IDEATION

The first several weeks of the ten week timeline were spent ideating.
Was initially concerned by what I perceived as a lack of time moving onto development.
This extra time conceptualizing resulted in a more streamlined development process.
Now recognize that extended periods of ideation are more useful than wasteful.

Selected Project

WHAT IS CRUMBLERS?

SITUATION

TIMELINE

CONTEXT

TEAM

MY CONTRIBUTIONS

DELIVERABLES

OBJECTIVE

THE TASK

THE TEAM

IDEATION

Brainstorming

​

Considered game content from both enjoyability of setting and personal interests.

​​

Identified balance between social and educational value.

​​

Narrowed down to more detailed selection via group voting.

Downselecting

​

From initial list of game concepts and settings, settled on 10 to further develop​​.

​​

Conceptualized game mechanics and respective social values for each concept​​.

​​

Created visualizations for each concept to convey mechanics and multiplayer inputs.

Dot Voting

​

Received feedback from peers and studio course instructors on viability and detail of each of the ten concepts​​.

​​

Feedback focused on plausibility, depth of mechanics and overall enjoyability.

​​

Combined feedback with the team's preferences and narrowed concepts down to two possible games.

CODESIGN

Testing Concepts

​​

Tested the appeal of the top two concepts with members of the target demographic.

​​

Developed physical prototypes of potential forms of input for both game.

​

Testing included gauging interest in the game's premise, activity and setting.

How We Tested​ - Treasure Hunt

​

Target users were presented with the treasure hunting prototype and a number of tools and objects they could use to dig​​.

​

They played with the prototype and were questioned on their overall reactions, appeal of searching for buried treasure and how they used the provided tools and objects.

​

Users enjoyed the idea that the treasure they might find had value, enjoyed satisfaction of finding it.

​

The silly fantasy setting given to the users was engaging, even if just because they poked fun and laughed at it.

How We Tested​ -

Flying Game

​

Users took turns wearing the prototype bird wings and "flying" around the room

​

Users were asked if they were having fun what they thought would happen if they were flying like that in a game.

​

Users got caught up in seeing who could flap their wings the most times in a minute, which became the focus of their attention for duration of codesign.

​

The cardboard controller prototypes were totally demolished during the codesign, informing the need for well-made and sturdy controllers.

What We Learned​​

​

​

The Treasure Hunting game appealed more to the users and held their attention longer than the Flying Game.

​​

If there was perceived value in what they were looking for, users were more eager to spend time trying to find it and more excited to succeed in doing so.

​

If left alone with no guidance on how to use the tools provided, children will come up with creative ways to use the tools to accomplish their tasks.

​

Users quickly lost interest in the Flying Game premise and focused more on competing with each other. This clashed with the goal of building a cooperative game.

Prototyping Controllers​​

​

After first round of codesign, the Treasure Hunt game was the clear preference among target users, so the Flying Game concept was dropped.

​

Later in design process, engaged in second round of codesign with users ​​with much more advanced controller prototypes and a game demo simulated via Wizard of OZ testing method.

​​

The feedback received here would be used to guide the final stretch of the game's development.

How We Tested​

​

Users used a shovel prototype with a fake sensor attachment to play what they thought was the actual game, but was actually a series of slides that simulated our gameplay experience.

From initial list of game concepts and settings, settled on 10 to further develop.

Conceptualized game mechanics and respective social values for each concept.

Received feedback from peers and studio course instructors on viability and detail of each of the ten concepts.