Outcomes from DARE - And current work.
So in my last post I was talking about the game idea I came up. At that time, together with a Jay and Hoey from the MA course and a team we put together, we were entering the idea into the Dare To Be Digital Games Competition. Unfortunately we were not successful in getting through the first stages of the competition. However we did get some great feedback for the idea.
In the feedback, the biggest criticism was that they thought it was too big for the competition and most judges were not convinced it could be done in the allocated time given to the entrants. We understood this would be a concern when entering as it was an ambitious project idea using techniques myself and Jay had been researching and it was aimed at confirming this research. Other than that though, the feedback was positive. All judges said they thought the idea was interesting and different to what they had seen before. They also said that there was market potential in idea which shows that the idea could work in the industry.
As well as feedback from the judges at Dare, we had industry feedback from Arthur Parsons of TT Games. He said that the idea was really quite unique and has the potential to do well as a game if we managed to grab the players attention and iron out anything that may confuse too much.
I think this feedback from professionals in the industry suggests that the ideas that the game is based of would work well in the industry. On top of this we had some fantastic feedback from the public on the idea which suggest that there is space in the market for the processes that we have come up with to use the environment and guide players.
So for some bad news.
After the news about Dare we spoke about shifting the idea more into our MA and creating a prototype as the outcome of our research. This was coming along really nicely at first and start to take a little more shape. However, recently we have had to halt our work on the prototype due to an unforeseen issue with the programming side of the project. :(
So now we are looking to switch motion on to another project that will be our outcome to show that our methods work within a game scenario.
More to come. See you soon.
In the feedback, the biggest criticism was that they thought it was too big for the competition and most judges were not convinced it could be done in the allocated time given to the entrants. We understood this would be a concern when entering as it was an ambitious project idea using techniques myself and Jay had been researching and it was aimed at confirming this research. Other than that though, the feedback was positive. All judges said they thought the idea was interesting and different to what they had seen before. They also said that there was market potential in idea which shows that the idea could work in the industry.
As well as feedback from the judges at Dare, we had industry feedback from Arthur Parsons of TT Games. He said that the idea was really quite unique and has the potential to do well as a game if we managed to grab the players attention and iron out anything that may confuse too much.
I think this feedback from professionals in the industry suggests that the ideas that the game is based of would work well in the industry. On top of this we had some fantastic feedback from the public on the idea which suggest that there is space in the market for the processes that we have come up with to use the environment and guide players.
So for some bad news.
After the news about Dare we spoke about shifting the idea more into our MA and creating a prototype as the outcome of our research. This was coming along really nicely at first and start to take a little more shape. However, recently we have had to halt our work on the prototype due to an unforeseen issue with the programming side of the project. :(
So now we are looking to switch motion on to another project that will be our outcome to show that our methods work within a game scenario.
More to come. See you soon.