So now that the majority of the work for our second project is done, now is probably the best time to look back on the work we did as a team. We had a lot of flaws, but what team doesn’t? We did deliver in the end, and that’s a big plus but of course there was a lot that could be improved.
Communication was all right, but task delegation was our major downfall. There was a major imbalance with the work being done within our team and that resulted in less getting done than there was possible. It also left us as a team being very confused with what direction the game was taking, since the ideas seemed to only be coming from a few people and then having no real solid agreement on the final direction. Much of the work seemed to left to the last minute because it hadn’t been strictly assigned to anyone. And sometimes when it was assigned, it was still left till the last minute, then resulting in having two versions of the same task because someone else would do the task by the time it was needed, and the assigned person would come in with a completely different model that didn’t fit what so ever. So that would be partially communication issues as well as task delegation. This result could be improved by using the decent communication more often when tasks have been delegated as to check in on the task progress and stay aware of the project’s progression as a whole. Also, if we had taken more time at the beginning of the project to assign/volunteer for tasks we could have had a better understanding of roles and required work as a team.
Based on player feedback, players laughed a lot during play. So we can assume they enjoyed it. But people also felt that there was no conclusion, which is difficult to wrestle with in a game that’s meant to fit into an overarching story as well as be replayable. But this is definitely something to consider next time. The players also didn’t seem to argue as much as we intended, which isn’t entirely a bad thing, since they seemed to enjoy it more when they laughed together. The game definitely has a limited audience, it needs people who are willing to raise their voices, based on observations the people who were not willing to speak up did not enjoy the game at all. I’m not sure how we could make this better for them, it’s quite difficult to coax people out of their comfort zone. Because of this, it may just be easier to find that they are outside of our target audience and be aware that they may not be able to enjoy our game as much as others.
So for next time, we need to have a better idea of our target audience, a much better communication system, better ways of assigning tasks and tracking progress, and an openness to pivoting our ideas around key parts that people enjoyed.