Concept Confusion and Feedback

After pitching my game ideas to my peers the general feedback was that both games were too broad in their aims.

The first game was thought to be too confusing and too conflicting e.g. save trees from de-forestation but as a reward get a wooden frame for your house. There was also little harmony between levels.

The second game was more developed when I pitched it as a concept and I had drafted roughly what the levels would look like. My peers tended to like this game better than the first. However they still thought that it was too confusing with its aims. They liked that the main idea of the game was to save endangered animals but they felt that adding energy conservation to the game was too confusing for a child to grasp.

By this it was mean that in the game I had a main character who saved animals. The protagonist avoided the poacher. If you landed on a wind turbine or a solar panel you got extra health. If you landed on a piece of coal you lost health. If you landed on a skateboard you went fast, but if you landed on a car you went slow and if you landed on a cage you were trapped for a space of time. Also the poacher could shot at you throughout and if you were shot you would loose health. I got feedback which was to simplify the game and its aims without loosing the ideas behind them. Joss (a guy in the group I pitched too) suggested having a bear trap as a way to slow down not a cage or coal.