Author Archives: Jason Choy

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Progress Report #6

Posted on by
Reply

Group 1 – Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio
Professor Jill Belli
ENG 3773
12/16/2014
Progress Report #6

This last week was fairly straightforward, but intense nonetheless. After our out-of-class meeting we were left with a clear idea of what to do. Our primary objective was to finish the final project write-up and the final presentation, since we had already finished making the game. We began finalizing these last two parts of the project the day after our out-of-class meeting.

We decided to work on the write-up first, since we had a clear idea of what to do thanks to the peer review comments and the feedback received during the out-of-class meeting. We first discussed the changes we had to make, both in person and online, to make sure we were all on the same page. Thankfully we were all on the same page since the comments were very clear. With the report being shared online, the first change we made was putting the title of the game on the cover page. After this, the group began working on the appendix and improving it according to the comments. This was a very simple, straightforward task, but a somewhat time consuming one since our appendix is vast.

Unfortunately none of us were able to figure out how to exclude page numbers on the first two pages. At this point, we question whether or not it’s possible. Thankfully this is a minor issue, but it’s one we will just have to accept. We continued to edit the formatting over the weekend; after fixing the appendix Jason moved the Works Cited page so that it now appears before the appendix. He also added an endnotes page, took the unnecessary (but still somewhat useful) information out of the body, and instead cited this information in the Endnotes page while numbering the appropriate text in the body. We used standard MLA formatting for this, like we did everything else.

After we fixed these straightforward issues, we moved onto the report itself, rewriting it based on the feedback we received. We all discussed the feedback before preceeding, coming up with the plan to improve the writing so that it no longer appears compartmentalized, in addition to merging the research discussion with the game design discussion, and making the progression of the paper more logical. After coming up with the plan, Jason executed it, rewriting the majority of the paper, deleting unnecessary information, and even relocating certain parts of the text elsewhere. This process took about two days, but all of us are satisfied by the result. The paper flows much better now, and contains more relevant information.

Creating the final PowerPoint presentation didn’t take too long, since we just had to condense the information from our write-up into the presentation, and build off of our last presentation. We discussed what we had to do during an online synchronous meeting, coming up with ideas like adding a Works Cited page, focusing more on the thesis from the write-up, and incorporating more sources. We actually built off of our previous PowerPoint, but the final one is almost entirely different now. Jason rewrote it, Ray supplied some more pictures from different sources which are now incorporated into the PowerPoint, and Jason also added screenshots of the game itself to the PowerPoint. After finalizing the presentation, we discussed how we’d present it, deciding that we should all cover the topics we did the most research on. Ray will discuss his research on architectural design, how games affect learning, and how puzzles can be beneficial/intellectually stimulating, and how these things are incorporated into our game. Vincent will discuss his research on other game manuals, how this research affected our manual, and he will discuss our manual as well. Jason will talk about the game itself, how it’s intellectual (backed up by some of the research we did), and he will go over some of the survey results.

We are very confident in our project, and we look forward to presenting it to the class.

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Minutes week of 12/10/14

Posted on by
Reply

December 15, 2014
Attendees: Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio
Location: Virtual
Meeting called to order at 3:00 PM by Jason Choy

I. Finalize the final project write-up

  • All group members discuss the recent meeting with Professor Belli and agree on some key changes to make; namely the integration of the research materials with the main body of the paper, adding an Endnotes page, redoing the Appendix, and being more argumentative.
  • Ray mentions that we should discuss the manual and survey more, which everyone agrees on.
  • Jason says he’ll begin making these changes.
  • Vincent states that the proposal needs to be appended.

II. Finalize the presentation

  • Jason mentions that our last presentation was missing a Works Cited page, which we will address.
  • All group members agree to build off of the last presentation.
    Jason says that the presentation should convey the ideas and information from the final write-up, but include more graphics (pictures).
  • All group members will work on the PowerPoint presentation, which is in a shared folder on Dropbox.

Meeting adjourned at 4:00 PM
Minutes respectfully compiled and submitted by Jason Choy.

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Agenda week of 12/10/14

Posted on by
Reply

Group 1 Meeting
December 15, 2014
3:00 PM – 4:00 PM
Virtual

Attendees: Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio

Objective: To talk about the last steps of the final project.

I. Finalize the final write-up

  • Create a work plan detailing how to finish up the final write-up (10 min)
  • Discuss ideas regarding the final write-up, including what changes we need to make (10 min)

II. Finalize the presentation

  • Discuss the changes we need to make compared to the last presentation (5 min)
  • Go over what changes we need to make for the final presentation (10 min)

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Progress Report #5

Posted on by
Reply

Group 1 – Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio
Professor Jill Belli
ENG 3773
12/05/2014
Progress Report #5

At this point, we’ve completed the game, the manual, and the survey. Over the course of the past week, Jason finished making the game, finalizing the fourth and final level and then playing it through to make sure everything works as intended. There were a few bugs that he had to fix, otherwise it was fine and both endings work as intended. He made two videos showcasing the last level: one for each ending, and both videos were shown to the group.

The manual has been complete for some time now, so we haven’t changed it but we will be distributing it very soon, along with the survey. We revised the survey as shown on our OpenLab blog post, although we followed up with another revision by adding two new questions and modifying another. This idea came up during our meeting, while discussing the body of the final write-up.

We will begin distributing the game, manual, and survey on December 6th. Vincent will distribute them to several family members, and Jason will do the same in addition to releasing it all privately online for certain people to test. Aside from this, most of our focus is on the final write-up, which we have all begun working on.

Everyone is making annotations for their sources that aren’t included in our annotated bibliography, so that we can have a finalized annotated bibliography which we will append in the final write-up. Each member also began writing about their sources; summarizing them and explaining in-detail how they helped us with our project. Once this is done (this won’t take longer than two days), we will come together and integrate it into the final write-up. Meanwhile, Jason has begun working on the cover page, table of contents, appendix, and works cited page. During our last online synchronous meeting (detailed in our meeting minutes from this week), we agreed on a layout for the final write-up which we are currently following. Our first draft will have more than what is required, and we should have the final draft finished several days early, if all goes to plan.

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Minutes week of 12-03-14

Posted on by
Reply

December 5, 2014
Attendees: Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio
Location: Virtual
Meeting called to order at 4:00 PM by Jason Choy

I. Discuss our finalized game

  • The group watched two videos showing the final level of the game, one for each ending.
  • Ray asked for clarification about the event that happens at the very end of the game, wondering if it makes sense.
  • Jason elaborated on said event and Ray now agrees with its inclusion into the game.

II. Discuss the survey

  • While discussing the survey, Jason thought of two new questions and modifying an existing one, which he promptly did.
  • Vincent said he will begin distributing the survey, along with the manual and game, this weekend.
  • Jason will also begin distribution starting this weekend.

III. Final write-up

  • The group created a basic layout for the final write-up, which everyone agreed on. The layout is comprised of an introduction to start the paper, which will include the thesis, before going on to describe the game and the manual in detail. This part of the paper is expected to be roughly 4 pages long. The next session is dedicated to background information, summarizing all of our sources and describing how they helped our project. This is expected to be 3-4 pages long. Then we will discuss the results of the survey and what they mean to us, which is expected to be 2-3 pages long. Then we’ll conclude our findings and end the paper, which should require 1-2 pages.
  • All group members started brainstorming thesis statements for the paper, throwing around ideas. In the end we decided on a thesis that will focus primarily on how video games can be intellectual as a storytelling medium, how they can help thinking, and how our game is an example of these things.
  • All group members were reading the “Final Project Write-up” page on OpenLab while discussing this topic. Jason suggests everyone should first write annotations for all of our newer sources (ones that we don’t have in our annotated bibliography), and then send him these sources and annotations. He will then put together a revised annotated bibliography.
  • The group discussed how to approach the appendix, looking up examples online. The group will collaboratively make the appendix after writing the paper.
  • The group agreed that every member will write about their sources; summarizing them and describing how they helped our project. These will all be integrated into our final write-up.
  • While the group writes about their sources, Jason will make the cover page and begin the Works Cited page.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM
Minutes respectfully compiled and submitted by Jason Choy.

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Agenda week of 12-03-14

Posted on by
Reply

Group 1 Meeting
December 5, 2014
4:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Virtual

Attendees: Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio

Objective: To talk about our game, and formulate a work plan for the final write-up.

I. Discuss our finalized game

  • Give feedback about the game and the final level (10 min)
  • Make a list of changes to make, if any (5 min)

II. Discuss the survey

  • Go over the survey in its current state, changing and adding questions if need be (15 min)
  • Discuss distribution of the survey (5 min)

III. Final write-up

  • Come up with a work plan for the final write-up (10 min)
  • Gather sources and other work we have for the appendix (10 min)

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Revised Survey

Posted on by
1

Our survey can be found on Dropbox.

The survey asks questions about our game, and our manual, in attempt to determine the usefulness/accessibility of the manual and also the effectiveness of the game.  The data will provide us with an idea of how our usability testing went, understanding what we did right and what we did wrong with regards to both the game and the manual.  We will show our survey results in the final write-up and final presentation, probably with a graph of some sort.  The survey will be short with only 17 questions, many of which are optional.  It should take less than ten minutes to complete.  Below we will list the rationale for each of the questions.

  1. “Did you read the user’s manual?” – A vital question, if they didn’t read our user’s manual then many of our other questions can’t be answered, and we would get no data on this part of our project.
  2. “On a scale of 1-5, how difficult was it for you to navigate through the user’s manual (5 being most difficult)?” – This question will of course be skipped if the person taking the survey answered “No” to #1.  This question is also very important since it addresses the general accessibility of the manual.
  3. “Did the manual contain all the information you needed about system requirements?” – A simple Yes/No question that will determine whether or not we missed any vital information about this part of the manual.
  4. “If you answered “No” to question number 3, what didn’t you find in the manual about system requirements?” – A much needed followup to question #3.
  5. “Did the manual contain all of the information you needed to install the game?” – Like question #3, but addressing another crucial part of the manual.
  6. “If you answered “No” to question number 5, what information didn’t you find in the manual about installation?” – An optional followup for #5.
  7. “Did the manual contain all of the information you needed to configure Dungeon Escape’s controls, graphics, and sound to your liking?” – This is similar to questions #3 and #5, but addressing yet another part of the manual.
  8. “If you answered “No” to question number 7, what information was missing from the manual regarding configuration?” – A followup just like #4 and #6.
  9. “Did the manual contain all of the information you needed in order to get a basic understanding of the gameplay of Dungeon Escape?” – Like the previous questions, this will let us know whether or not this section of the manual is thorough.
  10. “If you answered “No” to question number 9, what gameplay information didn’t you find in the manual?” – Last one, we promise.
  11. “On a scale of 1-5, how frightening did you find the game to be (5 being most
    frightening)?”     – In essence, this lets us know whether or not we did a good job designing the game.  It’s a horror game so it is meant to be scary.  This tells us whether or not the game was effective at delivering terror into the minds of our audience… they should remember the game forever.
  12. “On a scale of 1-5, how difficult did you find the game to be (5 being most difficult)?” – This sets up for #13.  With both of these questions we want to find out the difficulty tolerance that our audience has, and find out if we should consider trimming down the difficulty by a notch (which Jason would probably refuse to do).
  13. “Would you say the game is too difficult?” – We are considering integrating this into question #12’s numerical scale, such as just making 5 being “too difficult”.
  14. “What aspects of the game did you find to be most difficult?” – It will be useful to know which aspect of the game is the most difficult.  Combined with questions #12 and #13, it could give is an idea of what area of the game we should consider making less difficult.
  15. “Did you enjoy playing Dungeon Escape?” – We couldn’t make this survey without asking this.
  16. “Would you recommend this game to others?” – Like the previous question, this question is basically a requirement.  If they say yes that means in theory a game like this would sell, which means we did a good job!
  17. “What kind of gameplay changes, if any, would you have liked to see in the game?” – Their input here will give us an idea of what gameplay features they’d like to see (or existing ones they’d like to see removed).

We made many revisions to our survey.  The first one was the addition of a short paragraph at the top of the survey, that states its purpose.  Afterwards we rearranged the order of the survey to better fit this statement.  Questions about the manual now come first, and these questions are in a logical order (sort of like reading through the manual from front to back).

Questions relating to the game itself are now grouped after the questions about the manual.  We followed tradition in putting questions like “Did you enjoy the game?” and “Would you recommend this game to others?” at the end of the survey.  Another big revision involved breaking down one question into several, more specific ones.  Looking at the rationale listed above, questions 3-10 all stem from one original, broad question we had, which was “Did the manual contain all of the information you needed?”  We took this question and broke it down, making them revolve around specific topics within the manual.

These revisions make the survey more professional, more clear, more detailed, and they will provide us with more clear and detailed data.  We’ll now understand what specific aspects about the manual need improvement.  Our survey will be packaged with our manuals, which will be distributed via printed copies.  However, if we have enough time we’ll try to gather even more data by letting others download our game from the internet, complete with the manual and the survey, and send the survey results back to us.  This wouldn’t be a public assessment though, Jason would send the game and manual/survey to distant friends and contacts of his, and get the results back from them.  This isn’t a necessity for our project but more data couldn’t hurt.

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Survey first draft

Posted on by
Reply

Note: The actual survey will be distributed via printed, physical copies.

Dungeon Escape
Survey by Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio

1. Did you enjoy playing Dungeon Escape?

___ Very much so ___ Yes ___ Unsure/neutral ___ No ___ Not at all

2. On a scale of 1-5, how frightening did you find the game to be (5 being most frightening)?

[1]           [2]           [3]           [4]           [5]

3. On a scale of 1-5, how difficult did you find the game to be (5 being most difficult)?

[1]           [2]           [3]           [4]           [5]

4. Would you say the game is too difficult?

___ Yes           ___ No           ___ Uncertain

5. What aspects of the game did you find to be most difficult?

___ Puzzles   ___ Hostile creatures  ___ Getting lost   ___ Running out of light   ___ Other

6. Would you recommend this game to others?

___ Yes           ___ No           ___ Uncertain

7. Did you read the user’s manual?

___ Yes           ___ No           ___ Somewhat

8. On a scale of 1-5, how difficult was it for you to navigate through the user’s manual (5 being most difficult)? Skip this question if you answered “No” to question number 7.

[1]           [2]           [3]           [4]           [5]

9. Did the manual contain all of the information you needed? Skip this question if you answered “No” to question number 7.

___ Yes                     ___ No

10. If you answered “No” to question number 9, what didn’t you find in the manual?

 

11. What kind of changes, if any, would you have liked to see in the game?

 

12. What kind of changes, if any, would you have liked to see in the manual?

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Progress Report #4

Posted on by
Reply

Group 1 – Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio

Professor Jill Belli

ENG 3773

12/1/2014

Progress Report #4

Over the last week we have made some big strides for our game, most notably the completion of the fourth and final level. What’s left is for Jason to play it through and see if there are any problems or errors that we need to fix. Our manual is also complete in a more broad sense: we have every topic we wanted to include. We consider the manual to be more or less complete as it is.

We began making up survey questions during the Thanksgiving break, and we expect to have our first printed copy for the next class session. This leaves only one major task: the final write-up. We have discussed the final write-up but haven’t began writing the first draft yet. We will probably begin the first draft some time on the week of 12/3.

We have also been taking turns regarding meeting minutes, and we have had two virtual synchronous meetings since the last class session (and many asynchronous meetings). This process hasn’t changed. In addition we talked about our last presentation, and what to add to the final one. We have already established a Works Cited page is necessary, but for now we will keep working on the survey and final write-up primarily.

Jason, Ray, Vincent, Minutes week of 11-26-14

Posted on by
Reply

December 1, 2014

Attendees: Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio

Location: Virtual

Meeting called to order at 3:00 PM by Jason Choy

I. Discuss the current progress of the project

  • Jason says that the game might be complete, and only needs to be played through in order to find and fix possible errors.
  • No changes to the manual as of yet.
  • The group agrees that the main thing missing from our last presentation was a Works Cited page.

II. Future plans

  • Jason and Ray come up with some sample survey questions such as “Did you find the manual to be helpful?”, “How would you rate the manual’s accessibility?”, and “How frightening was the game?”
  • Jason says that the survey should be distributed via physical printed copies, and the group agrees.
  • Ray says that for the first draft of the final write-up, we can use all of our existing sources and our annotations, and make annotations for the newer sources. The group agrees unanimously.
  • Ray says that we can probably make 2-4 pages for the first draft, which we all agree on.

Meeting adjourned at 3:50 PM
Minutes respectfully compiled and submitted by Jason Choy.