We keep preparing for halves while developing the games at the same time to prepare for our playthrough.
Leading up to the presentation, we met with our instructors to review our slides, discuss our progress, and prepare to communicate our design decisions. We focused on explaining how our technical experiments and playtesting findings shaped the direction of our project.
During Halves, we shared our transition from point-cloud rendering to body tracking, as well as our shift from linear puzzles toward shorter, more interactive mini-games. We also discussed a key finding from our playtests: the Tilt Five player often dominated the experience, leaving the room players with little to do. This led us to explore mechanics involving simultaneous participation and real-time physical interaction.
Feedback and Reflections
Overall, we received positive feedback on our technical progress, problem-solving, and willingness to iterate. Reviewers appreciated our exploration of different approaches and the foundation we had established.
However, several reviewers felt that our gameplay was still unclear and wanted to see more concrete demonstrations. Another recurring concern was the limited agency of the room players. We were encouraged to explore stronger two-way communication, clearer audiovisual feedback, and interactions that better highlight Tilt Five’s unique capabilities.
Friday Playthrough
During Friday’s playthrough, we demonstrated two prototype mechanics:
Balancing: The virtual floor tilts based on the room players’ positions. The Tilt Five player communicates the floor’s movement while the room players adjust their positions to maintain balance.
Hiding: A ghost periodically creates dangerous areas. The Tilt Five player guides the room players behind obstacles that exist in both the physical and virtual spaces.
The feedback identified several issues with the current prototypes.
For balancing, the constant instability and single-axis rotation made the interaction repetitive. Reviewers suggested allowing players to reach a stable state before introducing disruptions and giving room players more information and control over the balance.
For hiding, the interest curve was relatively flat, with limited variation between rounds. Reviewers also suggested clearer wayfinding and more immediate feedback on individual player states.
A common issue across both mechanics was the lack of meaningful two-way communication. Room players still relied heavily on the Tilt Five player’s instructions, with limited opportunities to make decisions or communicate useful information back.
Next Steps
For the next iteration, we will focus on improving the following areas:
- Player agency: Give room players more meaningful decisions and opportunities to influence the game state.
- Communication: Support continuous, two-way information exchange through clearer spatial references and feedback.
- Gameplay pacing: Introduce more variation in challenges, including periods of stability and escalating disruptions.
- Feedback: Improve audiovisual responses so players can immediately recognize changes in game state and individual outcomes.
We will continue prototyping and playtesting these mechanics, aiming to deliver two playable mini-games for Playtest Day and three polished experiences for Fall Festival.