Architectural Review Reflection
What new questions did you generate? How did the review go? Did you get answers to your key questions? Did you provide too much/too little context for your audience? Did you stick closely to your planned agenda, or did you discover new things during the discussion that made you change your plans? What could you do next time to have an even more effective technical review?
People’s feedback on class structure was very helpful, as we were unsure if we would need to write more classes than we had detailed, or whether the ones we had planned would be flexible enough. We were curious about how compelling people would find the story. We had a lot of mixed feedback on the narrative element. Overall, people indicated that the plot would be important for the game, but some people said they found the space theme confusing or not very compelling. Some people’s responses were encouraging, and said we should focus on making a really strong puzzle element.
There was a split between people saying they would be interested in a serious tone of story vs a parody. We were already considering a semi-serious plotline with a few jokes or easter eggs, so we will probably go down that somewhat middle road.
The review got off to a pretty rough start, as our presentation couldn’t be displayed, and most of us were pretty nervous. We definitely could have provided more context for the audience, as some of what we had planned was forgotten in the panic of the slides not working. We did ask and address our main talking points and questions eventually though not in the most elegant way. Next time, hopefully, we won’t all have had a large QEA assignment due the day before, and therefore have more time to properly rehearse what we’re going to say. We will rehearse a little more, think more in depth about what information we are looking for, and perhaps try and work on presentation and public speaking.