2.744
Concept Exploration (sketch model) Reviews
Home > Assignments > Concept exploration results > Reviews for Fallout factory (works-like)


 ConceptExecution
Average Rating
 
Client 1:
Client 2:
Reviewer 3:
Reviewer 4:
Reviewer 5:
Reviewer 6:
Reviewer 7:
1-marginal     2-ok    3-good     4-very good    5-outstanding

Feedback on the concept explored by the sketch model

Client 1:

I like it, it's a novel take on monkey bars. My only concern is difficulty.

return to top of page


Client 2:

Yowza - that's a hard game! I think you discovered how difficult it is to hang from something like that, and try to reach up to grab the next thing.

I take circus / trapeze classes for fun, and in order to reach above yourself to grab a bar like that, it requires a lot of upper body strength that most people don't have. I think you realized that in your testing, that the more spokes you have, the less distance you have to cover. This would definitely be on the far upper end of physical difficulty for these rooms, which doesn't rule it out, but would require a lot of careful play testing.

Also, if you move forward with this idea - I recommend wrapping your bar in athletic tape. It's easily replaceable, and will provide players something more comfortable to hold onto than raw wood. It will also give them a much better feeling of grip.

The thickness of the bar also matters greatly. Most trapeze bars are 1-1/4" thick, which tends to accommodate the highest range of adult hands.

return to top of page


Reviewer 3:

The rig that the user will swing across is a critical portion of this world and a great item to model. I wonder if you considered other designs for the swinging device?

return to top of page


Reviewer 4:

This seems really hard - having just gone rock climbing this weekend, I experienced something similar while trying to pull myself up to the next hold by one arm only and it was impossible for me. The idea to have scalable difficulty through the addition/subtraction of bars is a good idea, but as is, this seems way to challenging for the typical player. Further exploration of other monkey bar designs might also be a good idea - for example, would stationary, but different height, monkey bars be a little more doable for the typical user?

return to top of page


Reviewer 5:

I think the idea of testing a way of simulating dropping is interesting, but I'm not completely sold on the chances that enough users would be able to propel the model forward (given the strength required). I'm also not entirely clear on how the user moves forward across the room -- is the model set on rails?

return to top of page


Reviewer 6:

I'm not sure how the idea became so focused on having many of these eggbeaters between the earlier storyboard and the execution. Personally I would have preferred to exploration of lots of different difficult variants, like monkey bars on an asymmetric teeter totter, bars pivoting on offset angles, bars of funny shapes that make them difficult to hold etc. Also could go with the storyboard of the exposed rebar better?

return to top of page


Reviewer 7:

Great job on testing the safety issues, eliminating the spring idea and testing for difficulty level. I thought it was also smart for fast prototyping to test on an existing monkey bar. It may have been useful to also test for grip - I remember from the video in class the player slipped off easily and complained about splinters. Perhaps could've tested with different materials like the rubber liner you place in cupboards and drawers.

return to top of page



Feedback on the execution of the sketch model

Client 1:

I really like that you made your model out of material that was sturdy enough to test it, and then did go test it! You learned via testing that most people can't pull themselves up high enough to grab the next bar, and said that you could scale difficulty by adding more bars. I agree, but I'm not sure that adding more bars would decrease the difficulty ENOUGH for the average American adult to do it. Definitely something to test going forward!

return to top of page


Client 2:

Good job with the testing! Sometimes it's really impossible to know how hard something is without trying it out.

return to top of page


Reviewer 3:

Very robust construction! It's great that you really got something functioning that you could experience and draw useful conclusions from. I thought the takeaways in your YouTube video were very apparent.

return to top of page


Reviewer 4:

This was a great sketch model; it answered a lot of questions, but was very simple. Clever to use already existing monkey bars as your support structure. Well-built too! My only comments: your initial sketches are hard to read and a little confusing - a revised version would have been nice. Even though you ultimately didn't include them, I'm still not clear on what extra challenge the springs were meant to present. Also, you presented some videos in class of different users - these would have been great to include on the website so that we can see again more how the users interacted with the bars.

return to top of page


Reviewer 5:

The model is well thought-out, and the conclusions seem sound. I would have found videos on the website helpful in understanding the chances of success (as I mentioned above, it does seem to require a lot of strength. I'd be interested in seeing how adding more bars works out).

return to top of page


Reviewer 6:

Testing the difficulty quickly using simple wood construction and an existing climbing frame is excellent and you learned what you wanted. I'm surprised with how smoothly the wood on wood rolled.

return to top of page


Reviewer 7:

Great job on execution, you built a sturdy enough device to test in person - I think this was smart vs. building say a smaller scale model you couldn't have tested weight, safety and difficulty with.

return to top of page