View final presentation
My teammates and I were part of Team Squid. We began brainstorming many ideas in the Product Design Lab (PDL) and used an empty space we could find to see all of our crazy ideas in one place. It was quite a sight.
We created a comparison chart where we rated each idea against an idea we labeled as the standard. We had multiple categories that we weighted depending on how important we thought it was, and we did this for every sheet of paper we drew. After having debated how to score our ideas for a few hours, we finally came to agree on three ideas to further pursue: Tactile Search, Unicorn Reborn, and OctoGrab.
Tactile Search focused on one's sense of touch. The player would have to distinguish if an object would be worth points based on it's physical properties and feel without looking at it and add it to their point basket. Unicorn Reborn's principle is similar to Infection in that all of the players with a unicorn horn would try to add a horn to those who didn't have a horn. Lastly, OctoGrab was a reaction based game. There would be a spinning octopus with different color and patterned tentacles and would spin at different levels of speed. Like musical chairs, the octopus would show which tentacle to pick and then one player has nothing and is out.
For the approaching design critique, all teams were tasked with creating visual representations of our three ideas in front of the entire class and faculty. We had to pitch each game and we were then critiqued on the idea and on our way we delivered our pitches.
After our design critiques, we narrowed our ideas to two by deciding on what would be best to explore and develop based on our criteria and feedback. Ultimately, we chose to pursue Tactile Search and OctoGrab. We then made a trip to the Boston's Children's Museum to get feedback from the users themselves: the kids (and parents)! We designed preliminary ideas for both. For Tactile Search we filled a tub of water with water beads and different objects, and for OctoGrab we made in Octopus with different tentacles that could spin. We used wood as the base of the octopus head, foamcore for the head, felt to cover it, yarn for the tentacles, and a drill that would spin the rod attached to the head to simulate the octopus spinning.
We let kids of different ages come play with our toys and we observed to see how they first interacted with it. Were they confused? Did they love it? Did they hate it? We then asked them about the gameplay as a whole. What was fun? What would make it better? We also looked at behavioral responses. The subtle indications that tell us more about how to make our toy better.
After our research we discussed what kids responded to the most, and that was Tactile Search. As a team, we decided to move forward with this as our final toy product idea. But what to name this toy and what theme? Well, we thought about how there is suspense in what you touch, as you can't see into the bin. What is similar? The deep sea. So now we have out theme: underwater. From this, we decided to name our toy Deep SeaUrchin' or Deep Searchin'. There would be a bin with 4 baskets for 4 players. There would be "good" toys that were worth some points and "dangerous" ones that were worth negative points. There would also be the bonus seahorse and urchin that were difficult to find that was woth bonus points. The "negative" toys could be put into other people's basket to eliminate their points. The goal of the game was to have the most points.
We went to the Children's Museum once more to get more feedback on what we wanted Deep SeaUrchin' to look like. So we made more mockups to think of bin design and overall rules of the game.
We had to specify what each team member needed to do. We needed to obtain the bin to hold our water and laser cut lid for it. We were still going to use water beads as a distracting medium for the player. We also needed to make the toys for the kids to grab. How do we make these toys, well that was what I was in charge of.
I used mold material to create my shapes. I tried many types and used many processes. After hours after trying different things, I finally got the technique down. I would find toy animals that had smoother shapes as my "good" toys and the "dangerous" ones would have more pointy or jagged shapes. So I'd create a rectangular mold, place the toys on top of it, and then complete the other half of the mold.
I did this with many animals, and some turned out better than others. I finally narrowed it down to these "good" animals: clam, seahorse, and fish. For my "dangerous" animals I chose: the pufferfish, the stingray, and the swordfish. These animals were a harder plastic, thus, easier to find. The other seahorse and urchin on the other hand were of a squishy substance, like the water beads; therefore, it was much harder to find in the bin.
My groupmates and had to practice our final product pitch to a room of 400 people, most strangers who could just show up. The presentations had to be fun, entertaining, and informative. We needed to get fun costumes...
Overall, I had a great experience. My teammates became my friends, and 2.00B became one of my favorite classes of all time at MIT. I learned so much about going through the design process, about prototyping, about LISTENING to the needs and wants of those using the product, about human-centered design, and about enjoying the journey. 11/10 experience.
return to projects page