Monkey Fruit Prototype Evals

My job last week was to observe the consultants playing with the monkey game that CC prototyped. He loaded it on to the two iMacs that are in the back room. They were set up side by side and the screens angled so that the video camera could capture both stations simultaneously. The players were not initially prompted on how the game is to be played. The only instructions provided were the simple on screen instructions built into the game itself.

Evan & David

The first two consultants to test were Evan(13) & David(12). There was no hesitation. Both sat down and began playing the game without prompting. The did not appear to have much trouble figuring out what to do. On the first level, they began dragging bananas to the puzzle grid and after hitting "go" they observed what happened. Evan very quickly asked if " the monkey always turned right ?" I asked him what he thought the answer to his own question might be. I believe he knew the answer and just wanted me to confirm. David was a little more reserved. He actually watched what Evan did and used Evan's attempts to figure out the game. They remained quite verbal with each other throughout the observation. They would make comments on gameplay, make suggestions , inform each other on what a particular fruit made the monkey do. I even heard David say "cool!" when he figured out how the game worked. They both picked up the game very quickly and soon began to compete. I noticed them often checking to see who completed the next level first. I think they actually enjoyed trying to figure out how the game worked. The monkey character seemed to make them laugh.

The blender took a few minutes to figure out but it seemed to add an interesting dimension to the game. They asked each other what combinations worked best. Did not seem to have a problem with the concept of the game. I think some more on screen directions, animation, navigation tweaks, interaction feedback would help. The iso grid was a little tricky at first but they both adjusted to it very quickly. Also, I noticed David actually had to turn his head to help him visualize which way the monkey would turn. He understood that the banana makes the monkey turn to his right but it took a while for him to get used to the fact that it is relevant to which direction the monkey is facing. I don't think this is negative.

At the end of gameplay they were asked:

1. Did you enjoy the game?
Both replied that they did.

2. What did you like about the game?
They stated that they liked the fact that you had to figure out what each fruit was for in order to advance to the next level. Having to remember what each fruit did also seemed to be a positive aspect of the game. Liked having to "think".

3. What did you not like about the game?
One comment I caught was that they thought it was too easy. Evan felt it would have been better if the levels were harder.

Hanah & Alicia

The next two consultants were Hanah(11) and Alicia(11). Again, the players did not hesitate to jump right in and begin. The most noticable difference between the first pair and this two is the level of interaction. They hardly spoke with each other and did not even appear to be looking at each other's screens. They asked no questions and made no comments.

Hanah advanced more quickly than Alicia. Alicia made numerous attempts at dropping fruit randomly around the grid and it took quite some time for her to advance to the second level. I noticed that they expected the monkey to follow the fruit that was placed as opposed to placing fruit in his path to get him to change direction. Makes a good deal of sense. Maybe we should take this into consideration somehow? I think this is how they not only expected the game to work but wanted the game to work this way.

The blender was a sticking point as well. Initially, they got the concept very quickly. Later, Hanah got stuck on the blender. She needed to make a smoothie with either two apples or two bananas to make the monkey do an about face and just could not get there. She had already made the conclusion that a two grape smoothie makes the monkey jump twice as high but it took some prompting from me to get her thinking about trying more smoothie combinations.

Alicia ran into game mechanic problem that frutrated her and eventually forced her to quit the game and begin again. She placed a fruit on the grid that she could not remove because of a tree. Numerous attempts were made to no avail. Eventually had to begin again. She progressed much more quickly the second time through the game. Very late in gameplay the girls began talking to and helping one another. They laughed at the monkey and seemed interested in the game. As they progressed through the levels they became less interested in getting coins and more intersted in just advancing to the next level. We need to take this into consideration and add some value to those coins. Maybe this helps with replayability?

At the end of gameplay they were asked:

1. Did you enjoy the game?
Both replied that they did.

2. What did you like about the game?
They liked the monkey and also stated they liked the fact that they had to think about what to do.

3. What did you not like about the game?
They did not like the mechanical problem that caused Alicia to quit. They also stated they would have appreciated a few hints on how to get through the levels.

Chasen & Clare

The next two consultants were Chasen(12) and Clare(12). They began playing and I immediately noticed the differences in approach the two had. Chasen began by dropping a fruit hitting GO and seeing what happened. Then make adjustments, see results and then proceed to add more fruit and test. Very methodical. Clare's take on the game was very apparent. She expected the monkey to follow the fruit. She began by dragging a fruit to every square and trying to create a path of fruit for the monkey to follow. She did not test. Just filled all the squares. When that was done she eventually hit go and seemed shocked that the monkey turned and fell off the grid. After testing a couple more times and observing Chasen she easily picked up the concept. She then had to remove all the fruit she had laid out before proceeding. Maybe we need a "remove all" button for this very reason. The two advanced quickly through the levels. They were more verbal and asked questions. I think working with someone else helps.

The blender may require some hints or examples. They understood that they could make smoothies from two fruits but it seems to be a somewhat frustrating trial and error. Game mechanic issue: if you blend a smoothie, attempt to drop it on a square and miss, you lose the smoothie and must reblend it. Another thing I noticed is that they seemed to want to be able to drag fruit to the grid while the monkey was in motion. Clare became impatient with the game because of this, and she stopped attempting to get coins and just wanted to advance levels.

At the end of gameplay they were asked:

1. Did you enjoy the game?
Chasen stated he did. Clare did not outright say she disliked the game but that is the impression I got.

2. What did you like about the game?
They liked the monkey and also stated they liked the fact that they had to think about what to do. The also said it was easy.

3. What did you not like about the game?
They thought the game needed to be more difficult and have doors and stairs.

In Summary

I think the test was a success. The kids seemed comfortable for the most part. I think most enjoyed the game for the reasons we hoped( the monkey, the thinking required). I think some more on screen directions, animation, navigation tweaks, interaction feedback would help but I think we are on the right track. Even in it's most basic form the game was engaging and fun. Thanks to Stephanie for letting me steal some of her notes for this post.