Game Jam Boston June 2007/Feedback
Judging Forms
These are the forms we will be using to collect data during the judging on the final day of the Jam. Please comment and edit, but make sure anything you add would be applicable to all games. Note that the parents are going to be filling these out for their kids.
- Game Jam Form/Child Survey - demographics, one per judge
- Game Jam Form/Child Feedback - feedback on specific games, one per judge per game
- Game Jam Form/Developer Observations - for developers to note interesting things during judging
- Game Jam Form/Adult Feedback - for non-judges to give feedback on specific games
Feedback on judging forms
- Are all 'child forms' to be filled by the parent? No direct comment from the child?
- Comments were mainly from the judges, who were children. Younger cihldren were helped by their parents to fill out forms quickly.
- Also, what about the type of games they normally play? (ie: browser based or cd/installed; action vs. puzzle; etc) Did they like the graphics? Sound? Idea? Were the input methods (keys, touchpad) good? Would they like to play it again? Would they add/remove something?
- We didn't ask enough normalizing questions about their background... did ask for general feedback about input methods, but it was generally hard for them to get used to the varying levels of lag.
- Another suggestion could be to record a video of the children playing the game, so that later you may see what interactions they had with other kids and the games... 2cts, --Xavi 02:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
Judges' comments
One parent said Kuku Anakula was "...a great game for 2nd to 3rd graders" - some judges asked for easier math questions, others for harder ones.
One judge liked the Labyrinth game so much they returned to play it afterwards. A pair of siblings had a small argument because one got to play it through twice.
One judge described 3dPong as "awesome... oh yes, I scored another point!"
Pythagoras was described as having the "...best intro of the session"
Reversi was so "awesome" and "very absorbing" that it was "only easy to leave because it was a two player game and the game ended."
Sprayplay was "really fun" and one young judge said it was the "best game yet."
Typeblocker was "addictive" and "hard to stop," and Sort spanned the widest age range, being enjoyed by a 12-year-old judge and a 3.5-year-old judge.
Judging Data
See GameJam_BostonJune2007_JudgingData for numbers.
There were 18 data-judges (from 20 folders). I did not count the total number of judges. Folder #9 did not get filled out, folder #20 did not get returned.
Identifying information in comments (gender, age) have been stripped out and been replaced with generic [child] or [judge] nouns-in-brackets. You can correlate back to gender and age of judge by number, though.
Gender distribution: 4 female, 14 male. Check to see if your game appealed more strongly to one gender or another.
Age distribution: (6-8 years) - 8, (9-11 years) - 7, (12-14 years) - 3. Note that 2 of the female judges were 12-14 years old.
Gaming experience: All but 3 judges played video games at least once a week. All but 5 played video games at least 3 times a week. This may account for the "it needs instructions" mentality we occasionally encountered.
Computer experience: All but 3 judges (who started between 5-8 years old) started using computers between 0-4 years old. All judges used computers both at school and home. 7 judges had their own computers at home.
Some general comments: The judging was definitely biased towards easily demonstratable, fast-to-play games. Any suggestions on how we can change this would be very welcome. During the event, some children wanted to play with the "real computers" (non-XOs), some wanted to play with the XOs and not the "normal computers."
Participant feedback
User:MitchellNCharity#Game Jam feedback
From an adult judge's assistant: I believe that the judges who RSVP'ed should have been given priority to play with the games (at least initially). Perhaps a list of those pre-registered could have been read and those students instructed to go to the computer room first. (perhaps even have specific assignments for each judge to start at a particular game). It was very chaotic in the room and it was very difficult for my two judges to get to play games (in fact, they were "done" even before they had to leave because they were disappointed). A bigger room was needed, or perhaps the use of two rooms and then judges switch rooms after 30 minutes or so. I know you did not anticipate that so many people would show up, and you did the best you could with what you had. I'm sure it was very overwhelming to have so many judges show up! I just think those that RSVP'ed should have been given priority. Ultimately, it's a good lesson for kids that planning ahead sometimes has rewards! :)