Shalisse Thompson and I both collaborated on the prototype for our card game “Controversy”. As there are only two people in our collaborative group, it was a clearly joint effort as we were able to work together as a unit, taking turns to converse information and ideas. The delegation of tasks and division of roles was quite simple, I took responsibility for the visual and informative components of the assignment and Shalisse took control of the editing and sound components. Although we had these designated roles and tasks, we still crossed over and helped each other, completing the parts efficiently and easily.
For the visual component of our prototype, I used Canva to construct our PowerPoint/video. I’ve always found Canva to be an amazing platform that gives you the capability to create beautiful work with little to no effort. I structured each slide for each topic highlighted in the outline for the assignment such as the targeted audience, background research and in the marketplace. Once these slides were laid out neatly and presented beautifully with different, unique titles. Once the PowerPoint was structured, I began background research along with Shalisse. We devised which sections we would each research, we used the shared Canva project to insert our findings and information. In my background research, I found it important to relate our constructed card game to an already established card game. The chosen card game in relation was “Cards Against Humanity”. Shalisse and I agreed Cards Against Humanity was the perfect example to compare to our prototype, both games were overt, controversial, and loud. Using this established game as my foreground, I used it throughout the presentation to gain a sense of relation and understanding to the prototype of our card game “Controversy”. This was seen as an example through the “In The Marketplace” topic, I used Cards Against Humanity to prove the likeability, popularity and statistics in such games that cause discussion, laughs and dilemmas. Along with this example, I did further background research on topics to insert in the game to discuss, as the game itself is on controversial opinions. We presented the class with several example topics to gauge which were appropriate, and which were not in order to test the limits we can reach in terms of controversy. With the combination of research and opinion, I was able to build a concise and flowing set of slides in our PowerPoint.
Before this semester, I was yet to have worked in a group with only two people, usually, the groups I have been a part of were between 3-5 people, making the delegation of tasks and workload significantly different. As you can imagine, the workload was immensely smaller, with more people in your group you can make a larger and more extravagant project with more information. Having a larger group also allows more opinion, input, and discussion – this can also cause disagreements and polar opposite opinions. Despite the abundance of positive points in being in a larger group, being a duo was easier. Shalisse and I’s communication was easy, our discussion was easy, and our delegation of tasks was easy. In larger groups, communication can become difficult, and people may become mute and not carry their load on the project. In a duo, it is so uncomplicated to converse. Shalisse and I as part of our planning, spent hours bouncing back and forth between each other, discussing ideas and seeing what each other agreed and disagreed with. Deadlines, organising, and fairness were peaceful too. it was simple to just text each other and check up as well as see if we needed any help at all. In contrast, however, there were difficulties with working as a duo. As I discussed earlier, the workload was a lot, we had so much information we wanted to discuss but not enough time or people. It would have also been great to have a second opinion, as Shalisse would agree, we found it hard to disagree on what to do and had very like-minded opinions. After our presentation and receiving the tutor’s feedback, we realised that having a third person with an ulterior opinion could have levelled out our project.