Prototyping and iterating during the making of Schwister with Daniele Hopkins and Kyle Duffield

In this interview Daniele Hopkins and Kyle Duffield are talking about the making of a physical game called Schwister. The conversation explores the cross over between branding work and experimental work, constraints and prototyping.

Subscribe using your favourite podcast player or RSS

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts   |  Spotify   |  Amazon Music  |   Android   |   Instagram   |   RSS

Highlights

• [0:01:21] Introduction to the game Schwister and its experience for players.
• [0:02:24] The idea for Schwister came from a commission for Absolut Vodka.
• [0:04:02] The process of exploring ideas and tinkering with the game.
• [0:05:49] The collaboration process and the use of iPad prototypes.
• [0:08:09] Building a prototype on the iPad using Max MSP and Mira.
• [0:09:45] Streamlining the technical solution for efficiency and portability.
• [0:11:51] Observing how people interact with the game and learning from it.
• [0:14:00] Adjusting sensitivity and logistics for smoother presentations.

About Kyle Duffield

Kyle Duffield is a Toronto-based interactive experience design professional who creates immersive interactive installations and brand activations. Kyle’s expertise spans audio, video, creative coding, electronics, and interaction design with the intent of bringing play and multi-sensory spectacle to public spaces. As an educator, Kyle has facilitated interactive media courses and workshops with various institutions, galleries, and universities across North America, the UK, Shanghai and online. Currently, Kyle is a Cycling '74 Max Certified Trainer, and is focusing on creating unforgettable technological experiences.

About Daniele Hopkins

Daniele Hopkins is a Toronto-based intermedia artist and the Executive Director of Electric Perfume, an experiential arts hub. She curates showcases, facilitates learning opportunities, and develops interactive projects for various events and clients. Her work explores intersections of nature, technology, sound, and interactivity. Daniele is passionate about teaching and mentorship and has served on the board of directors for Musicworks Magazine, The Hand-Eye Society, and Gallery X Scarborough.

About Electric Perfume

Electric Perfume artists, Daniele Hopkins and Kyle Duffield, have worked together for over a decade making immersive projects in a variety of mediums. Through Electric Perfume, they create and curate multisensory interactive social experiences in the form of events, activations, public art, gamified solutions, technical consultancy, and workshops. Electric Perfume has functioned as a creative studio and gallery space located in Toronto, curating over 150 public events consisting of exhibitions, festivals, performances, screenings, workshops, socials, and meetups. Hopkins and Duffield are always excited to be taking on new challenges, learning and merging new technologies, and love creating and showcasing alongside cool new friends!

Links from the podcast

• Learn more about Schwister
• Visit Kyle Duffield’s website
• Connect with Daniele Hopkins on Instagram
• Visit the Electric Perfume website

Edited transcript of this interview with Daniele Hopkins and Kyle Duffield

What is Schwister and how do people play it?

Robin: Cole and Daniel, welcome to the Creating New Spaces podcast. We’re going to be talking about one of your pieces called Schwister. Could you start by telling the audience what this piece is and what the experience of it is for the interactor?

Kyle: Well, Schwister is, essentially, a party game. It’s designed as an LED tile game, where between four and sometimes even up to ten people will be around it. And it’s kind of like a Whack-a-Mole meets Twister.

Daniele: We designed it as a bit of an icebreaker game so that people can walk into the room, they don’t know what it is, and they’ll be playing this game together with strangers in no time. And as Kyle said, it’s designed for four players, but it can be played with two and up to however many people fit around it — which we’ve seen ten-ish before.

Kyle: One more thing — the game mechanic is that the table is designed so that you have to collaborate with someone on the opposite side, and that’s your teammate. And the LED tiles shuffle: it’s red versus blue. First team to shut off their tiles wins.

Robin: So people end up randomly forming teams with strangers?

Kyle: Yes.

From brand commission to game concept

Robin: Where’d the idea for the piece come from?

Daniele: Initially, the very first iteration of the piece was a commission that we had gotten from Absolut Vodka, and they had simply asked us to ‘light up the night’ for their event. And that was basically all that they gave us. They kind of made a little nudge to do something that was also interactive. And at that time, we used that budget to make a bar-top surface that was pressure sensitive, so that when people at the party put their drink down on the bar top, or they leaned on the bar, it would make these spinning wonderful little rainbows underneath, and it would be a rainbow bar top. It was also sound reactive, so it bounced to the music in Absolut blue. And that was the very first iteration of this project and where we got the infrastructure.

Daniele: But from that point, we felt like: it has these switches; we have this lovely acrylic bar top — why not turn it into a game? And that’s where it came from.

Kyle: Yeah. And what’s cool is we can think about them as giant glowing buttons, right? So each tile lights up, and when you put [pressure on it] it’s either on or off — but once you have that basic mechanic, you can essentially… you know, what do you have, let’s say 16 of them, like we did? Actually, we had more. We reduced it down to 16. Now we have just 16 giant glowing buttons.

Robin: Really nice open brief for a piece of brand activation work. So you had the infrastructure, you had the piece of tech — did you start tinkering with it, or did it come from a more conceptual idea?

Daniele: I think from early on we kind of had this concept between us of: if we own all this infrastructure, we should turn it into a game at some point, because these are a bunch of cool, glowing buttons.

Kyle: We had to figure out what the game was.

Daniele: Yeah, we had to figure out what the game was. So a lot of it came out of play, and of the two of us putting our minds together on ways to make this fun and something we can play with.

Prototyping the game mechanic before building the table

Robin: Okay, I can sort of visualise you packing it up and taking it back to [your space], and then starting to play with it — and to sit down and go, what can we do with this? How can we make this work? Is that sort of how the process started?

Kyle: Well, I think we even had some previous ideas before we turned it to a table. I think originally Daniele was saying to have them on different parts of the room, so you have to run around and press different switches, going way back. And then we started consolidating it…

Daniele: We obviously went down the dance floor route — yeah, how do we make this so people can stand on it? But yeah, that was too much.

Kyle: Yeah. And then I think, actually, the original version of Schwister, too — I think we thought of it as actually just using arcade video game buttons, like from an arcade machine. And that was going to be our original prototype. And then we decided, hey, we have these giant buttons. Let’s use those.

Robin: When you’re exploring those sorts of things, are you drawing, or just throwing around the ideas, or you’re moving things around the space — wondering how the core of the collaboration works?

Daniele: Definitely all of the above, for sure. We try different things. We move around. We take the different tools. We try different things with those tools. And Kyle, you want to go on about the iPad part?

Kyle: Oh yeah — just to try the game. So we had these buttons, but the original concept, even, we did a prototype on an iPad and just played it with our fingers to see: is this fun? Does this make sense? Because if you’re going to go into the full production mode of building this large table — that obviously has some time and expenses to it — you’ve got to make sure the core mechanic is down. So it’s kind of cool, because even though we have the infrastructure, you still are just… like a lot of interactive stuff: in a very wireframe, prototyping kind of way. Or workflow, I should say.

Daniele: Which also included us buying a variety of different types of switches and then stress testing them with all kinds of tools — like hammers and stuff — just to see what would happen, which I include as part of the play.

Kyle: Yeah, and then we were bashing the switches with a literal hammer just to see — okay, people are aggressive.

Daniele: We have to be ready for that stuff.

Kyle: I was just going to say: we generally have to keep in mind that we’re designing things for intoxicated people and children.

Robin: Do you actually consciously sit there and make time to sit there and go, okay, we’re going to do this bit of exploration — or does that sort of happen amongst the other things that you’re doing across the day as you’re working together?

Daniele: I think we actually made time for this. Do you remember correctly on that?

Kyle: I think a bit. But usually, if we have an opportunity, that’s when things start to really converge.

Daniele: If there’s a goal to work toward.

Kyle: Yeah, because a lot of it too is: you have to design to the actual context — the social setting. And I think a lot of our work really takes into account where it’s being presented, who’s experiencing it, what the kind of social situation is, is there other stuff — and some of those logistics.

Tools and technical choices: from Max to Processing, Arduino and Raspberry Pi

Robin: Just to dive into the prototype for a moment — how did you build a prototype on the iPad? How did you do it, technically?

Kyle: It’s funny — we actually used Max (Cycling ’74) and Mira. The iPad essentially… if you’re familiar with Max toggles and just different colours — yeah, it was just a very quick prototype. The prototype took maybe like an hour just to bang it out, just as, you know, it’s going to be thrown away.

Daniele: We probably spent more time playing it.

Robin: Okay, so you did throw out that you didn’t actually then take some of the code objects from that and that evolved into the actual piece.

Kyle: No, because the way this worked: it used a lot of addressable LEDs. So that’s where we actually — technically the first, I’d say iteration, which continued from the Absolut [commission] — is we’re using an LED library combined with Processing and Arduino.

Robin: Yeah.

Kyle: Okay.

Robin: So it’s a really different tech solution than the Max MSP solution, and probably a lot more complicated, and a lot more barriers as well.

Kyle: But the beauty of it too is it can run on… it’s a bit more open source. We have it actually running on a Raspberry Pi currently, right? So you start with a higher level, work with the tools you’re familiar with, and then think about how to streamline it, consolidate it. Yeah — stuff like that.

Designing for touring, set-up time and the social context

Robin: Why did you do that consolidation part and streamline it? Why didn’t you just stay with a tool that you knew really well?

Kyle: I think a lot of it has to do with efficiency. And also it’s nice when you can just plug in a tidy computer. Also, a lot of the stuff we do — we have to put it on a truck, right? So the more gear you’re putting in, the more things you’re plugging in… it’s good to have the higher-level nice computer doing it, but it’s nice when you can, through the different iterations. A big part of our planning was how to make it quicker to set up, and more transportable — storage-wise too — and all those things.

Daniele: The first couple of times we presented it, it took a little longer. We had more things, more little parts to connect, and the whole structure took a bit longer to set up. So a lot of these changes were in relation to just making that easier for transport and set-up.

Robin: One of the things with a lot of installation work is it’s quite often quite experimental. So it doesn’t tour well, it doesn’t travel well, it takes a long time to set up. And so you’re factoring that into your actual process as professionals.

Kyle: Plus, it’s like — whatever — you have something experimental like this, it’s like: well, people actually like it. People actually get it, right? So then, you know — okay, yeah, they do. Let’s invest more into this and pursue it, and also learn from our own… we’re always learning, right? This whole career — you’re always learning something new, trying new things. That’s what keeps it interesting.

Daniele: That’s one of the reasons, for sure, that this project has multiple iterations — is we saw people playing it, and they really did like it. And every time we presented it, people had so much fun. And we personally watched people who’d never met each other before: they’ll stumble upon the table, lean up against it, put a drink on it, and they see it lights up, and they’re like, what is this table doing? Why is it lighting up? And then I was running stats the whole time, so I would count how many seconds it took before they figured out it was a game. And I think the average was around 45 seconds before people went from leaning on it, seeing a light, to: ‘Oh, hey, person I’ve never met — go on the other side and play this with me.’

Kyle: This is with no instruction.

Daniele: Yeah. So that was something that was delightful for us — was to watch people, with zero instruction, go from thinking this is just a piece of furniture to all playing the same game as each other. They would all figure out the same game. We kept it simple and straightforward enough that that was possible.

Kyle: And the other cool thing is: once they figure out [how to interact], interaction is contagious — so then you have more people coming, right? And then it’s like: ‘Oh, check this out. This is how it works,’ right? So they’re right in a conversation there, just by kind of figuring out the…

Daniele: System. I think people naturally understand red…

Kyle: Versus blue. Or any brand colour in future iterations, if they have two colours.

Iteration, play testing and advice for building physical games

Robin: So what did you learn from the process?

Kyle: Technically, there’s a lot of learning. I think one thing, too, about this project is our previous game installation was a giant room full of lasers, which would take about — what — eight, nine hours to set up. Daniele? To average.

Daniele: Yeah, we definitely learned from that one.

Kyle: To do better… [and to avoid] one player at a time. I think we had like — when it got rented out for one party, it’s cool, but there’s like a 30-minute line-up to play our game, right? So just to maybe describe that: that was called Laser Equipped Annihilation Protocol. It’s a room full of lasers. The lasers go in alternating patterns. You have to get through, shut it down before the time runs out. And there’s this giant malicious artificial intelligence-type head taunting you the entire time.

Kyle: Users could submit their own taunts so then they become the boss. So it’s like it’s insulting you. There’s high scores that are kept in the scoreboard. But again: long line-ups, a lot of technical set-up. You need very specific spatial and environmental requirements. So Schwister was the opposite: a four-foot by four-foot table, multiple people playing at the same time, zero instruction.

Daniele: Sorry — for the last iteration, it was much faster to set up. So we learned a lot from the first project — from the laser project — how to do this one better. [That’s] not quite answering your question of what we learned from this project.

Robin: Also it’s interesting how you sort of pitch that as technical, because in some ways it’s more about the actual design of the experience — both for yourselves to set the thing up, as well as people actually experiencing it and having to do the line-up, and it’s more complicated to do. So it’s like that logistics, infrastructure, interaction design piece. How about — what did you learn from the actual interaction design?

Daniele: It was very cool to watch how people get something that quickly. And we did have a bit of a process on how to lead people through the experience where the very first iteration we did — we did have screens. It had very light instruction. We’ve always tried to do all of our projects with as little instruction as possible, but we had sort of guiding instruction on screens. And we had light-up arcade buttons around the outside of it — that were just to try to encourage people: these are buttons, this is a game. And as we iterated it, by the end we realised we don’t really need that stuff, because people will lean on it, they will press on it, they’ll see a surface, they’ll put something on it and they’ll figure it out that way.

Kyle: Well, I think another thing is the screens. Originally we just didn’t know if we would design other games with it. So there was potential that you could select different modes, or maybe you get screen feedback, right? But in both versions really what there is is: on one side, or two sides facing each other, you’d have just red arcade buttons; the other side are two blue buttons. That’s the only… right? That’s the key thing. So you know who you are.

Robin: Just throughout the experience during the project — did anything really fail or go wrong?

Daniele: I think there were a couple of times, maybe in the first presentation, where we needed to take a small break to readjust the sensitivity of everything. And part of that was a symptom of having presented this first as a bar top, and then taking those same tools and putting them into something else. And so that sensitivity that we had to adjust for different weights of glasses being put on — it didn’t matter in a game context. And I think it was maybe a little bit in our way in the first iteration, where we did kind of like a scheduled little intermission. I think we even made a little card to put on top just to be like: give us a second.

Daniele: Yeah, that was fine. But the presentations have been fine — everything’s gone well — but we always have our own little notes and tips like that. And that’s part of what leads to us iterating it again and making it better.

Kyle: And I think the other thing is sometimes it does take minor adjustments and stuff because it’s a physical thing. People are punching it, people are… right. Even us, as a process, is learning. I think going from kind of grassroots artists to thinking in terms of a more industrialised product — and what goes into those considerations — because it’s just a different way of thinking, and it just takes experience to learn those things.

Daniele: And we do spend time prototyping how it works. So we’ll go in and try to destroy it, act like the person who’s going to be the roughest on it, or come at it in a way that makes no sense to us, but that maybe somebody would do. And when we had the gallery space, we also did prototype with people coming in. So we had random people off the street play the game, and we watch them and see how they interact. And I think putting some of that effort into prototyping it and play testing it beforehand maybe prevents some of the bigger issues.

Robin: Failure is a big word. So essentially, what’s interesting is: you iterated from day one as you’re working up to the first set-up; first set-up happens; you iterated while that was set up; then you kept on iterating with different versions as well. So while it might have looked like it might have been fixed, it was always — you were always learning from it and shifting and changing it.

Daniele: We hope that from the outside it didn’t look that way.

Robin: Kyle, I just want to dive into something. You hinted at this sort of shift you’ve had to make from sort of a grassroots artist to — I think you sort of said — more professional.

Kyle: I think we were always professional, but it’s just… I think thinking about going from the small… Daniele and I both started out in typical arts — like a small gallery — and with a lot of interactive stuff, just figuring out what that business model looks like, and also what our alternative… I don’t know, audiences [are]. And I think Daniele and I both also started shifting into gaming because we started very much hanging out with a lot of the indie game scene.

Kyle: And I think that really where we went from more serious interactive artists, perhaps — we’re always a bit playful — but I think we really started to embrace play specifically through that kind of process.

Robin: You sort of found your niche in this sort of physical game area that had the crossover with indie games. Yeah. Interesting in terms of — because it’s probably not so much as you say you were always professional. It was maybe becoming more focused and…

Daniele: More fun-oriented, for sure.

Robin: Yeah. As a bit of a wrap-up question: if someone was thinking about building a physical game, what would be a greatest piece of advice?

Kyle: I think one thing is: always consider the player. Consider your audience. Consider the context where it’s being shown — because how people are going to approach it really depends on that. One thing might work really well in one situation and not in another. So always think about who the player is.

Daniele: And if you’re shipping parts and electronics and anything like that, make sure you leave a lot of extra time for all of that.

Kyle: And have redundant parts.

Daniele: Have extra parts. Stress test things. Play test things.