Objective
Before giving up on the concept entirely, I wanted to test one last adjustment. I slightly changed the positioning of the story and puzzle elements, hoping this would allow the two viewing pieces to fit better and reduce the friction players experienced in earlier versions. The goal of this final test was simple: to see whether the prototype could become playable enough to justify further development. If not, then I needed to accept that the idea, while interesting, was not viable in practice.
Process Breakdown
How the Puzzle Was Intended to Work
This prototype was designed specifically for two players to cooperate. Each player receives either a blue or red acrylic “looking glass” that only reveals one part of the word search and one side of the encrypted story. The keywords visible to one player are needed to complete the other player’s text, so the puzzle depends entirely on cooperation, coordination and mutual explanation. Since the words themselves were fairly simple, no clues were given, and players had to deduce the keywords from context while scanning the word pool together.Symbolic Structure of the Story
The two stories were written from the perspectives of parent and child, each expressing what they wish the other would understand. This meant that the narrative and mechanic were meant to reinforce each other: each side only has partial visibility, and the full message can only emerge when both parts are brought together. On paper, this remained one of the most conceptually satisfying prototypes in the project.Final User Test
In practice, however, the final test still did not go well. Even after shifting the position of the story and puzzle slightly, players again struggled with the physical setup and refused to complete the full puzzle. They could only manage about half of it, and even that was accompanied by visible frustration and constant arguing. The acrylic was still difficult to use, the visual demand remained too high, and the puzzle itself was reported to be extremely difficult even with two players working together. Even when I gave guidance, the process still took too long and produced more irritation than satisfaction.Decision to Retire the Prototype
At this point, the pattern was too consistent to ignore. Despite the initial excitement that the concept generated, repeated user tests showed that players did not enjoy the actual experience of playing it and had no desire to complete the puzzle. The main issues were not superficial, but structural: the locking mechanic performed poorly, the acrylic remained visually fatiguing, and the puzzle demanded more effort than it rewarded. Based on all of this feedback, I made the decision to permanently retire the prototype.What This Failure Still Contributed
Even though this idea will not be developed further, it still taught me something important. It reminded me how essential user testing is in identifying non-viable prototypes early, especially when a concept seems very exciting in theory. This puzzle had strong symbolic and aesthetic appeal, but actual players made it clear that those strengths were not enough to carry the experience. In that sense, the prototype was still valuable, not because it succeeded, but because it failed clearly.Key Takeaways
- This prototype was ultimately retired because repeated testing showed that the physical and visual demands of the mechanic consistently produced frustration instead of meaningful cooperation or satisfaction.