4. Paper is "Accessible"
The notion that paper is "accessible" actually refers to several ideas.

In the most literal sense, the materials we used in our paper prototypes were commonplace office supply materials that are easily accessible to most anyone. Paper, glue sticks, rubber bands, and the like quickly became standard prototype fodder. For the more "advanced" prototypes we found ourselves using brass brads, transparency paper, and colored gel (used in lighting equipment) -- none of which are hard to find or expensive.

Because of the availability of materials, we felt freer to experiment and really push the boundaries of the prototypes. After all, if we experimented and failed, all we lost were a few sheets of printer paper and some glue, as opposed to what happens in more traditional technological prototyping: the loss of a far more expensive piece of technology or hours coding.

As the prototypes became more and more advanced, the crafting process became more elaborate, too, using common objects in new and unexpected ways. We began to jokingly refer to the process as "arts and crafts prototyping."

Another sense of accessibility that paper prototypes provide became evident in our team dynamic. Because creating prototypes doesn't require any specific skill base, all members of the team were able to actively get involved. Having our entire team sit down and work on the prototypes together helped in making not only our design tighter and more unified, but our team as well. We progressively found we were able to express ideas and concepts in a much more fluid and natural manner than we had in other projects we had worked on. We seemed to understand each other's styles, thought processes, and tendencies in a deeper manner -- and this made the creation and implementation of our ideas that much easier.

5. Paper's Digital Divide
While paper prototyping was an undeniable success for our team, the practice is not without its drawbacks. First of all, it should be conceded that certain game styles and mechanics are far better suited to paper prototyping than others. Our team's chosen style of smaller and more casual games and puzzles utilized many of the strengths of paper prototypes (though it may be very interesting trying to paper prototype something more complex, such as an RTS or a fighting game).

The biggest issue we dealt with was discovered as we were converting our ideas from paper to digital form. We found that games that were obvious and intuitive on paper, didn't always translate as such on the iPhone. Graphics, instructions and gameplay were identical in both, yet the paper form was consistently easier to grasp than its digital counterpart. This "digital divide" plagued us for quite sometime.

We came to believe that the digital divide may be attributed to how people view the world. I mentioned previously the "accessibility" of paper in terms of creation and implementation. Because most people have been using paper since childhood -- coloring, cutting, gluing, writing on, folding -- we understand how paper and other physical objects used in paper prototyping will behave when we pick them up and manipulate them. However, when we are given the same objects represented in digital form, there is often a divide because of the complexity and ambiguity of the platform.

We have come to see that there are two major contributors to the digital divide. First, when using a technology-based platform, there is always the question, "What are the controls and how do they work?" which tends to be much more of a non-issue with a physical object.

The second contributing factor is twofold and seems to be reliant on a combination of the user's personality, technological expertise, and frame of reference. Some play testers stated that confusion often resulted from them seeing the iPhone as a limiting factor -- that they felt limited by how the technology would allow them to interact with the digital objects. They understood how the objects would behave in "real life" and viewed the same interaction with a digital copy to be either severely limited or outright impossible. On the other end of the spectrum, other play testers reported feeling completely overwhelmed. These testers, like their counterparts, understood how the objects would behave in the "real life," but assumed there was also a "real life" game that was being mimicking in the computer game, and were confused as to what it was. These players saw the digital copies as not being restrained by the rules of the physical realm and saw many other possibilities that were almost paralyzing.

Overall, how the play testers responded seemed to boil down to how each viewed the technology: some saw the platform as machine trying to imitate real life, while others saw the platform as a way to ignore real world rules. Though at opposite ends, both groups faced a digital divide issue.

The Value of Paper Prototyping
In the end, though paper prototyping was not without its difficulties, it did provide us a great foundation with which to build our game. Using paper prototypes saved us time, money, and unnecessary frustration in the development process, while helping to forge solid channels of communication and understanding among the team.

Paper prototyping was extremely helpful to our team and project and we definitely encourage its use. After all what do you have to lose except a little bit of paper?

Rich Marmura graduated from Carnegie Mellon University in May 2008 with his master of Entertainment Technology. He works for Schell Games in Pittsburgh as a game designer.

Related Articles
"Pulling the Plug: In Defense of Non-Digital Teaching and Learning," by Lewis Pulsipher
"Student Postmortem: SCAD's Rats!," by David McDonough