In lieu of our contributions to the project, I though it best to evaluate my own personal work and effort towards the final product through the eyes of some of the stakeholders mentioned previously.
General Public – To the perception of the public, those who are technically inclined like myself and my colleagues on this project, may easily be able to differentiate the notable weak points of the buildings architecture and texturing. Although those of whom wI encountered throughout the exhibition on the hour I was there on Thursday and my allotted 3 hour shift on Friday afternoon, did not seem to take note of any inaccuracy with the building or so I am aware of.
Student – As a student I view this building personally as something that I know I could vastly improve on due to its shortcomings and mistakes that I made during the time of construction. From its mishandled architecture all the way to its relatively rushed texturing. Overall I was content to handing this over for use in the exhibition and final product as a means of progressing past the point of trying to perfect the building, to which I am now grateful to the fact that I feel confident that I could revisit this and do an infinitely superior job in less time.
Peers – In terms of my peers/colleagues, I have received minimal feedback on the building other than a single colleague agreeing with my notion that the building could do with some improvements in the texturing department. From their perspective, if any of the general public were to comment on the mistakes made with the model, this could impact the perception of the entire project and thus my peers.
Games Designer – As a Games Designer, I highly doubt that this building would make it into a game level due to those shortcomings. If I were employed by a company within the industry and worked on this model for the amount of time that I did (October – January), I would most likely be fired for taking so long and doing a relatively poor attempt at it.