Game Studies: Final Compilation and Reflection

23.09.25 - 04.01.26

Celine Christabelle Patricia / 0374872

Game Studies / Bachelors of Design (Hons) in Creative Media / The Design School

Table Contents

Lectures

Lectures

Lecture 1

Principles of Game Design

Principle 1 - Player Experience:

What emotion do they show — competitiveness

Principle 2 - Gameplay Mechanics:

Primary Mechanics (core actions)→ movement, dice rolling, card drawing, playing

Secondary Mechanics (additional enriching gameplay) → resource management, trading, exploration

Feedback Loops (positive and negative systems // reward penalties) → negative feedback, positive feedback, dynamic feedback loops

Principle 3 - Storytelling in games:

Player agency → allow players to influence the story, creating a sense of ownership

Environmental storytelling → stories told through world design, visuals, settings

Narrative arcs → structuring the story around, conflict, climax, resolution

Principle 4 - Balance and Challenge :

Difficulty curve → a smooth escalation in difficulty keeps players engaged without frustration

Skill vs luck → design challenges that require player skill but also luck

Player progression → rewarding progress while maintaining a sense of growth

Principle 5 - Feedback and Iteration

ensure the game is playable and enjoyable at all levels

→ when playing with ur own group record and recap

Play testing → helps identify areas that needs adjustments

Feedback loops → identify where difficulty may be too high or low, or story that feel flat

Fine tuning exp → iterating the feedback to ensure polishness of gameplay

Principle 6 - Immersion

immersion → helps player feel about the content?

context action → action in the game that makes users immersed

Challenges

Over complication
Failing to adapt → ignoring player feedback or market trends
Monetization vs player experience → balancing profit with players enjoyment

Lecture 2

Balancing Fun and Educational Elements in Game Design

Fun: often engaging mechanics, rewarding challenges, and an experience that feels emotionally satisfying

Education: can range from simple knowledge acquisition to complex problem-solving, critical thinking, or real-world application → may involve teaching concepts, improving skills, or enhancing understanding in areas like math, language, science, or history

How would to balance these

the key is to design games that r both entertaining n educational
the goal: make learning feel natural n rewarding without sacrificing fun key challenge how to design the game so that the learning experience doesn’t overwhelm the player, n ensure the fun doesn’t feel secondary or gimmick (e.g. the bezier game)
Strategies:
- learning through play: educational content emerges naturally from game mechanics
- layered learning: unlock educational elements as players progress
- game mechanics as educational tools: directly teach concepts through gameplay
- storytelling with purpose: using narrative as reinforcement
Learning through play: games as simulations
- real world scenarios: allow players to learn through trial n error while simultaneously engaging in strategic decision-making.
- educational content emerges naturally from game mechanics ex: pandemic
Layered learning: layering game experience rather than front-loading a game with too much educational content, designers can embed learning into layers of the game experience. players can unlock educational elements as they progress or explore certain features of the game ex: betrayal at house on the hill Game mechanics as educational tools: problem-solving in games use the game’s mechanics to directly teach concepts. a game can include challenges that require problem-solving or puzzle mechanics to unlock levels or rewards. basically, by giving them objectives, u make them learn about the game ex: catan
Storytelling with purpose: using narratives as reinforcement
- Narrative drives engagement, learning happens within the exciting context of an adventure. create a narrative that reinforces educational objectives while remaining engaging → ensure that the story provides emotional stakes n relevance to the educational content (e.g. the resistance: avalon)
Avoiding over instruction in gameplay mechanics
- avoid making the educational content rather than an enjoyable experience. Designers must ensure that learning feels natural n integrated into the flow of the game focus on fun mechanics
Intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation:
- intrinsic → whatever u feel on the inside, driven by curiosity, exploration, n achievement.
- extrinsic → rewards like points, levels, or badges that reinforce progress it’s important to design rewards carefully so that they feel meaningful within the game context. in educational games, rewards should connect to the learning experience

Lecture 3

Play testing and Iterative Process

Design thinking Process

Empathize — interviews, seek to understand
Define — personas, role objectives, challenges, pain points
Ideate — share ideas
Prototype —
Test — (need to put in the game // refer to game mechanics)

Iterative — Design (game mechanics) → Playtest (players’ behavior)→ Analyse (game motives)→

Outcome → new ideas improved visuals, reiteration of design

Exercise 2

Non digital to digital evolution and remediating this game

brief explanation of gameplay
difference and similarity of play dimension — real life vs on screen
benefits and weakness real life vs on screen

Instructions

Project Documentation

Week 1

Group is formed, played boardgames during class

Week 2

We decided to go for murder mystery game with several themes. Based on our discussion today, it can be developed into several ways:

Affair mystery
Sekolah menengah mystery
Ghost as the murderer

Game Idea

Role: Witness

This role we knows who is the killer, but cuz they dont wanna be killed, they give a clue in a letter Killer must kill them so the "clue" won't be leaked by this person.

Week 3

Went to Board game cafe and played several games.

Fig 1.1 - Board Game with Teammates, Bang!

We played 3 games, Resistance, Deception, and Bang. We explored these games and took inspiration from deception because it's the closest to our idea and it has a unique gameplay. Moreover, we also took inspiration from the werewolf game

Fig 1.2 - Playing deception

Week 4

We created a lo-fi and tried to play it with some people although there is still a lot of flaws.

Fig 1.3 - Lo-Fi prototype

This week we consulted with Ms. Anis about the gameplay. We presented the lo-fi prototype and asked for her feedback. After receiving it, we made some adjustments.

This is a murder mystery party game where players must figure out who murdered the victim. The game has a host, but the host can still join as a player. There will be an instruction sheet for the host to follow throughout the game.

There are 3 main roles:

1. Murderer: their goal is to keep the real clue hidden, make classmates vote each other out, and identify who the witness is. If the murderer correctly guesses the witness, they instantly win.

2. Witness: can only speak during the discussion phase. They must avoid being discovered by the murderer and can only give subtle hints.

3. Classmates: work together to discuss, investigate, and vote out who they believe is the murderer.

Fig 1.4 - More Lo-Fi playtest

Week 5

Preparation for presentation slides

Week 6

Presentation of proposed game idea in front of the class. Received feedbacks from Ms. Noranis afterwards.

Week 7

Lo-fi prototype enhancement into Semi-Hi-Fi prototype, used for playtest with different players so the card won't go so floppy.

Fig 1.5 - Semi Hi-fi prototype

Fig 1.6 - Playtest with members

Playtest 1, with members and other teams. Some issues were found in the game mechanics, so we discussed how to fix them and decided to add a new detective role that acts as the host while still being able to play the game instead of just observing.

Fig 1.7 - Playtest with new players

After playtest among group members and discussion, some of our classmates wanted to try our game and we tried playing the game. Due to the flaws, some misunderstanding happened during the test, However it still turned out to be fun.

Week 8

Fig 1.8- Playtest with new players (2)

We did a second playtest with new players. The game lasted almost an hour (around 57 minutes). While the players seem to enjoy it, they initially had difficulty starting the discussion. They also mentioned that it was easy to blame each other because they already know one another. The discussion went on for too long because there’s no restriction about the time limit. To avoid this, we decided to implement a 3 minute time limit with consequences.

Week 9

No class this week, we discussed a little about the game’s flaws, proceeded with the design, and then filled up the iterative playtest.

Week 10

This week, we decided to finish the card design, add instruction guides and then start printing the final cards.

Fig 1.9 - Printed Cards

Week 11

We did the third playtest with new players. The game went well overall, but there were still some parts that confused the players. The host did not take enough initiative, and the instructions were not clear enough. The discussion phase is still a challenging part of the game, and the witness role was identified too easily. As a result, we decided to make adjustments by removing the witness role and continuing to discuss ways to better guide players on how to start the discussion.

After this final play test, we decided to complete all the play test reports.

Fig 1.10 - Final iterative playtest

Week 12

We did an unofficial playtest with several people to get their opinions (unfortunately, it was not documented). Most of the feedback was constructive, such as pointing out awkward parts of the game, and they suggested adding a story or context so players would have more options when making accusations, and they also commented on how the end game works.

Based on this feedback, we re-discuss the game and added new elements to the game, which is why we decided to introduce a new card set to solve these problems.

Week 13

At this stage, we also made a new game guide and send it to our non-designer friends (and non-gamers) whether they understand the guide without the need from us to re-explain need. Most show a positive feedback that they understand the main point of the game, but also the missing points which we have added eventually.

Fig 1.11 - Final Printing

Week 14

We did a final playtest with the updated version of the game to make sure that the final mechanism works as we expected. And yes, everything went well. After that, we recorded the final presentation, compiled all our progress, and submitted the final assignment.

Fig 1.12 - Final Playtest, The End!

Result

Game Card results - Printed

Fig 2.0 - Game Cards

Game Card results - Softcopy

Kindly visit this link

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1caEPWnHvGT5rUpQEIJNovZa9vAnrZsrg

Final Presentation Slides

Fig 2.1 - Final Presentation Slides

Final Presentation

Fig 2.2 - Presentation Video

Feedbacks

Week 3

(FROM LECTURER) Reword the wording of the power up cards, because words are confusing. For example "Witness may" into "Witness have the choice to or NOT to"

Week 4

(FROM LECTURER) The host can also be an unreliable narratives, the person have to push you guys to discuss something, each one of us must start with a question, the questions start randomly, the first person ask question and the next person answer the question,

(FROM PLAYTEST) Instead of using tokens, maybe you can flip the card instead

Week 6

(PRESENTATION) Record the gameplay, make sure it doesn't consume too much time (around 20 minutes due to short attention span). Fix the flaw where the murderer keeps winning. Find out the problem.

Week 8

(FROM PLAYTEST) The overall game is already fun, but adding a discussion time limit will lessen the downtime of the game

Week 11

(FROM PLAYTEST) It's hard to guess who the murderer is if they stay silent. Witness was guessable because they can hear from the card or wind voices.

Week 12

(FROM PLAYTEST) Its hard to guess the murderer without much context, add story aspects such as player identities into the game so that there's roleplaying which makes it easier to accuse and discuss

Week 14

(FROM PLAYTEST) The overall game is very fun, its just the player guide is a bit too long.

Reflection

This module has enlightened me that making a game is actually hard. There is a lot of considerations to think of. Thinking of an idea is easy, especially when there are a lot of existing games that are similar, but aligning the goal of making players to enjoy the game from the beginning to the end and keeping up with our expectations is difficult. Most of the time, ideas were easily made, but then it does not always turn out as expected.

I am grateful to have supportive and cooperative teammates, as their collaboration played a significant role throughout the game development process. Everyone was willing to share ideas, provide constructive feedback, and assist whenever there are challenges. Everyone remained communicative although every of us have different schedules. When certain ideas did not work as planned, discussions within the team helped us rethink and improve our approach instead of giving up.

This experience highlighted the importance of teamwork, communication, and adaptability in game development. Having many heads to think together improves the game mechanism.