| Deadline | Assignment |
|---|---|
| Thursday, Jan 8 | GDC1 and the Door Problem |
| Tuesday, Jan 13 | GDC2 and Iterative Design |
| Thursday, Jan 15 | GDC3 and Critical Analysis |
| Tuesday, Jan 20 | GDC4 and Ideation |
| Thursday, Jan 22 | GDC5 and Game Loops |
| Tuesday, Jan 27 | GDC7 and Interesting Decisions |
| Thursday, Jan 29 | GDC8 and Player Motivations |
Read Liz England’s “The Door Problem”. Write a paragraph about what surprised you and where you see your interests represented, submit it on Canvas, and prepare to discuss this in our meeting.
Optionally, for additional discussion of what it means to be a designer, watch Richard Carrillo’s GDC talk on how to interview game designers.
Complete the “Trying it Out” exercise. Document your results by summarizing your original game, the changes you made, and their impact. Include photographs as appropriate to communicate your designs.
Write a critical analysis of a game you have played following the format from the reading. When describing the formal elements, use the taxonomy and nomenclature as presented. That is, you should explicitly address the objectives, rules, resources, state, information, sequencing, interaction, and theme.
Analyzing a small tabletop game is recommended because the design elements are all visible; video games are black boxes by contrast. If you choose to write about a digital game, use a small one. Resist the urge to tackle any AAA video games or even large indie games. Such “games” are functionally games-of-games, and it is difficult to separate one part from the rest.
As always, think about the needs of the readers when you compose your analysis. Images and figures often serve to clarify your analysis. Remember to cite your sources.
Choose three different starting points from the “Generating Ideas” section of the reading. Imagine a game from each chosen starting point. For each game, write a two-sentence vision statement for a game, being sure to identify the genre and modality (such as video game or card game). Label each proposal using the idea generation nomenclature provided by the reading. Then, for each, identify an aspect of it that you think, but cannot yet know, is fun. Write a paragraph describing how you would make a prototype to address that design element, following the guidelines in the reading.
Complete the mini-challenge from the reading, ignoring the character limit and Twitter requirement. Be sure to label and justify your identified feedback loops as positive or negative. Then, form and defend a hypothesis of what you think would happen if your proposed rules change were followed. Summarize your findings on Canvas and prepare to present your findings in class.
Complete the homeplay from the reading. Once you are satisfied with your mod, playtest it. Describe your change, then write a paragraph about what makes the decision interesting and how your design aligns with Flow theory.
For the programmers: This is a good opportunity to reflect on the differences between digital and paper prototyping. Consider how you would implement War as a digital game. Then consider your rules change and the modifications required in your software. Having reflected on this, you may have a greater understanding of the benefits of low-fidelity prototyping.
Complete the homeplay in the reading and be ready to discuss your solution in class. Caution: most students who have attempted this challenge in the past have gotten it wrong by conflating griefing and competition.
Recommended reading: Bartle’s commentary on the applications and misapplications of his theory.
©2025 Paul Gestwicki. This work is licensed via CC BY-SA 4.0.