Thursday, April 22, 2010

Lecture 7: 22Apr2010 Design Dimensions for Exertion Games

Today you learned about Design Dimensions for Exertion Games, and how playing with them can (hopefully) turn a great game idea into an awesome one!

For example, you have seen how adding a line (virtual or physical) in the Bubble Popper game could have made it a game solely about "being faster than the other player". In its current form, it is about "preventing the other player from scoring" by pushing the other player out of the way, a very different play experience (all of a sudden you can play offensively or defensively)! And by having the players hit one big target together (such as killing one big monster), the game could be turned into a collaborative affair, all without changing any technology! (What you could also do is point the projector at the people's bodies: now the balloon appears on your arm, and you can decide whether you will hit your own arm, or try to move it away so that the other player cannot hit it: can you see how your game now becomes more like Karate, changing the conceptual location in the design space again?)

Design Dimensions for Exertion Games

Thanks again for joining me today and giving me such great feedback! Your time and effort is appreciated.

I will look at all your feedback diligently and take it on board! See you next week!

Homework for next week:
* Blog: How (if) the dimensions helped you
* Send me video + photo (a 1024x768 photo with game title, 1 sentence gameplay, URL, team) before Tuesday
* Email me a picture of your dots
* Start working on your game
* Report progress on your website

PS: Biker-team: did you see the pump idea from one of the other teams? You could combine your games!
PPS: I just thought of another example where "secondary performance" is rewarded by the game: in Guitar Hero, if you lift the guitar up, you get extra points: the designers wanted to make sure you 'perform' like a rock star, so they linked this "secondary performance" aspect to the score, making it more interesting for the other players and the audience, and also getting you more bodily engaged. You can do the same in any game: if your player finished, and lifts up the arms in triumph, she/he gets extra points! A loud winning chant even more points! 

33 comments:

  1. Hi everyone, I just wanted to rephrase my opinion earlier about the flashcards restricting people from thinking outside the box.

    What I meant was that I found it hard to think of ideas because I was trying too hard to relate them to the dimensions.

    That's probably because I didn't completely comprehend some of them, so I spent more time trying to understand and relate them to the existing game than to think of fresh ideas.

    It's probably just me being slow on the uptake - I'm sure this concept of dimensions would work awesomely if I understood it thoroughly. As of now, I'm still slightly bewildered as it was too much info to take in all at once.

    :) Sorry if I was confusing. I get nervous speaking in public so I tend to lose my train of thought and it all comes out wrong.

    Great lecture btw, I thought it was really useful and an eye opener. Also, thanks to the guys who gave us feedback for our game. Sorry though, I don't think we were as helpful in return. :(

    ReplyDelete
  2. i really like this lecture, i like the guide it was helpful in understand in many thing about how we should look at our games.

    what i wanted to say during the whole idea about people starting to using the data from like other companies and have and understanding of how the other companies think. while that maybe useful, but what are you going to say if you see the data of a major company and their data is never consistant (but successful), what does that mean to you? is it bad or good to you?

    so i like how you can get info and have a sense of understanding, but i just don't want people to use it to structure yourselves under its guide. To me i kinda want to break it.

    but yeh, the whole - and + was a bad, i was more thinking of like spectrum of like from red to blue, though i didn't want people to perceive as hot or cold, but i don't know some colour scheme that doesn't sound like - or +.

    i did like the break down of the catagories, some i do worry may feel a bit similar, but that may come to the case of when the simplified and the complex guides are set. to me its like "you can say apple and oranges, but we'll still call them fruits"

    well i just like that it did both allow us to be aware of what aspects to categories we can put our games into and as well give the sensation of allowing both opening ideas and encasing the concepts and compare. plus i like the feedback we got with our partner group.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah i love these lectures their the only ones that are fun to go to :P .

    I really enjoyed having a visual medium to give a idea of what guidelines games could be formed around. It made me think about features in our game that I wouldn't even have thought of before.

    The cards were really helpful in figuring out where our games strong points are, or more importantly where they are not.I heard a comment about having them earlier which i thought would have been great help to come up with the original ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Normally I would banter a bit before delving into the topic, however today I shall try my best to be frank , to the point and completely honest.
    Ok, so when you first introduced the Design Dimensions I had in mind a long list of dull words that I felt would not really do much to aid me in thinking up a list of ‘awesome’ game ideas. Now, I am usually quite open, however at that moment the thought of there being a device which generated ideas, discussed design feature were just all too good to be true. With that said, the moment in which you began discussing each idea and providing examples it all began to make sense and- I am proud to say- opened my eyes to design features that I had not thought of and really got the cogs in my head working. Despite this, however, and from the suggestions already posted it is fairly clear that there is still stuff to be addressed forever it is ready to be published and what not. So I apologize if I offend you, but the first thing that has to dealt with is the ‘+’ and “-”. I understand that they are there to demonstrate that a game can have more of one feature than another, yet I just cannot help associating them with the words ‘bad’ and ‘good’. As a result of this, when It came down to utilizing them in my team, I realized that was that we became fixated on creating a game that was always in the + range and, as a result, ended up with a game idea that was ridiculous, ambitious and created only for the sake of having everything In the plus range. A solution that I can think of for solving this problem is by incorporating colours and, even a legend, which reassures the individual that it is ok to have less of one feature and more of the other. As was mentioned in class, the wording also became an issue for at times it was either to difficult to comprehend its meaning and utilize, or happened to sound like the card before it. The obvious answer would be to simplify the wording in a way that enabled it to be comprehendible; yet at the same sophisticated enough so that it would be taken seriously by various institutions etc. The incorporation of colour would also rid the confusion that surrounds identifying and locating certain cards for, if the card discussing the feature of ‘intensity interpretation’ had its title name in green than it would make identifying it easier. I understand that you wished to save ink with the printing and all that, but at the moment it is all over the place and- though imagery has been incorporated- it does very little to fix the issue. A remedy for this - that just so happened to pop into my head- is by binding the cards together, similar to those mini Calendars and instruction cards, which will ensure that none of the 14 cards get lost, or what not. The notion of generator that was suggested in class is something that would really create an idea on how to create a game for individuals who may be impaired in some respect. It has always been a dream of mine to create a game for children who were physically disabled yet the thing that stumps is that I am never sure what features I should consider and include. I want to create a game that is designed specifically for them, enjoyable and an escape from their impairments, however I wanted to achieve all this without making them feel alienated and stuff. So by having a generator of sorts it will enable individuals to design specifically for such an audience and cater to their needs and likes.
    So yeah, I guess that’s it. I hope it helped and I wish you all the best with it.

    Chet

    ReplyDelete
  5. This lecture was amazing I felt really strongly about the discussion we had at the end, it could definitely be the basis for some kind of debate on whether there actually is a set guide to making a 'correct' and working game.
    I think the dimensions really help let us look at different aspects and applications of the game that we haven't thought about yet. They are great for defining what we aim to achieve in a game and how we can get to that goal.
    They could even assist us in the initial stages of making a game (Like the generator I suggested).
    Say you have a job to do- make a game for rehab patients who need to learn to walk again and it needs to be an intense and rewarding game. You know the audience and what the end result must be. The dimensions would help you define the different aspects of the game and what kind of rules and gameplay to include.

    -Sam

    ReplyDelete
  6. I found the 'design dimensions' cards to be a useful guideline. Thanks for posting the link to the PDF, Floyd. I will be refering to it from time to time, in order to analyse the quality of our next game.

    My only criticism would be that the plus and minus scale on the cards can be a bit misleading. People within our group were interpreting the scale as 'positive and negative', when that may not have necessarily been the case. My suggestion would be to define the scale in concrete terms on each card. (E.G. Easy Fun <------> Hard Fun, etc.)

    Despite the cards being a great tool, they were no substitute for genuine creativity - although, I'm sure that was never meant to be the case. While the cards seemed to illicit ideas for our game from the other group, very few of them were ones that we hadn't actually considered before. In fact, only one was completely new, so I figure that means the cards helped coach ideas out of of people, but didn't necessarily push those ideas outside of the box - but that's fine, because it's a guideline!

    I hope this feedback helps. Good luck with the research.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great lecture, I thought that the design dimension cards were good as a basis to start generating new ideas as well as tweaking the current gameplay. They also helped groups understand the audience that they designed their exertion game for, but for me some of the cards wording was a little confusing and by then i had already forgotten the explanation of some of them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. G'day Floyd.
    Being completely honest; loved the lecture and the way you teach us how to think...
    I immensity enjoy going to the lectures and once again you have helped me view design a different way. In this lecture in particular; how to add a structure to your concept and focus on different areas/ideas and how to refine them to determine what particular audience the game concept would be fitted to. Having such diagrams and visual data helped out quite a lot at adding focus and structure to our concepts especially us students having a visual background.
    The only criticism I was going to note has now already been mentioned by Luke above referencing the plus and minus which can be misleading... But that can easily be changed to something more concrete as Luke said which I would consider...
    We have and will make reference in the refinement of our game concept we are currently working on to the cards you gave us Floyd. There great! :D Nice work :).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Informative stuff. The Design Dimensions are indeed a useful tool for tweaking/modifying games.

    I don't quite agree with what people were saying about there being too much to remember, or the need to lower the card count.
    There were a lot of cards with new terms and definitions on them that might seem a little hard to fully grasp initially, but that doesn't mean people won't memorize them in time.
    You don't go to an art class and immediately learn all the theory behind creating artwork (unless you're awesome).

    ReplyDelete
  11. i really like what we were doing with the cards
    it makes us know what we need to do for improving our game
    and also makes us know what the important aspects of exertion games.
    in my opinion , those card were really helpful unfortunately i didn't understand some of them .
    and also i thx for the team that has given us a feedbacks ^^

    anyway , that was a good lecture

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for sharing your research with us Floyd! I think that as a tool, not only to be used by game companies but also for teaching, the design dimensions are really great. However I think that after only the short introduction from you, and nothing to reference while we were working on the task both my group and the group we paired with struggled to remember what some of the cards where and also how to use them. We also got a bit confused using the plus and minus. I ended up just referring to it as 'more' and 'less' which might be a good way to replace them. Rather than giving us suggestions the other team simply asked us the questions on the card and waited for us to tell them what our game was like. In that respect it wasn't very useful foe generating new ideas.
    While the system you have probably works fairly well for people already in the industry a slightly simpler version might be better for teaching new game design students. Also having the info to refer to as you are using the cards would be useful (I think you said you intended to do this anyway).
    Anyway I was very impressed. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Awesome lecture! I found the cards to be incredibly helpful, especially in regards to tweaking some flaws in our game idea. Thank you so much for going to the effort of making all those cards for us! Being a class of artists I think it's safe to say visuals are key. Even though we couldn't see the pictures very well on the smaller cards I found the visuals projected on the big screen very helpful. I think that when putting the 14 design dimensions into a book, or just something more elaborate in general, it would be good to incorporate a lot of visuals. When you used people and the whiteboard when explaining one of the cards I felt as though I could recall it quicker then the others.
    I thought it was good to get feedback from other groups, I wish we had done so with our first game idea.. It's so funny to see what people just automatically think of when you're telling them an idea, things that didn't even cross your mind. I don't think the amount of cards is an issue, they are all targetted to a different aspect of the game and to try to squeeze two into one, I feel, would convalute things. The plus and minus CAN be misleading if not properly explained so unless you want to put up a permanent disclaimer on said cards it is probably best to substitue the plus and minus for something else.
    Thanks again! :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fascinating lecture Floyd! It was a pleasure to take part in the activity and offer feedback on the design dimensions. All the best in the development of the 'book'; rest assured I will grab a copy as soon as it's published! =]

    To revise on what I said at the end of the lecture, I believe the dimensions were a great way of allowing us designers to refocus on the essence of the game; the approach to 'fun' if you will. I think many can agree with me, and many have also said previously, that we tend to concentrate too much on technology and implementation, and less on how the player(s) are enjoying the game. Furthermore, it allows us to consider how we can manipulate that, and intentionally change the way players are 'supposed' to enjoy the game. As I said, families, and children in particular, will never truly appreciate the time and effort put into implementing the game and the advanced tech behind it; rather, they will always scrutinise the level of fun they experienced, and how they achieved that experience.

    I also agree with the suggestion of a graph as proposed by other students. I think it's an excellent way to visually map your findings, and possibly realise a 'pattern' or 'connection' between various shapes and angles on the graph. I also mentioned in the lecture the possibility of different 'personalities' and 'types' of the target audience being defined, as per shape of the graph; this could greatly assist marketing for the game, and also allow designers to give the market what they want. Graphing personalities in some way with the aid of the various dimensions could also open up a whole new door for research in psychology and social patterns.

    All in all I truly believe you're on the right track Floyd. The cards certainly helped my group to rediscover what it is specifically that we want out of our game. It has given us a ground, or a foundation, from which we can mold and develop our concept.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Francisco Casares (Paco)April 24, 2010 at 1:33 PM

    Great Lecture Floyd!
    I think its great that you are researching into this to release a book that is going to help the industry to bring more and better exertion games.

    I cant wait to see the response when companies read and have your book in their selves!

    With the cards, In my opinion, get a good Graphic designer to remake the cards (there should be a single word in bold in each card to remember), make a small logo for each in a far corner so the user than indentify each, and in the back on each card give a good description and explanation on each. Also write good known examples of one extreme to the other extreme so the user can connect easier to that the card explains.

    I had a lot of fun using your cards when analising both games in the diferent teams, and what way we can improve them in many diferent levels. We obtained a lot of fresh ideas and faster than any other method I know my self. But to say that we would have never gotten this ideas withought them is another thing, I think its a time factor more than a posibility factor.

    Best luck with the book!

    ReplyDelete
  16. It was an awesome presentation for us game industry students. My feedback is given as below:
    Those cards show the crucial elements of polishing and realizing a game idea which used to be sort of secret behind those popular games to me. The presentation gave the answer to the question "why people keen on this game". I did enjoy the idea exchange part between our team and others, which put those dimensions into specific examples, and now it was quite clear on the parts that we shall improve our game. They are not guide line to figure out an awesome idea but tool and backup to control your audience. (Am I right to say so?)
    Well, I had to claim that those phrases did challenge my knowledge of language…I felt blur about some of those though most were explained quite well by examples. However I found that you add points on those aspects which involves more physical movements, like the secondary movement card ( this is my favorite card btw, I like it because it left me impression on the 2 different type of game you made example for us, and the idea about cheering up the audience by lifting the guitar was awesome). So in this case, those skill-required games which there won’t be more fun to get extra score for secondary movement, will they lose audience because they lack secondary movement?
    So far I feel that the exertion game is somehow little bit like sports game, not those traditional games like RPG, RTS etc…what if I was working on those games, could these dimensions still work on them? And also, I would like to know if those “real” game designers (who has already taking the career in game industry) would take these dimensions into consider when they generate a game idea?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey,

    Liked the lecture this week, to be honest I expected it to be pretty boring after reading through that form, but it was a nice surprise.

    On the dimensions, all in all I liked them. They were useful and not overly complicated. Also, you explained them really well. It makes sense that you'd have a good grasp of them considering you conceived them, but I was still pretty impressed with how well you explained them. And sometimes without it I wouldn't have understood that dimension.

    As for cons, well I already told you about how I felt that having each dimension seemed like a pro, but besides that, and I'm thinking you'd change this some time anyway, but aesthetically it'd be cool if the images were consistent. Not necessarily in style; they'd look good if they were but maybe they wouldn't express some dimensions as well as they could, but just if they were all the same size.

    Oh and also I didn't feel like the cards were rules, which is awesome. Remember that set of rules put together about game design in general? That received a fair bit of negativity, especially from within the industry, because they were constraining creativity. But these points sort of feel more like "Oh this dimension's really what our game's missing. So to p it we need to do blank. We could do that by doing blank".

    Congrats om the progress so far, and yeah, goodluck.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey there,

    The lecture this week was pretty awesome,

    My thoughts on the dimensions were nothing short of fantastic, Floyd, well done and thank you, they were very helpful toward my team. However; with every first try at something there is always room for improvement.

    To improve the dimensions:
    - Let there be colour, I can't tell you how confusing different shades of grey are ;)
    - The pictures should be bigger
    - The descriptions were great, but can be reworded for less confusion

    Those were my main gripes about them, the whole idea (as I've mentioned) is brilliant.

    What should stay:
    - The whole concept
    - The amount of cards were just right to grab just about every aspect of a game

    Keep up the good work, Floyd!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hey,

    From reading the comments posted, I guess my opinion of the cards is in line with what most people are saying:
    It was a great lecture.
    The amout of cards is just right.
    They're a really useful and clear way of looking at our games for refining and moving beyond "What can we add to our game?" to "What could we add to our game, to emphasis or draw out more of a certain quality our game has or needs?"
    The card descriptions can be a bit hard to understand sometimes.
    Just as a small point/suggestion: The '+' and '-' side seem to conotate 'good' and 'bad', so maybe changing it to 'left' and 'right' could improve it.

    Just personally, I'd say I hardly ever used the pictures on the cards. I'd first look at the title, then the description (sometimes a second time closely), then look at what the + and - sides were - the context to the game, and then if I still didn't know what it was asking I would consider the pictures, but usually I would have got it by then.

    Thanks for the great lecture!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I found the dimensions really helpful, by being aware of the elements that are in games, it makes it so much easier, faster and most likely better to come up with new games and improve existing ones. I found dimensions jump-started my thoughts in a way, that most cards got me thinking of new ideas and/or ways to improve them and got me thinking about different aspects of games that I had not considered before and now seem integral.
    like other people said, the cards can be a little confusing with the -+ thing and also I found myself rereading some cards because I fond them slightly hard to work out or they where similar to others but I'm sure if you used them longer than we did after one time you would get pretty familiar with each dimension. I didn't really use the pictures on the cards at all, I found myself just reading the name then the description then repeating this till I got the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  21. hiyo,

    I think the dimensions for exertion games work really well to help guide the design of a game. While our group discussed each card in reference to our game i found the dimensions helped us to work out what our game might be lacking, and what could be added to improve it.
    On the topic of trying to make 'presets' for different categories of physical games, and set outlines for designers I think the system should be left how it is enabling designers/teams to decide how they want to approach each dimension and incorporate it into their games.
    I think the wording of a few cards could be improved but apart from that each dimension seems pretty solid in theory to me.
    Pretty nice work on it so far Floyd...

    -Joshua Tatangelo

    ReplyDelete
  22. I found that the practical, real world examples of games that used the dimensions really helped me understand what each dimension meant and how these can be used as a general guide to determine what the target audience or market is for our own games.

    When designing a game, I believe you cannot make a game that is going to suit every person therefore it is important to have an idea as to who is more likely to play your game. The dimensions therefore are not strict rules and there is no 'right' or 'wrong' but were given more to understand how games focus on different elements.

    Floyd used Guitar Hero as an example for the Intensity Interpretation dimension and this was very effective in helping me understand what the card actually meant.

    Floyd explained that in Guitar Hero, the intensity & physical effort used by the player whilst playing the guitar, gives people watching you play the guitar a different experience, even though the computer console does not interprete or measure intensity or how hard you play.

    This was an excellent example, it helped me gain a better understanding of how each dimension related to designing our own games, and focus on making our own games better or, as Floyd says, more 'awesome'.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The flash cards are very useful for people such as myself, because I can never come up with an idea on the spot. The dimensions are perfect for producing further ideas to elaberate on as well as a guide.

    My brother is a massive victim of creating groovey moves while playing Guitar Hero. It makes the game more fun and not as repetitive. Adding a fancy move also makes it seem like a live experience towards the game.

    Best luck to your research book. :D

    ReplyDelete
  24. awesome lecture!
    This lecture really help us to improve our game
    because our game very successful in the last lecture, and lots of people love it !we want to improve this game, and this lecture really help us and tell me which part we ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Once again Floyd you have managed to take the idea of game design a whole lot deeper. Like most I found the “Design Dimension Cards” to be a useful tool in improving a game. Having said this I do feel they need some minor tweaking if you are aiming them at an audience of our age, or better yet, our level of knowledge.

    To start I found the descriptions a little overwhelming, not because of the language used but because some ideas became puzzled with others and there didn’t seem to be any real structure in helping the designer know where to start. I think that if the cards are going to be helpful in designing a game they need to have an order or maybe something outlining their different levels of significance. I really liked someone’s suggesting of designing a flow chart that branches off in the different directions that the games may take. Defiantly something you should look into.

    Don’t get rid of the pictures!! Although some people didn’t like the images included on the cards I found them extremely useful in understanding the idea. If your book is aimed at designers I agree that visual representations are critical for the success of the theory.

    The positive and negative bar works well however I think some people were restricted to thinking that their game had to strive for the positive end in order to be successful. This didn’t allow some to see that a balanced game may work better.

    The secondary movement card was easily my favourite because not only was it simple to comprehend but it is certainly a key factor that is left aside far too often. For our swimming game this was definitely what we tried to achieve with the movement on the balance board to avoid the shark.

    Despite these minor things the cards did prove extremely useful when completing the group task. We got some very helpful advice from the other team and I hope we were able to return the favour. I also hope I haven’t totally misunderstood your theory Floyd and that this is of some help to you. All the best for your work on the book!!

    PS: Sorry about the late post guys didn’t realise we had to comment on this lecture.
    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Floyd! Here is Team Ossome's video! Sorry it wasn't earlier, we had uploading issues!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zoZOR76mzg

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think the cards would be excellent guidelines for making a game, however I see people using them more as a checklist as discussed in the lecture. I think it would be more effective if for example, you used it like a colour wheel.

    EG. 3 Primary colours (so 3 main points) which phase out into different colours like purple, brown e.t.c (so Physical => physical contact, physcial enviroment e.t.c). This way it might cut down on the checklist feel, because you cant really have a checklist of say, three items. Other then that i found it interesting to listen too, I'm still unsure of how effective it would be to apply it to any of your games, casual games are usually the simplistic of games, these design dimensions may over complicate and create too much mess for some games, things that i loved about the simpler games might be lost in the want to achieve these 'goals' created by the dimensions.

    Still great to listen too, I think they apply to more sophisticated games myself, I personally wouldn't be using them to design a game like Tetris for example :/

    ReplyDelete
  28. It was a really cool lecture, I found the cards really useful (in tweaking ideas as that is the context we experienced this system in) as a safeguard to assessing where all areas of a game stand so that none are over-looked. This sort of thing is great for someone like me who tends to get caught up in what they're focussing on and slowly becoming more and more tunnel visioned.
    The only feedback I feel I can offer (as I mentioned in the lecture) is that the pictures are great in conjunction with the text and arrows on the cards, but they NEED to be seen by everyone simultaneously for them to be as useful as they should be. As far as the points that others have brought up, I agree with those who made the point that the "+ and -" system does add a bias in people's decisions about what to change/improve, in the favour of the + side. Whether it's because the + side seems more obviously fun or if subconsciously we associate + with better, I'm not sure but I do think it is there.
    Other than those things, I really like where your research is going and best of luck with it Floyd!

    ReplyDelete
  29. The idea of dimensions helps me think.
    I had never thought about if sharing a ball between players or not, makes difference.

    It will be nice if there are templates for certain group of people.
    Like, template of dimensions for core gamers,
    beginners, non-players, male, female, kids...etc.
    So that creators can refer to the template when they are aiming at certain type of customers.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Really interesting lecture Floyd, the dimensions are very fascinating. Personally I think the dimensions are basically perfect and they don't need to be changed - I found the format they are laid out in absolutely fine but they could be altered in some respects for more clarity. They seem to cover all the bases and are a really excellent, easy to understand guideline for starting and refining games and something I think every game maker should have. Well done Floyd!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hey, another great lecture (it’s starting to feel like we say “great lecture” as a way of greeting now, or breaking the commenting ice)

    The cards helped out a lot when it came to understanding how to alter our games, whether it was for improvement, or simply to evolve a game for the sake of it. What made it easier was that the cards gave definable characteristics of exertion games, so rather than thinking “how do I make it more physical?” we could pin point several aspects of the game and the ‘player experience’, and alter one factor, rather than trying to pull something new out of thin air and risk changing everything.

    I think another way of implementing the cards would be to split a class in half (with several groups on each side) and give them the task of changing a certain aspect of an already made exertion game. Give one half of the class access to the cards, and the other half no cards, and see how the two sides alter the game (I reckon there’d be a interesting difference in how they asses what changes to make)

    I also think that there should be come way to use the information we get from the cards and represent it in another form, like a graph or chart or something that’s visual and accessible.

    Maybe similar to personality tests?

    So if say, there are 4 key elements to exertion games, make a 4 quadrant model on an x-y axis of 1 – 10, neg1 – neg10.
    Then instead of having ‘plus’ and ‘minus’ to rate the various cards, use a scaling system of 1 – 10.
    If 3 cards relate to Quadrant One, you can tally up the results from each card and get the medium.
    Example: card 1 = 3, card 2 = 2, card 3 = 4
    So (3 + 2 + 4) / 3 = 3
    So for Quadrant One the value is 3, (co-ordinates -3,3), which would mean what ever aspect of gaming element Quadrant One represented, would be not be very present in that particular game.

    I dunno… it’s just an idea, I hope it made sense.

    ReplyDelete
  32. nice lecture..
    Learn somethings new that I never been thought before..
    The design dimension things make me realize that so many factors can affect the games and make it different..
    hopefully these design dimension can make our game become better..

    ReplyDelete
  33. Some of the cards seemed irrelevant to our games, expecially for those who had already formulated an idea and were using the cards for tweaking rather than coming up with a whole new idea. I guess this wasn't really a problem as there was an option to slot the card under "N/A" but perhaps the cards could use more simple/general descriptions so they can apply to a wider variety of situations.

    I did find the images helpful for those which had a confusing or elaborate description but didn't take notice of them for the cards with clearer descriptions.

    I think you presented the cards to us well and from hearing you vocalise the differences between each card I was able to understand them to a much greater extent.

    Good luck with your research, I have found it very interesting!

    ReplyDelete