Ames' syllabi

1. What made the experience fun or not?

The game is fun because it is very intense and chaotic in a good way. Everyone has to talk fast, listen carefully, and stay calm while the timer counts down. It can also be frustrating when people panic or misunderstand each other, but that stress is part of what makes the game exciting and memorable.

2. What is the motivating factor to get or keep players playing?

The main motivation is teamwork and pressure. Players want to improve their communication.

3. Is the game persuasive, and what is it trying to get you to do outside of the game?

Yes, the game is persuasive because it shows how important clear communication and trust are. Outside of the game, it encourages players to listen better, explain things clearly, and stay calm under pressure. 

4. What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics stand out?

The bomb is a metaphor for high-stress situations where mistakes have serious consequences. The standout mechanic is that only one player can see the bomb while the others can only see the manual. 

5. How does the gameplay make you feel? Who does the game make you feel empathy for?

The gameplay makes you feel anxious, rushed, and sometimes overwhelmed. The game makes you feel empathy for the bomb defuser because they are under constant pressure and depend entirely on others for help.

6. Is the game an activist game? If so, what does the game play advocate for?

The game is not an activist game in a political sense, but it does advocate for cooperation and communication. It promotes teamwork, patience, and shared responsibility. It shows that success comes from collaboration rather than individual control.

7. Describe the game in a haiku

Wires, beeps, ticking clock
Voices overlap in panic
Trust defuses fear

Aleah Dudek

Keep Talking No one explodes

1. What made the experience fun or not? The game is fun because it forces intense communication under pressure. It can become frustrating if communication breaks down or if players don’t listen carefully.
2. What is the motivating factor to get or keep players playing? The challenge of increasingly complex bomb modules. The communication can become very difficult if the other player isn’t good at directions.
3. Is the game persuasive, and what is it trying to get you to do outside of the game? Yes, it persuades players to value clear communication, patience, and collaboration. In the real world it can help players inhabit listening skills, strategy, and staying calm under stress.
4. What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout? High stakes problem solving depends on communication, not individual intelligence. Bouncing back and fourth between the players and how easily one explains what they see and how well the other follows direction.
5. How does the gameplay make you feel? Who does the game make you feel empathy for? It makes me stressed , but also watching other people play is kind of humorous as you sort of watch them struggle in the game. It makes you feel empathy for the one trying to describe the situation since they can’t directly see what’s going on.
6. Is the game an activist game? If so what does the game play advocate for? I don’t think its necessarily and activist game, but I think it can sort of advocate foe collaboration under stress, and how to learn ti work in those situations.
7. Describe the game in 3 sentences or in the form of a haiku. Ticking wires and fear
   Voices clash, pages turning ,
   Trust defuses time.

1. What questions did your players have?
   The players had questions regarding how to determine the winner.
2. How quickly did they learn to play?
   I would say it took the players about 10 minutes to learn, even though the directions were quite confusing.
3. What kinds of interactions did the players have?
   The players interacted with the judge each round when deciding who had the best advice card and reality check card.
4. What confused players?
   The confusion stemmed from the game’s objective, as the notes indicate the need to “Fix the rules” and clarify that the objective is to be the best therapist to gain points, while “winning bad therapist is losing points.”
5. What made players excited?
   What made players most excited was getting to sift through each different type of prompt that they could choose from.
6. What did your players enjoy doing?
   The players enjoyed selecting funny advice cards.
7. Did any aspect of the game frustrate players?
   The biggest frustrating aspect was understanding the rules, which I was working on defining. The point of confusion about the rules and winning conditions.
8. What did your players learn /take away from your game? Was that what you intended?
   Players learned good coping skills and elements to make it through life.
9. What is your plan to address player questions, confusion, and frustration?
   The plan includes to “Fix the rules,” clarify the objective as being the best therapist to gain points, and to clarify that winning “bad therapist” is losing points. The game will be structured to have one round of bad advice and one round of good advice, using sets of good and bad advice cards. Mechanical changes include having players “play two cards every turn,” setting the “hand limit go down to three cards,” and possibly replenishing cards when a player is down to one. The round itself will change to first picking the best advice and then redoing the round with a “reality check” card to leave room for open discussion.
10. If your players didn’t get your intended message, what will you change?
    The change plan involves new scoring and mechanical considerations: the objective is to be the best therapist to gain points, with the advice card winning three points, the reality check card winning five points, and all points being added up at the end of the game to see who wins. Other changes include keeping the “prompt card” if a player wins the reality check round, and keeping the “bad advice card in a separate pile to keep track of.” For inspiration, the designer plans to look at the game Gloom and look up the game Wavelength.

Merideth’s Game:

1. What made the experience fun or not?
   1. The experience was made fun by being in last place.
2. What is the motivating factor to get or keep players playing?
   1. The motivating factor to get or keep players playing is the ability to destroy planets.
3. Is the game persuasive, and what is it trying to get you to do outside of the game?
   1. Yes, the game is persuasive because it is trying to get you to take a look at the way we treat our earth outside of the game.
4. What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout?
   1. The game’s metaphor is to treat our environment with respect, and specifically to preserve the planet.
   2. The standout mechanic is the idea of being able to destroy planets.
5. How does the gameplay make you feel? Who does the game make you feel empathy for?
   1. The gameplay makes the player feel excited to jump into the game, and it makes the player feel empathy for our planet.
6. Is the game an activist game? If so , what does the game play advocate for?
   1. Yes, the game is an activist game, and the gameplay advocates for reflection.
7. Describe the game in 3 words.
   1. The game is described as “Creative black holes.”

Cards and meaples were confusing. I like the mechanics. The planet cards were interesting to use in order to gain things in elements. Black holes were nice to touch to create an incentive to destroy planets to gain resources.

Andrews Game:

1. What was the most frustrating moment or aspect of what you just played?
   • The most frustrating moment was when the player was trying to move forward but could only move back, which required them to move back off the board or else they could not move anymore.
2. Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t?
   • The player wanted to be able to move forward more.
3. If you had a magic wand to wave and you could change, add, or remove anything from the experience, what would it be, what should improve the next version?
   • The player would add another die to see if there was anything more they could do with the turn to keep the game moving, but noted that you have to land on white.
   • The player also had a question about what happens when you go too far left and whether their perspective or direction would change.
4. What was the game’s narrative/themes/message?
   • To be honest, the player did not really gather a theme or a message at all.
5. How did the game make you feel?
   • The game honestly made the player feel bored and dragged on.
6. Describe the game in three words.
   • The game is described in three words as “potential to grow.”