Posts

Posted on

The Perfect Human Critiques

Film Maker: Nikayla Haynes

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: The angles worked really well, and the 15 second rule was noticeable.

Favorite Part: The double takes at the facial parts
What I would remake: I would add more to the outside parts, because there weren’t many outside shots.

Video Pace: Really good, well paced and made the 3 minute mark.

Film Maker: Kayla Bowman

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: The subtitles were good, I could see the rule about wearing pink/red clearly

Favorite Part: The what to wear scenes were really good
What I would remake: The mirror in the back showed Kayla throwing the clothes into the scene, I didn’t know if it was meant to be on purpose or not

Video Pace: It was really well paced, the human was trying to get ready the whole time.

Film Maker: Gabriella Thomas

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: During the chair scene, she was only moving 1 part of her body.

Favorite Part: The water bottle at the beginning was really interesting to look at. It was confusing at first, but really cool.
What I would remake: The shadow of the camera was in the video.

Video Pace: It was paced well, but a little slow.

Film Maker: Ethan Bookbinder

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: the static shots are really well done. 

Favorite Part: I really liked the last part with the editing
What I would remake: I’d put the title card at the beginning instead of the end.

Video Pace: Really well paced, a little fast but still paced good.

Film Maker: Tyler Lucas

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: Eye contact, not below the waist, and google translated well.

Favorite Part: Dead eye contact
What I would remake: I saw a few times that the perfect man smiled

Video Pace: Really good, a little long.

Film Maker: Antonia Valeri

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: The 4th wall break was good.

Favorite Part: The fourth wall break
What I would remake: I would change the font, it was nice but a bit hard to read.

Video Pace: It was well paced

Film Maker: Lily Clifford

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: the 360 shot was nice, it brought me to the perspective of Lily.

Favorite Part: The repetition for ocd was really interesting 

What I would remake: The audio balance with the running water

Video Pace: Well paced but ended abruptly

Film Maker: Aileena Sargeant

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: The uneasy narration was really clear, and worked well. The dancing was really funny

Favorite Part: The narration
What I would remake: I couldn’t tell right away who was being narrated

Video Pace: Very well paced

Film Maker: Bekzod Nurboev

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: She never opened her eyes, the one prop was really noticeable.

Favorite Part: The communication with a stick was funny, the dedication to that stick was strong.
What I would remake: The audio cuts were a little distracting

Video Pace: Good pace

Film Maker: Nada Almatani

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: the 2 hats stayed on, it was really odd and it worked.

Favorite Part: All of it was really good, I really liked when the text contradicted what she did.
What I would remake: Add music, and make the voice over a bit louder.

Video Pace: A little long

Film Maker: Sid Crabtree

Rules followed noticeably/effectively: The background rule really makes it like the original perfect human.

Favorite Part: I really liked how it reminded me of the original perfect human.
What I would remake: The flash transition was a little distracting.

Video Pace: Really well paced

Posted on

Critiques from last Wednesday

(completely forgot to post them.. sorry :/ )

Film maker: Kayla Bowman

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: The obstructions were followed completely 

What was your favorite part of the video?: I loved the implication of this film being about an “imperfect” human rather than the perfect one, the inner monologue really brought this film together! 

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The only thing that I would change would be adding the background music to the transition shots with the glitch effect rather than the fx sound, aside from that it was edited well. 

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: This video was paced very well, both the scenes and the audio were a good pace and did not feel like they were being dragged along.

Film maker: Gabriella Thomas 

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: Yes they were followed correctly 

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite shot was the panned view of her sandwich.

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?  I would potentially edit the voice overs sound levels and slow down the pacing in between certain lines. 

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: The video was paced relatively well however the beginning shots felt quite long before the dialog began as there was just silence.

Film maker: Ethan Bookbinder

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: The obstructions were followed perfectly.

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part of this video was where the faces were covered and the narrators voice picked up frantically, adding a sense of panic and urgency.

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: There was nothing that I would edit with this film, the insinuation of horror was captured amazingly. 

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: Although the video was only a minute and forty-seven seconds, it was done very well.

Film maker: Tyler Lucas

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: His rules were followed well.

What was your favorite part of the video?: The constant eye contact was hilarious, as for my favorite part it was when he was writing in the notebook whilst staring directly at the camera. 

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The most that I would edit would be for the longer dialogue bits should’ve been stretched a bit so us the viewers were able to fully read them. 

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: This video was paced well, it was quite enjoyable. 

Film maker: Antonia Valeri 

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: The rules were followed well, the fourth wall break using the audio in the video itself rather than breaking the no voice over rule.

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part of the video was watching her power through the pain and enduring her illness to push through to start her day.

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The only thing I would change is the size of the text on some scenes as the shrunk a bit too small at one point. 

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: The video was paced well, the only part that was a bit too fast was the opening scene when she first got up.

Film maker: Lily Clifford 

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: The rules were followed well. 

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part of the video was the insinuation of someone struggling with ocd. 

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The only thing that could’ve been re: edited/shot would be the only voice line in the video was a bit too fast & the audio was a bit too loud.

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: Some scenes did feel a bit long but overall the video was done well. 

Film maker: Murro Gill 

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: These were my rules, although they were absolute torture(sorry) it was executed very well.

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part of this video was the fact that he was able to incorporated his cat. 

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The only thing I would edit with this film is the pacing of the title cards.

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?:  The video was paced well.

Film maker: Aileena Sargeant

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: I wasn’t able to read the rules the full way through but the person who made them said the video was executed well. 

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part of the video was when the guy in the blue shorts was absolutely confused about who Sabrina even was. 

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The only thing I would get ride of would be the slight muffled sound to the guy on the phone’s voiceover 

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: This video was paced very well, it was quite enjoyable!

Film maker: Bekzod Nurboev

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: The rules were followed well.

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part was jana happening to randomly having a bottle of eos in the woods.

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The only thing that I would edit with this video would be the audio, the cutting of clips mixed with the wind cutting in and out was a bit obnoxious. 

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: The video was paced well. 

Film maker: Nada Almatani

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: Her rules were executed very well. 

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part of the video was when she took the bottle cap off of a new bottle to put it on the open one. 

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The only things I would edit would be turning the audio up a bit & possibly tinkering with the saturation on the black and white as it was a bit dark. 

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: Although it exceeded the three minute mark, it was paced well.

Film maker: Sidney Crabtree 

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?:  The obstructions were followed perfectly.

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part of the video was the buzzing in the audio after he picked up the phone.(Even if it wasn’t intentional)

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?:  There wasn’t anything in particular that I would edit, maybe add a soundtrack in the background to get rid of the slightly eerie feeling.

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: This video was paced almost exactly like the original.

Film maker: Gaige Stebler 

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: The obstructions were followed effectively. 

What was your favorite part of the video?: When he looked at his wrist for the time with no watch

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The framing on certain shots are the only suggestion I have for edits.

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: The video was paced well, however the homework shot lasted quite a while. It almost felt like a filler for time. 

Film maker: Saomi Jimenez 

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: Yes they were followed effectively. 

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part of the video was the eyeliner application. The video being in black and white gave it an old video style.

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The only suggestion I have for editing is turning the text to speech voice down a bit.

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: According to one of the rules the video was required to be in 2x speed, so yes it was paced well. 

Film maker: Noah Schardt

Were the rules for the obstruction followed noticeably and effectively?: Yes the obstructions were followed correctly!

What was your favorite part of the video?: My favorite part of the video was when Zach was outside playing gold with no puck but there was the sound effect of him still hitting the ball.

What would you re: edit, shoot, mix, record, etc?: The only suggestion I have for re: editing would be slowing down the narration slightly. 

Was the video paced well? Did any parts feel too long or too short?: The rules disappeared off screen a bit quickly but it was paced quite well.

Posted on

game 2 documentation

Aleah, Mason, Lauren

Rules : ⚔️ Speed War: Treasure Hunt 

🏝️ Story

Players are adventurers exploring a dangerous island in search of treasure.
Every card flipped represents something you encounter along the journey.

🃏 Card Meanings (Using a Regular Deck)

  • Number Cards (2–10) → Explorers
    • These are your adventurers competing for treasure
    • Higher number wins the round
  • Face Cards (J, Q, K) → Monsters 🐉
    • If a player plays a monster card, they instantly lose the round. The player then must discard the monster out of the game and put 2 cards into a pile on the side.
  • Aces (A) → Treasure 💰
    • First player to slap wins the pile and takes back the treasure into their deck
  • Jokers (optional) → Traps ⚠️
    • Last player to slap loses 3 cards and adds them to the pile

▶️ How a Round Works

  • At the start of the game give each player the same number of cards
  • Both players flip a card at the same time (like in War).
  • If both cards are number cards, the higher card wins the pile.
  • If a special card appears, players must react quickly and slap the card
  • If you win the round, you will take back your card and the other players card.

⚡ Special Events

  • Ace (Treasure Chest 💰)
    → First player to slap gets all the cards in the pile
  • Face Card (Monster Attack 🐉)
    → If a player plays a monster card, they instantly lose the round. The player then must discard the monster out of the game and put 2 cards into a pile on the side.
  • Joker (Hidden Trap ⚠️) (optional)
    → Last player to slap must give away 3 cards into the side pile 

🏆 Goal

Collect the most cards (treasure) and survive the island by the end of the game.

Posted on

Slop or Not

Game Synopsis (Slop or Not)

“Slop or Not” is a social deduction card game that challenges players to distinguish between human-created and AI-generated content in an era where the line between the two is increasingly blurred. Each round, players are presented with a piece of “slop” (a visual, text-based, or hybrid creation) and must decide whether it was made by a human or a machine.

Players vote simultaneously, revealing their choices and earning points for correct guesses. As the game progresses, patterns begin to break down, confidence is shaken, and players are forced to confront how unreliable their instincts actually are.

As a game for change, “Slop or Not” explores themes of authorship, authenticity, and digital literacy. It encourages players to critically evaluate the media they consume and question assumptions about creativity, originality, and trust in the age of AI-generated content. The goal is not just to win, but to realize how difficult (and sometimes impossible) it is to tell the difference.

Core Gameplay Loop

  1. Flip a card → reveal a piece of content (“slop”)
  2. Players decide: Human or AI?
  3. Everyone votes simultaneously
  4. Reveal answer
  5. Score points → next round

Simple. Fast. Brutal to your ego.

Rulebook: Lite 

Players:

2–6 players

Objective:

Earn the most points by correctly identifying whether content was created by a human or AI.

Setup:

  • Shuffle the deck of Slop Cards
  • Each card has:
    • Front: Content (image/text/design/etc.)
    • Back: Answer (Human or AI) + optional context
  • Place deck face down in the center

Gameplay:

1. Reveal Phase

  • Flip the top card and display it to all players

2. Decision Phase

  • Players secretly choose: Human or AI
     (via voting cards, hand signals, or tokens)

3. Reveal Phase

  • All players reveal their choice at the same time

4. Scoring Phase

  • Correct guess → keep the card (1 point)
  • Incorrect guess → card goes to discard pile

Optional Twist (recommended):

  • If ALL players guess wrong → card is worth 2 points next round
    reinforces “collective overconfidence” failure

End Game:

  • Game ends when all cards are used
  • Player with the most cards (points) wins

Mechanics Breakdown

Core Mechanics:

  • Simultaneous Decision Making → keeps pace fast, prevents copying
  • Deduction / Pattern Recognition → players try to “learn” tells
  • Psychological Play → players second-guess themselves and others
  • Push Your Confidence (soft mechanic) → the more confident you feel, the more likely you are to be wrong

Hidden System:

The game should intentionally:

  • Mix obvious vs deceptively ambiguous cards
  • Include:
    • Bad AI (easy wins early)
    • Good AI (mid-game doubt)
    • Weird human content (breaks assumptions)

This creates a confidence curve:

  • Early: “This is easy”
  • Mid: “Wait… what?”
  • Late: “I have no idea anymore”

That arc is where the game actually works.

Game for Change / Serious Game Angle

What it’s actually doing:

  • Exposes how unreliable people are at detecting AI
  • Challenges the assumption that “you can just tell”
  • Builds skepticism and critical thinking toward digital media
  • Sparks discussion around:
    • authenticity
    • authorship
    • trust online
    • creative ownership

(If anyone has any feedback or ideas for how it should be revealed whether the creation is AI or Human made without being too obvious to read, I would appreciate it!)

Posted on

Week 10 Questions

  1. What made the experience fun or not?

The gamble made it fun because you could be on such a good streak and decide to stop and then your opponent gets a bust card.

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

The motivating factor is to keep playing is to get more points than your player and keep gaining points if you lost them.

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

No the game is not persuasive.

  1. What is the game’s metaphor and which of the game’s mechanics standout?

The mechanics that stand out is the gamble of picking up the next card. The metaphor is to trust your gut because you are guessing on if the next card will be beneficial to you or not.

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

The gameplay makes me feel like I shouldn’t be gambling because I could loose so much money in the blink of an eye. It makes me feel empathy for people who have gambling addictions.

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

I guess you could consider the game advocating for the people who have gambling addictions so you can see how easy it is to become addicted to the chance.

  1. Describe the game in 3 sentences or in the form of a haiku.

guess next cards value

decide if you continue

gain maximum points

Posted on

Game Maker’s Play Test Notes – Refined (In-Session Observations)

What questions did your players have?
Players asked whether actions like busting or card effects applied to their total score or only within the current turn. There were multiple clarifications needed around how long effects last, indicating that rule timing is not immediately clear during play.

How quickly did they learn to play?
Players picked up the game very quickly. Most understood the basic flow within about five minutes. Minimal explanation was needed after the first round, suggesting the core mechanics are intuitive.

What kinds of interactions did the players have?
Players were actively engaging with each other, especially around card visibility. There were repeated moments of players asking others not to hide their cards, which created a mix of playful tension and informal rule enforcement.

What confused players?
Card directions caused the most confusion. Players were unsure whether card effects impacted overall score or just the current turn. Some hesitation during turns suggested uncertainty about correct rule application.

What made players excited?
Specialty cards generated the strongest reactions. Players became noticeably more engaged when these cards were played, especially when they influenced outcomes or other players.

What did your players enjoy doing?
 Players enjoyed influencing other players’ outcomes. There was clear interest in mechanics that allowed interference or control, which led to more engagement and table discussion.

Did any aspect of the game frustrate players?
Frustration was low overall. Some minor frustration occurred when players busted or lost points, particularly when outcomes felt sudden or unclear.

What did your players learn / take away from your game? Was that what you intended? Players appeared to recognize themes of risk, greed, and self-control during gameplay. Their reactions to pushing limits versus playing safely aligned with the intended psychology of gambling mechanics.

What is your plan to address player questions, confusion, and frustration?
Rules and card text need to be clarified, particularly around how and when effects apply. Adjustments will focus on simplifying wording and making outcomes more immediately understandable during play.

If your players didn’t get your intended message, what will you change?
The intended message was generally understood, but reinforcing it through clearer cause-and-effect feedback during gameplay would strengthen the connection.

Posted on

Game Maker’s Play Test Notes – Baristas & Budtenders

What questions did your players have?
Players asked a lot of early clarification questions around how shifts work, how customers move/interact between spaces, and how tips are actually earned and scored. There were also questions about how mood affects outcomes and whether certain actions stack or reset between turns. (Wednesday resets took a bit of explaining)

How quickly did they learn to play?
The core idea clicked pretty quickly after a round or two, especially once players saw the flow of a full shift. However, some of the finer mechanics (like mood influence and scoring efficiency) took longer to fully understand.

What kinds of interactions did the players have?
Players were very engaged with each other! There was a mix of light competition and indirect interference, especially when managing customer moods or trying to maximize tips. A lot of table talk happened, with players reacting to each other’s choices and outcomes.

What confused players?
The biggest confusion came from balancing customer moods and understanding how different mechanics interact (especially adjacency and emotional effects). There were also moments where players weren’t sure what the “best move” was, which suggests some systems may need clearer feedback or simplification.

What made players excited?
Players got excited when they pulled off high-tip turns or when multiple mechanics worked together successfully. The theme also resonated; people liked the humor and relatability of dealing with customers in both café and dispensary settings.

What did your players enjoy doing?
They enjoyed managing customers and trying to optimize their turns for maximum tips. The decision-making around where to focus energy (coffee vs. dispensary) was especially engaging, along with reacting to shifting customer moods.

Did any aspect of the game frustrate players?
Yes, balance was a noticeable issue. The game was playtested twice over spring break with family, and it became very clear that the game MUST be played with an even number of players (2 or 4). When played with 3 players, the side with fewer players gains a major advantage and tends to win almost automatically, which breaks fairness and overall enjoyment. This will need to be addressed or restricted in the rules.

Final Revisions & Next Steps
Based on playtesting (conducted twice over spring break with family), the most critical revision is enforcing an even player count. The game will be updated to require 2 or 4 players, as testing showed that uneven setups (e.g., 3 players) create a structural imbalance where the side with fewer players has a consistent advantage and tends to win automatically. This adjustment is necessary to preserve fairness and intended gameplay dynamics.

After implementing this rule change, further development on Baristas & Budtenders will pause in favor of shifting focus to other projects for the remainder of the semester. Priority will be placed on revising Enough? based on playtest feedback, as well as continuing development on a collaborative game project!

Posted on

Game Ideas Week 6

5 ideas for simulations

  1. A city planning simulator. Players design systems of transportation to account for growth and traffic issues. 
  2. A game that simulates space exploration, but operating off a deck building mechanic like that of Dominion. I would incorporate discoveries that would dictate the strength of a hand at any given moment to keep it dynamic.
  3. Players work as a nurse at an understaffed hospital. They must prioritize patients with limited time and resources. The game would simulate the pressure and emotional strain of working in healthcare.
  4. An educational game in which players are challenged with repairing lines of code to earn points and prevent system failure.
  5. An air traffic control simulation where a player manages multiple flights at one time and avoids collision or delay.

Posted on

Game Ideas Week 4

Game Ideas Week 4

5 game ideas that are serious

  1. A collaborative card game in which players keep their town from flooding. They must stack barrier cards and share limited resources.
  2. A resource management game, inspired by the game Catan, that allows players to explore scarcity.
  3. A trading based game where Teams start with a small, random, item and must trade up to having the one that is “most valuable”. This would be determined by rolling dice and drawing cards to either progress or lose everything.  
  4. A new chess game that utilizes the concept of suits the way that cards do. It would be a deception game centered around a theme of crime and corruption. I would also be interested in modifying the board to be interactive 3-Dimensionally. 
  5. A murder mystery card game that utilizes the collaborative card set up of Hanabi, but instead of building suits, players exchange information to find the killer.