Author: ConnorL

Scurry Ship (2 players)

Short Summary

The purpose of Scurry Ship is to remind players of the tragedy of the Titanic. In the final moments of the sinking ship, chaos erupts as tables and chairs slide and the boat breaks off into the water. People run towards the nearest life rafts, some saving themselves while others aren’t able to make it. Although Scurry Ship is fun, the hectic gameplay puts players in the shoes of a struggling survivor. During the gameplay, players must move the cubes around (tables) in order to escort their players to the other side. This will ensure that both people they control will be able to get into the life raft, winning the game and saving their lives.

Design Process & Thought Process

The first and most unique design aspect to the game is the water the boat sits on. There is a subtle elevation from the cardboard boat and the paper water, giving the effect that you are hopping off of the sinking boat and into the raft. I wanted the water to pop with colors of the ocean, showing a contrast between light and dark blues. Within the water, you can find the life raft your characters hop on. The life raft doesn’t sustain any special design element, but I wanted it to be 3-Dimensional instead of drawn in the water. This way, there is depth included in the playing experience, rather than interacting with a flat board.

Next, you can see how the boat breaks off. I cut the board to give the effect of the breakage, as pieces of the boat are damaged from the iceberg.

The board itself has a grid for each cube to sit on. This distinguishes the barrier of movement for the sliding tables and the character pieces. As you can see, some of the squares in the grid are gray, which represent holes on the ship. I added these holes because it was too easy to get to the other side of the board, and the holes slow players down. Nothing can go through or on top of these gray tiles. I made sure that the gray tile patterns remain the same on both sides, so one side doesn’t have any sort of advantage. Speaking of both sides, there is a clear barrier in the middle of the board, which separates both of the players’ boundaries.

And of course, I made sure to make the starting row for the characters green to indicate that it is the starting zone.

Lastly, the pattern cards have a simplistic design to them. I wanted to give them their own design, so I drew a symbol of someone dodging a sliding table.

Game Mechanics

The most notable game mechanic is the movement of your character piece. You can move up and down, side to side but not diagonal. The same logic applies to the tables that you have to slide around. I had to stress the correlation between my game and a slide puzzle in the rules. With the relation to a sliding puzzle, players can better understand how the movement works. This also branches into the mechanic of the gray holes in the ship, because you can’t go over or through the gray tiles.

The other game mechanic are the table pattern cards. These cards give a sense of randomness to the game, which can alter how players start their movement. Additionally, players are allowed to start on whatever green tile they want, but they can’t re-enter the starting zone.

Player Goals

The objective of the game is very straight forward, which is getting both character pieces to the end of the board. Getting to the end of the board is the challenge, in which there are many factors to consider during the playing experience. Just like a slide puzzle, players must shift both of their character pieces through the tables on the board, reaching the life raft. Players must also consider the holes in the middle of the board, which interrupt the movement of tables and characters alike. Making way through the chaos, when both of the character pieces reach the end, the player wins.

Gameplay Sequence

One of the players reached the life raft at the end. They still had another character piece to get in, so they still had work to do. You can see the progression across the board of both player’s character pieces.

Game Board & Components

There are a ton of grids for the cubes and character pieces to move around on. Again, you have to compare this game to a giant slide puzzle, as each cube is to be moved around the board. Players will constantly be interacting with the pieces and board components, leading to victory.

Here are the character pieces that need to be brought to the end of the board. Player one has red and gold, whereas player two has blue and silver characters. The pieces differ between the cubes and the characters. The cubes represent the tables, and the characters represent the civilians running to the life raft.

Rulebook & Playtesting

Playtesting Notes

1. What questions did your players have?
   • One of the questions players asked was about the gray tiles. I specified the mechanics of the gray tiles in the rules, but I realize that this is something that I can make more noticeable/clarified. It could have been easily overlooked, causing confusion. The next question that a player asked was how you are supposed to win. More specifically, what the win indicator is. I noticed that some players didn’t know what to do once they reached the end of the board, leaving them to question if they have won. Along with the win indication, a player asked if both characters had to be on the end in order to win.
2. How quickly did they learn to play?
   • Compared to my other games, this one took a bit of time for players to get used to. Players had to get used to the slide puzzle mechanic, which took a game or two for them to be fully comfortable. One player tried to jump over the tables, which is specified in the rules not to do. But once they reviewed the rules, familiarized themselves with the core components, they enjoyed the playing experience.
3. What kinds of interactions did the players have?
   • The direct interaction between players was racing towards the end of the board. Players would periodically observe the progression of the other player, controlling the pacing of their actions. For example, one of the players were reaching the end of the board, so the opponent started moving the pieces around more frantically. This instilled a rollercoaster of emotion from players, from critical thinking to panic.
4. What confused players?
   • Not much confusion was amongst players, other than the slide puzzle mechanic and the few questions they asked. I think that overall, the confusion lies within tiny unspecified or overlooked rules within the rule sheet.
5. What made players excited?
   • Players were excited based on their thinking capabilities, which reflected based on their performance. They loved the competition against the other opponent and felt a sense of accomplishment knowing they outsmarted their rival. When a player would reach the end of the board, they would eagerly put their pieces in the life raft. In a moment where a player would get stuck in a corner, they would also get excited at solving the problem and progressing.
6. What did your players enjoy doing?
   • Players enjoyed progressing their pieces to the end of the board. They liked the constant flow of movement, providing a quick-paced gameplay. Additionally, they enjoyed flipping the pattern cards over, because it was a charm of randomization.
7. Did any aspect of the game frustrate players?
   • There were two main things about the game that frustrated the players. The first and foremost frustration was the fact that the gameplay was repetitive. The purpose of the pattern cards was to add a sense of randomization to the gameplay. However, in the end, the gray tiles are in the same place every game and the tables can be moved around the randomized patterns, making no difference. The second frustration was that the game was bare bones and could use a spice up. This and the repetitive gameplay go hand-to-hand, urging a sense of touch up.
8. What is your plan to address player questions. Confusion and frustration?
   • In order to address player confusion and frustration, I can add more components to the game. This could add more fun factors that can alter the pacing of the game, or maybe even a sabotaging aspect for the players. Maybe I can find a way to randomize the gray tiles, making each route for the playing experience different. As for any confusion, I plan to tweak the layout of the ruleset. I made sure to add extra pictures to the rules, so player confusion could be reduced majorly. But after realizing there are some things that players still questioned, I can find new ways to emphasize these clarifications in the rules. Maybe new pictures or angles can help…

Game reflections

I think that this game out of all three is my most promising one yet. From the development of this game, I applied my knowledge of slide puzzles into a playable experience between both players. I also like the competitive aspect of my games, which is a reoccurring theme through all three games. I have learned how to balance a lot of luck with skill, implementing mechanics that make an enjoyable playing experience. The only thing that I will do differently next time is make sure to make clarifications on specific game mechanics that might confuse players. A lot of things to take into consideration revolve from the way I word things on my ruleset, so I will have to learn better layouts for pictures and diagrams. A player of my game recommended maybe I add big pieces to the game in a future iteration, which takes up multiple squares on the grid. I can definitely agree on the fact that with future games, I can find new ways to spice up the playing experiences.

1. What questions did your players have?
   • One of the questions players asked was about the gray tiles. I specified the mechanics of the gray tiles in the rules, but I realize that this is something that I can make more noticeable/clarified. It could have been easily overlooked, causing confusion. The next question that a player asked was how you are supposed to win. More specifically, what the win indicator is. I noticed that some players didn’t know what to do once they reached the end of the board, leaving them to question if they have won. Along with the win indication, a player asked if both characters had to be on the end in order to win.
2. How quickly did they learn to play?
   • Compared to my other games, this one took a bit of time for players to get used to. Players had to get used to the slide puzzle mechanic, which took a game or two for them to be fully comfortable. One player tried to jump over the tables, which is specified in the rules not to do. But once they reviewed the rules, familiarized themselves with the core components, they enjoyed the playing experience.
3. What kinds of interactions did the players have?
   • The direct interaction between players was racing towards the end of the board. Players would periodically observe the progression of the other player, controlling the pacing of their actions. For example, one of the players were reaching the end of the board, so the opponent started moving the pieces around more frantically. This instilled a rollercoaster of emotion from players, from critical thinking to panic.
4. What confused players?
   • Not much confusion was amongst players, other than the slide puzzle mechanic and the few questions they asked. I think that overall, the confusion lies within tiny unspecified or overlooked rules within the rule sheet.
5. What made players excited?
   • Players were excited based on their thinking capabilities, which reflected based on their performance. They loved the competition against the other opponent and felt a sense of accomplishment knowing they outsmarted their rival. When a player would reach the end of the board, they would eagerly put their pieces in the life raft. In a moment where a player would get stuck in a corner, they would also get excited at solving the problem and progressing.
6. What did your players enjoy doing?
   • Players enjoyed progressing their pieces to the end of the board. They liked the constant flow of movement, providing a quick-paced gameplay. Additionally, they enjoyed flipping the pattern cards over, because it was a charm of randomization.
7. Did any aspect of the game frustrate players?
   • There were two main things about the game that frustrated the players. The first and foremost frustration was the fact that the gameplay was repetitive. The purpose of the pattern cards was to add a sense of randomization to the gameplay. However, in the end, the gray tiles are in the same place every game and the tables can be moved around the randomized patterns, making no difference. The second frustration was that the game was bare bones and could use a spice up. This and the repetitive gameplay go hand-to-hand, urging a sense of touch up.
8. What is your plan to address player questions. Confusion and frustration?
   • In order to address player confusion and frustration, I can add more components to the game. This could add more fun factors that can alter the pacing of the game, or maybe even a sabotaging aspect for the players. Maybe I can find a way to randomize the gray tiles, making each route for the playing experience different. As for any confusion, I plan to tweak the layout of the ruleset. I made sure to add extra pictures to the rules, so player confusion could be reduced majorly. But after realizing there are some things that players still questioned, I can find new ways to emphasize these clarifications in the rules. Maybe new pictures or angles can help…

Donkeys vs. Elephants (2 players)

Short Summary

This game acts as a criticism towards modern politics; how chaotic and manipulative it can be. Players interact as a fissure between the left and right wing, trying hard to score votes and public approval. Both sides try and control the crowd in the middle of the board in order to give themselves a tactical advantage. It comes to show how politics can manipulate crowds, or the decisions of the public in order to thrive. Furthermore, there is always going to be a debate between the parties, without a settlement or peace negotiation to end the ongoing bickering.

Design Process & Thought Process

Iterative Design

First and foremost, the two main colors I used for the game’s board design is red and blue. Of course, this reflects upon the democratic and republican parties. At first, the board was completely plain, but I wanted to figure out a way that I can better differentiate both sides. Below you can observe the before and after board design I touched upon. I like simplistic designs for my games. I wanted to find a balance between color and simplicity, going back to what I was saying on differentiating both sides.

Next, another design consideration I had to take was where the marble was going to be placed. This had to be some kind of launching area for the players to determine angles before firing. I didn’t want to make the launch area too small, restricting movement. Additionally, I didn’t want to make the launch zone too big, or else it would be too easy to launch across the board. In order for the marble to sit comfortably without rolling around, I poked a multitude of holes in the launch zone so players wouldn’t have to worry about keeping the marble perfectly steady.

Lastly, the sticks used to hit the ball are identified by a color, in which both sides can use their respected stick.

Game Mechanics

The first main mechanic in the game are the three goals of your opponent. These goals replaced the ballot boxes that I first initially used during the early prototype. The ballot boxes were originally point indicators, as the first player to knock over all three ballot boxes one the game. The problem with that was, it was easy to knock over all three ballot boxes at once. This made the game too easy to end quickly, not letting the other player have a chance. So instead, I added three holes that act as the goals.

This way, players are instructed to get all three of their balls into the goals. This mechanic allows for a slower-paced gameplay which is more forgiving.

The second essential mechanic of the game are the hitting sticks. I’ve talked about them already in the iterative design, but they serve as good launch options for the marbles. Originally, I thought about making the launch mechanic as a rubber band, but I soon came to find how it would be confusing to implement that into my board design. There would not be enough room to fit a rubber band onto the board, so instead I made the game more like knock hockey.

Player Goals

The task of this game is to get all three of your marbles into the opponents’ goals. There are three goals for three marbles, and players can inhibit progression by moving the pegs around in order to block an open goal. Each turn a player takes is a hit of their marble, followed by a spin of the wheel. The wheel will determine how many pegs the player can move to block the incoming marbles. When a goal is occupied by a marble, it can’t be altered, and that is considered to be a point. The game ends by the first person to score all three goals occupied by a separate marble.

Gameplay Sequence

Here are some of the gameplay sequences I have captured.

One of the players scored a point, shown by this other picture. Since this goal is occupied by a marble, the player who scored would keep that marble there and move onto their next one.

Game Board & Components

The game board is another simple design yet complicated at the same time. There are many things to consider during the construction. For example, I made sure that the corners of the board had borders so that the marble wouldn’t get stuck. The board itself had to be relatively long, so that the marble would have some travel time.

Certain measurements had to be taken into consideration, in order for both sides to be equal. This included where the launch zone would be located, as well as the middle placement of the pegs. Everything had to be measured, which would ensure that both sides have equal advantage. For example, If the middle pegs of the board would gravitate towards one side, then the other side would have smaller room.

Here is what the game looks like setup:

Another component I haven’t touched upon was the spinner mechanic. This adds a luck factor to the game about skill, blending the two categories together nicely. This way, players can anticipate the number of pegs they will be able to move after they hit the ball. The spinner is simple in design, which I usually tend to keep simple. If the design of the spinner were too complicated, it could make the numbers harder to read. Perhaps if I were to take this game to a final revision, I could add some color to the spinner.

Rulebook & Playtesting

Playtesting Notes

1. What questions did your players have? 
   • Players asked if the ball is allowed to ricochet off of the walls. This is unspecified in the rules, so it makes sense that this would be a valid question. Next, players wondered about if they had to move the maximum number of pegs. One of the players spun the wheel after their turn and got a 5, and they wondered if they have to use all 5 movement opportunities. Lastly, another question they had was based on an unspecified situation of hitting one of your own ballot boxes. The ball could ricochet back and hit your own boxes, so I will have to think of a way around that.
2. How quickly did they learn to play? 
   • Players learned fairly quickly. The rules are simple, and the gameplay is very straight forward. After answering the questions they had about the rules, players were able to understand the game fully.
3. What kinds of interactions did the players have?  
   • The players interacted directly with each other. Moving the pegs around made some interesting interaction, as players strategized what peg placement would benefit them while giving the other side a disadvantage. Furthermore, while a player would aim toward the other player’s ballot boxes, there was some tension arising on whether the peg placement was efficient.
4. What confused players? 
   • Mostly just unspecified rules, which I ended up having to answer for them. These unspecified rules were discussed in what questions players asked, but another confusion was if they were allowed to hit multiple ballot boxes. One of the players made the interesting point that if more than one ballot box is knocked over during a turn, maybe the player can choose which ballot box to knock over. Of course, this is something else that will need clarified in the rules. There can be turns in which all three ballot boxes can be knocked over, ending the game in one turn.
5. What made players excited? 
   • Most of the excitement came from spinning the wheel or getting bank shots. The wheel is luck-based, so excitement derived from whether players were going to spin on a big number. The bank shots were hype, as players not only got the ricochet but bypassed the pegs in the middle of the board.
6. What did your players enjoy doing? 
   • Players enjoyed hitting the ball with the popsicle stick. It reminded them of knock hockey, using sticks to hit the puck to the other side of the board.
7. Did any aspect of the game frustrate players? 
   • The only thing that mainly concerned players was the fact that there was no net to catch the marble after hitting the ballot boxes. This is something I’m surprised I haven’t thought of, but as players started hitting the ball, it flew off of the board.
8. What is your plan to address player questions. Confusion and frustration?
   • In order to address most of the confusion and frustration, I will have to make some clarifications in the rules. Most things that confused the players were not touched upon in the ruleset, so it wouldn’t hurt to make the necessary clarifications. Although I will probably end up dealing with the ballot boxes, whether it is adding a net or completely revamping the mechanic.

Game Reflections

I think that with most of my games, there can still be clarifications to be had. There were still small questions that I haven’t even thought about that could be covered in a future iteration of this game. The development of this game had me focus on combining luck and skill, such as hitting the ball combined with spinning the wheel for movement opportunities. However, I’ve come to realize design flaws within the board, which could be fixed in the future. An example of this “design flaw” could be the middle pegs, which are hard to pull in and out of the cardboard. Refining this game can really shape it up, and next time I will make sure to pay attention to more intricate details which will optimize the playing experience.

1. What questions did your players have? 
   • Players asked if the ball is allowed to ricochet off of the walls. This is unspecified in the rules, so it makes sense that this would be a valid question. Next, players wondered about if they had to move the maximum number of pegs. One of the players spun the wheel after their turn and got a 5, and they wondered if they have to use all 5 movement opportunities. Lastly, another question they had was based on an unspecified situation of hitting one of your own ballot boxes. The ball could ricochet back and hit your own boxes, so I will have to think of a way around that.
2. How quickly did they learn to play? 
   • Players learned fairly quickly. The rules are simple, and the gameplay is very straight forward. After answering the questions they had about the rules, players were able to understand the game fully.
3. What kinds of interactions did the players have?  
   • The players interacted directly with each other. Moving the pegs around made some interesting interaction, as players strategized what peg placement would benefit them while giving the other side a disadvantage. Furthermore, while a player would aim toward the other player’s ballot boxes, there was some tension arising on whether the peg placement was efficient.
4. What confused players? 
   • Mostly just unspecified rules, which I ended up having to answer for them. These unspecified rules were discussed in what questions players asked, but another confusion was if they were allowed to hit multiple ballot boxes. One of the players made the interesting point that if more than one ballot box is knocked over during a turn, maybe the player can choose which ballot box to knock over. Of course, this is something else that will need clarified in the rules. There can be turns in which all three ballot boxes can be knocked over, ending the game in one turn.
5. What made players excited? 
   • Most of the excitement came from spinning the wheel or getting bank shots. The wheel is luck-based, so excitement derived from whether players were going to spin on a big number. The bank shots were hype, as players not only got the ricochet but bypassed the pegs in the middle of the board.
6. What did your players enjoy doing? 
   • Players enjoyed hitting the ball with the popsicle stick. It reminded them of knock hockey, using sticks to hit the puck to the other side of the board.
7. Did any aspect of the game frustrate players? 
   • The only thing that mainly concerned players was the fact that there was no net to catch the marble after hitting the ballot boxes. This is something I’m surprised I haven’t thought of, but as players started hitting the ball, it flew off of the board.
8. What is your plan to address player questions. confusion and frustration?
   • In order to address most of the confusion and frustration, I will have to make some clarifications in the rules. Most things that confused the players were not touched upon in the ruleset, so it wouldn’t hurt to make the necessary clarifications. Although I will probably end up dealing with the ballot boxes, whether it is adding a net or completely revamping the mechanic.

Mother’s Wish (3 players)

Short Summary

This is an empathetic playing experience based on gathering groceries for your sickly mother. The game revolves around scoping out proper groceries on the shelves in order to add them to your cart. The first player to complete their shopping list and load up the cart wins the round, collecting the shopping list as a signifier. There are three rounds to each game, and whichever player has more shopping lists than the other wins. This game is for players who love competition, as well as quick reaction timing. This game also involves strict observation skills. Think of it as an Eye-Spy book, but you are competing against someone to find the hidden objects.

Design Process & Thought Process:

Iterative Design

I’ve had to think of ways to simplify the graphics of this game, in order to keep the players focused on the task at hand. I didn’t want to overcomplicate the design, so players aren’t distracted and are able to discern between items. For example, the setting of the game takes place in a store, so I designed a simple floor tile that doesn’t catch the players off guard.

Designing the cards were tricky, because I had to think of a way to efficiently convey what products I wanted the players to grab off of the shelves. The main challenge to this was the fact that there are some products that are the same, but different color.

In order to address this, I specified under the drawing what color was to be sought out.

Although the cards are simple, they give a general consensus of the card layout and design. Taking the final iteration to photoshop, I will be able to photograph the items onto the cards maximizing recognition.

The last design iteration were the shelves. I thought about making the shelves look more like shelves, each with layers of items. The problem with this design was the fact that it would be very hard not to knock the shelves over, and it would be very hard to pull the items off of the shelves. In order to fix this, I made the shelves more like bins instead of actual shelves:

Game Mechanics

There are two different types of player roles for the gameplay, which are the shoppers and store manager. There are two shoppers that are competing against each other. The players are pulling items off the shelves, trying to be the first to complete the shopping list. The shoppers use tweezers in order to pull the items off of the shelves into their carts, shown in the image below:

They will keep going down the list. The first shopper that finishes the list, with all of the corresponding items in their cart, collects the shopping list card which signifies two points. The list in which the shopper completed are two points. In a round, there are 3 shopping list cards during a game for the players to compete for. One card after the other. The max number of points to earn in a game is 6. If a player knocks items off of the shelves as they are trying to grab an item, that is a point deduction. The number of items that are knocked off of the shelf doesn’t matter, it is only a one-point deduction per round.

The Store manager oversees the game and keeps track of the scoring system. They do not directly play in the game, but act as a “boss” or “moderator” of the gameplay. For example, if a player scores a point, then it is the manager’s job to keep track of who is winning. The store manager reorganizes the shelves between rounds, sets up and stocks the shelves. They flip the grocery lists over, in order to signify when the shoppers must start shopping. They run the store. 

Player Goals

The manager doesn’t have any real goal compared to the shoppers, who have a direct goal to win. The only main task of the store manager is to make sure the game is running efficiently, as well as restocking the shelves between rounds. This way, the items don’t run out as the shoppers grab them off of the shelves.

On the other hand, the goal of the shoppers is to collect the shopping lists, which signify points. As stated in the game mechanics, the most points you can score during a game is 6. With each card being worth 2 points, the players must complete their lists, collect the card and snag the points. In the end, whichever player has more points wins. The number of points can also be affected by whether the shopper has knocked over items which is a point deduction.

Gameplay Sequence

After the store manager stocks the shelves and the cards are in placement, the game is ready to commence. The Store manager will flip over the first card, which will have a list of items to take off of the shelves. As soon as the card is flipped over, both shoppers scurry around the store to pick the items off of the shelves. Once a shopper finds an item, they pick it off of the shelf with their tweezer and put it in the cart. They will keep going down the list. The first shopper that finishes the list, with all of the corresponding items in their cart, collects the card which signifies two points.

Once all 3 grocery list cards have been gone through, it is time to tally up who has earned the most points based on how many cards they have kept. If the player has knocked items off of the shelves, that is a single point deduction. This is one of the jobs of the store manager, making sure who is in the lead (point tracking). If by chance both shoppers have the same number of points and there is a tie, then both shoppers must compete an additional round to determine who is the final winner.

Player Interaction/Gameplay:

Game Board & Components

The game board – simple in design, allows the players to maintain focus on picking out the items. Since the board is simple, the colors of the items stick out, making it easier to differentiate between the groceries. This is what the game looks like set up:

As mentioned in the iterative design section on the shelving, I made sure that the shelves were more like bins. If I were to make the shelves stand up like typical store shelves, players would be more inclined to knock them over and scatter items everywhere.

Furthermore, a feature I added in the game was the ability of the manager to organize the shelves in any way they want on the game board. This allows the manager to not only control the flow of the game but potentially make things tricker or harder for the shoppers.

Tools

The two shoppers use a tweezer in order to pick the items off of the shelves. Players cannot use their fingers because the challenge of the tweezers makes it more interesting. Both shoppers have a shopping cart that they also put their groceries in. In the beginning of the game, the two players decide who is who (between players 1 and 2).

Rulebook & Playtesting

Playtesting Notes

1. What questions did your players have?
   • Some common questions that the players had were based on the rules, such as “What if you pick up and put back items?” or “Can I take from the other player’s bin?” Any of the questions were based on unspecifications that I will have to clarify in the rules, in order to prevent people from doing the wrong actions. Another question was “Am I allowed to block the other player?”
2. How quickly did they learn to play?
   • It didn’t take long for the players to catch on to the ruleset. I’d say that this game has one of the easier rulesets I’ve made but nonetheless needs improvement. The players were able to play the game and adapt, but they still ran into complications that I will have to personally look over.
3. What kinds of interactions did the players have?
   • This is a very competitive game, and the players were constantly at each other’s throat. From a direct interaction, the players clash tweezers and wrestle with pieces time to time, as well as striving to the first to earn points. However, not much talking is involved in the game, as players are dialed in to focus on what pieces to grab.
4. What confused players?
   • Players were less confused about the rules, and more confused about the pieces they had to grab. I’ve noticed that in the prototype, I did not do a good job of indicating what type of pieces they have to lookout for. This confused the players, as they sometimes grabbed the wrong pieces or mistakened items for something else.
5. What made players excited?
   • The excitement mainly derived from the bulk of the gameplay, where players were rushing to earn points. When the points were earned, it was rewarding to the players too, complimenting their quick-thinking and observation skills. The anticipation of the manager flipping over the card evoked excitement as well, as the players eagerly awaited their next challenge.
6. What did your players enjoy doing?
   • The players enjoyed using the tools (tiny tweezers and shopping carts) and competing with each other. They enjoyed navigating through the miniature store model, which gave them an environment to interact with.
7. Did any aspect of the game frustrate players?
   • I wouldn’t say so, but the players suggested a mechanic to make things easier for the playing experience. I think it was more about a factor that they wish was a part of the game rather than frustration. For example, they suggested a clock/bell that could be hit to indicate that they are done with the shopping list, in order to prevent frequent ties.
8. What did your players learn/take away from your game? Was that what you intended?
   • I’d say my players learned the aspects of keeping cool during a moment of chaos. This game really enforces the principles of maintaining composure and concentration, no matter how stressful the environment may be. This was sort of what I intended, since I was looking to create a fast-paced and competitive game.
9. What is your plan to address player questions, confusion, and frustration?
   • Just as I’ve tackled criticism in the past, I plan on addressing the confusion, questions and frustrations of players through communication and/or feedback. Through frequent playtesting, I expect players to tell me the things that are wrong with my game. There have been instances where I thought the game was perfect from the start, until players have exposed its flaws in rules. I’ll also have to read over the rules of my game and make extra clarifications and changes to better the playing experience.
10. If your players didn’t get your intended message, what will you change?
    • One thing I will point out is that this game is supposed to make the players feel empathy, as the premise of the game revolves around getting groceries for your sick mother. I don’t think the players understood that, at least I can do a better job at making that known. In order to fix this, I will add designs to the cards which will show a small picture of your mother asking for the specific groceries. This way, players will be reminded of their sick mother, making them more determined.

Game Reflections

Through the development of this game, I’ve spotted out a lot of design potential that can be put into a final iteration. This game can be polished, and rules can be specified in order to maximize gameplay. Photoshop will carry this game to victory, as item recognition will be much easier on the cards. Next time I will make sure to not only improve upon the graphics, but to word the rules better. I believe that I can definitely word things in order to help the players understand the mechanics further. Overall, both graphics and rule iterations can help me consider the players better and their playing experience.

1. What was the most frustrating moment or aspect of what you just played?
   • I think that the only thing that frustrated me with the game was the fact that the players were sometimes nudged in criticizing each other. Regardless if it is up to us to take the game in any direction, I feel that some questions could easily turn people against each other. The thing is, if I were playing with a group of people that didn’t like me, it would be easy for them to answer questions in a negative manner.
2. What was your favorite moment or aspect of what you just played?
   • The game was a very good way of getting to know people better, as well as learning about what people think about me. I enjoyed the interactions from this game, as well as thinking of funny things to say on my response cards. There was also a neat sense of randomness in which I didn’t know what to expect from people.
3. Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t?
   • I wanted to draw pictures, as well as seeing other pictures that people could draw. I think that drawing prompts would contribute to more funny/interesting interaction.
4. If you had a magic wand to wave, and you could change, add, or remove anything from the experience what would it be?
   • Bouncing off of the previous question, I’d add drawing prompts, which would spice up the playing experience. It would be hilarious to try to guess who drew a certain picture, almost like JackBox. If I could change anything, I would change a couple of the questions that might cause controversy. Based on what I said in the first question, maybe you could reword the prompts to make it less personal. Lastly, I think that it would be cool to incorporate a timer during the playing experiences so that people don’t have to wait on each other to finish.
5. What should be improved with the next version?
   • The game is already really fun, and doesn’t need a whole reiteration. I think that the prompts can be misinterpreted, as I’ve talked about how sometimes it can feel personal. Other than that, I think that by adding a few things I’ve talked about, you could boost the potential of this game.
6. What was the game’s message?
   • It is kinda hard to tell what the message of the game is, but I’d have to say it is about trust. It can show the true colors of people (responding to prompts anonymously) so you just have to trust that you are playing with friends not foes.
7. Describe the game in 3 words.
   • Social, trusting, funny

1. Retail Rush – This simulation game isn’t any typical “work at a retail store” game. Unlike the other retail games, this one primarily focuses on holidays, such as Christmas or Black Friday. There are difficulties based on the holidays, with Black Friday being the hardest and St. Patrick’s Day being one of the easier difficulties. This sets things into perspective for the player, showing how intense working retail can be. It pushes the player to the limits, forcing them outside of their comfort zone. The typical retail games are usually slower-paced and relaxing, but this one is the opposite.
2. Bird’s Eye – This is a more relaxing simulation, which focuses on collecting, watching and studying different bird species. You can choose different environments which affect the chances of certain species being around, but the premise revolves around collecting and documenting. This game can also be an online game, with a scoreboard for bragging rights.
3. Trash Grinder – Another job simulation, which is based off of picking up trash from different types of neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods could be more dangerous than others, so maybe you could encounter complications. This simulation could go both ways, some neighborhoods more peaceful while others more chaotic. Not to mention, you would have to watch out for people crossing the road. In the end, the goal is to accomplish as many neighborhoods as you can before your shift ends.
4. Tax Fraud Simulator – I think that a game like this would be hilarious, and I’d hope nobody would take it seriously. It could be entirely fictional – maybe avoiding the taxes of an alien on a different planet or something… Basically, you have to find ways to cover up your tracks in order to avoid getting caught by the IRS. The game gets harder and harder as you rack up more money to spend, but you get more points the more you can evade taxes.
5. Gamble Goer – This is a game about risk and reward. You are able to buy scratch offs, go to the casino or play machines which all act as the typical gambling vices. You are given a starting amount of money, and it is up to you to either double what you have or risk losing it all. This might already be an idea, but this could also be an online game which shows how long you lasted gambling. You can be responsible with your money and only gamble a small amount or find a way around the system.

Week 7 Questions

1. What are the challenges a team faces when working on an educational game?
   • One of the main challenges a team faces when working on a game includes finding the game/education balance. The text mentions struggle from levels, preventing players from accessing additional education until they earn what is needed to progress. Another conflict centered on the game’s story, as education can sidetrack the storytelling of a game. All in all, educational games can seem boring and lackluster, so it is important for different aspects to be utilized in entertaining the player.
2. In the case study team members vetoed each other’s game ideas, what were the scientist’s, pedagogy expert’s and designer’s issues?
   • The scientist rejected the game designer’s ideas because the science was incorrect, focusing mainly on logic and less about entertainment. The pedagogy expert primarily focused on the effectiveness and educational aspect of the gameplay, whereas the game designer looked upon the mechanics, design and engagement of the player. All of these aspects from different parties ultimately caused discourse and vetoing.
3. What did the team learn from play testing their prototypes?
   • The team would learn through playtesting how players interact with the gameplay, what they need to incorporate, and how the team can enhance the immersive gameplay. This ties into the next question, as conflicts would resolve when the team learns how to balance game topics building off of the extensive playtesting. The flaws of prototyping could be established and fixed in later iterations of the game development.
4. How does play testing resolve conflicts among team members?
   • Playtesting resulted in progressive revisions, finding the harmony between the pedagogy, content and gameplay. Game designing features a resolution in most conflicts between the subjects, as the designers strive to provide collaborative test-based modeling of educational game designs. Furthermore, disagreements were removed from theoretical stances demonstrating success or failure of design concepts.

Making Process Pictures + Gameplay

Game Maker’s Play Test Notes

1. What questions did your players have?
   • Some common questions that the players had were based on the rules, such as “What if you pick up and put back items?” or “Can I take from the other player’s bin?” Any of the questions were based on unspecifications that I will have to clarify in the rules, in order to prevent people from doing the wrong actions. Another question was “Am I allowed to block the other player?”
2. How quickly did they learn to play?
   • It didn’t take long for the players to catch on to the ruleset. I’d say that this game has one of the easier rulesets I’ve made but nonetheless needs improvement. The players were able to play the game and adapt, but they still ran into complications that I will have to personally look over.
3. What kinds of interactions did the players have?
   • This is a very competitive game, and the players were constantly at each other’s throat. From a direct interaction, the players clash tweezers and wrestle with pieces time to time, as well as striving to the first to earn points. However, not much talking is involved in the game, as players are dialed in to focus on what pieces to grab.
4. What confused players?
   • Players were less confused about the rules, and more confused about the pieces they had to grab. I’ve noticed that in the prototype, I did not do a good job of indicating what type of pieces they have to lookout for. This confused the players, as they sometimes grabbed the wrong pieces or mistakened items for something else.
5. What made players excited?
   • The excitement mainly derived from the bulk of the gameplay, where players were rushing to earn points. When the points were earned, it was rewarding to the players too, complimenting their quick-thinking and observation skills. The anticipation of the manager flipping over the card evoked excitement as well, as the players eagerly awaited their next challenge.
6. What did your players enjoy doing?
   • The players enjoyed using the tools (tiny tweezers and shopping carts) and competing with each other. They enjoyed navigating through the miniature store model, which gave them an environment to interact with.
7. Did any aspect of the game frustrate players?
   • I wouldn’t say so, but the players suggested a mechanic to make things easier for the playing experience. I think it was more about a factor that they wish was a part of the game rather than frustration. For example, they suggested a clock/bell that could be hit to indicate that they are done with the shopping list, in order to prevent frequent ties.
8. What did your players learn/take away from your game? Was that what you intended?
   • I’d say my players learned the aspects of keeping cool during a moment of chaos. This game really enforces the principles of maintaining composure and concentration, no matter how stressful the environment may be. This was sort of what I intended, since I was looking to create a fast-paced and competitive game.
9. What is your plan to address player questions, confusion, and frustration?
   • Just as I’ve tackled criticism in the past, I plan on addressing the confusion, questions and frustrations of players through communication and/or feedback. Through frequent playtesting, I expect players to tell me the things that are wrong with my game. There have been instances where I thought the game was perfect from the start, until players have exposed its flaws in rules. I’ll also have to read over the rules of my game and make extra clarifications and changes to better the playing experience.
10. If your players didn’t get your intended message, what will you change?
    • One thing I will point out is that this game is supposed to make the players feel empathy, as the premise of the game revolves around getting groceries for your sick mother. I don’t think the players understood that, at least I can do a better job at making that known. In order to fix this, I will add designs to the cards which will show a small picture of your mother asking for the specific groceries. This way, players will be reminded of their sick mother, making them more determined.

Potential Rule Changes/Iterations

1. A needed change that I will have to make are little clarifications here and there in the rules. This includes rule changes such as:
   • No stealing from the other player
   • A restock session before each round by the manager
   • Something to do with picking back up items and putting it back on the shelves
   • No blocking players/no foul play
2. Additionally, I should probably make some design changes, or rather add some things that can make the playing experience more organized. This can include:
   • Redesign of the cards, making it so that players can understand which items to pick out
   • More shelves, different types of shelving for more interesting playing fields
   • A clock or a bell, so that the player finished with the shopping list can indicate clearly that they are finished
   • Design to the cards, with the mother on the face of the cards drawn

Last Resort Game Review

Created by the one and only Professor Ames, this is a more intense iteration of chess. This version of chess welcomes a more aggressive, yet strategic playstyle. First, there are civilians that each player should strive to save. The civilians can be taken by either side, making the experience a fight for possession. Next, there is a nuke, which is in white’s ownership. Although white has a nuke, and may seemingly be more powerful, black’s troops are a pawn with the movement of a bishop, knight or rook. This way, black will have to put in more of a strategy with an equal opportunity for winning. The nuke can be seized by either team, making the whole experience much more chaotic. I like this chaotic feel to the game, making the typical, relaxing chess mindset irrelevant. With these new play factors incorporated, it also makes me feel smart when I figure out the system. Although I will say, the game seemed easy in resulting in a tie. The game can also feel like it can go on for a while, with black and white fighting for the civilians. The playstyle can seem very back and forth. However, there is a second version of this game, and I’d be willing to see what changes were made.

5 Serious Game Ideas:

1. Cybersecurity Defense – Players take on the role of a cybersecurity analyst defending a corporation’s network from various types of cyberattacks. They must identify implement countermeasures and respond to security breaches time. The game teaches concepts like encryption, firewalls, threat detection, and incident response, with escalating levels of difficulty.
2. Restaurant Tycoon – This game revolves around the hardships of working as a chef in a fancy restaurant. You are constantly pressured by the head chef and are timed to prepare certain foods. One player is the chef, while the other player is the head chef. The head chef times and tracks the amount of points the chef gets, while the chef sees how far they can get before they miss an order. This is a point-based game, which gives you the initiative to beat your previous score.
3. House Crafter – A person plays as an architect, designing an effective layout to a house. The goal is to design the house in a way that can withstand multiple waves of environmental tragedies, or robberies. You can iterate and learn based off of mistakes, but you must manage funds and resources to maintain the house. The situation grows more challenging, as the house endures more catastrophic events that put dents in the building.
4. Investigation Nation – The goal of this game is to pick a crime from a specific part of the world, which alters what type of crime scene you will investigate. This is a problem-solving game, where you have to discern what has happened at a crime scene. For example, a crime scene in Italy might have to do with certain factors around the area, that could affect the decision of how the crime happened. There can be clues sprinkled in the crime scene, which can additionally help you make an assumption.
5. Bees Knees – As a bee, it is your job to maintain the colony and family you are a part of. You must be alert and aware of your surroundings, so you are able to increase the hive. Some bees may die, and it is your job to reduce the amount to which bees are dying, so the honey output can be maximized. As you work with other bees, you must overcome obstacles, tribulation and challenges in being a bee.

Week 4 Questions

1. What learning games have you played? Can you categorize them by the theory of learning types: behaviorism, constructivism, or social nature? If you played more than one which was the most effective?
   • The only learning game that I can remember was FunBrain. FunBrain was a website (still up and running but not the same) which involved solving math problems, determining shapes and patterns, as well as training your cognitive thinking. There was also a board game, and every few tiles there would be a minigame which trained your knowledge. On the other hand, the website was for kids up to 12th grade, so the difficulty could vary. I’d categorize this game with learning constructivism, based on the inquiry-based learning and problem-solving activities.
2. Is gamification bullshit, what is Ian Bogost’s argument, and do you agree? Where have you encountered it outside of class and what was your experience?
   • Ian’s proposition is that gamification “is marketing bullshit, invented by consultants as a means to capture the wild, coveted beast that is videogames and to domesticate it for use in the grey, hopeless wasteland of big business.” I’d say that I agree to some extent, but depending on how aggressive the gamification is. For example, if gamification completely sucks the concept of productivity out of a task, turning something serious into a game, I think that it can be unnecessary. On the contrary, I feel that it could motivate people to complete a mundane task, so in some cases gamification could be fun. My only experience outside of class was probably in school, when my teacher made a prize system from earning in-class points. At the time, it was fun, as it encouraged me to engage more and earn little prizes. In this case, I think gamification can be useful.
3. What is a serious game and why aren’t they chocolate covered broccoli?
   • Serious games are games withstanding a purpose other than pure entertainment. Serious games combine elements of game design, technology, and educational principles to engage their players in insightful experiences. Serious games can deal with societal problems, earthly problems or awareness in a particular matter. Serious games aren’t chocolate covered broccoli, because they can still be entertaining and don’t sugar code what they are. For example, flight simulator can be a serious game, engaging the player in the educational circumstance of flying a plane. However, flight simulator is still fun, as some people want that experience of flight.

Thoughts on what we played in class

Dumb Ways to Die

This is a classic game that I played when I was younger. A mobile game testing your quick-thinking skills, as well as your reflexes. Best of all, the game is a reflection from the YouTube video “Dumb Ways to Die.” I used to like watching that video with my friends, and it brings me a sense of nostalgia to see us interact with this game during class. Although my parents always thought DWTD was inappropriate, me and my friends got a good chuckle out of it. Anyways, the game itself starts off easy. The longer you play it, the harder it gets. It seemingly never ends, using a point-based system to give you the next number to beat. One of the best features of the game I enjoy is the description of rule before the minigame starts. Let me elaborate…when you are met with a quick time event, before the minigame starts, you have a sense of direction. There is a short description of the rules in what to do, so the player isn’t panicking. Each trial is different, but the player will know what to do.

5 Empathetic game ideas

1. Savior’s Passion – This is a religious game, pertaining to Christ’s death on the cross. You are Jesus’ mother, Mary, who is trying to make it to the crucifixion. During this time, there is discourse and chaos making it hard for you to find your son. Crowds of people blocking your way, Romans trying to control the crowd, and disciples trying to find Jesus, account for what you endure. You can find Jesus through clues by the disciples, and news on the street. It’s hard to navigate, but through more hints and navigation, you can find your son on the cross.
2. Sinking Sailor – Inspired by the Titanic, you are a sailor who is trying to stay afloat. As the life rafts are being prepared, you must avoid sliding tables and people running around. As you are sinking with the ship, you must also make sure to save people yourself. It is your duty to fight for your life, while saving the lives of others. There is a chance you may not be able to find a life raft, so spend your time wisely.
3. Mother’s Wish – Your mother is very sick, and she asks of you one thing – to grab her medicine/groceries from the store. Unfortunately, the store is also about to close, and you are limited on time. each isle has different items in it. Your job is to navigate the isles accordingly, before the time runs out. At the start of every game, the items are randomized, making each game different.
4. Puppy Pals – A game making the player feel empathetic for adopting puppies. This experience involves adopting the right puppy in need, based on description. Players are given vague descriptions of the puppies that they are trying to find, and based on what they read, they have to make the right decision. When they make the decision, they turn over the card to determine if they chose the right puppy.
5. Com. Compassion – A communication game, but also a mystery solving game in which a character must console someone going through a hard time. This is not only empathetic towards others but also increasing our communication skills. A player might be perfectly fine, but that is for the other players to find out. An interactive experience between two different players, one trying to find out answers and the other one trying to help the player guess.

Mother’s Wish Wrinkle

There are tiny little model shelves on a board, each with intricate tiny pieces. The Shelves can be organized in any way, in any order and same applies to the items on the shelves. On a player’s turn, they choose a card to see what item their mom wants them to get off the shelf. When they are ready, they flip over the timer (probably a sand timer), and they start looking on the shelves visibly. When they find an item, they pick another card and choose the next item. The player who was able to put the most items in their shopping cart before the store closes wins.

Week 3 questions

Chapter 1

1. How does Mary Flanagan’s definition of game differ from Chris Crawford’s as well as the definition crafted by Katie Salen and eric Zimmerman?
   • Flanagan brings in a linear and broad definition of games, more open to non-traditional forms of play. Crawford focuses on decision-making and interaction within structured systems. Lastly, Salen & Zimmerman stress the importance of rules, systems, and artificial conflict leading to quantifiable outcomes.
2. What is an activist game?
   • Activist games are characterized by their emphasis on social issues, education, or even intervention. Games that engage in a social issue through themes, narratives, roles, settings, goals, and characters.

Chapter 3

1. Go and chess are examples of games that feature “perfect information”, what other games share that feature?
   • Mancala, picture games and checkers are other examples of “perfect information” games.
2. Why might chance or gambling games hold spiritual or religious importance to ancient cultures?
   • The random outcomes symbolized influence of fate, divine will, or the unpredictable nature of life itself. Gambling was not just for entertainment but could be correlated with religious and social fabric of ancient societies, serving as a means to interpret fate, seek divine guidance, and reinforce communal beliefs.
3. When was the earliest battle between government/ religious groups and games? what modern games can you think of that have been banned or demonized?
   • Tables was a game played with dice, played on a backgammon board. Europeans in the Middle Ages were captivated, and the church fought to forbid its play. 1254 Is when St. Lous IX forbade Tafl at court, calling the game “inhonesti ludi.” Modern games that have been banned or demonized are “Mobile Legends, Bang Bang” and “Marvel Snap” due to national security or data privacy.
4. What is a fox game, and what would be a modern example?
   • Unequal opponents, where the games are characterized by an unbalanced set of game goals and a rather abstract board. One player controls numerous geese, sheep or mice, whereas the opponent controls the fox, or aggressor. A modern example of a fox game could be Dead by Daylight. In this game, four survivors work against one powerful killer, fixing generators to escape through the gate.
5. What was the purpose or intent of the game: Mansion of Happiness?
   • The Mansion of Happiness explored morality and virtue. Success is earned through honesty, temperance, gratitude, sincerity, humility, and so on. The intent of this game, with these qualities, is to hope that children would understand and take these principles to heart. Furthermore, children could connect their thoughts to the secular joys of competing for positions, fighting against the wages of good vs evil.
6. Why do artists from the Fluxus and Surrealist movements play games? Why did Surrealists believe games might help everyone?
   • They played games as a form of recreation and research. Surrealists emphasized the playfulness of Dada through the use of chance and juxtaposition. They were also concerned with the internal workings of the mind and believed that games encouraged a deep focus on the subconscious.
7. Changes in what can signal profound changes in games? How were pinball games reskinned during WW2?
   • Changes in any larger social situation, such as economic depression can signal profound changes in games. Pinball games typically updated graphics, pertaining to the ongoing wars at the time. They were made “politically relevant.”
8. What statements did Fluxus artists make by reskinning games like monopoly and ping pong?
   • Fluxus artists wanted to reexplore and open up the concepts of the current concepts of these games, questions how different things would be. The artists intend that the meaning of the work and its spatiality be infinitely interpretable when “put into play.”
9. How are artists like Lilian Ball, Marcel Duchamp, Takako Saito, Yoko Ono, Gabriel Orozco and Ruth Catlow using war games?
   • These artists use war games in response to think about global conflict, and how games can investigate ways to express different kinds of aggression. Furthermore, these different forms of expression can teach principles of nonviolent conflict resolution.
10. Why is it important for players to have agency in a critical or serious game?
    • Artists can employ contexts for play which include empathy and learning, as well as activating metaphorical or actual action.

5 Game ideas that explore change

1. Trashy-Trudger – You are a turtle in the ocean, except there is an abundance of trash floating around in the ocean. The turtle is a marble, which has to be rolled to the other side in order to get to the other turtles. Every time you successfully roll to the other side, more trash is added to the board. You roll a dice to see how much trash is added to the board, which could potentially block your path.
2. Donkeys Vs. Elephants – This game revolves around the tense political environment between two parties. One person is a donkey, and the other is an elephant. There are three tabs to knock over, with a slingshot for each person. The goal is to knock over the three tabs of the opposite party, and the first person to get all three tabs wins. However, there is a large crowd of people in between of the parties, which can alter the path of slingshotting. On the beginning of someone’s turn, they can roll a dice to move the crowd however many times the dice rolls. (Politics control the public.)
3. Phone fiend frenzy – The goal of this game is simple – which is to make it to the other end of the city. You must use your phone to navigate the city, but you mustn’t use your phone too much, as looking at your phone while walking could make you run into something. Certain distractions might pop up on your phone as you walk, so you have to use it wisely.
4. Paper Pleasing – The objective is to make a successful business in selling paper. However, you have to find unique ways to make the paper without using too many trees. The trees are limited, so you have to manage the amount of which you cut them down to make enough money. You use the managed money to make other types of paper.
5. Internet Warrior – This is a trivia game. A group of players are asked fairly tricky problems, whether it is a riddle or a word problem. The individual player is allowed to search up the answers on the internet, at the cost of points for dishonesty. The ratio of not being able to find the answer on google can outweigh the point opportunity, risking points. If the player can avoid suspicion cheating, they can keep their points.

Thoughts on The McDonald’s Game

This game is very hard in my opinion. There is a lot of managing that you have to do in so many different positions at McDonald’s. You have to take care of the cows, manage money and serve customers (on top of other considerations). I can see how McDonald’s is trying to prove the point that there is a lot that goes into managing the corporation. As a game, there is too much for me to worry about. It is also easy to lose money, and hard to get the money back up. I feel that this is a game that definitely has to be practiced. One other thing I’ll note is that the game is a bit sad. You are instructed to SHOOT the cows when they get sick. Instead of caring for the cows, they are disregarded. I guess the game is being brutally honest, which is respectable. I understand that the game isn’t 100% realistic, but at the same time I can see how it could be sugarcoating a potential harsh reality.

Week 2 Questions

1. What advergames have you played? Did they influence a purchase?
   • Come to think of it, I haven’t really played any advergames. I think I’ve noticed a few advergames over the years, but they never really entice me. I can’t help but view them as a marketing tactic rather than a playing experience, so I never usually engage. The only advergame I played recently was The McDonald’s game, which was very difficult. I didn’t really feel tempted to purchase any McDonald’s after playing, but the game isn’t going to stop me from eating at McDonald’s. I think advergames are clever in pertaining to the gaming community, however.
2. Why do the advergames tooth protector and escape work? What makes chase the chuckwagon and shark bait fail?
   • Advergames such as Tooth Protector and Escape effectively integrate their branding into gameplay, while making the playing experience more seamless and meaningful. The gameplay itself is considered addicting, with interesting concepts and simple features. On the contrary, games such as chuckwagon and shark bait do the opposite. The connection between gameplay and branding is superficial or unclear. These games don’t integrate the product’s core value into the gameplay, making players less likely to feel a deeper connection with the brand. The game mechanics are even considered generic.
3. What does Volvo’s drive for life accomplish?
   • Volvo’s Drive for Life campaign blends brand values with an engaging experience. It seeks to connect players with emotional and personal aspects, aligning with the brand’s concept of protecting life. On the values of safety, the campaign uses persuasive gameplay and storytelling to convey these ideas in a way that’s memorable. This way, these games aren’t just an advertising platform but a commitment to safety and responsibility.
4. What company used in-advergame advertising
   • Chevrolet
5. What was one of the first home-console advergames and what beverage was it for? 
   • Kool-Aid Man, which was on the Atari 2600 in 1983. As you could guess, the beverage was for Kool-Aid.
6. What makes the toilet training game sophisticated, and do you agree?
   • One of the main mechanics, which was the urination mechanic was considered remarkable. It implements a strange attractor that draws and repels the player’s cursor target in an increasingly haphazard fashion. The lack of control the player has over the urination stream is also unique, as it simulates intoxication. I can’t say I agree with these mechanics being “sophisticated.” It’s hard for me to be impressed, with all of the newer, crazier game mechanics being implemented today. However, the mechanics are essential for making a good game, in which I can see how this game looked fun.
7. What do advergames and anti-advergames have in common, and what principles do they share?
   • Advergames and anti-advergames use mechanics in order to communicate a message. Whether it is a story or gameplay, both types of games involve the players emotionally and cognitively. Both utilize video games to create a more impactful message than traditional forms of advertising media, showing how games can be used not just to entertain, but to influence and shape consumer perspectives. In short, typical principles of persuasion are used through interaction, immersion, and engagement with the player.