The McDonald’s Game

• Was it fun?
  • Not really. It was more stressful than fun and honestly kind of annoying.
• What were the player interactions?
  • You’re just clicking around trying to manage the whole McDonald’s system. It felt like Papa’s Freezeria but way more chaotic and way less clear.
• How long did it take to learn?
  • It took a while to even get a basic idea of what was happening. Even after reading the directions, it still didn’t fully make sense.
• What was the most frustrating moment or aspect?
  • Not knowing what to buy or when things were gonna happen, like when the cows were getting taken to the barns. The blinking lights and fast pace stressed me out bad.
• What was your favorite moment or aspect?
  • Honestly, just finally kind of understanding what was going on, and that took way too long.
• Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t?
  • Yeah, I wanted to actually play with intention instead of just clicking random buttons and hoping for the best.
• If you had a magic wand to change, add, or remove anything, what would it be?
  • I’d make the corporate objective way clearer, especially for people who don’t already know how these systems work. I’d also simplify the interface and change the aesthetic to appeal more to high schoolers or young adults.
• Is this a game you would play again?
  • No. Even after the directions, it still didn’t really make sense, and the stress outweighed the fun.
• Analyze the game using the 3-act structure.
  • Act 1: You load in and are immediately confused by all the moving parts.
  • Act 2: Everything speeds up, the lights start flashing, and you’re just reacting instead of thinking.
  • Act 3: You kinda get the idea, but not enough to feel accomplished — more just relieved it’s over.
• What are the collaborative and/or competitive aspects of the game?
  • There aren’t really any. You’re just fighting the game itself and the clock.
• What is the game’s metaphor and which mechanics stand out?
  • The game is basically a metaphor for corporate fast food systems being overwhelming and impersonal. The standout mechanics are multitasking, fast pacing, and constant alerts.
• Describe the game in 3 sentences or in the form of a haiku.
  • Blinking lights, no clue
    Cows disappear, I panic.
    Capitalism.

Monopoly Game

• Was it fun?
  • Yeah, it was fun, especially as the white man. But that fun felt weird because it was obvious I was winning off advantages other people didn’t get.
• What were the player interactions?
  • The interactions made inequality super obvious. Playing against minority and female groups showed how the system mattered way more than effort or skill.
• How long did it take to learn?
  • It was easy to learn because it’s basically OG Monopoly rules. Since I already knew how to play, I could focus more on what the game was saying instead of how it worked.
• What was the most frustrating moment or aspect?
  • Watching minority and female players fall behind with no real way to recover. The wealth gaps got big fast, and it felt unfair on purpose but still hard to watch.
• What was your favorite moment or aspect?
  • Winning. Buying up property and becoming the one percent felt good, even though it also made me aware of how messed up that is.
• Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t?
  • Yeah. I wanted to actually fix the system or help balance things out, but the game didn’t really let that happen.
• If you had a magic wand to change, add, or remove anything, what would it be?
  • I’d make the game way more specific to different communities like a Pittsburgh-based board. I’d also add age differences (Boomers vs Gen Z, Gen X, Millennials), tariffs, higher school taxes in certain areas, and more customized chance cards to reflect a real economy.
• Is this a game you would play again?
  • Yes. Even though it was uncomfortable, it made me think a lot about privilege, inequality, and how systems work.
• Analyze the game using the 3-act structure.
  • Act 1: Everyone starts with different resources, and the imbalance is clear right away.
  • Act 2: The rich get richer, the gaps grow, and it becomes obvious who’s winning.
  • Act 3: There are clear winners and losers, and it feels like the outcome was decided from the start.
• What are the collaborative and/or competitive aspects of the game?
  • It’s definitely competitive, but there’s also this shared realization happening. Everyone is watching inequality play out in real time, even while trying to win.
• What is the game’s metaphor and which mechanics stand out?
  • The game is basically a metaphor for capitalism and systemic inequality. Unequal starting positions, buying property, and collecting rent really show how privilege compounds over time.
• Describe the game in 3 sentences or in the form of a haiku.
  • All I do is win
    Rules decide who gets ahead.
    Fun, but insightful.

CoolSpot

• Was it fun?
  • No. This game was definitely not a CoolSpot (pun intended).
• What were the player interactions?
  • You’re basically just jumping around trying not to die. It felt like a weird mix of Flappy Bird and Mario, but without the fun part of either.
• How long did it take to learn?
  • It didn’t take long to figure out the controls, but even after that I was still confused. Like, I knew how to play, but not why I was playing.
• What was the most frustrating moment or aspect?
  • The game moves way too fast and the graphics made me feel sick. Everything felt overwhelming, and half the time I didn’t even know what the objective was for certain rounds.
• What was your favorite moment or aspect?
  • Honestly… none. No part made me want to keep playing.
• Was there anything you wanted to do that you couldn’t?
  • Yeah, I wanted to actually understand the goal of the game, but it never really explained that.
• If you had a magic wand to change, add, or remove anything, what would it be?
  • Realistically, I wouldn’t change anything because this game feels far from saving. But if I had to change something, it would 100% be the graphics.
• Is this a game you would play again?
  • No. I would rather not play this game ever again. There was zero appeal.
• Analyze the game using the 3-act structure.
  • Act 1: You start playing and immediately feel confused and overstimulated.
  • Act 2: The game speeds up, everything gets more chaotic, and the frustration builds.
  • Act 3: You stop playing not because you mastered it, but because you’re over it.
• What are the collaborative and/or competitive aspects of the game?
  • There aren’t any. You’re just competing against the game itself, and even that doesn’t feel rewarding.
• What is the game’s metaphor and which mechanics stand out?
  • If there is a metaphor, it’s probably sensory overload. The fast pace and intense visuals stand out the most, and not in a good way.
• Describe the game in 3 sentences or in the form of a haiku.
  • Too fast, too chaotic
    Jumping with no real reason.
    Not cool. At all.

Painstation:

It was fun to watch people play this game since I didn’t have to participate in it, but I don’t think it’s a game I would actually want to play myself.

It seems like a pretty easy game to learn and grasp.

The most frustrating aspect seems like it would be getting shocked or burned.

I feel like I would need a strap to hold my hand down on the machine otherwise I would just continuously pick my hand up.

No I don’t think i would play this game.

The game setup is to stand on opposing sides and place your hands on a marked area. You then play a game of Pong against your opponent and any time you miss the ball there is pain administered.

The competitive aspects are to play pong and win against your opponent and hopefully not receive the most amount of pain. Or maybe for some people the competitive aspect is to survive the most amount of pain before bowing out.

The game’s metaphor seems to be to experience the physical pain of losing combined with like a style of pain reinforcement for repeated losing. The clear standout mechanic is the fact that it is putting its players in physical pain while playing.

I thought it was Pong.
But it’s actually pain.
Ouch. Ouch. That’s hurting.

Townscaper:

Yes it was fun, I could play it for hours.

You could interact with colors, the water, and other buildings once you have them.

It doesn’t take that long to learn, the only real mechanic is clicking.

The most frustrating aspect was figuring out how to undo something.

My favorite aspect of the game were the colors and sounds.

I kind of wish that people and more animals would pop up once you build up enough of the city and they would just wander around and make other calming noises.

I would add the people and animals if I had a magic wand.

Yes I would definitely play it again,

I don’t really feel like there is a 3 act structure for this game since there is not real conflict or resolutions for it. And There aren’t any collaborative or competitive aspects for it either. It’s just a calm, chill, time-passing game.

As a metaphor it feels very much like a zen garden or like a limited virtual LEGO set but there is no real deeper metaphor or something that it’s trying to bring awareness too, that I’ve found.

There is nothing here

Oh look! I’ve built a small town.

It’s no good. Start Over.

Calvinball

Calvinball was fun, but very low energy for what I feel like Calvinball is meant to be.

Player interactions included throwing a ball around and making new rules for the game.

It’s easy to learn but since new rules are always being added and the game is always changing, it is a continuous learning process and can be a lot to juggle while trying to keep the rules in mind.

The most frustrating aspect was trying to come up with new rules on the fly when you got the ball. My favorite aspect was hearing other people’s rules.

The nice thing about Calvinball is that if there is something you want to do you can just implement it as a rule or just do it because the only rule of Calvinball is that it can’t be played the same way twice.

Yeah I would play Calvinball again

The setup is to create yourself some rules for the start of Calvinball, the confrontation is the constant reinvention or competing rules and gameplay, and the resolution would be when the game ends through some ridiculous rule, point system, or players lose interest.

I think the collaborative and competitive aspects are essentially the rule making because you have to make rules up as a whole in order to establish the game but you can make a competitive rule that gives you an advantage over other players. If you have more than 2 players you could have collaborative aspects where multiple people team up with the rules they create to form an alliance to win.

I think the game as a metaphor wants to be a commentary on creative freedom and a rejection of traditional, arbitrary, rigid rules for how people want you to live your life.

Differs every time.

How can I make myself win?

Is that a tiger?

The McDonalds Game

I kind of love like a real world involved game scenario where you have multiple different aspects to keep track of in order to succeed, so in theory it is fun in that aspect because I like trying to run a fake successful business, but it’s also just so fast paced and chaotic and I was struggling with some of the game mechanics working well which made the game more frustrating for me.
The motivating factor that gets me to keep playing is kind of the need to make a successful business and try to keep the customers happy, while still engaging and learning about all the unethical practices that these kinds of large corporations engage in.
I feel like the game is pretty good at being persuasive, the little popups that happen that frame why people are unhappy or protesting your business are educational in a satirical way and give you a lot of things to think about the way the world works.

The games metaphor is to draw attention to the unethical and destructive nature of large fast food corporations. The game mechanics that standout to me are the options to like bribe local politicians or advertise to certain groups that are more easily persuadable than others, or the ability to feed or not feed diseased cows to other cows, or customers.

Let’s be ethical!

Oops someone ate a sick cow.

Now my monies gone.

Intergroup Monopoly

It was kind of fun because of the people you play with but since Monopoly is already kind of tedious and contentious game it was a lot less fun than a normal game of monopoly and it makes the game run a lot shorter than normal.

I think there are only really motivating factors for the people who get to play as the middle class white man or the 1% because you have such a bigger advantage over everyone else. It’s not very motivating to play as the female or minority character unless you enter a state of determination to try to beat the odds.

I think it’s pretty persuasive with the message it’s trying to get across. The point of the amended rules is to point out the issues with wealth inequality and how certain groups of people in life have an easier time getting ahead because of certain advantages they are born with or given throughout life.

The game mechanics that standout out are the amended rules for players 2, 3, and 4. having to pay an extra 50% for properties or only being able to buy properties under $100 which is only like 2 spaces on the board. Only being able to move half your roll for a female, or going directly to jail as a minority if you roll higher than a 7 or if you can’t afford to pay another player or the board.

It’s Monopoly

Oh no wait! This is too real.

Now my monies gone.

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

Monopoly (The Simpsons)

What made the experience fun or not? No, Monopoly is not my favorite game. The spin on it is definitely interesting, but makes the chances pretty unfair. I was playing as the 1% and I had 10x more properties and money than anyone else.

What is the motivating factor to get or keep players playing? Maybe if I was playing as the minority I would be more motivated to get more money and more properties.

Is the game persuasive, and what is it trying to get you to do outside of the game? I wouldn’t say persuasive because it was very unfair for some players. I mean I could say it is persuasive in the terms of actual reality, because some of the roles are real world struggles.

The McDonalds Game:

What made the experience fun or not? I think it could be fun, the instructions are a little unclear though on how to navigate and get around the game. Although, I like the graphics and the concept of it. Reminds me of heyday in a way.

What is the motivating factor to get or keep players playing? Keeping the business alive and not going bankrupt, Managing the farm, the the cow factory, to the restaurant, to the corporate office. Managing all 4 can become a challenge so I think that becomes a motivating factor.

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

I think the game is maybe trying to get you to want to go to McDonalds and make you think they have a good process behind their business. They want you to trust the business and buy more burgers from them.

CoolSpot:

What made the experience fun or not? No I think it seems kind of frustrating, the controls look hard to use and hard to see, probably from it being so old. I think if you know how to use the controls though it looks like a lot of fun and a good challenge.

What is the motivating factor to get or keep players playing? Moving forward on the map, killing the shell looking things, collecting more coins and points. The free roam aspect is kinda cool too you can go backwards.

Is the game persuasive, and what is it trying to get you to do outside of the game? Yes I think the goal is to make people want to buy 7 up , not really sure what the little bean thing is looks like the mascot maybe, but I think if you enjoyed the game your more prone to buy the drink.