Ra Light Design Reflection

Posted by Michael Vail on Thursday Apr 24, 2014 Under Design Reflection

In our project, Ra Light, we have the player act as a mummy who has been trapped within his tomb for a nonspecific, but probably long, length of time. They then awake and the game begins. There are three levels that the player must navigate in order for this mummy to escape the pyramid. For our game we decided to try to teach people around the age of a child going to middle school about some of the properties of light.

In the first level the user begins the level next to their sarcophagus, facing toward a closed door. The user must explore this floor and find a light source and connect it to the sensor next to the door to have it open. “Words alone cannot solve the problem, for there still must be some way of knowing what action and where it is to be done.” (Norman) The interaction with the different kinds of objects are described with images nearby so that the user will have something to go off of when first trying to understand how the game is played. This fits in with the Egyptian theme as hieroglyphs are a pictographic language that are supposed to be able to tell a story without the viewer needing the ability to specifically read the text.

“Test; analyze; refine. And repeat. Because the experience of a viewer/user/player/etc cannot ever be completely predicted, in an iterative process design decisions are based on the experience of the prototype in progress. The prototype is tested, revisions are made, and the project is tested once more. In this way, the project develops through an ongoing dialogue between the designers, the design, and the testing audience.” (Zimmerman)

For level one we had many people play through it during testing in various stages of completion, and received a lot of good feedback, concerning the starting location of the player. Instead of starting them by the light source as we originally planned, we now start them looking at the exit because people during play testing had trouble figuring out the goal of the level at first.

On the first level the player first is introduced to, and explores the reflective property of light, through the use of mirrors. In the second level the player explores how light is connected with wavelength, and in the third level they combine their knowledge in addition to platforming. Because of this staging of difficulty and the open way that we are presenting this material for exploration the player mainly experiences two of Lazzaro’s four types of fun: easy, and hard fun. Easy fun from how they discover and explore the properties of light and have different ways of solving some of the puzzles, and hard fun from how they have this overall task of escaping the tomb, and when they get to the end it opens up into a bright light at the top of this epic tower.

Not all puzzle elements are used in each level, for example in the first level the mirrors along the wall behind the light source are pointing in a useless direction. On the second level the user can just extend the bridge and jump over the spikes if they are agile enough, and then get around the mirror puzzle by moving the currently used mirror slightly toward the entrance as to dodge the wavelength modulator and still activate the door sensor. On the final level, there are a many light sources that go nowhere and mirrors that are not useful toward puzzle completion but add aesthetic value to the level. These additional objects are available for the player to use creatively and explore the properties we are presenting them with, as well as increasing the level of critical thought needed to complete the puzzles for each level.

According to Norman, “In the world of design what matters is: if the desired controls can be perceived [and]…  If the desired actions can be discovered.” During one of the earliest play testing sessions we were shown that the picking up interaction that we planned on using was not only buggy but not what the players wanted, so we shifted our design to eliminate this kind of interaction in favor of pushing. By adding the recognizable base to our moveable objects (mainly mirrors) the player is able to much more readily pick up on some of the more basic interactions in our game. The pushing mechanic was received very well as the testers quickly recognized the interaction and discovered its availability. They then took this knowledge that they gained from their encounter with one of the mirrors, and were able to apply it to the rest of the objects with that kind of base.

Another design choice that the group consciously made was to make our mummy’s gender neutral. This allows players of all kinds to relate more easily with the mummy and put themselves in its shoes (or foot wraps). All that the players are able to see of the mummy are two cloth covered mummy arms extending forward into their vision which they use to push the objects around the map.

We really focused on trying to get the feel of being a mummy in a tomb down instead of them just going through a puzzle game based on light. The iconic sarcophagus, Ankh’s under each of the mirrors, and the yellow brick texturing all appeal to the visual sense of being in an Egyptian place, yet it felt lacking until we added the music. When the background soundtrack, the mummy noises, and the dragging sounds were added it really brought the environment to life. The stone dragging noise added weight to the blocks that the mummy was pushing and the opening of the stone doors. The mummy noises gave the user more awareness of the character that they were playing, and the soundtrack for each level added to the ambience of the scenery. Once we added these elements to the game the people we had play testing the game had no more issues with how we presented our theme.

 

Bibliography

Norman, D.A. (2004). “Affordances and design.” http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html

 

Lazzaro, N. (2004-2005) “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” Self-published white paper. www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

 

Zimmerman, E. (2003). “Play as research: The iterative design process.” http://ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Iterative_Design.htm

Tags : , | add comments

Design Reflection: Game of Games

Posted by daldrich3 on Thursday Apr 24, 2014 Under Blogpost Assignments, Design Reflection

The team that I was a part of created a game called Game of Games. It is meant to be an educational game targeting 4th-5th graders that will teach them a little bit about the history of board games. From deciding on creating this type of game, to brainstorming the different games and levels we would include, to the final project there were a lot of changes and iterations that we made based on the time we had, the do ability of our ideas, and the feedback that we received from playtests. These iterations resulted in a final project that I am, overall, very satisfied with.

When starting out with this idea one of the main concerns was making our game fun but also educational. As Nicole Lazzaro and Kevin Keeker put it in their article What’s My Method? A Game Show on Games, “Satisfactions from task completion is a different quality than ‘having fun.’ Measures of game quality focus more on positive emotional responses than on negative ones. Unlike productivity, offering a certain outcome and complexity well within user skills makes a game boring not satisfying. Gameplay requires goals that are difficult rather than easy to achieve.” (Lazzaro, Keeker). We did not want the players of our game to get bored with it and think that they were just being taught something like they in school. However, at the same time, we did want them to learn about old board games.

It was at this point that we decided that we could not just directly tell them about the games we planned to implement. Rather, we had to construct a story and gameplay that would be interesting enough for players to want to keep playing, but at the same time had bits and pieces of information about board games and their history. It was also at this time that we decided we would have a set number of levels, and that each level would be dedicated to teach the player about one game which they would be able to play at the end of the level.

Now that we have decided on a method to subtly teach them about the history of certain board games, we now had to figure out how to make it fun. In Nicole Lazzaro’s article Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story, she comes up with four keys to emotion and how they ‘unlock’ emotion. One way in which Lazzaro suggested they unlock emotion is with “Easy Fun: Players enjoy intrigue and curiosity. Players become immersed in games when it absorbs their complete attention, or when it takes them on an exciting adventure. These Immersive game aspects are “Easy Fun” and generate emotions and experiences of Wonder, Awe, and Mystery.” (Lazzaro). What we decided to do would definitely fit under Lazzaro’s definition of “Easy Fun”. We decided to make the game a little more on the “open world” side in order to give the player the ability to explore each level and the place they are in, which in our case corresponds to real world places during the 15th-16th century. This gives the player the opportunity to talk to the different people within each level which gives them more information about history and the game. We also hoped that by putting the player in actual historical locations they would get excited about the adventure of exploring and learning about the place they are in.

Now that we have a general idea for the story and locations of our game we now needed to decide how we were going to implement the gameplay (which buttons to use and what they would do). If we look at Norman’s article Affordances and Design he gives four principles for screen interfaces which can be important for video game GUIs, but these principles can also, more generally, be applied to video games themselves. One of these principles is “Follow conventional usage, both in the choice of images and the allowable interactions.” (Norman). One of the biggest things to take away from this is to use conventions. For us this meant using the arrow keys or the WASD keys to move the character. We chose to use the spacebar for talking to people and interacting with objects. When it came to playing the minigames (which were board games) at the end of every level we decided to make the player use the mouse to play the games since it is more intuitive to play that way. Another one of Norman’s principles is “Follow a coherent conceptual model so that once part of the interface is learned, the same principles apply to other parts.” (Norman). This is an important idea for our game since throughout the game the player is constantly switching between playing levels and playing the minigames. With this in mind, we decided to make all interactions and all buttons pressed consistent between the levels. The same keys used to walk and talk in the first level were the same in the rest of the levels. The same goes for the minigames, where every minigame is played using the mouse.

Now at this point we have made all of these decisions (not all of which were talked about here) about our game, but how do we know that players will like what we decided? If we look at Eric Zimmerman’s article Play as Research: The Iterative Design Process we see the importance of play testing and iteration. In his article Zimmerman says “Test; analyze; refine. And repeat. Because the experience of a viewer/user/player/etc cannot ever be completely predicted, in an iterative process design decisions are based on the experience of the prototype in progress. The prototype is tested, revisions are made, and the project is tested once more. In this way, the project develops through an ongoing dialogue between the designers, the design, and the testing audience.” (Zimmerman). As we can see here, the best way to find out if our design ideas were correct was to have them tested. This is something that we did multiple times (most of which were because we had to) and from that we learned what did and did not work and from there we had to change/iterate our design while considering the feedback that we got.

In conclusion I would say that while designing our video game we iterated through it multiple times while trying to keep standard conventions and create a game that would not only be fun, but also be educational.

 

Works Cited

Lazarro, N. & Keeker, K. (2004). “What’s My Method? A Game Show on Games.” In CHI 2004 Conference Proceedings, April 2004. http://www.xeodesign.com/whatsmymethod.pdf

Lazzaro, N. (2004-2005) “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” Self-published white paper. www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

Norman, D.A. (2004). “Affordances and design.” http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html

Zimmerman, E. (2003). “Play as research: The iterative design process.” http://ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Iterative_Design.htm

Tags : | add comments

Reflections on the Shadow Box

Posted by Kyle Blevens on Thursday Apr 24, 2014 Under Blogpost Assignments, Design Reflection

From its very conception Shadow Box was intended to challenge some of the core notions of the mystery genre. Mysteries usually have a single correct solution, and the audience is attempting to identify that one possibility from various red herring. We wanted to open up this space and make the mystery itself a more collaborative process, where the player has a role in the outcome and can freely explore as many possibilities as they desire. Framing this within Lazarro’s four keys for effective play without story, we wanted the experience to about “Easy Fun,” which “entices the player to consider options and find out more,” and where, “ambiguity, incompleteness, and detail combine to create a living world” (Lazzaro). To do so we decided to frame our game within the abstract “Mind Palace,” where multiple scenarios and pieces of evidence could be introduced without worrying about details of a particular setting. Juggling these new goals with the heavily entrenched conventions of the mystery genre proved difficult, and the solutions we arrived at are not perfect, but our design progressively became better through the iterative design process.

The influences of both the BBC television show and the structure of various murder mystery novels and series was clear in our first design. We had the game structured into three separate acts, one for the murder weapon, one for the motive, and one for the perpetrator. Broadly speaking, the primary mechanic of the game was already there: select pieces of evidence; make deductions based on those pieces of evidence; then see what the combinations produce. It seemed like a simple three step process, but this would prove to be the most difficult thing to communicate. Paper prototyping proved valuable and fruitful in generating plenty of scenarios, so we knew we wouln’t have trouble in terms of content.

Adam and I turned around and quickly developed a digital prototype. Many of our design decisions during that stage were a direct result of consideration of Norman’s principles. Norman’s concepts of perceived affordance and cultural constraints played a role in structuring the majority of interactions through a notebook and evidence pieces themselves. Perceived affordance is what users believe an object may be used for. Norman notes, “in design, we care much more about what the user perceives than what is actually true. What the designer cares about is whether the user perceives that some action is possible” (Norman). We used the notebook for many interactions focused around content and remembering information since people are naturally inclined to believe it contains important information. Additionally, we used simple cues like bolded text to make interactive elements stand out, and even added a pen mouse cursor to further reinforce the association between the cursor and the text. Norman also defines cultural constraints as, “learned conventions that are shared by a cultural group” (Norman). Working within cultural constraints, rather than breaking them, makes it much easer for people to engage with a system. Thus, for investigating evidence we designed a system that combines the BBC Sherlock show’s well-known text-item associations with an item rotating interface common to many adventure games, producing an interactive evidence exploration method that effectively employs multiple cultural expectations.

Playtesting this early version revealed both positive signs and flaws within our design. Players certainly found the interaction method interesting, but they had trouble understanding why certain inference combinations worked whereas others didn’t. Additionally they had trouble remembering everything (the notebook did not yet store notes on each piece of evidence). We also realized our original scope was vastly too large, and decided to real it back in by simply having the means, motive, and perpetrator all linked through a single set of evidence. Coming up with scenarios and reasonable item combinations for this condensed version still proved feasible. For the next iteration, Adam and I cleaned up bugs (there were plenty) and also focused on having the notebook store information on various aspects of the game – the context of the victim’s death, both notes and selected inferences for evidence, any discovered means of death – so that they could double check themselves at any time. Norman refers to this as putting information “in the world” rather than “in the head,” which helps with cognitive load.

Several more small iterations from here all focused on trying to solve issues with players having difficulty discerning the connections between various groups of objects. Iterative playtesting and design was crucial to tackling this problem. As Eric Zimmerman brilliantly explains, “The delicate interaction of rule and play is something too subtle and too complex to script out in advance, requiring the improvisational balancing that only testing and prototyping can provide” (Zimmerman). Zimmerman also notes that game design is a second-order process, “in which designers craft play, but only indirectly, through the systems of rules that game designers create” (Zimmerman). Although we had provided the necessary set of mechanics to complete the game, thus making a rule-complete system, players were not using them as we expected, and when they did succeed they were often confused as to why. In order to bridge the gap between attempting to combine evidence and producing means, we introduced visualizations of the connections between pieces of evidence. If two pieces of evidence could potentially be combined as part of a means, a red line appeared between them when placed near one another. Furthermore, if they had correct inferences towards a means, the line turned yellow, showing progress. This change also required trios of evidence to be placed near each other in order to produce a means, which spatially reinforced their connection and also provided a logical way to combine them.

Overall, Shadow Box has come a long way since its original inception, and has turned into a pretty interesting little game. Although not all of the interactions are perfect, and some ambiguities still exist, by and large it achieves what we set out to do. The only final note I would like to make, since it has humored me since the first time we showed the game to people, is that the most difficult challenge for the entire game was overcoming the expectation of a “correct” solution so many players had – funny, how games shape our preconceptions.

Works Cited

Norman, Don. “Affordances and Design.” RSS 20 Web. N.p., n.d. Web. . <http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html>.

Lazzaro, Nicole. “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” XEODesign. XEODesign Inc., 8 Mar. 2014. Web. . <http://xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf>.

Zimmerman, Eric. “Play as Research: The Iterative Design Process.” Play as Research: The Iterative Design Process. N.p., 8 July 2003. Web. . <http://ericzimmerman.com/texts/Iterative_Design.html>.

Tags : | add comments

Design Reflection: The Making of QUO

Posted by mshum3 on Wednesday Apr 23, 2014 Under Design Reflection, Uncategorized

Quite the Unexpected Occurrence (QUO) was a game formed around the idea of asymmetrical gameplay between two characters stuck in different periods of time. The final game was a 2-D collaborative platformer that follows the characters Scientist and Explorer. The two are exploring ancient ruins one day when their time machine breaks and Scientist is sent to the past. Both must work together to solve puzzles to reach the end where there lies a power source capable of sending Scientist back to Explorer’s time period. Due to the fact that each character is in a different point in time, the environment has changed, causing puzzles unique to each time period. For example, a bridge that is still standing in the past is broken in the future character’s view because it rotted and fell over time. The gameplay revolves around the two characters working together to solve these types of puzzles. Each has an ability that is unique to that character: the Scientist has the ability to affect the environment in the past, causing changes in the future map and the Explorer has the broken time machine that can send items one way to the past. This uneven gameplay encourages and in a way forces the two players to work together in order to win the game.

With any design, it is imperative to test it rigorously and one of the best ways to expose flaws and truly refine a design is to do this iteratively through a cycle of prototyping, testing, analyzing the results, and refining. As Zimmerman points out, the way to apply iterative design to video games is through playtesting: allowing potential players to come in and play the game at various stages of development. We performed one paper and pencil playtest and three playtests on a working version of the game before the final version was released onto the internet. The paper and pencil playtest was done using drawn figures, items, and maps and was helpful in exposing any initial flaws in the gameplay or concept. One of the biggest challenges that we faced during the entire game making process actually became first apparent in our paper and pencil playtest, which was how to balance the item distribution so that one player did not receive a huge advantage over the other. Following one of Lazzaro’s goals of a good game, we wanted our game to be both challenging and fun, and having one player be overpowered would detract immensely from how enjoyable the game would be for the other player. It would also lessen the challenge as one player would be able to brute force their way through many of the puzzles. We also wanted to make sure that the game mechanics, especially sending items from one player to another and affecting the environment, were both doable and in a way that was not overly complex. Thus, for our first playtest we focused on the usability of the mechanics and whether or not they could be implemented (Lazzaro). This playtest was successful in that we were able to have the Scientist in the past plant a seed and have a tree appear in the same location on the Explorer’s screen in the future. In the next few playtests we worked on refining and balancing the gameplay and controls and received helpful feedback on how to better streamline the game.

We also utilized the playtest as a time to test our items. We had originally intended to implement quite a large number of items into the game but found it was too challenging and confusing to users who did not understand how to use many of them. Much of our game relies on players using items in different ways but we broke Norman’s idea of affordances as many players did not perceive any doable actions with many of the items. Thus, we decided to remove many of the items from the game in favor of a small but versatile set of items for players to use: the broken time machine, jetpack, climbing pick, bag of seeds, and candle. Players responded positively to these changes and we used their feedback to finalize these five items.

I was personally tasked with designing characters and objects and wanted to design them so that they would contribute to an enjoyable overall game experience while helping the player connect to and understand the game world. I designed characters that were interesting by giving them unique features and recognizable body shapes and clothing. While admittedly the final characters chosen were not as diverse and gender-neutral in appearance as I had hoped, I still feel as though I made them more memorable than the typical generic scruffy white guy main characters seen in many modern games today. Similarly, I tried to make the miscellaneous object I was asked to create appear in a manner that users would be familiar with so that players would understand the constraints of each item (Norman). As mentioned above, it helped that we had narrowed down our final item pool down to five so that we could focus on making realistic and logical constraints for each. We additionally had descriptions for all of them that gave clues as to how each could be used and in what kind of scenarios. Similarly, the environment itself presented the user with many more “psychical constraints”: tall walls or pits that would be impassible without using an item.  To aid in this process and help the user understand these constraints, we had thought bubbles that would toggle when a user neared a puzzle location.

Overall I feel that we succeeded in meeting all of Lazzaro’s mentioned goals of games while subconsciously adhering to Norman’s ideas of affordances and constraints. The majority of the feedback received by the time of our final demo was positive and at that point we had added cutscenes to give the game more exposition while simultaneously explaining the controls and mechanics of the game to the player. The final version was relatively bug free and coherent with a clear beginning, middle and end.

 

Sources

Lazarro, N. & Keeker, K. (2004). “What’s My Method? A Game Show on Games.” In CHI 2004 Conference Proceedings, April 2004. http://www.xeodesign.com/whatsmymethod.pdf

Lazzaro, N. (2004-2005) “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” Self-published
white paper. www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

Norman, D.A. (2004). “Affordances and design.” http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html

Zimmerman, E. (2003). “Play as research: The iterative design process.” http://ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Iterative_Design.htm

Tags : | add comments

Quo Design Reflection

Posted by ashirazi3 on Wednesday Apr 23, 2014 Under Blogpost Assignments, Design Reflection

The main, and most obvious, difference between Quo and all of the other games made in class is that our game was meant for two people. It’s true that a single user could play the game alone, but they wouldn’t really be getting the full Quo experience as we intended.

Quo has the game mechanics that drives play has as Lazarro describes:

  1. Easy Fun (Novelty): Curiosity from exploration, role play, and creativity
  2. Hard Fun (Challenge): Fiero, the epic win, from achieving a difficult goal
  3. People Fun (Friendship): Amusement from competition and cooperation
  4. Serious Fun (Meaning): Excitement from changing the player and their world

(Why we Play Games: Four keys to More Emotion Without Story)

Easy Fun and Serious Fun go hand in hand with Quo. The two players are role playing as two different types of characters. These two characters have two similar, but different worlds, which drives players to explore and find differences. The core mechanic of the player in the past is to be able to alter the world of the player in the future, which is excitement from changing the world, and the core mechanic of the future player is to change the person in the past by sending them items via time machine. Both of these core mechanics combined fit the exact definition of serious fun. Like easy and serious fun, hard and people fun are paired together in Quo. The Overall game objective is the find the energy source to fix the broken time machine, the epic win in hard fun. And in order to reach the epic win, players must cooperate with each other to get past puzzles, which fits into people fun.

To put Quo to where it is today, we went through many different phases of ideas, and ended up following the iterative process of design.

“In iterative design, there is a blending of designer and user, of creator and player. It is a process of design through the reinvention of play. Through iterative design, designers create systems and play with them. They become participants, but do so in order to critique their creations, to bend them, break them, and re-fashion them into something new. And in these procedures of investigation and experimentation, a special form of research takes place. The process of iteration, of design through play, is a way of discovering the answers to questions you didn’t even know were there. And that makes it a powerful and important form of design research.” (Zimmerman)

This quote from Zimmerman describes the process of creating Quo in a nutshell. We had the general idea of what we wanted to do for Quo, but didn’t know exactly how we were going to execute. For the paper playtest we mad a what our first level might be. Something that was fairly easy but gave players a sense of the mechanic of sending things back and altering the future. The paper playtest verified that our mechanics were good, but not much more than that. Then it seemed that our first actual playtest was more like a breaktest. The control scheme was temporary just to get things working in time for the playtest, there were bugs everywhere, items weren’t working the way they needed to, needless to say we didn’t have much of a game. However, we did receive essential feedback about how we should have our button layout, something we didn’t think much about initially as a group.  On the second playtest we had a working first level, which was nice, but it felt like there wasn’t much content to get feedback on. Once again I was proven wrong, we learned that our new item selection was better, but still a little confusing and extensive. Major bugs in the jet-pack were also found. With the last two playtests our game went through iterations of item changes and fixes, level fixes, art changes, and final keyboard controls. Although we had the general game of our idea, we essentially depended on playtests to actually design the levels.

Another main issue we had with Quo was explaining the mechanics of the game. We needed to have something in the game to tell players how to play and why they can only do certain things, it’s not like a member of our group would always be next to a user telling them how to play; we needed affordances. In this case, we’ll keep the original definition as an actionable properties between the world and an actor (Norman). Some of our affordances were in the artwork. For example The person in the past would be able to walk across a river via bridge, but the bridge in the future was broken, telling the player they are currently not able to get across the bridge. These type of affordances helped with puzzles as far as telling users what they can’t do, but it didn’t help them solve the puzzles. A big factor of solving the puzzles was knowing what item could get the job done. We quickly learned one person’s idea of what a jet-pack could do was different than another person’s. Item descriptions for items that hinted to what items could do rather than specifying its exact use cases. The final problem that was constantly catching users was the core mechanics of sending things back in time, but not being able to send them to the future, as well as altering the future. The only solution we found was adding it to the cut scene we had at the beginning of the game. Originally, the cut scene was meant to describe the story. We eventually were able to create dialogue that not only told the story, but was able to explain the core mechanics through the story as well.

 

Resources

Lazarro, N. & Keeker, K. (2004). “What’s My Method? A Game Show on Games.” In CHI 2004 Conference
Proceedings, April 2004. http://www.xeodesign.com/whatsmymethod.pdf
Lazzaro, N. (2004-2005) “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” Self-published
white paper. www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

Norman, D.A. (2004). “Affordances and design.” http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html

Zimmerman, E. (2003). “Play as research: The iterative design process.”

http://ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Iterative_Design.html

Tags : | add comments

FLAT LANDS Design Reflection

Posted by cms6 on Wednesday Apr 23, 2014 Under Design Reflection

Abbott’s Flatland is the inspiration for my team’s game – FLAT LANDS. Abbott’s Flatland is a satirical novel that revolves around a square. The book uses the fictional two-dimensional setting of Flatland to offer pointed observations on the social hierarchy of Victorian culture. Alongside Victorian social hierarchy, Abbott focuses on examining the physicality of dimensions, which is what FLAT LANDS mainly focuses on. Players must strategically traverse through levels by passing through different obstacles. To get around these obstacles, players must shift between the second and third dimension. For example, if a player is in the second dimension view then they will not be able to see that there is a hole near the bottom of a wall that they can pass through; so by shifting into the third dimension, the player can see the wall and pass through the hole to progress through the rest of the level.

For this project, the team was divided into roles based off of our skill set. As a result, I was put in charge of level design and art aesthetics. As we developed the core concept of the game we moved towards a game that Lazzaro calls “Serious Fun.” Serious Fun games have a meaning behind its story and mechanics. It brings excitement from changing the player and their world  (Lazzaro, N.). FLAT LANDS literally changes both the player and the world with its game mechanics from becoming a square to a cube and rotating the world such that the player’s camera stays in a suitable position. However, FLAT LANDS could also be describes as “Easy Fun.” It is sort of a novelty game that brings curiosity from exploration and gives off a creative feeling (Lazzaro, N.). Players can freely explore each level and the aesthetics of the game is uncommon to most games.

As we were discussing the game mechanics and level designs, we found it important that affordances were key in making the puzzles a little more intuitive, such that players won’t get stuck for long periods of time on one part of a single level. The word “affordance” was originally invented by the perceptual psychologist J. J. Gibson (1977, 1979) to refer to the actionable properties between the world and an actor (Norman, D.A.). However, for design, “perceived affordances” is a more correct term to use. Designers care much more about what the user perceives than what is actually true (Norman, D.A.). The most important thing must be achieved is whether or not the user perceives that some action is possible – or in the case of perceived non-affordances, not possible (Norman, D.A.). The team decided that the first few levels would be short tutorial levels, which meant that the last set of levels would be much more challenging. The tutorial levels made the game more usable because games require a mastery of features to achieve an objective (Lazarro, N. & Keeker, K.). As one of the two level designers, I focused on these more complex levels that involved a lot of different obstacles that players would have to get pass. These challenges would create enjoyment by taxing the user’s memory and performance limits (Lazarro, N. & Keeker, K.). However, due to time constraints a lot of the complexity was taken out.

In the construction of these levels, logical constraints were used to help the player complete each level. Logical constraints use reasoning to determine the alternatives (Norman, D.A.). For example, on level six, there is a hole where something must be dropped into it in order to open the wall that allows you to progress through the rest of the level. The only other movable object in the level is a sphere that the player must roll into the hole. The challenge is rolling the ball into the hole without the sphere falling off of the level.

As for art, different colored lighting helped create a really beautiful contrast of colors from the game objects. It provided a more appealing game space that really intrigued the audience and immersed them more into this world of dimension shifting. Signs were created to help guide and hint to the player of what they must do in order to complete a level. For example, there would be signs that have arrows on them that would depict the direction in which the player should try to go. There were also more descriptive signs that told the player an action that they would need to complete to get past an obstacle. For instance, there was a sign that depicts a ball falling off of the level. This sign warns the user of an action that they should try to avoid.

However, this design process of creating levels and making art did not originate from our initial plans. There was a lot of iterative design. Iterative design is a design methodology based on a cyclic process of prototyping, testing, analyzing, and refining a work in progress (Zimmerman, E.).  Through playtesting, we were able to figure out that players had difficulty with player and camera movement. In regards to the elements that I produced, they were a bit too challenging for players to perceive. As a result, we cut down the complexity on most of the levels which ended in a less frustrating experience for players.

The final product of the game consists of six levels of increasing difficulty. Within each level, the objects that were purely there for visual appeal also changed. This change created senses of being in a new area and also added more of an abstract artistic feel to the levels. The audio throughout the game also became more complex as the player progressed from level to level.  As a result, the combination of the audio and colors added to the essence of each level which  created a more immersive game space for players. According to some of our playtesters, they deemed FLAT LANDS as an enjoyable and fun game. They receive satisfaction from accomplishing difficult tasks and take enjoyment from the aesthetics of the game (Lazarro, N. & Keeker, K.).

 

Resources

Lazarro, N. & Keeker, K. (2004). “What’s My Method? A Game Show on Games.” In CHI 2004 Conference Proceedings, April 2004. http://www.xeodesign.com/whatsmymethod.pdf

Lazzaro, N. (2004-2005) “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” Self-published white paper. www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

Norman, D.A. (2004). “Affordances and design.” http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html

Zimmerman, E. (2003). “Play as research: The iterative design process.”

http://ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Iterative_Design.htm

Tags : | add comments

Flatlands Design Reflection

Posted by sfrazier7 on Wednesday Apr 23, 2014 Under Blogpost Assignments, Design Reflection

In building Flatlands I think I learned a lot about myself and definitely gained great insight into the creative process behind making a game with multiple people. I have only limited experience making games and never as the primary programmer. Past contributions to making games always made me feel like an outside to the process; with Flatlands I felt like a core component and driving force to getting the game completed. To see something take shape with contributions from multiple people with various talents is fun and a game in its own right.

As far as self-understanding grew, I came to the realization that it is ok and vital to share the workload for the production of something as massive as a game. There’s no way that a great title will be created – save for a few unique circumstances – without the input and work from multiple people. I suffer the weakness of wanting to take on too much work myself.

The process of creating the game benefited from lessons learned in class and with group interactions. I think the interim evaluations also helped focus and reignite the group’s drive toward finishing the game as well as increasing communication which was so key to finalizing the product. We undertook an ambitious game and while it is nowhere near where it might need to be to see “production” it is definitely a novel and compelling world which we have created and intend to extend further.

The Game

The game itself is called “Flatlands” and is based on the book “Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions” by Edwin A. Abbott. The book examines the nature of shapes and how an individual might react if he or she were to traverse dimensional boundaries. What sort of things would you see? What new affordances and knowledge would you gain? What knowledge would you lose? How do these shifts in perception alter the way individuals might interact, how physics would work and how society would function? Abbott addresses all of these points and we hoped to implement these ideas into a game which was all about shifting dimensions.

We had lofty goals at first with a multitude of dimensions planned but ultimately decided to boil down core gameplay to 2D vs 3D. Your view shifts from isomorphic to orthographic depending on your current dimensionality. Objects change as well: you are a cube in three dimensions and a flat square in two dimensions; this allows you to interact with things in various ways. Spheres which will roll and can be used as puzzle-solving components in 3D will become flat and lose their velocity immediately upon shifting to 2 dimensions. The world feels entirely different depending on your perspective and your perspective affords some very interesting puzzles.

Design Process

“In iterative design, there is a blending of designer and user, of creator and player. It is a process of design through the reinvention of play. Through iterative design, designers create systems and play with them. They become participants, but do so in order to critique their creations, to bend them, break them, and re-fashion them into something new. And in these procedures of investigation and experimentation, a special form of research takes place. The process of iteration, of design through play, is a way of discovering the answers to questions you didn’t even know were there. And that makes it a powerful and important form of design research” (Zimmerman).

We undertook Flatlands as an iterative process. Zimmerman describes this notion of reinvention and we definitely saw that in our design process. As we added levels and puzzle elements to the game, certain things made sense and other things had to be removed. Players and their feedback were core to making our levels less frustrating, our movement and camera mechanics more fluid and creating an experience that was “whole” by the end of the design process. It took a lot of work and alteration of art, level design, scripts and music to get it just right.

Emotion

In the “Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story” paper by Lazzaro we find elements of our game’s success. Of the four keys, we fulfill three: easy fun, hard fun and serious fun. Fulfilling easy fun is achieved by allowing the player to explore and understand two separate worlds. We give the powerful capability of shifting perspective to the player,  and the choice of when a player wants to be in one dimension or the other. Hard fun is achieved by puzzles of increasing difficulty. The flatland world is forgiving if you fail or fall, but some puzzles can stretch a person’s understanding of how objects will behave or should behave in various dimensions in order to achieve some objective. Serious fun emerges from a greater understanding of dimensionality, a sense that the player is learning more about the potential afforded by multi-axis movement. There’s a lot to be learned in Flatland and we convey that with no dialogue or personified actors.

Affordances

“…affordances are a relationship. They are a part of nature: they do not have to be visible, known, or desirable. Some affordances are yet to be discovered. Some are dangerous” (Norman).

An interesting component of our design process was figuring out how to theme the various dimensions. How could we make different perspectives and dimensions feel different? How could we let a player know which objects could be interacted with and which couldn’t? We did not have text or dialogue at our disposal, merely color and light. Through clever use of color, light and particles we subtly accentuated certain environmental features and retained constants through the game. Green meant progression. Red meant a roadblock of some sort. Neither necessarily meant good or bad or retained the same physical properties across various puzzle elements. This led to a sort of sense of “danger” and uncertainty in the player. This was of course coupled with the fact that you would never quite know how a plane or wall or sphere would act in 2D versus 3D. You really had to observe and interact with the objects and the world in both dimensions to discover their affordances. It was a delicate balancing act generating affordances which were curious but not frustrating to the player.

Works Cited

Lazzaro, N. (2004-2005) “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” Self-published white paper. www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

Lazarro, N. & Keeker, K. (2004). “What’s My Method? A Game Show on Games.” In CHI 2004 Conference Proceedings, April 2004. http://www.xeodesign.com/whatsmymethod.pdf

Norman, D.A. (2004). “Affordances and design.” http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html

Zimmerman, E. (2003). “Play as research: The iterative design process.” http://ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Iterative_Design.htm

Tags : , | add comments

RA Light Design

Posted by cyarborough3 on Wednesday Apr 23, 2014 Under Design Reflection

Our game, RA Light, is a mummy themed puzzle game. In the game you are a mummy that recently woke up in his pyramid. As any good mummy knows the first thing you do when you wake up is to get out of the pyramid and take over the world. However, the builders of your pyramid wanted that to never happen so they put puzzles in every room to block your path to the surface. In the game the puzzles that the user has to solve are light based. We wanted to have an educational light based game targeting middle school students. Thinking about our target audience we wanted to teach the user about light but not make it too complicated. We decided to focus on two basic light concepts wavelength, which changes color, and reflectance. We had decided to add mirrors into the game to give the user the ability to reflect the light beams around the rooms solving puzzles along the way. In order to convey the frequency change of light we decided to have special gems in the game that would change the frequency of the light therefore changing the color of the beam. We were able to create a unique variety of complex puzzles using these two basic light concepts. We based our game on the ideas of Zimmerman, Lazarro and Norman in order to make a truly great game. While trying to actually design the game we followed Zimmermans definition of iterative design.

 

“Iterative design is a design methodology based on a cyclic process of prototyping, testing, analyzing, and refining a work in progress. In iterative design, interaction with the designed system is used as a form of research for informing and evolving a project, as successive versions, or iterations of a design are implemented.” (Zimmerman)

 

Once the group had all agreed on the basic concept of the game the real hard work began, the iterative process. During the first meeting we decided to hash out all of the game mechanics that we wanted in our game and the various techniques that could be used to achieve them. After putting in the core concepts of the game all subsequent design meetings involved evolving the game. In these meetings we categorized each of the concepts into a few categories, what works well, what needs improvement and what gets tossed out the window.

 

When addressing the needs improvement category one of the main concerns was making all of the interactable objects seem interactable. “what the designer cares about is whether the user perceives that some action is possible (or in the case of perceived non-affordances, not possible)” (Norman). In the first few versions of our game the users were confused when trying to interact with objects that were intended to be pushable. At first the pushable mirrors looked like they were stationary on the ground. We alleviated this problem by changing the model of the mirror itself. We attached a heavy looking base with a flat bottom to give it the appearance that it should be pushed and not picked up. This halfway solved the issue of the seemingly pushable mirrors. The other issue was that users still were not understanding that you were able to push objects. So we decided to add outstretched mummy arms in order to convey the ability of being able to push. This process of improving, testing, discussing and repeating went on during the whole process of developing the game. This method was essential for making a great game. Another method for completing the game was the fact that during the entire process we had a completely functioning game. We decided to go about it this way so in the end if one of the aspects did not work well we still had a playable game.

 

After all of the core mechanics had been hashed out we decided to focus on the puzzle aspect of the game. We wanted the puzzles to be just the right amount of difficulty. We wanted to have Lazarro’s hard fun and easy fun in all of the puzzles. With hard fun players can enjoy the challenge, strategy, and problem solving aspects of the game. Players focus on the game’s challenge and strategic thinking and problem solving. Hard fun usually creates a sense of frustration and struggle in the player (Lazarro). With easy fun the players curiosity and intrigue are peaked. The player is sucked into the world and drug along on an adventure. Easy fun inspires wonder, awe and mystery (Lazarro). The lights reflecting everywhere inspired the easy fun. The players are able to really do any combination of reflectance that they want without actually solving the puzzles. The atmosphere of the pyramid also inspires the wonder, awe and adventure. Several of our playtesters seemed to initially not be interested in the puzzles at all but would rather explore the different rooms available.  The hard fun of the puzzles came into play when actually trying to solve the different puzzles. The first couple of rooms are there to teach the player how the game mechanics work and to get the player in the mind set for the final level. The final level is where the real challenge takes place. It has 4 different levels that all have to be working together to finally beat the game.

The game RA Light was developed with the principles set forth by Zimmerman, Lazarro and Norman. We used the iterative  design principles laid forth by Zimmerman and used the techniques for making a fun game laid forth by both Lazarro and Norman. Our intentions were to make a truly fun game that appealed to middle schoolers that taught them in a fun and unique way about the properties of light.  In the end we made a game that was fun, challenging, intriguing and I believe appeals to all audiences well beyond the age group of middle schoolers. As a lover of unique and challenging puzzle games I myself would play RA Light if it was a full scale game.

Lazzaro, N. (2004-2005) “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” Self-published white paper. www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

Norman, D.A. (2004). “Affordances and design.” http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html

Zimmerman, E. (2003). “Play as research: The iterative design process.” http://ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Iterative_Design.htm

Tags : | add comments

Design Reflection: Shadow Box

Posted by aledoux6 on Wednesday Apr 23, 2014 Under Blogpost Assignments, Design Reflection

by Adam Le Doux

Shadow Box is the murder mystery game my team made for Game Design as a Cultural Practice. While working on Shadow Box, I took on a variety of roles: game design, scenario writing, and programming. While everyone on our team participated in game design and writing, my specialist role was as a programmer. Within our two-person programming team, my further specialization was to develop certain key user interface elements: the notebook the player uses to add clues to the 3D environment, the start screen and introductory text that sets the context for the game, and the “decision mode” where players make their final conclusion about how the murder occurred. During the course we read about several design methodologies that influenced our team’s (and my own personal) design process, including those written about by Eric Zimmerman, Nicole Lazzaro, and Don Norman.

 

Screen Shot 2014-04-23 at 2.24.20 PM

When the player starts the game, the camera goes through left eye, emphasizing that the game takes place “inside the mind’s eye.”

 

In the article “Play as research: The interative design process,” Zimmerman writes about the experience of developing a web game: SiSSYFiGHT 2000. In SiSSYFiGHT players take the role of schoolgirls who bully each other to gain the upper hand socially. Though the concept was intriguing, at first the game wasn’t much fun to play. However, by putting early versions of the game in front of players rather than keeping it to themselves, SiSSYFiGHT’s designers were able to quickly find out what was wrong and push it in a stronger direction. To me the strength of iterative design for games is that it lets players interact with it as fast as possible. Games don’t come to life until they have players, so you won’t really know how it works until you have players.

In our case, the initial design of Shadow Box was more focused on what we as designers were excited to make rather than what would engage players. By forcing us to play test multiple times, the structure of the course let us confront that and course correct before it was too late. A specific example is our “deduction mechanic.” At first we wanted to keep the clues as open to interpretation as possible, in order to allow players construct their own picture of the murder. However, the lack of direction only confused and frustrated players. We made numerous changes to address that: I personally added a feature to the notebook that let it pop up and give more detailed information about the inferences the detective is making while interpreting clues, flashing text when a new solution is discovered, and pages in the notebook with more story background about each solution. Other changes included limiting the number of clues in each solution to 3, and drawing lines between clues to visually suggest how they link up. In the end iterative design resulted in a much more engaging game that was focused on player experience rather than designer whim.

 

Screen Shot 2014-04-23 at 2.27.04 PM

Adding lines between related clues visually reinforced that these clues could provide a solution to the murder.

 

Nicole Lazzaro explores several design methods that let designers create games that players can connect to. In “What’s My Method? A Game Show on Games” she identifies three themes for producing engaging games: games must be usable, games must be challenging, and games must be fun. Our game started out quite challenging, but it was initially lacking in the usability and fun categories. My main contribution was to improve usability, which in turn allowed the players to discover the inherent fun in finding clues and putting together solutions. Beyond usability, a big complaint was lack of context to the actions in the game. My work adding to the notebook and the start screen helped put the clue-finding in its proper context, allowing players to feel their work had some meaning in the game world. In “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story,” Lazzaro identifies four different ways players connect emotionally to games: hard fun, easy fun, altered states, and the people factor. Our game was squarely aimed at the “easy fun” audience, who “enjoy intrigue and curiosity” and prefer games in which “ambiguity, incompleteness, and detail combine to create a living world” (Lazzaro). Therefore, the high difficulty of the first version of our game was a huge design problem. As I mentioned above, we overcame this hurdle by paying close attention to what confused players and providing greater visual feedback as well as more context.

 

Screen Shot 2014-04-23 at 2.24.33 PM

Introductory text gave players more context for why they were hunting for clues and let them engage the game more.

 

Don Norman’s article “Affordance and design” explains the important design concept of “perceived affordances.” A perceived affordance is anything that a user believes they can do with an object or program based on its visual or physical appearance. As Don Norman explains, perceived affordances are particularly important in software, since the entire screen is essentially a blank canvas that affords “clicking on every pixel of the display screen” (Norman). Of course most of those potential spots to click on are actually useless, so you need to be very careful to draw your players to the right pixels and keep them away from ones that do nothing, lest you create confusion and frustration. A feature I developed in Shadow Box that directly benefited from this concept were the “clue links.” In the detective’s notebook, certain words were bold and if the user hovered the mouse over them, they turned red. To anyone familiar with computers, it was obvious that these words afforded clicking. Indeed, when you clicked on them a new clue would appear in the environment. The problem was that once the clue was summoned those links didn’t do anything anymore, BUT they continued to be bold and change colors. When I saw players trying to click on them repeatedly I realized that they still had a perceived affordance of clicking, even though in reality they no longer did anything when clicked. My solution was to un-bold those words after they’d been clicked one time – this neatly solved the perception problem.

 

Screen Shot 2014-04-23 at 2.25.09 PM Screen Shot 2014-04-23 at 2.25.47 PM

In the top image, bold text affords clicking. Once the text has been clicked, un-bolding it lets the player know that it won’t respond anymore.

 

In conclusion, there are a lot of design pitfalls that you can fall into when creating a video game, but most of them stem from not properly taking the player into account. Writers like Zimmerman, Lazzaro, and Norman provide a road map for designers who want to involve the player in the process of making their games. In the end, however, it’s the responsibility of the designer to take the first step in inviting players to play. Then you need to step back, watch, listen, and be open.

 

 
Sources

Lazzaro, N. & Keeker, K. (2004). “What’s My Method? A Game Show on Games.” In CHI 2004 Conference Proceedings, April 2004. http://www.xeodesign.com/whatsmymethod.pdf

Lazzaro, N. (2004-2005) “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” Self-published white paper. www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

Norman, D.A. (2004). “Affordances and design.” http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html

Zimmerman, E. (2003). “Play as research: The iterative design process.” http://www.ericzimmerman.com/texts/Iterative_Design.htm

Tags : | add comments

Flatlands: Design Reflection

Posted by jshedd7 on Wednesday Apr 23, 2014 Under Blogpost Assignments, Design Reflection

Our game, Flatlands, is a puzzle platformer that focuses shifting between the second and third dimensions to reach and end goal. The original concept for this game came form Edwin Abbot’s novella Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. While my primary role as project manager was not particularly relevant to the readings, my experience working on the design team with my team was. After reading Zimmerman, Norman, and Lazzaro, I identified various similarities with the design methodologies, and unintentionally theories of fun described in Zimmerman, Norman, and Lazzaro

Our design approach followed Zimmerman’s example of iterative design. Zimmerman writes,

“Iterative design is a design methodology based on a cyclic process of prototyping, testing, analyzing, and refining a work in progress. In iterative design, interaction with the designed system is used as a form of research for informing and evolving a project, as successive versions, or iterations of a design are implemented.” (Zimmerman)

After our initial conception of the idea for the game, we entered an iterative design process. This included two in class and our own group playlists throughout the development of the game. In these sessions we identified, what worked and what did not from a fun standpoint, bugs, problems with the controls and camera, and potential solutions. We would then implement the feedback we got from the playtests and subsequently test again, continue to iterate on Flatlands throughout its development.

Part the design of Flatlands was the player acquiring different abilities depending on the dimensional perspective. Norman writes, “what the designer cares about is whether the user perceives that some action is possible (or in the case of perceived non-affordances, not possible).” (Norman)  In Flatlands a player’s perception of and abilities in the world change depending on the dimension they occupy.  As designers we had to make what was useful and possible in each dimension clear to the player. We chose to do by drawing on conventions from other physics related games such as Portal and Antichamber to help guide the player. In addition, we used particle physics at the end point to show the player where the goal was.

The fun in Flatlands comes from the challenge the game poses to the player’s understanding of dimensional movement. Lazzaro writes “games must be challenging. Contrary to common usability conventions, games create enjoyment via by challenging the user; often taxing the user’s memory and performance limits.” (Lazarro & Keeker)  Most players notions of movement within a dimension ends at third because that is what we exist in. Having the player only be able to do certain tasks in the second dimension and not in the third dimension challenges players’ preconceived notions of movement within the dimension of which they exist.  This challenge to dimensional perception in combination with solving puzzles is theoretically what makes Flatlands fun to play.

Flatlands also contains three of the four keys to unlock emotion, Hard Fun, Easy Fun and Altered States. The first key is Hard fun. Lazzaro writes,

Hard Fun: Players like the opportunities for challenge, strategy, and problem solving. Their comments focus on the game’s challenge and strategic thinking and problem solving. This “Hard Fun” frequently generates emotions and experiences of Frustration, and Fiero. (Lazarro)

In Flatlands Hard Fun is fostered through the dimensional puzzles the player is tasked to solve.  The second key is Easy Fun. Lazzaro writes,

Easy Fun: Players enjoy intrigue and curiosity. Players become immersed in games when it absorbs their complete attention, or when it takes them on an exciting adventure. These Immersive game aspects are “Easy Fun” and generate emotions and experiences of Wonder, Awe, and Mystery. (Lazarro)

In Flatlands Easy Fun is fostered through the ability to shift between dimensions, the related questions about modes of existence in the universe, and the artistic style of the world itself.  These features inspire curiosity and intrigue for the player and thus foster Easy fun. The third key is Altered State. Lazzaro writes,

Altered States: Players treasure the enjoyment from their internal experiences in reaction to the visceral, behavior, cognitive, and social properties. These players play for internal sensations such as Excitement or Relief from their thoughts and feelings. (Lazarro)

Flatlands core mechanic of shifting between the second and third dimensions means that it is a game based on creating Altered States. Each time the player shifts from the second to the third dimension and vise versa he or she enters an altered state of the space.

The development of Flatlands contained similarities with the design methodologies, and unintentionally theories of fun as described in Zimmerman, Norman, and Lazzaro. For our design methodology our team used an iterative design process as discussed in Zimmerman and took design principles stated in Norman to make what was possible in the space clear  to the player. For how to foster fun in the play experience of Flatlands, we created a challenging game, which Lazzaro suggests is necessary for a fun game. Furthermore, we met three of Lazzaro’s four keys to unlock emotion in game play, which also suggests Flatlands creates a fun experience for the player.

Works Cited

Lazzaro, N. (2004-2005) “Why We Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion Without Story.” Self-published white paper. www.xeodesign.com/whyweplaygames.html

Lazarro, N. & Keeker, K. (2004). “What’s My Method? A Game Show on Games.” In CHI 2004 Conference Proceedings, April 2004. http://www.xeodesign.com/whatsmymethod.pdf

Norman, D.A. (2004). “Affordances and design.” http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html

Zimmerman, E. (2003). “Play as research: The iterative design process.” http://ericzimmerman.com/files/texts/Iterative_Design.htm

Tags : | add comments