Before engaging with the P3 systems game project, I viewed systems games as complex and often daunting. My limited prior experience suggested they involved intricate mechanics and abstract representations, leaving me uncertain about how to approach creating one. When my team set out to develop Enshittification, we were initially unsure about what components to include and how to ensure they accurately reflected real-world dynamics. However, this uncertainty turned into a great learning experience.
A critical tool in our development process was the consistent use of concept maps. Early on, we created an initial mind map to outline the interconnected elements of the Enshittification system. This exercise was invaluable, helping us visualize the system and determine which features to prioritize. Each time we introduced a new variable or mechanic, we revisited and updated the concept map. This iterative approach clarified how changes in one area influenced the overall system. Through this, I realized the importance of sketching relationships—not just for game design but as a broader tool for understanding complex systems.
Initially, I thought the task would be straightforward: identify relationships, encode them into the game, and iterate. However, our playtests quickly showed us this was not true. Despite focusing on a subset of the larger system, accurately representing relationships required extensive recalibrations and redesigns. Playtesting was instrumental in revealing misalignments between what we intended to communicate and what the game actually conveyed. These tests also revealed the difficulty of balancing accurate system representation with engaging gameplay.
Adding the “fun” element was particularly challenging. While it was easy to create a functional system, ensuring it remained engaging without compromising its mechanics proved to be a delicate balancing act. For instance, certain features (e.g external scenarios or a end condition) introduced during the design process made the game more enjoyable but unintentionally distorted the system’s realism. Iterative playtesting and adjustments helped us find a middle ground, where both the system and the fun coexisted in harmony. This balance became a rewarding aspect of the process, illustrating the power of iterative design.
Watching others play the game was equally enlightening. Observing their strategies and feedback highlighted aspects we hadn’t considered e.g it was important to add the tutorial of functions as well as gettign rid of reputation score because players didn’t really pay attention to it.
Reflecting on this journey, I now see systems games as both intricate and dynamic, requiring a balance of creativity, analysis, and iteration. Moving forward, I hope to use the skills I developed—concept mapping, iterative testing, and balancing realism with engagement—in future projects, whether in game design or designing other educational tools.
