P2 Group 13: Escape Disney!

Team

Fadumo Jama, Clare Chua, Katherine Lu, Malisha Lutchmeea

Artist Statement

Escape from Disney is our original escape room concept game, with a combined digital and analog playing scheme. The premise involves all game players as cast members who play popular Disney characters. Nobody read the fine print of their work contracts before signing and now are trapped in Disney, unable to leave during the day due to visitor presence and locked up at night by the managers. However, one day all of your crew decide it’s time to break out – your manager forgot to lock the Mickey clubhouse door on their way out, so it’s time to make your escape! Can you and your fellow cast members make it out of Disney, while avoiding your manager on nightwatch?

The game is currently set up for exactly 4 players, with a full development version able to accommodate anywhere from solo to 8 players. Players start in Mickey’s Clubhouse, located at the back of the park in the zone of Mickey’s Toontown. They must then complete a series of digital and analog challenges to progress through the various other zones – Fantasyland, Tomorrowland, Adventureland – to make it out of the park successfully. The failure conditions for the game are if the crew cannot make it out before dawn, they will be trapped forever! 

Game Model 

Disney Escape is a hybrid analog-digital escape room game that immerses players in a fictional version of Disneyland after dark. Cast as iconic Disney characters—Mickey, Dumbo, Buzz Lightyear, and Indiana Jones—players take on the role of cast members who overlooked the fine print of their contracts and are now locked inside the park. With only 30 minutes until dawn, players must collaborate to solve challenges across four themed lands to retrieve four numbers and unlock the park gates before time runs out.

Concept Map & Game Economy

Each land is associated with a unique combination of digital and analog mechanics, designed around a specific character’s strengths and narrative.

• In Toontown, Mickey leads players through a digital logo hunt followed by a physical riddle-based puzzle.
• In Fantasyland, Dumbo engages players in audio listening and charades to unlock a collaborative crossword.
• In Tomorrowland, Buzz Lightyear takes on a reflex-based digital shooting game.
• In Adventureland, Indiana Jones uses a map to guide teammates through a physical search for a hidden switch.

Each completed zone yields a single number. These four numbers form the final code needed to escape. A shared 30-minute timer and the looming threat of manager patrols—simulated through flashlight sweeps—add urgency and complexity to the cooperative puzzle-solving experience.

To complement this conceptual overview, we also diagrammed the game economy. 

• Tap: Puzzle completion generates numeric resources.

• Inventory: These numbers are stored collectively as team progress.
• Converter: Both the challenge systems and the gate lock transform effort into outcomes—either successful escape or failure.
• Drain: Time limits and manager patrols threaten to deplete progress or reset tasks.
• Trader: The gate lock acts as a transaction point—converting a full inventory into a win condition (freedom), or defaulting to failure if incomplete or mistimed.

Initial Decisions

Players, Objectives, & Outcomes

• Playing is optimal amongst people who are already familiar with one another, and ideally friends or family. The game operates largely on cooperative play due to escape room design but also at some points, due to the character rotation for each land, it can also sometimes be individual player vs. game
• The objective of the game is rescue/escape with a time limit
• In terms of outcome, the generally achievable outcome is success – the players leave the game. There are not many scenarios in which players will not achieve this outcome eventually. However, with the time limit of 30 minutes, it might be the case that the players fail the game by not making it out in time (distinct from never being able to make it out)

Rules

• Players choose identities/characters that determine their team participation dynamic for each round. Players must follow the instructions for play written in the playbook or the digital interface in order to understand how to complete challenges. 
• Players must also interact with various physical objects spread throughout the play space to assemble the right information for challenge-solving.

Procedures

• Setup: players have a playbook and a digital interface that they read through to learn about and work through challenges associated with the 4 different lands on their way out of the Disney park. Players finish challenges to unlock the clues to make it through each subsequent set of challenges – essentially a limited sequence.
• The next land unlocks once you’ve finished your current land’s challenge successfully.
• Eventually, the information that helps unlock every new level/set of challenges is accumulated as the final password that allows the team to win by making it out of the park. 

Resources

• Physical playbook
• Hints on the digital interface
• Map for Adventureland with guide and key, as well as physical cards hidden across the room
• Puzzle clues for Toontown

Boundaries

• For digital portions, the boundary is just the singular digital interface
• For analog portions, the boundaries for the game are the classroom play space

Scope of the game: Was it an MVP, a slice, or something in between?

When thinking about the scope of Disney Escape, we see it as a vertical slice that leans toward MVP, both in how we designed the experience and how we prioritized what to build. Our goal wasn’t to build every part of the final game system in full, but rather to craft a tightly scoped version that would feel complete and meaningful while still being manageable to build and test within the time constraints.

In terms of gameplay content, Disney Escape includes a fully playable sequence from beginning to end: the players begin in Mickey’s Clubhouse, travel through four distinct lands (Toontown, Fantasyland, Tomorrowland, and Adventureland), and reach a final gate where they attempt to input the correct code and escape. Each land contains one unique character-driven challenge, representing a different puzzle modality (digital, analog, or hybrid), which reflects our intention to show the core mechanics and emotional beats of a full game.

We knew early on that we didn’t want to just make one good puzzle or prototype a mechanic in isolation. Instead, we wanted to communicate how everything fits together—how roles, time, narrative, and puzzle-solving combine into a cohesive escape room system. That’s where the “slice” part comes in. This version of the game lets players experience a scaled-down but complete arc. It’s not a mock-up or simulation; it’s a real, working escape room designed for 3–4 players with a 30-minute timer, patrolling risk, and challenge progression.

That said, we also made intentional trade-offs that kept the build closer to MVP than a polished, market-ready product. For instance, while each character gets one land and puzzle tailored to their identity, we didn’t build in full branching narratives, alternate puzzle paths, or dynamic patrol logic. Similarly, we didn’t include elements like a robust hint system, adaptive difficulty, or more complex interactions between zones—features we imagine in a longer version of this game. Instead, we focused on delivering one clear path through the park with distinct, character-specific tasks that work together to produce an escape experience that’s tightly paced and thematically consistent.

From a systems standpoint, the version we built also demonstrates the game’s logic and interactivity in ways that could easily support future expansion. The structure—collecting four numbers to unlock the gate—can scale to include additional lands, randomized puzzle sequences, or varying patrol frequencies. So even though the current scope is limited to one “loop” through four zones, the design is already built on patterns that would hold up at a larger scale.

Ultimately, we think of Disney Escape as a playable, testable slice that reflects the kind of full experience we envision. We focused on conveying the heart of the game—teamwork, tension, narrative character play, and immersive puzzle solving—without trying to include everything all at once. What we delivered is a cohesive and replayable version that gives a real sense of the game’s potential while still being small enough to build, run, and iterate on meaningfully.

In short, it’s a vertical slice that acts like an MVP: minimal in content, but rich enough in experience to stand on its own and guide future development.

Testing and iteration history

Playtest 1 – Concept Testing
Date: May 6, 2025
Participants: 2 classmates
Focus: first impression of concept and theme immersion

What went well:

For our very first playtest, we had two female students in the class playtest the challenges from our first land (Toontown) from a Figma. The students were able to complete the challenge successfully, after which we asked about the difficulty of the challenge, whether the 50-50 digital analog split affected their immersion in the game, whether the character assigning increased or decreased feelings of autonomy during play, and finally asked what might help people feel more creative in the challenge solving process (as opposed to getting stuck on not being able to proceed from there). 

Key feedback: 

We learned that our theme choice helped with immersion but we needed to have clearer transition for when interaction needed to be digital vs. when players should start interacting with their physical environment. They also noted that character autonomy was greater during digital play than in physical play and that we could expand creativity through adding more lore related to Disney mysteries and conspiracy theories.

Iteration:

We created challenges for the three other lands such that the second land also had a mix of digital and analog within the land but the third land was entirely digital and the fourth entirely analog so that players would get an even mix of engagement in their journey to escape.

Playtest 2 – First Full Flow + Instruction Clarity
Date: May 13, 2025
Participants: 2 classmates
Focus: Player onboarding, UI readability, first impressions of the multi-zone progression

What went well:

• Players responded positively to the escape room format and liked that each zone was sequentially locked, which made the experience feel progressive and well-scaffolded.
• The shooting game in Tomorrowland was especially praised for its clean aesthetic and immersive challenge—players noted the low-contrast background helped them stay focused on the targets, enhancing tension and accuracy.
• The flow of gameplay felt natural once players understood the objective. The visual progression of lands tied to characters (Mickey, Dumbo, Buzz, Indy) was noted as a memorable framing device.

Key feedback:

• Instructions at the start were too subtle; players asked for clearer entry points into the gameplay and a stronger visual cue to guide their attention.
• Early UI elements (such as fonts, clickable areas, audio cues) need further polish—players suggested using larger, more playful typefaces, Disney-themed buttons, and more vivid color contrast to establish visual hierarchy.
• One participant believed the entire experience would be digital, and was briefly confused when the game transitioned into analog puzzles. A smoother visual or narrative bridge was needed.

Iteration:

• We added a start screen infographic styled like a Disneyland map, giving a visual overview of the four zones and the escape goal. This content page now helps players anticipate what’s coming and orient themselves within the system.
• UI elements were enhanced with color-coded prompts and character-themed fonts. Mickey’s zone now includes a glowing red outline around the first clickable logo to prompt immediate interaction.
• We clarified the game’s hybrid format through a rulebook for each character to explain how digital and analog zones connect and have a clearer outlined instruction. 

Playtest 3 – Puzzle Comprehension + Audio Integration
Date: May 19, 2025
Participants: 1 TA
Focus: Assess player comprehension of puzzles and effectiveness of audio-based interactions

What went well:

This was the first playtest where we actually tested out the flow of the game and had the player demonstrate all lands besides tomorrow land. At this stage, we were in the middle of transitioning from GoDot to VS Code, so it was a little chaotic having the user switch between laptops after each round. Most of the instructions for this playtest were verbal as we had not yet developed a method of informing instructions. Surprisingly, this player was very good at completing the levels as it came easy to them, which reassured us that the difficulty of our game was manageable. 

Key Feedback: 

The player mentioned that although we had a very strong theme, they didnt feel as though we took advantage of leveraging the aesthetics within the gameplay. They recommended that having the players wear an identifier for their role (nametag, headband, etc.) could help immerse them more in the game. Another thing that the player mentioned was that riddle after the first level wasn’t very indicative of where to find the missing pieces. Although, the player was able to find the pieces without the riddle as it was easily spottable throughout the room. While looking for those pieces, the player also became confused on whether the pieces they found were required to complete Toontow, as clues for Adventureland were also scattered throughout the room. Lastly, the player recommended that the Fantasyland crossword puzzle could lead players astray as they were not numbered in order. Despite having solved the audio portion easily, they felt tricked that the audio clues did not correlate to number placed in the puzzle.

Iteration: 

After this playtest, we focused on implementing solutions for the feedback give. First, we made a critical decision on to separate the physical spaces in which the challenges for Toontown and Adventureland occurs. This is to ensure that the clues between the two levels don’t overlap and confuse the players. Second, we omitted the numbers associated in the crossword puzzle in order to not confuse the players. We also took note to add a button where players can pause and rewind the audio as well. We also decided we needed to make roles more descriptive and include physical character cards plates can continuously refer to. We decide to implement all these changes once we fully transition to VS Code.

Playtest 4 – Puzzle Comprehension + Audio Integration
Date: May 20, 2025
Participants: 2 classmates
Focus: Puzzle clarity, audio decoding, progression logic

What went well:

• The distinct mechanics in each land were praised for their variety. Players enjoyed how Mickey’s logo puzzle felt visual and search-oriented, while Dumbo’s Fantasyland segment required teamwork through audio and charades.
• The patrol loop was understood intuitively after the first encounter—players appreciated the added stakes and urgency introduced by a simulated “manager” passing through with a flashlight.
• The physical design of the zones was admired for being character-aligned: one player noted that Dumbo’s section “feels like being inside the ride music.”

Key feedback:

• Some players struggled with the Mickey puzzle, especially identifying the final hidden logo (noted as missing an ear). They were unsure if the task was complete, and the clue about assembling pieces was not clearly communicated.
• The audio riddle in Fantasyland needed to be heard multiple times (but could be because it was not taken place in a quiet environment), and players wanted the song to “pause” between lyrics that contain embedded letters.
• Participants suggested adding a visual content map—something akin to a table of contents—that could help them track where they are in the park and how far they’ve progressed.
• There was an occasional mismatch between the visual tone of the puzzles and the broader park theme—players suggested a unified art style to tie everything together.

Iteration:

• The Mickey logo puzzle was refined by adjusting outlines for all logos and clearly highlighting interactive zones. We also ensured all hidden images are intact and stylistically consistent.
• In Fantasyland, we spaced out audio clues in the song with pauses and added rewind functionality. The riddles now feature a few pre-filled letters to reduce cognitive overload and offer a softer on-ramp to decoding.
• We introduced a diegetic “playbook” for each character, styled like cast member training guides. These booklets give hints, sketch backstories, and provide in-world instructions for each zone.
• Visually, we aligned the asset palette across all zones to reflect a cohesive Disney-inspired aesthetic, blending sketch-style overlays with subtle park-themed props and lighting effects.

Playtest 5 – Difficulty Balancing + Audio Accessibility

Date: May 22, 2025 

Participants: Section playtest group (2 classmates)

Focus: Challenge progression, audio clarity, visual accessibility, independent gameplay

What went well: 

Players successfully engaged with the multi-land structure and appreciated the different themes between different Disney zones. The collaborative elements showed promise, with teams naturally beginning to divide tasks between digital navigation and analog puzzle solving. The core escape room concept resonated strongly with participants, who understood the objective of collecting numbers from each land to unlock their final escape code. Players demonstrated improved comprehension of the Mickey logo discovery mechanics compared to earlier iterations, showing that previous visual refinements had been effective.

Playtest 5 Moderator introduction – moving towards independent gameplay

Key feedback: 

The final two Mickey logos in Toontown proved excessively challenging, with players spending up to 7 minutes searching and resorting to systematic mouse movement strategies rather than visual recognition. This indicated that important game elements lacked sufficient visual affordances for discovery. Audio accessibility emerged as a critical barrier in Fantasyland, where narration volume was insufficient and required multiple replays for comprehension. The riddle’s third word stumped players entirely, requiring moderator intervention to progress. Visual design choices created confusion rather than clarity, particularly the red coloring scheme that failed to intuitively communicate villain elements to players. Background effects, especially sparkling animations, proved distracting and hindered focus on core gameplay tasks. The game’s heavy reliance on moderator guidance contradicted the goal of creating an autonomous escape room experience that players could navigate independently.

Iteration: 

We adjusted the visual prominence by changing the background for ToonTown, and positioning of hidden Mickey logos to ensure they remained challenging but discoverable through visual cues rather than systematic searching. Audio levels were increased and clarity improved across all Fantasyland segments, with additional pause functionality added to give players time to process riddle components. Visual hierarchy was restructured to use more intuitive color coding and reduce distracting background elements that competed for player attention. Instructional content was expanded to support more independent gameplay, reducing the need for constant moderator intervention while maintaining the collaborative Disney experience.

Playtest 6 – Technical Integration + Narrative Cohesion 

Date: May 27, 2025 

Participants: 2 classmates

Focus: Platform consolidation, storytelling flow, thematic consistency

What went well: 

Players demonstrated significantly improved understanding of game mechanics and could navigate digital components with greater independence, indicating that previous accessibility improvements had been successful. Technical integration showed marked improvement, with Fantasyland now playable from a single device rather than requiring multiple platforms, creating a more seamless user experience. Collaborative gameplay functioned more naturally, with teams organically distributing roles without requiring extensive guidance from moderators. The Mickey logo discovery sequence achieved appropriate challenge balance, with players completing tasks within reasonable time frames while maintaining a sense of accomplishment. Audio clarity improvements were evident, as players could follow narrative elements without excessive repetition.

Key feedback:

Despite improved individual components, players remained confused about the connection between digital exploration and physical puzzle elements, suggesting inadequate narrative bridges between game phases. Transitions between different lands felt disconnected and disrupted the immersive Disney atmosphere that was central to the experience concept. Players expressed desire for greater challenge variety within each land to sustain engagement throughout the full experience duration. The Tomorrowland shooting game received specific feedback requesting stronger Toy Story theming to align with player expectations and enhance Disney brand consistency. While technical functionality improved, the overarching story structure needed strengthening to maintain player investment across all game phases.

Iteration: 

We developed stronger narrative frameworks to connect digital and analog components, creating thematic bridges that would maintain immersion throughout transitions. Visual and audio elements were refined to ensure consistent Disney theming across all lands, with particular attention to aligning the shooting game with Toy Story aesthetics. Additional challenge types were planned for each land to provide varied interaction patterns that would appeal to different player preferences while maintaining collaborative elements. Storytelling content was expanded to create a more cohesive escape room narrative that would guide players naturally between different game phases without breaking immersion.

Playtest 7 – Penultimate playtest, final fixes
Date: June 3, 2025
Participants: 4 classmates
Focus: Playbook testing and fluidity of digital: analog switching, Adventureland full playtest

What went well:

For our second to last playtest, we had four classmates from different teams come together to play our game. They collaborated well as people who were familiar with each other but not necessarily friends and were able to cohesively split up characters and begin the game. For each of the challenges, players were able to complete them in a reasonable amount of time, though Tomorrowland was generally a faster challenge whereas Adventureland was the longest challenge. Furthermore, having this be our seventh playtest gave us perspective that no matter who played our game, the tasks we had set up provided a reasonable level of challenge/difficulty and that the passing of each land provided more energy for players to tackle the next round.

Key feedback: 

• Flow between playbook and digital interface was not clear
• Too much text – players were not necessarily going to read through long portions of texts, so it was less useful for us to hide things in hints and clues within the playbook
• 1 person being blindfolded during Toontown was scary for that particular player – other players should be asked to be more proactive in clearing the room and leading Mickey
• Map for Adventureland was not self-explanatory and requires more guidance

Blindfolded Mickey in the classroom (a little risky)

Iteration:

Based on feedback, we added a guide to the Adventureland map, fixed our website so that numbers would show after each successful challenge so that the team didn’t have to remember/write them down separately. We also added “flip to the next page” prompts to the playbook so that players would know which interface to interact with in order to progress in the game. We also used a separate classroom for our final playtest that didn’t have as many tripping hazards and allowed more active guidance for Mickey during the Toontown challenge. Also, to make Adventureland clue seeking more intuitive, we created standardized cards for the clues and hid them in bright orange envelopes in an open-space room. We also changed the map to a grid format so that people could map out potential paths more easily.

Playtest 7 Iteration: updating rulebook with “flip to next page” prompt; Adventureland standardized card

Playtest 8 – Final Self-Arranged Playtest
Date: June 5th, 2025
Participants: 3 Classmates
Focus: Evaluate the full user journey

What went well:

Our final playtest was conducted in a reserved room outside of class. This was useful as we had a clear idea on how to set up the physical space. We recruited three classmates who were not familiar with oyr game mechanics. Since we didnt have enough members to fullfill al the roles, we decided that one player must take on two challenges. The game progressed smoothly, and the finalized rulebook was crucial to this success. The players kept referring back to the rulebook through the game, which was exactly how we envisioned the game to be. They didnt run into any problems with completing the challenges, however, since the room we were playtesting in was a bit cramped, we allowed for the players to assist blindfolded Mickey in traversing the room. However, we only let them guide them so far, and Mickey still had to rely on their teammates’ verbal instruction to help find the exact pieces. Fantasyland and Tommorowland were completed in the right amount of time, and there wasnt any confusion there as well. For Adventureland, we allowed for one player (Indiana Jones) to remain in the original playtesting room while we led the remaining two players to the next door room that correlated with the map. The room structure was a lecture hall that was perfect for ourchallenges, as we hid the envelope with the clues among the aisles. This was the challenge that took the most time by far, hoever, the team was still able to successfully find the remaining number and escap in time.

Reflection:

Our final playtest on June 5th went really well, and we were genuinely so happy with how everything came together. We ran it outside of class in a reserved space, which helped us set up the physical elements exactly how we envisioned. We had three classmates play (none of whom had seen the game before), so it was great to see them rely on the rulebook the way we hoped they would. The Mickey challenge needed a small adjustment because of the cramped space, but it still relied on verbal teamwork, which was the goal. Fantasyland and Tomorrowland were clear and timed perfectly, and for Adventureland, we used a second room that matched the map layout, hiding clues among the aisles in a lecture hall. It made the experience feel really immersive. We are glad that despite having different characters lead each challenge, the game still felt very collaborative. Every challenge incorporated some component of teamwork which is something we value a lot. The challenges were also completed within thirty minutes, which was ideal for us. Overall, we were so proud of the final result, our vision had finally come to life after so many iterations. 

Design Sketches and Mockups

Throughout our process, we used visual mockups and exploratory sketches to establish the tone, character identity, and environmental feel of Disney Escape. Character sheets helped us reinterpret iconic figures like Mickey, Dumbo, Buzz Lightyear, and Indiana Jones with fresh silhouettes and gesture styles suited for a narrative puzzle game. Our moodboards for each land—from the neon chaos of Tomorrowland to the cozy fairytale energy of Fantasyland—guided the lighting, palette, and material design of both analog and digital puzzle moments.

Cut Ideas & Future Expansions

Throughout development, our team brainstormed many ideas that were ultimately cut or postponed in service of clarity, scope, and player experience. Disney Escape was built as a focused, character-driven experience—but there’s a lot of room for the park to expand.

Cut Concepts

• Dynamic Patrol Logic: Initially, we imagined patrols that would react to noise levels, character locations, or time spent idle. Instead of the static 7-minute interval, managers would vary their paths, with some characters better at stealth or evasion. This system proved too complex to tune quickly and was cut to ensure a playable MVP.
• Branching Puzzle Paths: We wanted each character to face multiple challenge options within their land, allowing for replayability and different skill alignments (such as spatial logic vs. emotional storytelling). In the final version, each character has one puzzle to ensure cohesion and polish, but the branching idea remains viable for future iterations.
• Zone Interactions: We also explored puzzles where solutions in one zone would affect others (such as Mickey activating a light in Toontown that helps Indiana in Adventureland). While technically feasible, this added too many dependencies and overwhelmed playtesting.

Future Expansions

• New Lands: We envision adding zones like Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge or Main Street USA, each with new character roles and thematic puzzles. These would increase the required “keys” to escape and introduce more complex patrol patterns or overlapping tasks.
• Alternate Game Modes: A “versus mode” could pit players against one another in escape vs. sabotage dynamics, or a time-loop version where you relive failed runs with partial memory of past clues.
• Narrative Trees & Role Customization: We’d love to give players more agency in backstory and abilities, perhaps through pre-game character selection or unlockable perks based on past performance.

Extended Narrative & Worldbuilding

Disney Escape opens with a surreal twist on a familiar setting. Players are cast as cast members trapped inside a dreamlike version of Disneyland after failing to read the fine print on their employee contracts. The park’s four lands act as narrative fragments. Each one reflects a character’s struggle not just to escape, but to remember who they are. Mickey starts in Toontown, surrounded by distorted logos and faded posters. Dumbo, in Fantasyland, hears whispers in the ride’s music. Buzz’s Tomorrowland flickers with broken targets and corrupted software. Indiana’s Adventureland is buried in old maps and flickering torches—no clear exits, only dead ends.

At the story’s heart is a question: are you escaping from the park, or from the role you were forced to play? The game never fully answers, but as players decode the gate lock, they begin to piece together a world where reality and fiction blur.

We imagined the ending not as closure, but transition. In future versions, characters may wake in other parks or remember different names. This game is just one loop of a larger system—one chapter in a surreal world where escape might mean becoming something entirely new.

Accessibility

From the outset, we designed Disney Escape with a focus on group cohesion, low barrier to entry, and accessible interactions across modalities. Here are some of the key decisions we made:

• Color and Contrast: Each zone uses distinct color palettes aligned with its character—bright yellows in Toontown, soft purples in Fantasyland, neon blues in Tomorrowland, and earth tones in Adventureland. Puzzle components were tested with colorblind-friendly palettes and icon overlays to ensure clarity even under changing light or game stress. The image for the puzzles for the toontown is blurred out so the players can more easily recognize the letters.

• Multimodal Puzzles: Every player engages with the game differently. We intentionally balanced visual puzzles (Toontown logos), auditory cues (Fantasyland audio/charades), reflex-based games (Tomorrowland shooting), and spatial movement (Adventureland map walk). This supports players with diverse cognitive strengths or sensory preferences.
• Clear Roles and onboarding: The game begins with short in-character bios and tutorial prompts, minimizing ambiguity. Each role includes unique but simple tasks that encourage agency without overwhelming new players. We also built a fallback hint system—visible cue cards the facilitator can reveal if a team is stuck for more than 5 minutes. We’ve also implemented the playbook for easy onboarding. 
• Non-Digital Flexibility: While some puzzles use screens or audio, none are fully dependent on high-end tech. The game can be played in a classroom, living room, or park space using props and phones. Players who prefer not to use a screen can rely on teammates or printed backup materials.
• Inclusive Tone: The game doesn’t rely on reading speed, trivia, or voice acting. Everything can be understood through collaboration and clear feedback loops. We playtested with a wide range of players and adjusted interaction length and clarity based on feedback.

Our goal was to make Disney Escape not just enjoyable, but accessible for as many players as possible. Tension should come from the story—not the interface. We’re proud of what we built, and excited about how this foundation can grow.

Links

1. Link to Github: https://github.com/c2boo/escapedisney
2. Link to final playtest/demonstration: https://youtu.be/0RTNLj8YOfA
3. Player Playbook:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z2pDOctdDsj7jvNAntCS8JzTceSBk1oz/view?usp=sharing 
4. Adventureland cards: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14LSA0wHJ5r89GrYKsatEhur0TzafD1J5/view?usp=sharing 
5. Toontown puzzle: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A6mRGjlBXC9KnSdZQLTY6HRFEPR7L72q/view?usp=sharing 

Final Playtest