Before this class, I thought about play and game design mostly as something I enjoyed from the outside. I liked playing games, but I would not have considered myself a gamer. I usually judged games by whether they were fun, beautiful, stressful, or immersive, not by how they were constructed. I did not think as much about how much intention sits behind a rule, a choice, a locked path, a puzzle clue, or even the feeling a game creates.
Through 247G, I learned to see games as designed experiences rather than just entertainment. P1 helped me realize that a game does not have to look like a traditional game to create meaning. It pushed me to think about games as expressive systems, where mechanics, visuals, constraints, and player choices can communicate an idea. I started to pay more attention to what a game makes the player notice, feel, and interpret. P1 helped me understand that play can be a form of reflection, not just a goal-based activity. P2 taught me something different because we had to actually build a larger playable experience. Our team created a hybrid digital and analog puzzle game where the player explores a jungle research camp, solves puzzles, collects clues, and eventually reaches a temple to lift a curse. At first, I thought the main challenge would be inventing fun puzzles. As we worked, I realized the bigger challenge was making every part of the game feel connected and understandable.
One class concept that stuck with me was the idea that prototypes are not just unfinished versions of final products. The prototype reading helped me understand that a prototype can answer different kinds of questions, such as what role the experience plays, how it looks and feels, or how it is implemented. This helped me reframe both projects. In P1, the prototype helped test whether the core concept and feeling came through. In P2, the prototype tested whether our main loop worked: exploring the world, finding clues, solving puzzles, using items, and progressing toward a final goal.
I implemented this learning by focusing more on clarity and cohesion. Instead of trying to add more features, I tried to think about what each interaction was doing for the player. In P2, the river crossing needed to feel like a natural obstacle in the world, not just a random puzzle gate. The player notices that the current is too strong, finds wooden planks, and builds a boat to keep moving forward. Moments like that helped me understand how mechanics can support the experience when they are grounded in the player’s goal.
The biggest challenge I faced was creating a cohesive experience while actually building out P2. It was easier to explain the concept than to make it function smoothly. Once we started building, every puzzle had to connect to the digital scenes, inventory system, and analog materials. Sometimes a puzzle made sense alone but felt disconnected from the digital world. Other times, the digital part worked, but the analog component felt separate from the rest of the experience.
I grew by becoming more comfortable with iteration and limits. I learned that constraints can help a team focus on what matters most. Next time, I would test earlier, connect analog materials more naturally to the digital world, and refine transitions between areas. 247G taught me that play is designed through details, and that games become meaningful when their systems, interactions, and goals work together.
