I thoroughly enjoyed taking CS 247G, Design for Play, this quarter. Before this class, I considered myself a typical gamer—focused on moment-to-moment enjoyment, without much thought about the systems or intent behind game design. I had a surface-level understanding of concepts like mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics, and I appreciated engaging visuals and responsive controls. But I didn’t grasp how all the elements worked together to shape a cohesive player experience. This course completely transformed how I think about games. I now understand that game design is a deliberate, iterative process that balances many goals—player agency, challenge, engagement, and meaning. Through hands-on projects and design critiques, I developed a vocabulary for both analyzing and creating games. The MDA (Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics) framework helped me see how even small design choices—like changing a jump height or resource cost—can ripple through the system and affect the overall experience. More importantly, I’ve learned to think like a designer. I no longer evaluate games just by asking, “Is this fun?” but rather, “Why is this fun?” and “How does this system work?” I now regularly consider factors like onboarding, difficulty curves, and accessibility—elements I previously overlooked. This shift has taken me from being a passive consumer to someone who critically engages with games, not just to play them, but to understand and improve them.
Two areas of the course that resonated most with me were the formal elements of game design and our ongoing discussions around ethics. The eight formal elements—players, objectives, procedures, rules, resources, conflict, boundaries, and outcomes—now form an internal framework I use whenever I engage with a game. They’ve sharpened how I evaluate structure and flow, helping me understand why some designs feel seamless while others fall apart. Just as impactful were the ethical discussions. These extended beyond game mechanics to ask deeper questions about who games are designed for—and who they may exclude. Our conversations about accessibility, inclusivity, and representation pushed me to think about games not just as systems, but as cultural artifacts. Questions like “Who can play this game?” and “Whose stories are being told?” now feel inseparable from the design process. What surprised me most was how these ethical ideas applied beyond games—especially to academic and course design. I began reflecting on how classrooms, like games, are designed systems. The same principles—clarity of objectives, inclusive structure, accessibility—can be used to support students from a wide range of backgrounds and abilities. This realization has influenced how I approach my current role as a TA and how I think about my future in academia. Together, the formal elements gave me the analytical tools to dissect games, while the ethical lens gave me a sense of responsibility in how I design. This dual perspective has been one of the most valuable takeaways from CS 247G and continues to shape how I think about learning environments, interactive systems, and inclusive design. I now apply these ideas not only in my game design projects but especially when thinking about educational design. If I were to take this class again, I would dive even deeper into the intersection of games and learning—exploring how principles of play can be used to make education more engaging, equitable, and effective. It’s a space I’m excited to keep exploring.
