Before the class, I thought this…
Before class, I had no experience designing games. Although I had previously interned as a software engineer for the mobile game company Devsisters, I wasn’t involved in the game design process. I initially thought this class would focus on building high-fidelity digital games, but I was surprised to learn so much more about different game mediums and genres—from system games to interactive fiction. This class not only taught me how to design effective games with explicit goals, but it also exposed me to the vast possibilities within the game design world.
In class I did these things and learned…
First, I learned how challenging it is to design a serious game with an educational or thematic goal by directly embedding thematic elements into the mechanics. In P1, my team made American Dream, a board game aimed at teaching students about the challenges and unfairness of immigrating to the United States. The greatest challenge was creating mechanics and rules that reflected real-life obstacles rather than simply “pasting” an immigration theme onto basic gameplay. For example, our team put considerable thought into mechanics like the Seasons cycle, which restricted players’ actions—such as applying for a visa—based on realistic seasonal constraints. However, the biggest lesson from P1 was that by focusing too heavily on simulation, our game became increasingly complex, requiring memorization of unintuitive rules and ultimately making the experience less engaging than we hoped.
Second, I learned that interactive fiction requires aligning the narrative with the player’s GMC (Goal, Motivation, and Conflict), and that creating a multi-dimensional, empathetic character is crucial. For example, my P2 game Trial 47 required many iterations to realistically convey the lab rabbit’s fear, confusion, and pain. I initially wrote an ending where the rabbit could save its friends and escape, but I later removed it after receiving feedback that this level of agency felt implausible. Instead of dramatic actions, I focused on subtle gestures like examining lab notes, sniffing objects, or comforting other rabbits. Because the protagonist was an animal, it was challenging to avoid making the game feel gimmicky, which could detract from players’ emotional engagement with the issue of lab testing.
Third, I learned that good game balance requires extensive playtesting, and it was one of the most difficult aspects of designing my P4 game Not On My Block. We worked to adjust our asymmetric game so that the power between the Developer and Residents felt balanced and so no single dominant strategy emerged. To address this, we made multiple tweaks to movement counts, experimented with different actions and restrictions (e.g., allowing diagonal moves, adjusting rules for moving onto Luxury Developments, and refining criteria for Temporary vs. Permanent Protection). In P4, we created a shorter 11×11 board version (P3 was 15×15), which required significant recalibration, including removing the Developer’s ability to move diagonally. Overall, I was most proud of this game because we received highly positive feedback from playtesters on how balanced and intellectually stimulating it was. In the future, I wonder if we could mathematically determine the optimal number of moves, as suggested in the playtesting reading. One of our playtesters even enjoyed the game so much that he plans to create an AI solver for his CS299 class.
Fourth, I learned the importance of clear onboarding and well-written rules. While explaining rules verbally was relatively easy, writing concise and consistent instructions in an intuitive order proved much harder. We especially noticed this in P4 since our rules—particularly edge cases—were complex. In one playtest with participants unfamiliar with the game, many points of confusion emerged, prompting us to update the Rule Book and add a new FAQ section. We also recognized the value of good user experience, so we included components such as mini cheat sheets for each player to reference throughout the game.
Lastly, I was excited to learn new skills, such as building IF games on Twine and creating high-fidelity physical games through laser cutting and 3D printing. Producing polished, professional-looking components with these methods made me even more motivated to create meaningful games that people can genuinely enjoy and learn from. It was especially encouraging to see how engaged players were with Not On My Block—even friends we “forced” to playtest often didn’t want the session to end and asked to play another round.
When I go to make games in the future, I will…
When I go make games in the future, I will apply all these lessons. For every project, I’ll begin by using the MDAO framework to ensure that intrinsic motivations and in-game goals are meaningfully connected to real-world outcomes. Throughout the iteration process, I’ll conduct extensive playtesting to refine my designs, gather actionable feedback, and achieve a balanced experience—one that is challenging, strategically engaging, and not overly dependent on chance. Lastly, I’ll devote careful attention to writing clear, concise, and intuitive rules to make onboarding smoother; this becomes especially critical if a game is intended for public release, since players won’t engage with a game whose rules are confusing or overwhelming. In short, I’m excited to carry these lessons forward and apply them to all my future game design work.
