GameStorming with Purpose and EDI discussion

GameStorming with Purpose

About the game persona, Game, simulation, or simulation-game, potential title, core dynamic, description of the idea, shared ideas, and references.

See my assignment PDF file here: level3-assignment-kaymo-v3


Hi Kay, your idea at this stage is well developed so I’m looking forward to seeing your exploration in 4: Gamestorming as well to see if other mechanics or elements may help build on what you have as a foundation. You have a lot of great detail included and you can find some of my notes in the rubric feedback as well. I like that you have also considered the prototyping tool you could use so you would know what was possible for you to design for. You are off to a fantastic start and as you progress I hope to continue acting as a sounding-board to help keep the project manageable as a highly complex game would be too much for one person to design. 😀

Thank you for your thorough feedback. It’s wonderful for me to benefit from your feedback and take more time in the design phase. I have used your comments to modify my blog post “4:0 Client LIVE Communication” at:👍😀


Discussion about EDI

In the Editorial by Hersh & Leporini (2018), several papers from the special issue are summarized. Select one of the summaries and explain if the authors of the summary are truly addressing the points made by Hersh and Leporini about designing for all – without losing the intent to be engaging and fun. Is the summary addressing the concerns completely, partially, or not at all and why do you think so?

Hersh & Leporini (2018) observed that some games focused on particular impairments. For example CRPBlind focused only on Blind users. The summary did not address the concerns of the authors. Videos games are expensive to develop. Project are initiated by sponsors that have some specific purpose or goal in mind. Designing for all may add a cost or require additional competencies in the design team. The scope of the project may include only specific inclusive features.

Reflect on Yourself as a Learner-Player 

With modern games, I find it challenging to figure out how to move the characters and use “physical dexterity” to advance in the game. Most of the time, I have to find a walk-through otherwise, I stay stuck. The game industry wants to make you feel inexperienced, giving you an additional incentive to buy and play more games. How many games does one play, and how many hours are required to develop such specific skills per week?

I played “outbreak squad” and found the experience enjoyable. The game required listening and reading skills. The game featured easy physical interactions (mostly mouse clicks). I could figure out how to prioritize actions and use points. Overall, the game made me feel empathetic and empowered. I think the game could appeal to my “socializer”, “achiever”, and some “explorer” Bartle’s player type.

Reflect on Others as Learner-Players

I know many of my students (vocational high school) play games, often in the late evening. They are interested in something other than improving their skills in basic mathematics. Why do they value gameplay more rather than acquiring math skills that will open them to many STEM career options? Unfortunately, they are caught in a dream that can quickly become a trap.

The game industry has a lot to do to address ethics. Here is a provocative thought: does our society needs inclusive games and risk spreading even more the video game addiction?

Regarding the “outbreak squad”, I liked that Bartle’s player type of “killers” was ignored. This game could help students develop strategic thinking and leadership skills in an ethical and effective way. I was learning how to protect humanity from a threat without panicking, using all help and expertise available, doing their best to cover all, and being inclusive and aware of vulnerable people.

Response to peer:

I liked that you mentioned what is pleasing for you in a game. I agree that cute characters do a lot to make a game engaging for me as well. I’m curious about the feelings of guilt you mentioned in your joke. Maybe society pressures some of us to be serious all the time and study hard?

Serious game producers assert that we could play and learn at the same time. How about a scale on the packaging? Like the age rating? Maybe a learning rating? That could be helpful for parents to get more information about a game’s learning component.


Great discussion with your peers and also introducing a very real issue facing teens and adults alike – game addiction. This is very much an issue and something that constantly challenges good designs – oftentimes we have to consider how our designs could be engaging – for example too much chance (one of the particular forms of play that inherently aligns with addition like gambling). Your own reflection I think will be further meaningful for your peers as well as some are avid game players and may not think as much about the physical dexterity of modern games (which is very much an issue!).