ahandrewh teaches IAT-165game design and development

Critical play #1 (due February 4)

On this page:

What are critical play reflections?

Critical play reflections are an opportunity to engage with games beyond just play — to unpack the biases, values and experiences of games. These reflections require that you play at least a portion of a game (board or videogame) and then reflection and critique how the game presents particular biases, values and/or experiences. The structure of this reflection and critique is detailed in the instructions.

This reflection is completed individually and is worth 10% of your final grade.

Instructions

The instructions below detail the process to follow for completing the critical play reflection. You have a number of weeks over which to complete it.

  1. Select a video or board game that you would like to complete the reflection with. This has been left open for you to explore an area that interests you but you will be required to play the game, so please ensure you have access to it. The SFU Surrey library has a games library that you can borrow from if you need some options and if you have any questions about your choice before proceeding please ask Andrew.
  2. Prepare to review the game's mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics.
    • Make sure you have read through "MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research" (Hunicke et al, 2013) — also available on Canvas as a PDF.
    • Make a cheat-sheet of key ideas from the article to look for while playing.
    • Keep in mind that you will experience the game 'in reverse' as a player — first experiencing the aesthetics, then understanding some of the dynamics and to some extent the mechanics (though you will not be expected to explain specific algorithms).
  3. Play through at least 1 hour of gameplay (for video games) or one full game (if board game). During the playthrough make sure to pause to capture:
    • Notes on mechanics, dynamics or aesthetics that describe the game's experience.
    • Screenshots, photos, or short videos (<10 seconds) to help illustrate your description of the game.
    • Replay particular mechanics or dynamics of the game as necessary to ensure you feel that you can effectively explain them.
  4. Prepare to critique the game in the context of accessibility.
  5. Play through at least 1 hour of gameplay (for video games) or one full game (if board game). If this is a video game you can replay the first hour.
    • It is important that this playthrough is done separately from the first one to help you focus and effectively capture concerns.
    • Take notes, screenshots, photos, or short videos (<10 seconds) on accessibility concerns that you encounter.

You will use the content from your process to form the critical play review described below.

Submission

The final submission is a standalone write-up. This means that we should be able to understand everything we need to within the document itself without playing the game ourselves.

The write-up should contain the following:

Final submission

You may submit a PDF or URL to a website that contains your report.

Your project submission is due to Canvas before your February 4 class.

Please make sure double-check all your submitted URLs to ensure they can be opened. We want to avoid late or problematic submission penalties whenever possible.

Grading

Please email Andrew with any questions about the rubric.

A B C D/F

Included the requested pieces (2 pt)

All requested materials have been completed and included.

One requested material has not been completed and/or is not included.

Two requested materials have not been completed and/or is not included.

Critical reflection (4 points): 'Is it critical reflection on the game?'
  • The description of the mechanics, dynamic and aesthetics demonstrates a strong understanding of the described portion of the game.
  • The accessibility concern is clearly defined, described and supported by the article.
  • The description of the mechanics, dynamic and aesthetics demonstrates an understanding of the described portion of the game.
  • The accessibility concern is defined, described and somewhat supported by the article.
  • The description of the mechanics, dynamic and aesthetics demonstrates some understanding of the described portion of the game. Explanation feels incomplete or unclear at times.
  • The accessibility concern is somewhat defined and/or described. Connection to the article is unclear.
  • The description of the mechanics, dynamic and aesthetics demonstrates little understanding of the described portion of the game.
  • The accessibility concern is not clearly defined and/or described. Article does not support explanation.

Effective rationale (3 points): 'Does it show and tell effectively?'
  • The explanation uses supporting artifacts effectively — i.e. images, quotes, process material, etc. — to present an easy-to-understand review without extra, un-related materials.
  • Writing is within word limits.
  • The explanation uses supporting artifacts — i.e. images, quotes, process material, etc. — to present an easy-to-understand review with some extra, un-related materials.
  • Writing is within word limits.
  • The explanation uses some supporting artifacts — i.e. images, quotes, process material, etc. — to present an understandable review with some extra, un-related materials.
  • Writing is within word limits.
  • The explanation uses few supporting artifacts — i.e. images, quotes, process material, etc. — to present a confusing review with materials that are not clearly related.
  • Writing is significantly over or under word limits.

Citations (1 pt)

Citations are provided in a consistent, standard (APA, MLA, or otherwise) format for all materials.

Citations are provided in a consistent, non-standard format and/or some citations appear to be missing.

Citations are provided in an in-consistent format and/or many citations appear to be missing.