For the second design phase, the approach taken by team was guided by the shift of the design goal at the end of phase one. With the new design goal – creating a product which helps to build a connection between the design team and the co-designer – aiming to allow for a more efficient and fruitful co-design sessions.
Since time was extremely limited, the resulting product had to be able to be made quickly, with simple means and materials. The outcome of Phase one had been that the product needs to be a tool for co-designing with an individual and be an aid in getting to know each other and form a deeper connection. The design process overall has been mostly verbal, with the occasional quick sketch to clarify ideas. This allowed for quickfire idea generation, with even seemingly silly ideas being shared to evaluate if positives can be drawn from them. Additionally, reverse brainstorming helped to find aspects that the product should not fulfil.
The simultaneous discussion of pros and cons while generating ideas enabled the project group to combine the best ideas and create something new and valuable. Even though time was limited, the project group valued each team members opinion in order to make something that can be enjoyed and presented proudly by everyone.
The following section is structured into WORK SESSIONS and the corresponding FEEDBACK SESSIONS that followed. During the work sessions the team focused on bringing new ideas to life and improving/ changing the existing ones based on the feedback received from the tutors.
Initially, the team engaged in a collective mind-mapping activity using post-it notes to identify the reasons for the project's lack of success thus far. It was concluded that insufficient communication with the co-designer and a failure to establish a clear direction for the project were the main contributing factors. The team identified several reasons for this, including language barriers, a lack of understanding of the project specifications, personal circumstances of individual team members, and a lack of deeper connection between the team and the case owner.
Notably, a significant obstacle to progress was a lack of curiosity on the part of both the design team and the co-designer. To overcome these issues, the team brainstormed possible interactive games to facilitate communication, ice-breaking, and mutual discovery of each other's personalities. It was emphasized that the game should be non-digital to ensure that tech literacy did not impede the experience. The outcome of the brainstorming session were 4-5 concept directions that the team would seek feedback on.
The team demonstrated their adaptability when the co-designer withdrew from the project and continued to make progress. The feedback received on the concept directions was critical, with emphasis on the need for more initiative in pursuing one of the options. It was concluded that further progress on the game could only be made by creating a prototype and experimenting with it. Consequently, the team decided to explore the city-building game, as it aligned with the case owner's interests in model building and prior experience in the engineering field. The team identified the potential to integrate game mechanics that would facilitate the co-designer's sharing of their interests, values, and personality. This would enable the team to create a game that was engaging and meaningful.
Building on that feedback, the project team immediately started working on the development of the game's mechanics. These included points of interest within a city, that reveal the players interests in discussion rounds and the task of making a model to be placed on the playing board. These so-called action cards were then further developed by brainstorming the types of buildings and activities of interest collectively by using a whiteboard. Notable action points were producing a physical prototype of the map and action cards to be presented for further refinement and receiving feedback.
Feedback on the low fidelity prototype of the games physical and dynamics aspect was the following: thinking about the feasibility of the model making aspect in relation to the accessibility to a workshop for people other than the specific case owner. Furthermore, thinking about creating an objective within the in-game layer of the game to increase the enjoyability and immersion into the game and finally, thinking about a way to collect the information given by the case owner.
The in-game objective has been added in form building a city and connecting settlements from the outskirts with roads. This also provided the opportunity to implement social questions to find out about not only interests but personality and values as well. Once all are connected, the game is won. Furthermore, to address data collection, a game master who can guide the discussion rounds and take notes has been implemented. They are also responsible for presenting the story and creating immersion into the game.
During a testing session with the tutor, problems that required further working out came up. Namely, it was concluded that the formfactor of the map being a large A0 sheet was not practical for transportation and setting up. The need for the population houses must be reflected upon since they do not add any value to the games purpose. Furthermore, some of the action cards were not aimed at the purpose of learning about each other. Overall, the feedback focused on rethinking some of the choices and aligning them with the products purpose. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Notable changes were made after the feedback session three (testing of first prototype)
Finally, a summary of last iteration of all the elements within the game and their connection to the design goal.
The Map – Its purpose is for visual immersion and worldbuilding for the game. It evolved from being a premade A0 size sheet to a customisable hexagon tile system. The reasons being, easier transportability, adding to the replay value and catering the world to the co-designers liking. It provides the base for the custom models and the paths to the settlements (where the social cards are triggered) to be placed on.
The Game Master – This game role was added to influence and control the flow of the game, like the length of discussions and keeping track of any relevant information. They introduce the co-designer and other players to the world and announces the rules. They can guide the players towards the right topics with narration. Furthermore, since it was noted with the case owner (see persona), they can steer them into the right direction in case they are getting side-tracked towards irrelevant topics. Overall, they are responsible for keeping the players engaged and interested into the game.
The Action Cards – In the early design stages, the Action Cards were in the format of drawable playing cards (similar to Chance/Community Cards in Monopoly) and evolved into a visual story telling device (in form of a booklet) presented by the game master. Their goal driven purpose is evoking discussion about each other’s interests and hobbies. Furthermore, the activity presents itself as a team building opportunity where the players learn to design together and make compromises. The premise is building points of interests that are important for a flourishing and interesting town and discussing about those interests. The storytelling booklet promotes engagement and immersion into the games story as well as a guide the narrator through progressing the game.
The Social Cards – When discussing the in-game goal, the concept of chaos cards came up. They were meant to disrupt the game by destroying sections and creating the need to build around those events. Further down the line, after realigning towards the aim of getting to know each other they evolved into social questions, since besides finding information about the persons interest a need for questions with deeper meaning arose. They are triggered when a settlement has been connected.
The Model Making – Initially, its purpose was to implement an activity into the game that the co-designer is passionate about. At the intermediate stage, that activity had been planned to be done at the workshop of the case owners' location. Yet, to make the game an appealing co-design activity for broader audiences, basic materials (Clay, toothpicks, paperclips, paper and modelling tools) are provided out of the box. Finally, since working on one small model simultaneously is not feasible, the activity is delegated to the co-designer in their free time. It gives them the opportunity to think about their design more deeply if they wish and add their own personal touch to the activity. It also keeps them invested into the process as the game is meant to be played over multiple (2-3) sessions.
The Notepad – At first, the notepad was meant to be a miniature version of the playable map for each individual player to visualise their ideas for placement of roads and buildings. With the game mechanics evolving, so did this game element. Now, it is closer to a regular notepad where the players write down their arguments and sketches for the model building. Additionally, it features some guiding questions related to the action cards. They are also kept by the project group of the end for data collection. Insights to be gained are the co-designers' limitations, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. This may reveal areas they need support in.
The Roads – In its first stages, the game had less guidance and promoted free road placement and city design. On the A0-Map Version of the game, these would be drawn on with markers. During the testing session, it was discovered that they did not serve any purpose and added complications and confusion to the game. Now they are placed on the edges of the hexagon tiles and contribute to the in-game goal of connecting the settlements. Furthermore, they add an incentive to do well in the discussions and act as a form of rewarding currency since they are important to achieve the goal of connecting all settlements.
The Seed Map – Initially, the Seed Map has been a card drawn at the start of the game to randomise the starting layout of the city and add some replay value to it. With the game evolving during the design process and choices being finalised, the seed card had to be changed into the seed map, which depicts the layout of where the settlements are located. At the beginning, the seed card was for the players to draw a random starting point. Now, it is a tool for game master to set up the game. Quite literally, it is an image of the fully set up hexagons with locations of the settlements marked.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.