Following playtests of the first and second game iterations, feedback was provided by Dieuwertje Schuur MSc, an expert in interaction design and play. She observed that the use of dice as the primary mechanism for determining both movement and action significantly limited players’ ability to influence their progression in the game. Because outcomes were largely dictated by chance, players experienced reduced agency and found it difficult to make meaningful strategic decisions.
This feedback highlighted a tension between randomness and player control within the game mechanics. While the dice-based system introduced unpredictability, it did not sufficiently support the intended experiential goal of negotiating time, effort, and access within bureaucratic systems. These insights directly informed subsequent design decisions, particularly the shift away from chance-driven progression toward mechanics that allow players to actively manage and negotiate their movement through the game.
Feedback from Rob Zoeteweij MA, expert and lecturer in Game Design, focused on the relationship between gameplay complexity, player experience, and temporal progression. He observed that the accumulation of mechanics and mini-games in the first and second iterations risked fragmenting the overall play experience. This fragmentation, he noted, made it more difficult for players to maintain momentum and for the game to remain within the intended time constraints of a single session. He therefore advised further simplification of the gameplay and a reduction in the number of mini-games to improve flow and support clearer progression.
At the same time, he expressed strong enthusiasm for the use of task cards as a central game mechanic. He identified the cards as an effective way to translate setbacks and moments of success into meaningful gameplay events. His recommendation was to deliberately align the card system with the core actions and decisions players need to make in the game, rather than treating cards as incidental or decorative elements.
To support this approach, Zoeteweij recommended drawing explicitly on established game design frameworks, in particular Schell’s The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses (2019) and the MDA framework (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004). From this perspective, simplifying mechanics (Mechanics) would allow for more coherent player experiences (Dynamics) and clearer emotional and experiential outcomes (Aesthetics), especially in a game that aims to evoke empathy, frustration, cooperation, and relief. The task cards, in this reading, function as a primary carrier of meaning, shaping player dynamics through structured encounters rather than through chance or excessive rule complexity.
This feedback directly informed the refinement of the card system into clearly defined categories: helper cards, misfortune cards, location cards (to emphasise the Rotterdam-specific character of the game), lucky cards, and scenario cards designed to explore the lived experiences of people with limited literacy in greater depth. By aligning these categories with meaningful in-game actions and experiential goals, the card system became a deliberate design instrument rather than a secondary feature, strengthening both gameplay clarity and the research aims of the project.
References
Schell, J. (2019). The art of game design: A book of lenses (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004, July). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research [Paper presentation]. AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Games AI, San Jose, CA, United States.
Leave a Reply