Chevron Left
返回到 游戏设计原理

学生对 密歇根州立大学 提供的 游戏设计原理 的评价和反馈

4.4
1,170 个评分
304 个审阅

课程概述

You have a great idea for a game. Turning that idea into a reality isn't just about knowing the tools. In this course you will practice moving from game concept through design documentation, prototyping and testing. Numerous elements go into the overall process of game design. These range from topics such as idea generation, story, character, and game world development, game mechanics and level design, and user experience design. You will explore the process for designing meaningful experiences for your players. At the end of the course learners will have produced a game's high concept document, one page blueprint, a physical prototype, pitch and supporting design documentation to move from an idea in your head to a fleshed out design, ready for implementation....

热门审阅

JR

Mar 27, 2016

Great course!\n\nThought I wouldn't use the stuff that I learned in the videos at first, but as I started working on my own projects, I realised it was very important knowledge for a game developer.

MC

Apr 03, 2017

This course helps your game go from concept to reality. It pushed me to get a digital prototype made and ready to demo. Great depth of information related to game design and the gaming industry.

筛选依据:

251 - 游戏设计原理 的 275 个评论(共 290 个)

创建者 Scott T R

Dec 21, 2015

This class started out very rocky and the videos had errors, the quizzes had problems, and the assignments had a poor grading system. Hopefully, these will be corrected in future offerings.

创建者 Julio C B O

Jan 12, 2016

The information is great, but I think they need to make this course in two phases because there was a lot of information to process and the assignments need more time if you want to do a good work. The other part that I didn't like was that the information doesn't really correspond to what you actually need to do for your assignments, I think the course needs more videos and examples of how to create the required documents.

创建者 Юдин И

Mar 25, 2016

Tasks are different in complexity, but time is given the same.

Speaker's constantly interrupts sentences. Hard to understand for people, who bad speek English.

Questions for peer review are bad:

"Mark 5 if work amasing". But we just student, our work are rough, not amasing. And everybody can grade as he wish.

创建者 Peter B S

Mar 06, 2017

I found that the momentum build in the first course of the "Game Design and Development" specialization was lost when going into Principles of Game Design. In my opinion the course became too focused on the theory, where it could have combined the learnings of "Introduction to Game Development" with the principles of game design in a 50/50 ish combination.

However, if your sole purpose is the theory of games and game design, and you do attend the course in relation to the specialization, then by all means, it's a decent course.

创建者 Brian S P J

Jun 25, 2018

Good course, but the weekly projects are very open-ended to peer discretion. I did what I was supposed to do for the final project, but got a 68% for whatever reason (no one commented any feedback). Most peers don't understand the assignments.

创建者 Austin C

Mar 02, 2016

Didn't learn as much as intro to game dev'.

创建者 Michele G

Nov 29, 2016

The course covers a lot of interesting topics i a short time, citing external documents, webpages and books; sometimes some questions in the quiz refer to external documents.

About the assignment: it start quite easy, about high concept, story bible, game design document, making the student write more and more detailed, focusing all the attention on the documents. Than, at week4, you need to create a prototype, digital or non-digital, based on your creations. I found this unexpected and really it's unrealistic to be able to create a decent prototype in the same amount of time given to write a document.

About the grading system: to take the best score, you need to go "epicly" beyond the call of duty. I don't like that. A student should take the maximum score if he does everything required, and he/she does it good. No need to overdo in my opinion.

About the quiz: if you make mistakes, he doesn't tell you what's wrong, he doesn't show you the right answer. It's not a problem of the Coursera platform, as in the previous course, the teacher filled the quiz with all the explaination of the correct and incorrect answers.

So, should i suggest this course? Well the topics are interesting, they could have been transmitted better, with better assignments and grading score.

创建者 Lewis H

Nov 02, 2015

Quizzes need redone

创建者 Mitja C

Apr 04, 2017

The course touched just the basics of game design principles. Everything was mostly theory based without any practical examples. I was expecting some kind of other approach of teaching this kind of topic.

创建者 Dave J

Jun 15, 2017

The hours required for the assignments is well above the 2 hours stated. Also, there is no required comments on feedback, which can be very frustrating.

Otherwise, the material is interesting, and well presented.

创建者 Alon A

Jun 03, 2018

Wasnt all that helpfull, very optimistic though

创建者 Kelly

Feb 21, 2016

One big user-experience comment is that I wish that the videos had been edited; there are many long pauses and times where there is a lot of talking around the thing that you actually want to say. I think you have some great things to say, but perhaps streamlining those ideas and editing out the times when you need to pause to think (which is definitely legitimate when recording yourself!) or other things of that nature, would have definitely cut down on the length of the videos. Long videos aren't bad, if they are well put-together and conveying information in an engaging way.

创建者 Nenad N

Feb 06, 2016

This course has a good starting point, but there are so many things that ended up being wrong that I just can't force myself to give it more than 3 stars (and I'm not sure if it should be 3 or 2 stars). I think this is also the first course on Coursera that didn't get 5 stars from me (not sure if I've given 4 stars once only).

So the bad parts first:

Assignments are so unrealistic it's unbelievable. Week 1 is doable. Week 2 is problematic if you have a complex idea, let's say it's still doable, but you would certainly need more time than expected weekly hour work. Week 3 is insane. It is so out of the scope of this course. And week 4 is even worse, I had to use pen and paper and then explain only 1 of the core mechanics (even that used more than expected weekly hour work).

Some of the quizzes are not fully clear if you are not a native English speaker. Sometimes I had to re-read things several times, and still wasn't sure what I was doing wrong (I realized that only after I managed to literally guess the correct answer).

And most of all grading is the worst I've seen in any course. All of it based on a personal opinion. Hey I even managed not to get full points for a "document is HTML/PDF/....". I mean - how can I not get full points there? It either is or is not a HTML. It's so much subjective that it's making it awful.

Now about the good parts:

Professor did a great job, the course inspired so many ideas for me.

The material is concise and it was a pleasure listening to this course.

Most of the courses are too slow for me, so I have to fast forward them to 1.5 and some even to 2 times speed. I've run this course only on 1.25 speed, which is a good thing. I'm not a native English speaker.

创建者 Francois B

Nov 23, 2015

This course competes with a full specialization on Coursera with a slight flavor of the "Understanding Video Game" course also available on Coursera.

The grading is supported by quizzes and assignment associated to a poor grading system. I found this single class less challenging and interesting than the full specialization on Game Design from CalArts although it allows you to have another view of the process of Game Design in a more engineering way (e.g. writing documentation and not thinking on creating game...).

创建者 Pavel K

Apr 01, 2019

The main problem of this course is inadequate assessment of student work. No matter how well the work is done, the student cannot point out errors about which he himself admits. I am absolutely not sure that my game documents are not pieces of garbage.

Well, if Casey had learned to use the word "rigt" less often, it would have sounded much more convincing. Trying to calculate how many times for the course he uses it stopped at 300.

I would recommend adding more links to the GDC videos.

But do not forget about the pros. I never thought that I could write so much. A very important skill in expressing your own thoughts through writing. Explaining your idea to others was quite simple. Make it all in the form of a document - not. Thank you for that.

创建者 Marvin O S

Jun 07, 2019

The lectures are good and the instructor is clealy competent in Game Design. However, I feel that lectures are sometimes not straight to the point and tests contain questions, which are partially really tricky to answer. Furthermore, I disagree with the evaluation attribute "epic". I do not think that a small course project would ever be epic, nor do I think that this should be required. I believe that "feasible" would per already complex enough to achieve......

创建者 mahmoud o a s

Sep 28, 2019

no more practical assignment

创建者 Pedro M G

Jun 06, 2016

It appears the teacher doesn't take the necessary steps to polish content and tests, everything feels unstructured and ad-lib. Course videos don't seem to follow any kind of logic or purpose and tests are based on highly subjective content, but are not prepared to deal with the subjectivity of reviewers (i.e. forcing them to provide feedback instead of giving points arbitrarily).

创建者 Matheus G L

Jun 28, 2016

I will review this course appointing its pros and cons.

Pros:

- The instructor: he is a captivating person. It really seems that he like game development, he make jokes and try to make the course interesting. So, he’s personality is makes the course less boring.

Cons:

- The course name: when I saw “design” in the course name and the icon of course page, I thought it would be related to graphic design, or history telling and so on. But no, the “design” means “project”. So I think a better name would be “Principles of Game Project”. Although, it might be just me who thought this way, because in my language design means something totally different.

- The course content: this course should be at the end of the specialization. It is too much abstract and, in some aspects, very obvious. I will not say it is completely useless, because it is not. It gives us a structured view of the stages of game design and its documentation, but I think it would be better if it was like a case study.

- The assignments: probably the worst part of the course. They very very complex, to be sincere, none of the assignments I reviewed were full, I gave max grades to many because I think the person tried really hard to make it. Imagine this situation: you are not a programmer, not a graphic designer, not a writer and with a week you need to make a prototype of the game idea you’ve been working on course. This prototype must show the game mechanics and aesthetics, should be playable… And can be non digital? Come on, we are here learning the concepts of developments digital games and the instructor says that we can make a non digital prototype? Some people did it, and I can say for sure that I couldn’t imagine the real game. I made a digital prototype using the knowledge acquired from the first course, but as you can imagine, it is not enough to make our game ideas come true.

- The peer review system: the grading is completely non sense, as I said before, the assignments are complex, so it is difficult to show our ideas clearly in a document, without the abilities to make concept arts or something. In 2 of the 4 assignments 2 of the 3 people gave me max grades and 1 gave me bad grades, and did not left any feedback! One of the assignments when I first submitted it I got 12/20. Then, when I resubmitted it, without changing a comma, I got 20/20. So I think this system must change, maybe the mentor should do it.

If you want to do all the specialization, ok, go and do this course. But, if this is not your objective, do not waste your time.

创建者 Moisés P

Feb 13, 2016

The information is good but is going too fast and I don't feel I have learned much from it. I'm on week 3 and I'm still not sure of how to make my assignments in a proper way. The quizzes are very confusing too and sometimes I felt frustrated.

创建者 Ahmed A

Feb 28, 2017

not good

创建者 David E

Mar 09, 2018

The course content itself is good but the marking scheme for submissions is silly. For example, one of the main marking points is 'The submitted file opens correctly', yet you can be marked either 1,3 or 5 for this. With 3 described as being 'You did it' and 5 being 'Wow, that's amazing'. It's opening a file, nothing more. Its not going be be amazing. It should be '0 - Doesn't open' or '5 - Successfully opens'. This 1,3,5 marking with these labels is throughout

创建者 Bernhard H

Feb 01, 2016

While I really liked the first course I have massive problems with this course. The first 2 assignments, a high concept document and a story bible were doable.

But a full GDD and a prototype on week 3 and 4? These aren't part-time tasks for a few days, these are full-time tasks for at least a full month each to do them properly from scratch. These assignments are so unrealistically hard that they demotivate. And I'm saying that as someone who already had quite some ideas for one game and even started experimental programming. For people that are taking this specialization without a focus on game design and/or without ideas... this course is going to be hell to finish in time.

创建者 Piotr R

Dec 05, 2017

This lecturer is really annoying, ... ...

...

..., right?

No seriously, the majority of the material seems quite obvious and grading rules of the submissions are so unclear ("Wow, that was amazing!"). Moreover, the pacing of the submission feels unbalanced. A game design document made in a week? o_O

创建者 mandar s

Aug 09, 2016

why intro is so long?

it becomes boring without any physical interpretation of knowledge

can't you take at least one design project or demo

many things were said but very little went in head