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
1,224 个评分
316 条评论

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:

276 - 游戏设计原理 的 300 个评论(共 302 个)

创建者 Austin C

Mar 02, 2016

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

创建者 Shalia W

Nov 14, 2015

Interesting ideas but a bit disorganized.

创建者 Sumesh P

Jun 13, 2017

This is less action and more theory.

创建者 mahmoud o a s

Sep 28, 2019

no more practical assignment

创建者 Lewis H

Nov 02, 2015

Quizzes need redone

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 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 David A

Aug 20, 2017

While the content itself was very helpful, I feel that the grading itself is very broken. To start, a "passing grade" is 60%, which is failing by most other grading standards. Additionally, and even more so, to even pass you need to be rated "above and beyond" on a couple of criteria. I'm personally an over-achiever, so I try to do that anyway--but, it's really disheartening when I put myself into it, and get graded by my peers saying that I "went above and beyond" but not "epic". Seems very very subjective. The very fact that I can get a 100% from one reviewer and 40% from another seems to indicate that the scoring mechanism could use some work.

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 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 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 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

创建者 Anastasia R

Feb 08, 2018

It's so boring and so far away from realities of contemporary game development so I lost all the will to see these courses at all, for several months.

创建者 Ahmed A

Feb 28, 2017

not good

创建者 Robert W

May 01, 2016

After the excellent first course in the specialisation, this was quite a disappointment.

I realise that the subject matter in this course will inevitably involve abstract concepts and subjective opinions, but I didn't really 'get' the way that Casey was presenting the subject given that there were quizzes and assignments to follow.

That's not to say that the videos aren't interesting. But, given their rambling style, they would be much more useful as reference material rather than driving the course, in my opinion.

Many of the questions in the quizzes felt like they'd been added simply to make them up to the correct number. Some were so loose that you could write any answer and I'm sure you'd get a mark!

Also, I'd say not to even start this course unless you have a clear idea for a game. The assignments require you to produce design documents that are tedious, going on impossible, to write without some firm rooted idea to start from.

Maybe if you really want to be a game designer then this will be the course for you. If you are doing the course out of curiosity, for fun, or to learn how to control Unity, I'd give it a miss.

创建者 Jason M

Dec 03, 2015

I didn't like the class despite getting 100% on pretty much every assignment. I learned very little from the class. I don't think 99% of what was in the class was useful to me at all. The grading for the class had ludonarrative dissonance with the quizzes. The projects were graded by peers, but the rubric was nonsensical. 1-5 scale for submitting a PDF, for example. So, someone might give you a 1 for submitting the PDF and thus you wouldn't get a full-score. It was just idiotic.

创建者 Ricardo S A

Dec 03, 2015

One of the worst courses that I have taken in coursera.

The videos feel unstructured without preparation and boring.

The quizes are subjective. You can pass all of then without watching a single video or lecture.

The assignments are interesting but the way of grading them are bad designed and subjective.

Sad, I passed this course without trouble but made me stop wanting to get the full specialization.

Spartans! Review the course or better close it. Its a shame.

创建者 Mohab R

Jan 19, 2016

Not very informative content, some parts are interesting but not worth the money.

The worst thing is, all assignments are writting work that are evaluated by colleagues, meaning, it is purely objective, to the extent that one question asks if my uploaded file is in a readable format, example pdf, txt...etc and two out of three marking my pdf file as not!!! and not even leaving a comment why they are giving that bad score on obvious things!

创建者 Dmitry K

Sep 23, 2017

Poor organized. Evaluation system based on peer reviews, when you share your ideas and concepts without any protection. Evaluation criteria are very subjective. Very disappointing. I have unsubscribed from whole specialization because of that course

创建者 Eyal B

Mar 19, 2017

Hard to follow, ideas are not organized and are not well presented. Lecturer has many pauses, that even on increased playback speed (x1.25), are still distracting. Do not recommend!

创建者 Kostiantyn W

Sep 26, 2016

That person should not teach. Nobody. The person is not able to construct a sentence without denial and course has really little information, but lots of empty talking.

创建者 Ma P

Jul 06, 2017

the course content are far from practical

Unlike the session 1 which is useful

this session include too many part I want to skip

创建者 Stefan H

Aug 04, 2018

Extremely disappointing, nothing I could use in any practical way.

创建者 Benjamin P

Apr 29, 2017

The quiz feedbacks are empty, this is not good.