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
1,145 个评分
296 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:

226 - 游戏设计原理 的 250 个评论(共 283 个)

创建者 Alex A

Nov 18, 2018

Feels dead - not too much mentor/admin activity.

Also, difficult course to rely solely on peer feedback, as it's all highly subjective.

Overall I had a great fun time further flushing out my ideas and learning how to transform them into working prototypes; however, being siloed to feedback from a few "low-quality" peer reviewers is eroding my experience, it would be better if Coursera/this course could ensure a diversity of peer reviewers. Right now it feels like I'm being trolled vs. receiving actionable feedback to improve.

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 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 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 Chase C

Nov 19, 2017

There was some useful knowledge in this course, however I'm not certain the professor is the best choice. He is very difficult to follow, is not concise, and at times seems to space out during the lecture. The quizzes are even worse, as they don't clearly teach...sometimes allowing for any selection to be the "right" answer. My main comlaint about this course is how they assign a project, with no forewarning of complexity, or prior explanation. For example, the final project is to build a prototype, but in none of the videos did it explain this would be coming. I was very late to submit because I have no knowledge of building a digital game, so I had to rush and figure out a way to build an entirely new game which didn't match all of the digital game documentation I've built through the course. This is a terrible design of the course and needs to be changed.

创建者 Andres M

Oct 27, 2015

Although the course content is highly informative and interesting, the way it's all presented it not the best, most of the time concepts are confusing because of this, quizzes become guessing games most of the time. Forums feel neglected by the course tutor, lot's of question that someone knowledgeable should answer become random rambling as nobody is sure as to what the tutor actually meant. As somebody said on the forums "I feel like I'm alpha testing your course".

创建者 Arturo E

Dec 12, 2015

The course material is good, and Casey always gives further reads and references. I specially liked to have book references and I started to read one of those.

I found however a disconnection between the idea of using the MDA/DPE framework described in the course, and the actual projects which were more into creating the set of documents used in game design to collect the details, create a better picture, and think better about the game. In some way, the iterative process of coming back to the idea, from document to document, helped to refine the game, but it happened more as something natural.

I wished we would have had some sort of checklist to evaluate and apply during the design process the framework.

As feedback to the instructor, I think he needs to stop using the ending word "right?" to finish his sentences. At some point, of the course it became really difficult to follow, right?. right?. right? ... ufff ...

Also, I believe he knows a lot, but a bit of preparation and flow in his lectures would be appreciated. Maybe the use of some sort of autoclue, would help.

Last, but this could be more for the course editors, the instructor has good slides and material, but usually during the lectures the slides disappear (just in the moment one need to focus his attention in the written material) and the instructor appears in first plane. I think you could keep the instructor in a PIP box all the time, and perhaps put him in first plane only at the beginning and end.

创建者 Sumesh P

Jun 13, 2017

This is less action and more theory.

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 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 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 Lewis H

Nov 02, 2015

Quizzes need redone

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 David M

Apr 09, 2018

Not as practical as the first course of this specialization, It would be nice if the videos showed images of the games when the professor is talking about them instead of the same three diagrams.

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 Simone D S

Mar 19, 2017

The course is interesting.

The peer-review assigment and grading system is the weak park of this course : you are asked to do a prototype in one week that must be reviewed "pretty epic" from the other students for the highest grade.

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 Chanchana S

Oct 11, 2016

Nice abstraction about all kinds of games not about a specific game genre. But I'm not into it because I like developing games more than thinking about design. This course's homework is somewhat irrelevant of the course content.

创建者 Jaime R

Dec 12, 2015

Content is interesting but the lectures and the content is far below the first course in the series in my opinion.

创建者 Robert M

Sep 05, 2016

The quizzes were too short to be effective, and without requiring written feedback from peer review, the process doesn't seem very useful. The best information was from the articles and books he recommends.

创建者 Samuel I

May 02, 2017

Great Instructor videos, bad assignments and peer grading system.

"Is the file submitted as PDF? Rate from 1 to 5" everyone puts 1 as my score even if I submitted it as PDF file, should be a yes or no question.

创建者 Alon A

Jun 03, 2018

Wasnt all that helpfull, very optimistic though