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 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 Sumesh P

Jun 13, 2017

This is less action and more theory.

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 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 Tatiana K

Feb 12, 2018

The content for reading is great, but in the videos the lecturer often spends a lot of time on things which seem a bit too general and vague. Although, may be idea development of a game is vague.

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 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 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 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 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 Iggy Z

Oct 07, 2017

Pretty basic stuff, though it does spark a few ideas.

创建者 Anna P

Jul 31, 2017

While this course includes a lot of useful information, all the peer review assignments are extremely unclear. For example, in the end of the course you suppose to release a prototype of your game but it would be a surprise to you, because since the beggining you were just imagining things and writing documentation about imaginary game you'd like to build. And then turns out that you have to BUILD a protorype of this game or at very least to write down all the mechanics and how they work. Not to mention the size of these assignments, they are quite big and if you are not a designer or an artist you won't get max grade on them.

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 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 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 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 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 Ahmed A

Feb 28, 2017

not good

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 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 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 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