1 box, 2 humans

- Applying Game Design to Research

 

THE OBJECTIVE

Make an interaction that illustrates a social problem as a 2-week assignment for our Games for Impact class.

THE OUTCOME

A research game intended to understand how individuals act under the constraints of space and the inability to communicate.

 

 

 

1 box, 2 humans

- Applying Game Design to Research

 

THE OBJECTIVE

To design an interaction that illustrates a social problem as a 2-week assignment for our Games for Impact class.

THE OUTCOME

A research game intended to understand how individuals act under the constraints of space and the inability to communicate.

 

 

 

1 box, 2 humans

- Applying Game Design to Research

 

THE OBJECTIVE

Make an interaction that illustrates a social problem as a 2-week assignment for our Games for Impact class.

THE OUTCOME

A research game intended to understand how individuals act under the constraints of space and the inability to communicate.

 

 

 

1 box, 2 humans

- Applying Game Design to Research

 

THE OBJECTIVE

Make an interaction that illustrates a social problem as a 2-week assignment for our Games for Impact class.

THE OUTCOME

A research game intended to understand how individuals act under the constraints of space and the inability to communicate.

 

 

 

1 box, 2 humans

- Applying Game Design to Research

 

THE OBJECTIVE

Make an interaction that illustrates a social problem as a 2-week assignment for our Games for Impact class.

THE OUTCOME

A research game intended to understand how individuals act under the constraints of space and the inability to communicate.

  

IMG_1060

 

STARTING WITH A BLANK CANVAS.

If you told me a few weeks ago, that a taped rectangle on the floor and 3 simple rules would have an effect on human behavior that was both revealing and discomforting, I would be skeptical. 

Our team decided to create an interaction illustrating the concept of consent and establishing boundaries in many social situations. Our interaction was a two-player interaction and we strived to make it as simple as we could. Both players could not talk to each other, or touch each other. The game was over when any player stepped outside the rectangle. However, both players had different goals. Player A had to be the only player in the box. Player B had to remain as far as possible from Player A, while still remaining in the box. We are calling Player A the Aggressor, and Player B the Defender.

 

Playtesting is a critical part of the game designing process in that it shows you all the various ways your game can fail.

It also shows you just how unique each individual is, and that even if you think you can predict what will happen, it rarely happens so. We tested our interaction numerous times with different individuals (and different gender combinations) so as to get a spectrum of reactions. 

 

STARTING WITH A BLANK CANVAS.

If you told me a few weeks ago, that a taped rectangle on the floor and 3 simple rules would have an effect on human behavior that was both revealing and discomforting, I would be skeptical. 

Our team decided to create an interaction illustrating the concept of consent and establishing boundaries in many social situations. Our interaction was a two-player interaction and we strived to make it as simple as we could. Both players could not talk to each other, or touch each other. The game was over when any player stepped outside the rectangle. However, both players had different goals. Player A had to be the only player in the box. Player B had to remain as far as possible from Player A, while still remaining in the box. We are calling Player A the Aggressor, and Player B the Defender.

 

Playtesting is a critical part of the game designing process in that it shows you all the various ways your game can fail.

It also shows you just how unique each individual is, and that even if you think you can predict what will happen, it rarely happens so. We tested our interaction numerous times with different individuals (and different gender combinations) so as to get a spectrum of reactions. 

 

STARTING WITH A BLANK CANVAS.

If you told me a few weeks ago, that a taped rectangle on the floor and 3 simple rules would have an effect on human behavior that was both revealing and discomforting, I would be skeptical. 

Our team decided to create an interaction illustrating the concept of consent and establishing boundaries in many social situations. Our interaction was a two-player interaction and we strived to make it as simple as we could. Both players could not talk to each other, or touch each other. The game was over when any player stepped outside the rectangle. However, both players had different goals. Player A had to be the only player in the box. Player B had to remain as far as possible from Player A, while still remaining in the box. We are calling Player A the Aggressor, and Player B the Defender.

Playtesting is a critical part of the game designing process in that it shows you all the various ways your game can fail.

It also shows you just how unique each individual is, and that even if you think you can predict what will happen, it rarely happens so. We tested our interaction numerous times with different individuals (and different gender combinations) so as to get a spectrum of reactions. 

 

IMG_0695
IMG_0699

 

 

What we started to learn:  

Physicalities matter. Often, even when a player had the goal of being the aggressor but they were physically smaller than their opponent, their roles often changed. The aggressor became the defender, and often conceded by stepping outside the box.


Past experiences matter. Even though this is a game/interaction and was tested in a supposed safe space, people brought their own personalities and lived experiences to it - which often resulted in extreme discomfort. It is really uncomfortable. Feeling "boxed" in (literally) has an almost excruciating effect on the Defender but it is also extremely uncomfortable for an audience to watch this happen, especially if they've experienced similar feelings. 


There is a large amount of variation. We kept the interaction fairly loose and this was on purpose. We slowly learned that it wasn't realistic to expect a certain rigid outcome in each interaction that we played and decided to leverage this in the next iteration of our game. 

 

What we started to learn:  

Physicalities matter. Often, even when a player had the goal of being the aggressor but they were physically smaller than their opponent, their roles often changed. The aggressor became the defender, and often conceded by stepping outside the box.


Past experiences matter. Even though this is a game/interaction and was tested in a supposed safe space, people brought their own personalities and lived experiences to it - which often resulted in extreme discomfort. It is really uncomfortable. Feeling "boxed" in (literally) has an almost excruciating effect on the Defender but it is also extremely uncomfortable for an audience to watch this happen, especially if they've experienced similar feelings. 


There is a large amount of variation. We kept the interaction fairly loose and this was on purpose. We slowly learned that it wasn't realistic to expect a certain rigid outcome in each interaction that we played and decided to leverage this in the next iteration of our game. 

 


What we started to learn:  

Physicalities matter. Often, even when a player had the goal of being the aggressor but they were physically smaller than their opponent, their roles often changed. The aggressor became the defender, and often conceded by stepping outside the box.


Past experiences matter. Even though this is a game/interaction and was tested in a supposed safe space, people brought their own personalities and lived experiences to it - which often resulted in extreme discomfort. It is really uncomfortable. Feeling "boxed" in (literally) has an almost excruciating effect on the Defender but it is also extremely uncomfortable for an audience to watch this happen, especially if they've experienced similar feelings. 


There is a large amount of variation. We kept the interaction fairly loose and this was on purpose. We slowly learned that it wasn't realistic to expect a certain rigid outcome in each interaction that we played and decided to leverage this in the next iteration of our game.  

The final iteration of our game was more focused on what values we wanted to communicate through our game. We decided honing in on the concept of communicating boundaries was more powerful as was framing this game as a research game for us to observe and understand how individuals act under our given set of constraints. This research was for us, to help us see the various ways individuals act when verbal communication is taken away from them, and boundaries are challenged. One player said, "You’re so limited when you can’t say anything," which seemed to clarify that some of our primary values were being communicated. We think this game can be pushed further since as we change the constraints, we presume the players' actions will change as well. We were able to learn a lot from this seemingly short assignment. 

 

 

The final iteration of our game was more focused on what values we wanted to communicate through our game. We decided honing in on the concept of communicating boundaries was more powerful as was framing this game as a research game for us to observe and understand how individuals act under our given set of constraints. This research was for us, to help us see the various ways individuals act when verbal communication is taken away from them, and boundaries are challenged. One player said, "You’re so limited when you can’t say anything," which seemed to clarify that some of our primary values were being communicated. We think this game can be pushed further since as we change the constraints, we presume the players' actions will change as well. We were able to learn a lot from this seemingly short assignment. 

 

 

The final iteration of our game was more focused on what values we wanted to communicate through our game. We decided honing in on the concept of communicating boundaries was more powerful as was framing this game as a research game for us to observe and understand how individuals act under our given set of constraints. This research was for us, to help us see the various ways individuals act when verbal communication is taken away from them, and boundaries are challenged. One player said, "You’re so limited when you can’t say anything," which seemed to clarify that some of our primary values were being communicated. We think this game can be pushed further since as we change the constraints, we presume the players' actions will change as well. We were able to learn a lot from this seemingly short assignment. 

 

 

The final iteration of our game was more focused on what values we wanted to communicate through our game. We decided honing in on the concept of communicating boundaries was more powerful as was framing this game as a research game for us to observe and understand how individuals act under our given set of constraints. This research was for us, to help us see the various ways individuals act when verbal communication is taken away from them, and boundaries are challenged. One player said, "You’re so limited when you can’t say anything," which seemed to clarify that some of our primary values were being communicated. We think this game can be pushed further since as we change the constraints, we presume the players' actions will change as well. We were able to learn a lot from this seemingly short assignment. 


 



The final iteration of our game was more focused on what values we wanted to communicate through our game. We decided honing in on the concept of communicating boundaries was more powerful as was framing this game as a research game for us to observe and understand how individuals act under our given set of constraints. This research was for us, to help us see the various ways individuals act when verbal communication is taken away from them, and boundaries are challenged. One player said, "You’re so limited when you can’t say anything," which seemed to clarify that some of our primary values were being communicated. We think this game can be pushed further since as we change the constraints, we presume the players' actions will change as well. We were able to learn a lot from this seemingly short assignment. 

 

 

 

...

First, test, test, and then test again. But also be aware of cultural differences in participants, personality traits and context/environment. 

It's okay to not know. That's the point. 

Humans are strange, strange creatures. When you mention "game" they hear "winner or loser" which completely shifts their goal and hence their actions. What does a game look like when there is no winning? We're still testing this game, and testing our assumptions in order to gain more data. Maybe there are patterns, maybe this is something teachers can use in order to communicate the importance of establishing boundaries. We think this game can go in many directions, and we're excited to keep exploring. 

 

 

 

TEAM

RUTVI GUPTA

JESSICA PANICOLA

ZOE BORDENET

XUJUN WANG 

 

 

CLASS / DURATION

GAMES FOR IMPACT

2 WEEKS 


 

CLASS / DURATION

GAMES FOR IMPACT

2 WEEKS


 

 

SKILLS

DESIGN RESEARCH

GAME DESIGN

FACILITATION


 

TEAM

RUTVI GUPTA

JESSICA PANICOLA

ZOE BORDENET

XUJUN WANG


TEAM

RUTVI GUPTA

JESSICA PANICOLA

ZOE BORDENET

XUJUN WANG

 

 

ROLE

GENERATIVE RESEARCH

EVALUATIVE RESEARCH

GAME DEVELOPMENT


 


 

  

  

 

NEXT PROJECT

Report Card

NEXT PROJECT

Report Card

 

 

NEXT PROJECT

Report Card