EDGE

Submission of Final Draft of Major Assignment 2: Transformative Game Design

Major Assignment 2 is a culmination of all the work you have done in the course. Think of your previous assignments as stepping stones to this paper.

In Major Assignment 1 and your Game Design Document and Playtest Plan, you created a nano-game based on a research question and theoretical concepts. Then, you tested this design in your playtest. Major Assignment 2 describes this process, first including information from Major Assignment 1, then explaining how the experiment unfolded, analyzing your playtests, feedback, and subsequent iteration.

Word count: 1200-2000 words single-spaced in Times New Roman font (not including References and Appendices).

This paper will integrate the following sections:

1. Introduction: Include a brief summary of your original game concept and its transformative goal(s).
2. Research Question: Include a research question for your project. What problem are you trying to solve or question do you hope to get answered through this Research Through Design process?
3. Theoretical framework: Describe your three (3) concepts from your most recent instructor-approved version of Major Assignment 1 and how they informed your game design. Cite according to the instructions in Major Assignment 1. 
4. Method: Describe your process of Research Through Design citing and engaging with one (1) or more of these linked sources. This section will include a brief summary of your Playtest Plan and feedback gathering method(s).
5. Results: Describe how your game experiment unfolded and how you iterated accordingly after the playtest session.
6. Discussion: Analyze the game design process, returning back to your chosen concepts and any other relevant sources. Was your research question answered? Were your chosen concepts in Major Assignment 1 useful in understanding how the game was played and experienced? If not, explain why. Do not include new “better” concepts at this stage for brevity’s sake.
7. Conclusion: Evaluate how you would proceed with future research, design, and playtesting of this concept should you choose to continue this work. Will your game concept change, and if so, how? This section can also include personal reflections, takeaways, and ideas for future research and design beyond this particular project.

In addition, include: 

1. References: References should be organized in alphabetical order.
2. Appendix I: Revised Game Design Document and Playtest Plan
3. Appendix II: List of Recommendations from Peer(s) and Instructors and Revisions 

Notes

• The Appendices and References do not count toward your word count.
• You may not use generative AI on this assignment or any others. We are interested in your own design thoughts, not a machine’s. 
• Cite in Chicago Author-Date format. We recommend using the citations we provide for you in the Module Overviews and textbook References, which mostly reflect Chicago Author-Date 6th edition.
• You may use materials from Major Assignment 1 and your Game Design Document, but make sure to compose your text in an academic analytic tone rather than as game instructions. 
• While your paper will focus on testing the original nano-game, you will also submit a revised version of your Game Design Document as Appendix I. The revised version should reflect any changes you made as a result of feedback from your peers or instructor. 
• In Appendix II, you will also include a point-for-point list indicating how and where in the text you addressed each point of feedback on your First Complete Draft of Major Assignment 2 you received from your peer reviewer(s) and your instructor. If you decided not to integrate one or more recommendations, please provide a persuasive reason why for each separate point. In this way, you are iterating not only on your game design, but on your academic work.