good

Good

good

cool

Fun!

nice

ok

OK

<3

This course provides a nice insight into the gaming theory. Do not expect to make a dive into video game analysis. This game focuses on the fundamental ideas behind gaming, which includes all games. However, the assignments revolve around building board games, so you do not need to worry about not knowing any coding to make video games. Assignment criteria could use some polish, as the rubrics focus too much on mechanics (is it one page long?) rather than content elements. The delivery of the content is interesting. The instructor has gone to great lengths to bring in features that will help you focus better. There could be a better 100% integration between the material in the videos and the assignments, as sometimes you are asked to use only a tiny portion of 30 minutes of videos for the week, and that can make the videos less useful, or the assignment not as educational.

This course was interesting. It's truly an introduction to the field. I've actually read about Game Design in my spare time and it was nice to remember some of the concepts I've seen. It's all positive and good but I'd have liked to see the assignments handled a bit differently. It just felt too much one way, especially with one page rule. I do understand this is done to keep people organized and not going crazy with their ideas because since it's peer reviewed it should be fair. Also, once your game idea from an earlier week didn't have much room to introduce the aspect presented in the current week you feel kind of stuck. Although assignments mention we should build on previous weeks' games there is also mention to building a new game too. That part could be clarified or the nature of the exercise can be much more varied than one page requirement.

I really enjoyed this course! The videos were fun and informational, the assignments were enjoyable, and reviewing other student work was helpful. I also liked hearing from my fellow students and their ideas about my work and improvements I could make.

I would give the course five stars except for one thing - there was no one from the university to interact with. No one answered our questions on the forums, so questions went unanswered, ambiguities remained, and some issues grew as we progressed. Someone, even just a grad student or two, needs to be involved with the course in my opinion.

The course is more of "teach yourself" variety - you're given brief advice, you're given the task, you're given one week to do it. Good for trying different ideas and improving your ability to see the idea through instead of leaving it hanging in your head. You also see others' ideas at peer review, and one can learn a great lot by noticing opportunities they missed themselves.

For those taking the course, I advise to make a new game each time rather than alter one idea you got at the very beginning over and over. You're learning _design_, not _polish_.

This course is an excellent introduction into the world of game design. Fran Krause's teaching style is both engaging and fun. While the lectures are really short, and there's not really a whole lot of material, I found that I learned well through the doing the projects.

My only criticisms are that this course is a little too easy and a little too short. A good game increases it's difficulty as the levels progress. If you don't increase the difficulty, you take away from the reward. The same can be said about a good course.

The course materials are great and fun. I learned a lot and ended up with a board game I am proud of and that I can create in real life. This class would get five stars if there were a better mechanism for verifying submissions meet a minimum standard before getting into the grading/peer review pipeline. I realize this would mean a bit of human intervention, but it would add a great deal toward satisfaction with the overall dependence on peer reviews for learning for courses like this that rely on peer reviews.

It's a really well-designed course that is succint but imparts some useful knowledge. I am not a fan of the peer-reviewed assignments. The course seems slow - a few times I have logged in and there were no peer reviews to do. Also, your own game doesn't get reviewed very quickly either. You cannot complete the course unless someone reviews your work or you have reviewed a sufficient number of assignments so this is problematic and also a waste of time - constantly checking for someone to review.

I'd give it a 5 if I was only rating the material- it was very informative and easily digestible. Just what you need for a starting course.

The assignment and scoring part of the course is what brings the rating down a notch. Relying solely on feedback from people who are probably beginners in the field and who go by one sentence instruction on what to feedback on was not always constructive. More guidance needs to be added to what to look out for when scoring somebody's work.

Really fun and engaging lessons that are short and achievable—fun teachers. I think the peer reviews are helpful—there is something to improve upon in my game every week from peer reviews and new lessons. I left out one star because I think the content could improve a bit. So far everything is very basic, I think some snippets of more interesting or deeper concepts could make this course more valuable beyond some common sense ideas that are taught.

The module is overall great and gave me an intro on how game documents are developed, plus it made me start thinking like a game designer (I hope!)

My only complaint is that the homework is fairly restrictive (only one-page game per week, which means there's only so much you can do) but I do appreciate the fact that it simplifies things and if anything, it pushes you to be even more creative, beyond the typical "board game".

Very nice intro course into gaming, covering the most important aspects in a simple and straightforward way. My one gripe is the peer reviews, where I felt like I put a good amount of effort in my projects only to get feedback like "nice" that was neither constructive nor helpful. But that's not the instructor's fault. Peer reviews aside, the instructor was knowledgable, engaging, and at times humorous. Great stuff!

Я не получила достаточно профиссиональной информации, как хотела. Видео материалы не загружались, но блогодаря субтитрам я смогла выполнить задания, хотьи с некоторым дискомфортом. Я получала средние оценки без каких либо уточняющих коментариев. Люди просто писали "ок" или "всё хорошо". Думаю, если если поднять минимально необходимое количество символов для комментария, эта проблема может быть решена.

VERY INTERESTING COURSE, NOW i KNOW MORE MANY THINGS ABOUT THE COURSE SUBJECT AND I'M REALLY SATISFIED WITH THE PREMISES,, SO I WILL GO ON WITH NEXT COURSE IN THIS SPEC.. HOWEVER THE HOMEWORK RATE SYSTEMS IS BIASED BY STUDENTS WHO SOMETIMES DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REQUESTED TO THEM OR SIMPLY BYPASS THE REVIEW ASSIGNEMENT GIVING CASUAL JUDGEMENTS , JUST TO SETTLE IT AND PUT IT APART SWIFTLY

Great course. Thank you so much. I especially loved the inclusion of the puppet and your comforting speaking style. To be honest, none of my other courses are nearly as fun. What I'd love to see is a sprinkling of conceptual theory in order to increase the value of the takeaway. But, overall, bravo(! seriously, bravo!), and I hope to take another one of your courses in the future.

This was my first class on Coursera. I really enjoyed the lessons and practice activities. The peer review process for grades is understandable but leaves the class vulnerable to evaluations by people who may or may not take the class as seriously as you would like. For someone who has played games for a long time, it was not a difficult class but still worth while.

The course is extremely basic. It doesnt worth the cost I paid for it. Moreover, the peer tasks evaluation of the tasks is so useless. Most of the time I just got one word "ok" or "wow" or "good" so I didn't get really helpful feedback on my work. To improve the workflow give the feature to evaluate the task reviewer back! Very disappointed.