Quest Log: Level 6 – The Final Judgment

After months of development, revisions, playtesting, presentations, and countless decisions, our journey through Advanced Designing Games for Learning has finally reached its conclusion.

What began as a simple concept inspired by Dante’s Inferno eventually evolved into Judgement Day — a fully playable branching narrative game focused on moral reasoning, interpretation, and learning through decision-making.

Looking back on this semester, it honestly feels less like completing a class project and more like surviving a full development cycle.

What was the most important thing you learned this semester about game/simulation design?

The most important thing I learned this semester was how interconnected every part of game design really is.

At the start of the semester, it was easy to think about mechanics, narrative, learning objectives, feedback systems, and player experience as separate pieces. But throughout development, I realized that changing one part of the game almost always affected something else.

A good example of this happened during playtesting. We discovered that players often relied on their own personal morality instead of Dante’s framework when making decisions. That meant our feedback system was not just correcting answers — it was actively teaching players how to think within the game’s world.

It also became clear that narrative and learning design cannot exist independently in educational games. If the learning feels disconnected from the gameplay, players disengage. But if the mechanics, story, and feedback all support one another, the learning becomes part of the experience itself.

I think that realization completely changed how I look at designing games for learning.

What are you most proud of from this semester?

Without question, I am most proud of how far Judgement Day evolved throughout the semester.

At one point, this project was simply intended to become a prototype. By the end of the course, we had developed a complete playable experience with multiple levels, branching narrative scenarios, feedback systems, visual design, playtesting integration, and a full presentation pitch.

I am also proud of how well our team worked together throughout the process. Every member contributed to different aspects of the project, and despite the scale of the assignment, we continued improving the game through client feedback, instructor feedback, and playtesting results.

Personally, I am proud of helping bring the overall experience together — from narrative structure and gameplay flow to presentation editing and final production work. Seeing the game fully playable on Itch.io and watching others interact with it made the entire process feel real in a way that most class projects do not.

What will be most helpful moving forward?

One of the biggest takeaways I will carry forward is the importance of iteration and playtesting.

No matter how clear a design seems during development, players will always interact with it differently than expected. Some of the most valuable feedback we received came from simply watching people play the game and observing where confusion, hesitation, or learning occurred naturally.

This process reinforced the importance of testing early, refining often, and staying flexible during development.

Beyond educational games specifically, I think this course also strengthened my understanding of how narrative, interaction, and feedback shape player engagement. Those lessons apply not only to games for learning, but also to interactive media, VR experiences, and digital storytelling projects moving forward.

Closing

This semester was challenging, time-consuming, and honestly overwhelming at points — but it was also one of the most rewarding creative experiences I have had in graduate school so far.

From the first design discussions to the final pitch presentation, Judgement Day became far more ambitious than I originally expected, and I think that growth reflects how much our team learned throughout the process.

The road through the Inferno has finally come to an end.

Quest Complete.

Level 5: Quest Log – Trial by Judgment (Playtesting Judgement Day)

With Judgement Day now fully developed, our team entered the final phase of the design cycle: playtesting. Up to this point, we had iterated internally—refining mechanics, narrative flow, and learning alignment—but this was the first opportunity to observe how an actual player would experience the game from start to finish.

The goal was simple: does the game work as intended—not just technically, but cognitively? Does the player understand the system of judgment we’ve built, and can they apply it?

🧪 The Playtester & Setup

For this playtest, I selected a participant who falls within our target audience: someone familiar with games and narrative experiences, but not deeply familiar with Dante’s Inferno. This made them a strong fit—they would approach the game with curiosity rather than prior knowledge, allowing me to observe how well the system teaches itself.

The playtest was conducted asynchronously; the player tested the game independently and reported their findings afterward. This approach allowed me to analyze their reported decision-making process while identifying specific moments of hesitation, confusion, or engagement through their feedback.

The session lasted approximately 15–20 minutes, covering a full playthrough of the experience.

🎯 Playtesting Focus

The playtest centered on a few key areas:

Understanding of the core gameplay loop (read → judge → receive feedback → progress)
Clarity of moral distinctions (especially between categories like Fraud and Violence)
Effectiveness of feedback and learning passages
Overall flow, pacing, and usability

To capture data, I relied on a combination of:

Direct observation during gameplay
Informal follow-up questions after completion
Notes on player reactions and decision patterns

⚙️ Technical Performance

From a technical standpoint, the game performed well. The browser-based format via Itch.io allowed for smooth access and play without installation barriers.

There were no major technical issues during the session, though minor observations included:

Occasional hesitation in navigating between passages
Brief pauses when interpreting more complex scenarios

These were not system errors, but rather moments tied to player comprehension—which, in many ways, is exactly what we wanted to evaluate.

🧠 Experience Running the Playtest

One of the most interesting aspects of the playtest was watching how the player approached judgment.

Rather than immediately adopting the structured logic of Dante’s system, the player initially relied on personal intuition and emotional reasoning. This led to a few incorrect classifications early on—not because the player wasn’t engaged, but because they were applying a modern moral lens instead of the framework presented in the game.

However, as the playthrough continued, a shift began to occur.

The player started to recognize patterns. They began questioning their assumptions. Instead of asking, “What feels right?”, they started asking, “How would this be classified within this system?”

That shift—from instinct to structured reasoning—was one of the most important confirmations that the game’s learning objective was working.

📊 Playtest Findings

Several key takeaways emerged from the session:

The core gameplay loop was quickly understood and easy to follow
The narrative scenarios were engaging and immersive
Players responded positively to feedback that explained the reasoning behind correct answers
Some confusion remained around subtle distinctions between similar sin categories

In particular, cases involving overlapping interpretations (such as necessity-driven theft) prompted deeper thought, but also highlighted where additional clarity could strengthen the experience.

🛠 Design Improvements

Based on the playtest, several opportunities for refinement became clear:

Strengthen explanations distinguishing similar categories (e.g., Fraud vs. Violence)
Reinforce learning through slightly more explicit feedback language in key moments
Consider subtle enhancements such as:
- Additional context cues for each Circle of Hell
- Slightly more guidance earlier in the experience

These changes would not alter the core design but would help smooth the player’s transition into the system of judgment.

🔄 Reflection

If I were to run additional playtests, I would make a few adjustments:

Include multiple playtesters with varying familiarity in literature and games
Use a more structured survey or questionnaire to standardize feedback
Observe additional sessions with minimal intervention to better capture natural player behavior

Each of these would help build a more complete picture of how different players interpret and engage with the system.

🎯 Final Thoughts

Overall, the playtest confirmed that Judgement Day successfully delivers on its core goal: engaging players in critical thinking through moral classification.

More importantly, it demonstrated that players could move beyond instinctive judgment and begin to understand—and apply—a structured philosophical system through interactive design.

In a way, the playtest mirrored the experience of the game itself.

At first, judgment is uncertain.

But with time, patterns emerge.

⭐ Additional Playtesting Reflection

(I had this post ready to go, and then I get a phone call. I just had to add this section to it)

Following the initial playtest, I had the opportunity to conduct additional playtesting with two more participants—my parents. While they fall outside the intended target audience, their perspective offered valuable insight into how accessible and intuitive the experience is for a broader range of players.

The playtests were conducted asynchronously, with each of them playing through the game independently via the Itch.io build. Afterward, I gathered feedback through informal discussion.

Both playtesters found the beginning of the game easy to follow, indicating that the onboarding and core mechanics were clearly communicated. As they progressed, they noted that the later cases became significantly more challenging, which aligns with the intended scaffolding of the experience. The increasing complexity required more careful thought and interpretation, suggesting that the difficulty curve is functioning as designed.

One of the most consistent pieces of feedback was their appreciation for the visual presentation and overall polish of the game. They specifically commented on the artwork and atmosphere, noting that it contributed to a strong sense of immersion.

While their interpretations of some cases differed from the intended classifications—likely due to differences in familiarity with Dante’s framework—this further reinforces the importance of clear feedback and learning reinforcement within the game.

Overall, these additional playtests supported earlier findings while also confirming that Judgement Day is accessible to players outside the core audience, with a difficulty curve that encourages deeper engagement over time.

🎮 Play the Game

You can experience Judgement Day here:
Judgement Day by Darthnihilious

🎮 Quest Log: Level 4 – The Road of Trials

The Road of Trials has been one of the most involved parts of this course so far. Over the past six weeks, our team has worked through the process of designing, building, and refining a complete educational game experience based on Dante’s Inferno. Looking back on everything we’ve done, this phase really highlighted what it means to move from an idea into something playable—and then into something meaningful.

🧠 The Design Process (6-Week Journey)

Over the six-week period, our process evolved quite a bit as the project grew.

We started by establishing the core concept: a judgment-based game where players evaluate souls and assign them to the correct Circle of Hell. From there, we moved into structuring the experience—breaking the game into levels, defining learning goals, and outlining how each case would function.

As development continued, the focus shifted toward:

Expanding scenarios into more narrative-driven cases
Building the Twine structure across multiple levels
Integrating everyone’s work into a single, cohesive experience
Iterating based on feedback from peers and our instructor

Within the team, my primary focus was on designing and developing my assigned level. This included:

Writing and expanding case scenarios
Developing dialogue and character defenses
Structuring player choices and outcomes
Implementing the level in Twine
Assisting with merging levels into the full game
Helping refine scoring and reviewing other team members’ sections

As the project progressed, collaboration became a bigger part of the process. We moved from working individually to actively shaping each other’s work, which helped create a more unified experience overall.

🧩 Designing My Level

One of the biggest differences I experienced while designing my level was the shift from thinking in terms of questions to thinking in terms of scenarios.

Early on, it was easy to treat each case as a straightforward “right or wrong” decision. However, as I developed the level further, I focused more on:

Adding narrative context
Giving each soul a voice through their defense
Creating situations where the answer wasn’t immediately obvious

This made the design process more complex, but also more engaging. It pushed me to think about how players interpret information, not just how they select an answer.

Another challenge was balancing difficulty. I experimented with increasing the number of answer choices and making cases more nuanced, which helped create a sense of progression—even if that progression wasn’t always immediately visible.

🔍 Reflection: What Worked (and What Didn’t)

What was successful:

The core concept translated well into gameplay
The narrative-driven cases made the experience more engaging
Collaboration improved the overall quality of the game
The final merged version felt like a cohesive product rather than separate parts

What was less successful:

Narrative clarity took longer to establish than expected
Player impact (why choices matter) wasn’t always clear in early versions
Difficulty progression existed, but wasn’t always obvious to the player
Some time was spent revisiting ideas that could have been defined earlier as a team

🔁 If I Could Start Over

If I were to start this project again, I would focus more on alignment early in the process.

Specifically, I would want the team to establish:

A clear player role (Who is the player within the experience?)
A defined feedback system (What do choices mean beyond right/wrong?)
A shared vision for how narrative and mechanics work together

Having those elements locked in earlier would have helped reduce uncertainty later and made the design process more efficient.

📘 New Learning & Takeaways

One of the most valuable takeaways from this level was understanding how design evolves through iteration.

Even when the core system is strong, the experience can still feel incomplete without:

Narrative context
Clear player motivation
Meaningful feedback

This level also reinforced the importance of:

Designing for player interpretation, not just correctness
Balancing structure with creativity
Collaborating and adapting within a team environment

As an individual designer, I found that I became more comfortable working in that space between structure and storytelling—where learning objectives and player experience intersect.

🚀 Final Thoughts

The Road of Trials felt less like a straight path and more like an ongoing refinement process. Each step forward revealed something new that needed adjustment, but that’s also what made the experience valuable.

At this stage, the project feels like it has a strong foundation. What remains is not rebuilding, but refining—making sure that the narrative, mechanics, and player experience all align into something cohesive and impactful.

🎮 Quest Log: Level Design Progress #3: Narrative, Refinement, and Looking ahead

Level 4 is now complete, and this week felt like a turning point for the entire project. What started as individual pieces is now beginning to feel like a fully connected experience, and seeing everything come together has been one of the most rewarding parts of the process so far.

✍️ Narrative & Introduction Updates

One of the biggest changes I focused on was rewriting the introduction. My goal was to move the experience further into a narrative-driven direction rather than presenting it as a simple sequence of questions.

Instead of just guiding the player through decisions, I wanted it to feel like they were stepping into a story—being placed in the role of judgment alongside Virgil. While I’m happy with the direction this is going, I still think this is something I’ll revisit again later to refine the flow and tone.

🧩 Expanding the Cases

Another major improvement came from expanding the individual cases within the level.

Earlier versions were more straightforward, but now each soul has more context, personality, and justification behind their actions. The defenses in particular helped add depth, making the player pause and consider why a soul belongs in a certain circle rather than just selecting an obvious answer.

This shift made the experience feel less like a quiz and more like a moral evaluation, which better supports the learning goals of the project.

🤝 Team Collaboration & Game Integration

Outside of my own level, a lot of progress has been made across the full project.

One of the biggest milestones was merging everyone’s levels together into a single, cohesive game. Seeing all of the levels connected for the first time was honestly one of the coolest moments so far—it transformed the project from separate assignments into something that feels like a complete experience.

I also contributed to reworking the scoring system so it functions consistently across all levels. In addition, I collaborated with teammates to expand their scenarios, helping strengthen story elements and improve how choices are presented to the player.

🛠️ Testing & Debugging

As the project came together, I spent time testing the game and looking for bugs in the code.

At this stage, making sure everything flows smoothly between levels has become just as important as the design itself. Catching small issues now helps ensure a more polished final experience.

🚀 Current State of the Project

Overall, the project is in a really strong place right now.

There is still some polishing left to do, but seeing everything gradually come together into a unified experience has been incredibly rewarding. It’s been especially exciting to watch the transition from isolated level design into a fully playable game.

I’m looking forward to refining the details and continuing to improve the experience as we move toward the final version.

🎮 Quest Log – Level Design Progress #2: Refinement & Collaboration

🧭 Current Objective

Refine Level 1 of Judgement Day through client feedback, team coordination, and narrative improvement.

📬 Client Communication & Feedback

Over the past week, I shared our team’s current progress with our client, Professor Iva Youkilis, to gather feedback on both the structure and narrative direction of the game.

The response was very encouraging—she noted that the project is “shaping up really nicely” and highlighted the strength of our overall concept. However, she also provided an important suggestion that helped guide the next phase of development:

The narrative should emphasize the human stories behind each sin, rather than presenting souls as simple examples.

She specifically referenced Francesca (Circle of Lust) as an example of how Dante portrays sinners as complex individuals with emotions, motivations, and personal struggles—not just moral categories.

🤝 Team Coordination

After receiving this feedback, I shared a summary with the team to ensure everyone was aligned moving forward.

Key coordination steps included:

Communicating the importance of stronger narrative depth
Encouraging consistency in tone, structure, and dialogue
Continuing to collect and organize each member’s Twine files for integration into a unified experience

At this stage, our workflow is becoming more collaborative and streamlined, with clear direction on both design and narrative goals.

✍️ Level Revisions & Improvements

Based on the client’s feedback, I revised my Level 1 passages to enhance emotional depth and player engagement.

Key Updates:

Replaced generic or unnamed souls with recognizable or character-driven figures
Expanded dialogue to reflect internal conflict and human motivation
Strengthened Virgil’s role as a guiding voice, reinforcing moral reasoning
Improved reflection passages to encourage player self-evaluation

🎭 Example Improvement – Francesca (Lust)

Previously, the case focused primarily on identifying the correct circle.

Now, the interaction emphasizes emotional complexity:

Francesca expresses her story in her own voice
The player must evaluate emotion vs. moral responsibility
The reflection challenges the player’s reasoning:
- Did you judge her based on her feelings… or her actions?

This shift transforms the experience from simple classification into meaningful ethical engagement, which better aligns with the learning objectives.

🧠 Instructional Design Alignment

These revisions strengthen the connection between game mechanics and learning outcomes:

Narrative → Understanding (learning the structure of Hell)
Choice-based decisions → Application (classifying souls)
Reflection → Deeper learning (evaluating moral reasoning)

Rather than just testing knowledge, the game now encourages players to interpret, analyze, and reflect—which supports higher-level learning.

🚀 Current Status

Level 1 structure: ✅ Complete
Narrative refinement: ✅ In progress (significant improvements made)
Team integration: 🔄 Ongoing
Client feedback loop: ✅ Active

Overall, the project is in a strong position. The focus has shifted from building core functionality to polishing narrative and learning experience, which is exactly where we should be at this stage.

🎯 Next Steps

Continue refining remaining cases for narrative consistency
Integrate all team levels into a unified Twine build
Prepare for final playtesting and iteration

💬 Reflection

This phase of development highlighted how valuable client feedback can be—not just for validation, but for pushing the design to a deeper level.

What started as a structured classification task is evolving into something more meaningful:
👉 a simulation that asks players to think critically about human behavior, not just categorize it.

XP Gained: Narrative Design + Client Communication + Iterative Development

Judgement Day Level Design Progress #1: Setting the Stage

🎮 Level Design Progress #1 – Dante’s Inferno Judgment System

The Quest Log: Gaming for Learning & Fun

🔍 Current Development Progress

For this progress checkpoint, I focused on building the foundation for my individual level within our group project. My level introduces players to the structure of Dante’s Hell and teaches them how to classify souls according to the sins described in Dante’s Inferno. The goal of the level is to prepare players for the core gameplay mechanic used throughout the game: judging which circle of Hell a soul belongs to based on their actions in life.

At this stage of development, the level structure and narrative flow are fully implemented in Twine. Players begin with an introduction guided by Virgil, who explains the purpose of their task and the overall structure of Hell. This introduction establishes the narrative context and helps players understand that Hell is divided into nine circles, each representing a different type of sin and punishment.

After the introduction, players encounter a structured explanation of the game mechanics. They learn that each soul will present their story, and the player must decide which circle of Hell the soul belongs to. Once a decision is made, the player will receive feedback explaining Dante’s reasoning behind the correct placement.

🗺 Designing the Structure of Hell

To help players understand the hierarchy of Hell, I created a section that visually introduces the nine circles:

Limbo
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Wrath
Heresy
Violence
Fraud
Treachery

Each circle is associated with a short description that summarizes the type of sin punished there. This serves as a reference point for players before they begin making judgments.

I also implemented a toggleable “Map of Hell” reference panel that players can open at any time during gameplay. This feature allows players to quickly review the structure of Hell while evaluating different souls. From a learning perspective, this supports recall and reinforces the classification system central to Dante’s narrative.

🎨 Visual Atmosphere and Environmental Design

One of the design goals for this level was to create a strong visual atmosphere that reflects the themes of each circle of Hell. To achieve this, I developed unique background environments for every circle. These images are meant to reinforce the emotional tone and symbolic punishment associated with each sin.

Examples include:

A somber, mist-filled landscape for Limbo
A violent storm and chaotic environment for Lust
Filth and decay for Gluttony
Mountains of gold and treasure for Greed
A violent battlefield for Wrath
Burning tombs for Heresy
Rivers of blood and brutal landscapes for Violence
Twisted infernal cities for Fraud
A frozen wasteland for Treachery

These visual environments help support immersion while also reinforcing the educational component of the experience.

🔧 Current Implementation Status

The following components are currently completed:

Level introduction and narrative setup
Explanation of Hell’s structure
Game rules and player objective
Toggleable “Map of Hell” reference panel
Visual background environments for each circle
Twine flowchart structure connecting all passages

The core structure of the level is now functional and navigable within the Twine prototype.

🚧 Next Steps

The next phase of development will focus on implementing the interactive gameplay elements. This includes:

Writing individual soul judgment scenarios
Adding player decision options for each case
Creating feedback passages explaining Dante’s reasoning
Implementing a score or progress tracking system
Conducting initial playtesting with teammates.

These additions will transform the current narrative prototype into a fully interactive learning experience.

🧭 Reflection

At this stage, the level successfully establishes the narrative framework, visual tone, and instructional structure needed for the gameplay system. The next step will be expanding the level with judgment scenarios that challenge players to apply what they have learned about the circles of Hell.

Overall, this checkpoint confirms that the core foundation of the level is in place and ready for the next phase of development.

Level 3 Quest Log: Developing a User Persona for a Dante-Based Learning Experience

Part 1: Gathering Information

Reflecting on Myself

As both a learner and a designer, I value clarity and intentional structure in learning games and simulations. When I engage with educational games, I care less about flashy mechanics and more about whether the experience helps me understand systems, relationships, or concepts more deeply. If the mechanics feel disconnected from the learning objective, I disengage quickly.

For entertainment games, I value immersion, meaningful progression, and well-paced difficulty curves. Frustration is acceptable if it feels fair, but confusion caused by unclear objectives or poor interface design is not.

From a usability standpoint, I prioritize:

Clear navigation
Consistent visual hierarchy
Explicit feedback
Low cognitive overload

What is less important to me:

Overly complex menus
Excessive branching without guidance
Aesthetic polish at the expense of clarity

Reflecting on this reminded me that even when learning content is strong, usability issues can significantly disrupt engagement.

Reflecting on Others – Data Collection

Since I am focusing on a User Persona, I prioritized gathering information about how undergraduates interact with digital learning environments and complex interfaces.

I artificially limited myself to three sources, as required:

Source 1 – Research Study (Second-hand Data)

Study on undergraduate user experience preferences in digital learning environments (peer-reviewed journal article).
Focused on cognitive load, navigation clarity, and perceived usability.

Source 2 – Accessibility & UX Guidelines (Second-hand Data)

WCAG-based accessibility research and usability design recommendations for digital learning tools.
Emphasis on color contrast, text readability, and information chunking.

Source 3 – Public Player Motivation & UX Data (Second-hand Data)

Quantic Foundry player motivation data.
Used to understand expectations of digital-native users in interactive environments.

Where I Searched & Type of Information Found

All three sources were second-hand research.

I searched:

Academic databases (MU Library access)
Usability and accessibility documentation
Player research databases

The types of data found included:

Quantitative survey data (student preferences, usability ratings)
Reported frustration points
Design recommendations
Motivational percentages and player-type breakdowns

The audience examined:

Primarily undergraduate students (18–24)
Digital-native learners
Individuals accustomed to modern interface standards

Part 2: Analyzing Findings

Across the three sources, several patterns emerged:

1️⃣ Undergraduates expect intuitive navigation

Students show low tolerance for unclear instructions or hidden information. When cognitive effort is spent figuring out “what to do next,” engagement drops significantly.

2️⃣ Cognitive load must be managed carefully

Complex content (such as Dante’s Inferno) requires scaffolding. Chunked information, progressive disclosure, and visual signposting are important.

3️⃣ Accessibility is not optional

Color contrast, text legibility, and flexible pacing impact not only students with disabilities but overall usability.

4️⃣ Engagement does not override clarity

While modern users enjoy interactivity, excessive choice or visual clutter increases frustration.

Alignment with My Own Reflection

Interestingly, much of the research aligned with my own reflection as a user. I also value clarity over complexity and become disengaged when navigation interferes with learning.

However, the research highlighted something I had not fully considered: even minor usability barriers can significantly increase cognitive load, especially when the learning content is conceptually demanding.

For a Dante-based serious game, where interpretation and symbolism are already cognitively taxing, usability will play a critical role in maintaining engagement.

Part 3: Reflection on the Data Collection Process

Data collection was smoother than expected, primarily because usability research is well-documented and accessible. However, one challenge was distinguishing between “learner” and “user” data, as there is natural overlap between the two.

Another challenge was narrowing the focus. Usability research is vast, and artificially limiting the process to three sources required prioritizing relevance over breadth.

If I were to repeat this process, I would consider incorporating:

At least one first-hand interview with a current undergraduate student
Direct observation of how students navigate complex digital interfaces

Overall, this process reinforced that a well-designed serious game must not only teach effectively but also guide users clearly through the experience.