Artist Statement:

Intention:

For my fourth artwork, I was inspired by games like Celeste that merged the gameplay of platformers with messages about life and its many struggles. As a result, I aimed to make a simple and abstract platformer about the experience of making important and meaningful choices in life while being uncertain about the future. I wanted to replicate how I have often felt in my life when I have to make certain choices that deeply affect my future and how I get overwhelmed by the many challenges I may face from those choices.

Original Idea and Playtest:

At first, I wanted to create this experience by having the player play from the perspective of someone dreaming. In a dream, the player character must explore a level filled with obstacles and reach its end in order to wake up and start the next day. After the day is over, the player dreams again and the entire level is changed. This would have continued on for each day forever. This was supposed to represent a person whose goals in life are constantly changing from day to day, as they are uncertain about how they want to live and what they want their life to be like in the future. I planned to achieve this experience by possibly using random generation similar to simple roguelikes like Downwell. However, during my first playtest as I was explaining my idea, someone pointed out how if I were to continue with my plan, I would not be including one of the core aspects of the experience that I wanted to create: choice. My original game didn’t involve the players making a choice, as it only involved them blindly following what the game tells them. Once I realized this mistake, I knew I had to change my idea. This led to the final iteration of my project.

Final Iteration:

The final game involves the aspects that create the experience of making an important choice:

Choosing between options – At the start of the game, the player is picking between two doors that lead to two types of levels, one being platforming levels and the other being combat levels. This is supposed to represent how many times in life you reach a point where you have to choose between a number of options, such as picking a career to pursue and choosing a college to go to. Additionally, I added a little hint, such as having to jump on a platform and having to kill an enemy about what each of the doors represents without explicitly telling the player. This is supposed to show how in life you have little knowledge about each choice you have to make, but you never know exactly how those choices will affect your future until you actually choose them.

Continuing forward or going back – Once you make a choice in the game you must then take on challenges that increase in difficulty as you go on. In order to move to the next challenge, you must make it to the rightmost door. However, you can always choose to go back if you find the challenges too hard, but doing so will send you to the beginning of the game. This represents how in life once you make certain choices, you endure struggles and challenges that relate to that choice without knowing what’s going to come next. If you find the challenges too hard you can often choose to undo your choice, but doing so will set you back in an aspect of your life. These aspects combine to create the experience of making a choice.

Player Controls:

Move – left and right with WASD or Arrow Keys

Jump – Space

Ground Dash – press Shift on the ground, jump while dashing to do a long jump

Air Dash – press Shift in the air

wall jump – Space while sliding on the wall

attack – press R to kill enemies

Enemies:

enemies die in one hit, if the player touches an enemy, they die and restart the level

enemy 1 – move back and forth

enemy 2 – slowly follows the player

spikes:

if the player touches the spikes, they die and restart the level

Pictures:

Starting Level

Platforming Level 1

Combat Level 1

Platforming Level 2

Combat Level 2

Platforming Level 3

Combat Level 3

Win Screen

Reflection:

Overall I say that my project was a success in creating the feelings that I wanted. Some things I could definitely work on in this game are the enemy sprites and how I balanced the difficulty, but I feel like I did pretty well with the time and experience that I had. In fact, I feel like I can take what I have done so far and turn it into a fleshed out game about overcoming challenges without knowing what will come next, which could be a great message to experience for people who are going through the same things I am and a great addition to my portfolio. I loved working on this project, as it gave me a chance to really try unity for the first time and see how it works. It also gave me a chance to work on my skills in level design, enemy design, and player mechanics. I really enjoyed this class and I can’t wait to take what I learned and use it to help me in the future!

Assets Used:

8-Bit Dungeon Deluxe Tileset/Sprites by Jamie Cross

2D Pixel Art Character Template Asset Pack by ZeggyGames

The game I designed is called Gateway. The idea behind the game is very simple. One person pays to get onto the T and everyone else tries to follow. You try to see how many people you can get through to the T without paying. Technically this is illegal so you should be careful when playing, but it is most likely something that almost everyone has done. If you do get caught the odds are that no one is going to get too mad at you and will most likely just make you pay again. Interestingly enough I got this idea when I was home in New York. The New York City MTA loses hundreds of millions of dollars each year due to people hopping the turnstile. Many native New Yorkers who are younger refuse to pay most of the time that they ride the subway instead electing to jump straight over. This causes the government to raise prices on tickets and even raise taxes in order to provide the people with public transit. In the end that means that the people who do pay are paying more for the people who do not. Morally this is wrong however typically the people who would pay are going to be the ones who are more financially stable. This is why it ends up being younger people who are jumping over. In Boston you typically cannot jump over due to the design of the gates however it is easy to walk through after the person in front of you. If no one is around to get you in trouble then who cares. My game involves getting as many people through the gate as possible without getting caught before the gate closes. The record…6. I have probably done more in my time here in Boston but my friends and I rarely take the T anymore and did not feel like getting caught during play testing.

The idea is inspired by DADA. The T is more important for some people than others, for some it may be to go downtown to go on a shopping spree, but for others it could be commuting to work where you are underpaid and you have to spend hundreds of dollars each year that you cannot afford to lose. DADA often stood up against the government for various ideas they did not support, often being anti-regime. I believe this does the same thing. In some way it is meant to symbolize how there is a level of inequality in the payment of the T. Not everyone is paying what they can afford to pay yet they are paying nonetheless because they have to use it. While there is no real solution to this it does seem unfair that people pay the same amount regardless of whether or not they are able to. Transportation is a necessity and while it needs to be funded, some who need to use it cannot afford the build up that it is costing them.

NBA2K25 MyPark Social Behavior Study

Overview

The way this NBA2K25 study looks at how players act online is really similar to what these artists called Fluxus did back in the 1960s. These Fluxus people, especially this guy George Maciunas, would set up these “Fluxus festivals” where they’d basically watch how people acted and reacted to different situations – kind of like a social experiment but they called it art. In the same way, this NBA2K25 study breaks down how players behave in the game, like when someone goes from being toxic to suddenly being nice, or how people act differently when they’re in a group. Just like Fluxus wanted to show that everyday interactions could be worth studying, this project shows that even trash talk and friendships in a basketball video game can tell us something interesting about how people act around each other. Whether it’s people at an art show in the ’60s or gamers on NBA2K today, both projects basically show that you can learn a lot about people by just watching how they interact.

Objective: To observe and document player reactions to changes in social behavior within NBA2K25’s MyPark environment. Location: MyPark voice/game chat Purpose: Analyze how players respond to shifts in communication style and whether toxic behavior can be influenced.

Experiment Scenarios

Initial Scenario 1: Toxic to Nice (Individual) Initial State: Exhibited toxic behavior Progression:

1. Initial toxic interaction
   • Me: “You’re trash at this game, uninstall bro”
   • Them: “Whatever, you’re just spamming cheese”
   • Me: “Grown A** man being this bad at a video game is crazy”
   • Them: “Talk when you learn how to shoot”
2. Post-loss interaction
   • Them: “Hold that L you toxic *****”
   • Me: “That’s what you get for playing like that”
   • Them: “Scoreboard don’t lie”
   • Me: “Your peoples would be real disappointed by this performance”
3. Slight improvement in tone but still condescending
   • Me: “Hey, at least you’re trying. Maybe stick to rookie mode though?”
   • Them: “Still won tho”
   • Me: “Next time do [this, this and that] so you can stop me”
   • Them: “Nobody asked for your advice *****”
4. Second game victory
   • Me: “You getting better man good job!”
   • Them: “Don’t act nice now after being toxic”
   • Me: “Nah fr though, good adjustments”
   • Them: “Whatever man…”
5. Third game being nice
   • Me: “What’s your name how are you?”
   • Them: “Why you switching up now?”
   • Me: “Say you actually pretty good I can’t lie”
   • Them: “Yo, why you trynna be so nice all sudden chill”
6. Outcome
   • Me: “GG man, you’ve tuff. Add me if you want to run some games”
   • Them: “You bipolar or something?”
   • Me: “Nah just tired of the toxic stuff”
   • Them: “Ight bet, but no more toxic stuff”

Scenario 2: Toxic to Nice (Group Setting) Initial State: Group toxicity towards opponents Progression:

1. Initial group toxic behavior
   • Us: “Yall some **** straight garbage fr”
   • Them: “Says the **** with 0 points”
   • Us: “Deleting the game might help your IQ levels”
   • Them: “1v1 me you scared **** “
2. Post-loss interaction
   • Them: “Hold that L bozos”
   • Us: “Y’all got lucky with that **** cheese”
   • Them: “Cry more, skill issue”
   • Us: “Touch grass you **** sweats”
3. Individual shift
   • Me: “Come on guys, they’re not that bad”
   • Team: “Nah **** them they’re dogwater”
   • Them: “At least someone got sense”
   • Team: “You switching sides now? **** outta here”
4. Victory interaction
   • Me: “Good games anyway”
   • Them: “You cool but your squad toxic af”
   • Team: “Still trash tho frfr uninstall”
   • Them: “3-1 scoreboard don’t lie”

Scenario 3: Targeted Toxicity with Defenders Initial State: Group targeting one player Progression:

1. Initial targeting
   • Team: “This PG selling harder than a garage sale”
   • PG: “My bad, I’m new to point”
   • Team: “My grandma got better handles than this ****”
   • PG: “Yall dont gotta be like that fr”
   • Them: “Leave gang alone”
   • Team: “Or what LMAOOOO”
2. Performance criticism
   • Team: “7 turnovers?! Delete the build expeditiously”
   • PG: “Chill bru im new”
   • Team: “Actual NPC behavior right here”
   • PG: “How bout you guard your man instead of ****riding me”
   • Them: “Nah i cant lie you playin like *** gang”
   • Them: “Yea I can’t even defend you”
   • PG: “Bru what??”
   • Them: “LOCK IN DUMB***”
3. Other team jumps in
   • Team: “Yall really bullying your own teammate?”
   • Them: “Wasn’t yall just talkin ya own ****? Mind ya business before you catch these L’s too”
   • Team: “1v1 after this, put your VC where your mouth is”
   • Them: “Bet pull up then”
4. Unexpected turn
   • Team: “Your PG ain’t even bad, yall just ball hogging”
   • Them: “Now we got ops defending sells, I’m done”
   • PG: “Thanks but I don’t need yall pity”
   • Team: “Just saying they toxic for no reason”
   • PG: “Yall the idiots who started it”

Scenario 4: Nice to Toxic (Individual) Initial State: Positive behavior Progression:

1. Initial friendly
   • Me: “Nice shot selection bro”
   • Them: “Thanks fam, you got good IQ”
   • Me: “We could go crazy if we sync up”
   • Them: “No cap, let’s cook”
2. Post-loss shift
   • Me: “Bro what are these passes…”
   • Them: “Maybe if you hit an open shot”
   • Me: “You playing with your monitor off?”
   • Them: “Least I don’t play like I got parkinsons”
3. Full meltdown
   • Me: “My dead dog got better stick skills”
   • Them: “Crazy how you went from nice to **** real quick”
   • Me: “Crazy how you went from decent to selling”
   • Them: “You the type to cry in park cuz you lost yo vc fr”
4. Peak toxicity
   • Me: “You the reason 2K needs parental controls”
   • Them: “All that talk but won’t 1v1”
   • Me: “**** go back to Fortnite kid”
   • Them: “Your mom should’ve closed her legs”

Scenario 5: Nice to Toxic to Nice Initial State: Positive meeting mild toxicity Progression:

1. Initial friendly
   • Me: “Clean moves bro!”
   • Them: “Whatever, you just cheese screens”
   • Me: “Just tryna hoop fr”
   • Them: “You call that hooping? **** pathetic”
2. Energy matching
   • Me: “Shooting bricks like you building a house”
   • Them: “Still dropped 21 on your head”
   • Me: “With 12 shot attempts you **** ball hog”
   • Them: “Better than yo selling ***”
3. Cooling down
   • Me: “We both acting childish rn”
   • Them: “You started being toxic tho”
   • Me: “This community toxic enough already”
   • Them: “Facts, mb for getting heated”
4. Resolution
   • Me: “Run it back? No toxic this time”
   • Them: “Bet, lemme hop on my guard build”
   • Me: “Ight don’t sell tho lmao”
   • Them: “Only W’s from here”
     

     Key Observations

     • Toxic behavior intensifies after losses but often initiates from early-game mistakes (missed shots, turnovers)
     • Players are more likely to become toxic when teammates reinforce negative comments
     • Initial plays heavily influence the match’s social dynamic
     • Solo players tend to adapt their behavior based on group majority
     • Defensive players receive most toxic comments, especially after opponent scores
     • Players maintain toxic behavior longer when supported by teammates
     • Direct confrontation typically escalates toxicity while indirect positivity can de-escalate

     Patterns Observed

     1. Players show strong initial resistance to attitude changes, often interpreting positivity as sarcasm or weakness
     2. Individual reform happens gradually over 3-4 games while group toxicity tends to be self-reinforcing
     3. “Alpha” players (highest rep/score) heavily influence group behavior
     4. Toxicity peaks after game-changing plays (turnovers, missed open shots)
     5. Players are more receptive to positive feedback after showcasing individual skill
     6. Cross-team defenders of targeted players often escalate rather than defuse situations
     7. Victory often softens players’ receptiveness to positive interaction
     8. Early-game toxicity is harder to reform than late-game reactions

Players of competitive online video games know the struggle all too well: chat can be a pretty ugly place. Whether it’s trash talk, someone blaming their own team, or offensive remarks, toxicity is in no short supply. Chat filters, community moderators, and increased awareness of toxicity can curtail this to a degree, but players don’t need to wait for someone else to stop the toxicity for them- they can confront it themselves, and with little effort required.

My online intervention took place in the ROBLOX first-person shooter game “Phantom Forces”. It is a fast paced game where players fight each other in teams with different weapons and if your character dies, you can respawn within a few seconds, creating a competitive and captivating experience.

My strategy was simple: if someone is being toxic, respond to them immediately, and say something. Anything at all. Do not verbally attack them, just respond. My goal is to lower the chat’s hostility level and remind the players to have fun.

But this raises the question: “If it’s a chat and a player is saying things you don’t like, why don’t you just block them?” This is a valid question. I completely understand blocking players who are insufferably toxic or you don’t have the energy to deal with. No player should have to be obligated to respond to every little thing because sometimes we just want to have fun. However, I want to change other people’s behavior. I want to bring to light the fact that people can fight toxicity a different way, by directly confronting it and maybe changing some minds.

For example, if someone says:

• “My team is trash” respond with something like “What do you mean?”
  • This ensures that you acknowledge the toxicity without attacking them.
• “Player X is so bad at this game” respond with something like “It’s just a game, you don’t have to get upset over it.”
  • This emphasizes the fact that they are playing a video game and should not be attacking others over it.
  • This reminds the player not to get upset. Everyone is playing this to have fun!
• If a player says something blatantly offensive, respond with something like “You probably shouldn’t be saying that.”
  • This calls out the offensive remark without escalating the situation further, which might prompt them to continue or say worse things.

I ran this intervention multiple times, in different servers to ensure a fresh set of players each session. I would first play a few rounds saying nothing in the chat as a control, and then I would play the following rounds doing my intervention strategy.

Session C: Changing the Vibes

In my third session of this intervention, I had encountered a server where the game chat had a feeling of frustration and agitation. The game ended with only 3 “good game” messages, and it felt cold and tense.

One player was upset with other players for “camping” in the game, a strategy where you stay in one place hidden and wait for other players to walk past you so you can take them by surprise. As it is a video game, I wanted to emphasize that people have different ways of playing the game so I responded with that and said that it is simply a matter of planning and strategy to counteract players who camp. My chat messages are highlighted in pink.

The match went on and it felt like my comments were ignored, but luckily one of the players who was upset earlier asked a question about one of the weapons in the game, asking if it was good.

I saw this as an opportunity to respond to deflect the attention away from the negativity in the chat and help to open a discussion about the game itself. After many players began to chime in on their opinions of the weapons in the game, the vibe of the match took a turn and it felt like a casual conversation between a bunch of friends, despite the fact we were all strangers.

The vibes had changed so much that by the end of the game, many more players were saying “gg” meaning “good game”, prompting one player to remark “why is everyone saying good game?” out of surprise. The player who was originally complaining about the camping strategy even said goodbye and wished everyone well.

While I doubt that my intervention was responsible for this shift in the game atmosphere, I think that my actions along with everyone else’s to cool the tension and adopt a more playful attitude was certainly powerful. Players often want to do the right thing, but feel uncomfortable being the first one to say something. If you take the first step to counteract a bad chat environment, others might join in. Together, you can all make the game way more fun for everyone.

Session E: Misplaced Anger

In the fifth session of the intervention, I noticed the chat activity was relatively low until a teammate said something toxic against our team.

Their message basically expressed anger at the makeup of the team’s overall skill levels. As part of my intervention, I quickly responded, but realized someone else had beaten me to it.

The toxic player said how everyone on our team was underperforming. I reminded them that we are all just playing to have fun, and that there was no need to get upset about it. This seemed to have an impact on the player, as instead of continuing to be hostile, they began to calmly explain their reasons for why they were upset.

Player B interjected to cool the tensions with a distraction and Player C joined in with my intervention. We wanted to be non-confrontational, but still address the toxicity by shifting their attitude towards doing their best and just playing the game. I tried to show that I was understanding by not verbally fighting them.

At one point, someone on the other team was rude to the formerly toxic teammate and even the teammate was taken aback by this. Other players including myself joined in to calm the situation and assert that there was no need for rudeness in the chat. By now, I felt like the intervention was having at least some effect on reinforcing a positive atmosphere in the game.

Towards the end of the game, the formerly toxic teammate’s concerns about the unbalanced team were addressed. They expressed their reasons for being upset in a civil manner and explained their vision for an improved game experience.

This was huge in the intervention, because it managed to transform what was originally a toxic remark into something that was a civil, neutral discussion but also helpful for the game developers. This made me think that this teammate probably was having a bad day, and took out their anger on the wrong thing. Some toxic players don’t even realize they’re being toxic, but all it takes is a civil discussion and some understanding to get them to express what they really mean.

Conclusion

Throughout the course of this intervention I watched as hostile environments turned into friendly ones. The game chat can shift from negative to neutral to positive with relatively little effort. All it takes is one person to change the vibes, and other players might feel inspired to join in and make a difference too.

This intervention won’t always work, and despite my efforts to be as scientific as I could with my experiment, I can’t definitively prove that it was significant in all my sessions. However, it did prove effective in at least a few simple cases. It all depends on the person: some people will be toxic no matter what you say to them, and in that case, chat filters, moderators, and blocking users is the best course of action. But it doesn’t always have to be that way. Sometimes all it takes for a player to chill out is just a civil conversation like an ordinary human being and reminding them that we all just want to have fun.

Bastión Toledo-Altamirano

By Ruby Harkness

How to play: 

• Option 1: Find a QR code poster around
• Scan it
• Option 2: Listen to me tell you to scan the QR code 
• Scan it 
• Answer the google form question linked to the QR code “How are you feeling? Answer with 1 song title.” 
• Submit the Google form

Artist’s Statement: 

“How Are You Feeling” is an intervention project based on taking a minute to ask yourself how you really feel. People live such busy lives and often don’t take the time to think about how they feel, this project is meant to intervene with that mindset and promote positive self care while people go about their day. I wanted this intervention to be simple, straight to the point, and meaningful for the people participating. Even the act of thinking about how you really feel is something people gloss over in today’s world. I think this is something that needs to be focused on.

Some inspiration from this project came from “Uncle Roy All Around You,” which combines the physical and digital world. I wanted to combine physical and digital as well for my intervention and I used QR codes and posters to achieve that. This intervention played out in two ways. Originally I was only going to put QR code posters up around campus. I did this and waited a few days and got like 4 responses. I learned that people don’t really take the time to scan a random QR code and usually end up going about their day. Although upsetting, I think this is completely normal. I tried to make the posters stand out to increase interest but that didn’t seem to work. The second phase was me intervening in people’s lives. I asked individual people in my classes and even presented the idea in front of the entire class to get everyone’s response. This was a lot more effective and helped me get the majority of my responses. I do think it’s interesting to think about how people don’t seem to take time out of their day to scan QR codes. This could even relate to the project, and provide evidence for how people are constantly on the move. Not only are people struggling to prioritize their feelings, but they also struggle to find curiosity in asking the question “How are you feeling”, which is written all over the posters. 

The project ended with the creation of the playlist: How we are feeling. This playlist is a collection of all 67 responses to the question “How are you feeling” in real song form. I wanted to make a playlist for this project because I think music is definitely a way people connect with each other and themselves. Relating to a song is a great way to think about your own feelings. The cover art for the Spotify playlist was also designed by me, and features organic shapes and lines. I wanted to represent how feelings are fluid, and in constant motion with this design. 

Playlist Link: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4PRgmpObxHkkONEM7Pgpq5?si=97e04311329e4f1e

Documentation: 

Posters: 

Spotify cover art:

Manga Monopoly is a spin-off of Monopoly with the objective changed from attempting to gain as much capital and take as much from your competitors as you can to instead trying to create the best art with the resources you have available. It’s a game played with 3 – 4 people, who all go around a Monopoly Board, collecting manga panels as they go. Everytime everyone makes a full lap around the board, players use their manga panels to make collages, and then vote on which collage they think is best. People get different points based on whether they got 1st, 2nd, or 3rd which points increasing in the last round. The person with the most points in the last round wins.

Inspiration (In Class & Out)

The broad inspiration for this project was the desire to take something highly commercialized and contextualize it into something more creative and generative. Many DADA movements are concerned with the commercialization of art, and I think of few more obvious games to critique this with than monopoly, a game that in it’s earliest form started out as a critique of capitalism and is now one of the THE MOST commercialized games of all time (we have Breaking Bad Monopoly). So I thought that through appropriation I could shift the focus of the game away from wealth acquisition and thus bring it more in line with its original intent (I know a satire of that kind of wealth acquisition was originally part of the point but world conditions are such that that kind of satire isn’t effective because no one thinks its satire they think its normal). Additionally, I wanted to combine the playfulness often seen in earlier DADA works along with the more overt political messaging seen in later ones, and I believe this project accomplishes both of those goals well. Collages are an accessible form of art as all you need is basic motor skills and an eye for composition (whereas most often forms of art require those two things + way more) and I think they can channel childlike creativity well due to that. The political implications of a game where the purpose is to create from nothing instead of starting off as a millionaire and stealing (AHEM, “renting”) everything in sight feel rather obvious, but to elaborate, I wanted the art to foster collaboration and healthy competition rather than a desire to seek dominance. In this game, you need other players to like your art to win, and I believe making something people like requires on some level an ability to understand and reach out to people (I feel that with all artistic creation in general) and I hope the game inspires those feelings in people instead of making them want to selfishly own and hoard everything for themselves.

The desire to send this mix of political messaging and fostering of childlike playfulness through collage was additionally of course inspired by the Merz art of Hannover Dada, wherein much of the point was recontextualizing “useless” or “boring” objects (junk, everyday objects, found objects) into something else entirely with an entirely new meaning. That was the approach I took to the “materials” of monopoly and manga.

I chose manga panels because I wanted to create a pastiche of many different series and artists, but I also wanted them to be visually cohesive. Manga are all in black and white, and this allows for an easily achieved color palette (as every Mangaka works with the same exact one, unlike comic artists) while still allowing for great contrast in the collages themselves. Additionally, I have a manga wall at home which works for these same reasons, so the idea came naturally.

First Iteration 

At first, I was quite rushed, so my starting iteration was rough. Each of the squares where relabeled but with no visuals (just the series title) and I didn’t know what to do with the community chest and chance cards. Voting was simpler as well, with people just voting for their favorite and that getting one point. The in class playtest went well, as detailed below 

Pros

• It was fun making collages 
• It was fun looking at other peoples colalges 
• Getting panels from series people knew made it more gratifying for them

Cons

• Voting being simplified made the votes more boring and not work well with only 3 people
• Many squares there was nothing to do, which slowed the game down 
• Players wanted more interaction with eachother

Second Iteration 

For the second iteration, I added many visual elements and tried to address player feedback. The game was made more visually interesting by me taking the volume covers of manga and placing them over the monopoly board. That way, each series was recognizable at a glance. To address the problem of community chest spaces and chance spaces having nothing to do AND to address the issue of players wanting more inter player interaction, I added a new set of cards to the game that allowed players to steal, force trades, take more cards, and more. This allowed for more dynamism in the gameplay as the actions of players could affect other player strategies in real time. I changed the voting to allow for points to be allocated based on whether it was 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, and allowed players to pick from the top 3 cards on the pile when choosing their card. Overall, this increase of player agency and visual facelift helped make the game more interesting and I am happy with the result.

Final Playlets Results

Despite having three people, the final playtest was very lucrative. I got to playtest with both a manga fan and a non-manga fan, and seeing them both enjoy and have different takes on the game was both validating and interesting.

The non-manga fan liked the game and took a storytelling approach to her collages, trying to craft funny or interesting mini narratives with her manga pages. This was aided by this player just happening to get a lot of manga pages. From her feedback, I definitely would implement an “Explain” part of the voting phase where each player is required to give some brief intro for their collage.

The manga fan that played also enjoyed the game, and took a more impressionistic approach with their collaging, trying to make something visually appealing and leveraging text less. They suggested even more interaction, with players perhaps gaining physical tools like scissors, glue, or tape to further elevate their collages.

Playtest Collages

Rules

Cards

Materials needed:

• Uno cards (of course)

Basic Rules:

• Each player starts with zero cards
• For each round, one player takes their turn as the drawer and places two cards from the shuffled deck on the table.
• The first player to touch a card gets to keep it in their hand
• Any card that is not picked is added face-up to the discard pile
• After the turn is over, the next player in the rotation takes their turn and draws the next two card

Duplicate Cards:

• If a player gets a card with a number they already have, then they have to choose to give up at most 3 cards and add them face-up into the discard pile.
• If a player gets a card with a number and the same color they already have, then they have to give up all of their cards and add them face-up into the discard pile.

Special Cards:

• Reverse Card – If the player gets a reverse card, they can switch hands with a player of choice
• Skip Card – If the player gets a skip card, then they can’t pick a card the next turn
• Draw Card – If the player gets a draw 4 or a draw 2 card, they can choose to pick 2 cards or 4 cards for free respectively from the shuffled deck or do nothing  
• Wild Card – If the player gets a wild card, they can pick one card of a chosen color from a chosen player

Win Condition: The first player to get the number cards 0-9 wins

Special Rules:

• If two Special cards are in effect, then the player who’s turn to draw comes first plays their special card first.
• One player can only grab one card during a round
• If you use a draw card and get another draw card, you can choose to draw more cards based on the type of draw card drawn on top of the cards already being drawn
• If you use a draw card and get a reverse, you can choose to use the reverse after you have drawn all of your cards.
• If you use a draw card and get a skip, then you can no longer continue drawing cards. Additionally, you will not be able to pick a card next round
• If you use a draw card and get a wild, you can choose to use the wild after you have drawn all of your cards
• If the game runs out of cards in the shuffled deck, take the cards from the discard pile and flip them over to make in the new shuffled deck

Playtest Notes:

• Playtest #1:
  • Problem – The player who drew the card for the round had too much of an advantage, as they could immediately go from drawing to picking a card. 
  • Solution – The drawer for the round now draws 2 cards instead of one, allowing for everyone to have a chance picking a card and increasing the choices available for players
• Playtest #2:
  • Problem: The discard pile was made with cards being face down, potentially allowing for a player to cheat by lying about what cards they put down
  • Solution: The discard pile is now specifically face-up so that other players know what cards a player is putting down.
• Pictures:

Inspiration:

Takako Saito’s chess series inspired me, and how it changed small elements of chess to completely change the meaning of the game. I wanted to achieve this same effect with one of my favorite childhood games: Uno. Additionally, I was also inspired by the Dada movement, as I wanted to challenge what a Uno type of game could be just like how the movement challenged what art could be. While my game and the original are completely different, they both revolve around the same core idea of managing the cards in your hand and using luck to your advantage in a way that is simple enough so that all ages can understand the flow of the game. I really wanted to emphasize this in my game’s design, so I made sure to achieve a good balance between skill and luck.

If you’re a fan of the fast-paced card game Uno and enjoy the unpredictable twists of Fluxx, then you’ll love getOUT! This game blends familiar mechanics with fresh event-based challenges, bringing a new layer of strategy and excitement to the table. Whether you’re a seasoned Uno player or looking for something new to spice up game night, getOUT promises to be a fun, chaotic, and fast-paced experience.

The Rules of getOUT

Setup

• Players: 2-10
• Decks: Standard Uno deck + an Event deck.
• Starting Cards: Each player begins with 7 Uno cards.

Event Deck

• The event deck contains challenge cards with different tasks players must complete using their Uno cards.

Gameplay

Turn Order

• Players take turns in a clockwise direction.

Draw Phase

• At the start of each turn, the active player draws one card from the challenge deck.
• If a player is running low on cards, they may also choose to draw from the regular Uno deck.

Event Phase

• The active player draws an event card and must complete the task using their cards.
  Examples:
  • Flooded Room: Play two blue cards to escape.
  • Locked Door: Play one yellow card and one number 7 card to unlock.

Event Options

• If a player successfully completes the event, they discard the cards used and gain the specified amount of event points.
• If they fail to complete the event, they must keep their cards and face the event’s consequences (usually a penalty written on the card).

Card Effects

• Reverse: Can be played to complete a challenge, and it will reverse the turn order in the game.
• Skip: If used to complete a challenge, the next player gets skipped.
• Point Modifiers (+2, +4): Instead of drawing cards, the next player discards that amount from their hand.
• Wild Cards: Can be used to represent any color. Wild cards can also come with a custom rule, like forcing another player to complete an extra event, though these rules can’t give extra event points.

Winning

• The first player to earn 10 event points wins the game.

Playtest Pictures

Inspiration Behind getOUT

This game was born out of a love for two very different but equally fun card games: Uno and Fluxx. Uno’s simple, color- and number-based gameplay makes it quick to learn, while Fluxx’s ever-changing rules and objectives make it delightfully unpredictable. We wanted to blend the best of both worlds, adding a dynamic element of surprise with the event deck while keeping the core play of Uno intact.

Events in getOUT give players something to aim for, shaking up the usual rhythm of Uno by introducing unique challenges each turn. The unpredictability of the event deck was inspired by the chaos that makes Fluxx so fun. Additionally, the familiar special card effects from Uno remain in play, which keeps the game fast-paced and easy to grasp for those already familiar with the classic game.

Class Connection:

The project getOUT and the book On Edge by Cynthia Carr are connected because they both focus on breaking the rules and adding excitement to something familiar. getOUT takes the classic game of Uno and adds an event deck with challenges that make the game unpredictable and fun, just like how the artists in On Edge used performance art to surprise and engage people in new ways. Both highlight the idea of shaking things up—whether it’s through creative challenges in a card game or pushing boundaries in art. They show how unpredictability can make things more interesting and bring people together in unexpected ways.

Notes from Playtesting

This section will be used to track feedback and observations during our playtests. It will help document what worked well and what needed tweaking in the gameplay mechanics.

• Playtest 1: Add in event points so that now there is an extra layer to the game. Cards can be harder to complete but give more event points if completed.
• Playtest 2: add in the reverse, skip, point modifiers, etc so that you would be able to impact someone else more in the game.

Changes Based on Playtesting

• Adjusted the number of event points required to win from 15 to 10 for faster rounds.
• Tweaked the penalties for failing events to make them more balanced and less punishing.
• Modified some of the custom wild card rules based on player feedback to ensure they don’t overpower regular gameplay.