Week 2 Response

In our group, Kira, Wesley, and I discussed the inherent feedback loop present in a “game” which can collect data from an input and influence that input through a few pre-set outputs. One example of this being the inherent nature of the “fortune teller”, a small paper children’s game which provides players with multiple options, depending on the options chosen, the player can receive one of 8 pre-set outcomes. We chose to make a quiz with varying paths based off of this concept.

Despite the outcomes being predetermined, they reveal a sort of “fortune” to the player, influencing them to make different decisions within the game in order to witness other outcomes. It is also the short length of the game that allows for replay-ability and the continued collection of data. The game does not end when the first outcome is revealed but rather when the player no longer chooses to continue searching for different outcomes. In the end, the outcomes have little to no meaning, however the choices made by the player and that response to output through continued input is what drives the true purpose of the “game”.

While our discussion and game focused on the input from the player and almost disregarded the player’s outcome, it seems that the other two groups were more interested in that outcome. Their games were also vastly different than ours while also seemingly and purposefully misguiding the player on certain steps in the game. I believe it is noteworthy that while there are simpler ways to collect data from an audience, a couple of the games created, including ours, chose to virtually mislead the player on the true purpose of the game.