BCM300 – Working As A Duo

BCM300 – Working As A Duo

Shalisse Thompson and I both collaborated on the prototype for our card game “Controversy”. As there are only two people in our collaborative group, it was a clearly joint effort as we were able to work together as a unit, taking turns to converse information and ideas. The delegation of tasks and division of roles was quite simple, I took responsibility for the visual and informative components of the assignment and Shalisse took control of the editing and sound components. Although we had these designated roles and tasks, we still crossed over and helped each other, completing the parts efficiently and easily.

For the visual component of our prototype, I used Canva to construct our PowerPoint/video. I’ve always found Canva to be an amazing platform that gives you the capability to create beautiful work with little to no effort. I structured each slide for each topic highlighted in the outline for the assignment such as the targeted audience, background research and in the marketplace. Once these slides were laid out neatly and presented beautifully with different, unique titles. Once the PowerPoint was structured, I began background research along with Shalisse. We devised which sections we would each research, we used the shared Canva project to insert our findings and information. In my background research, I found it important to relate our constructed card game to an already established card game. The chosen card game in relation was “Cards Against Humanity”. Shalisse and I agreed Cards Against Humanity was the perfect example to compare to our prototype, both games were overt, controversial, and loud. Using this established game as my foreground, I used it throughout the presentation to gain a sense of relation and understanding to the prototype of our card game “Controversy”. This was seen as an example through the “In The Marketplace” topic, I used Cards Against Humanity to prove the likeability, popularity and statistics in such games that cause discussion, laughs and dilemmas. Along with this example, I did further background research on topics to insert in the game to discuss, as the game itself is on controversial opinions. We presented the class with several example topics to gauge which were appropriate, and which were not in order to test the limits we can reach in terms of controversy. With the combination of research and opinion, I was able to build a concise and flowing set of slides in our PowerPoint.

Before this semester, I was yet to have worked in a group with only two people, usually, the groups I have been a part of were between 3-5 people, making the delegation of tasks and workload significantly different. As you can imagine, the workload was immensely smaller, with more people in your group you can make a larger and more extravagant project with more information. Having a larger group also allows more opinion, input, and discussion – this can also cause disagreements and polar opposite opinions. Despite the abundance of positive points in being in a larger group, being a duo was easier. Shalisse and I’s communication was easy, our discussion was easy, and our delegation of tasks was easy. In larger groups, communication can become difficult, and people may become mute and not carry their load on the project. In a duo, it is so uncomplicated to converse. Shalisse and I as part of our planning, spent hours bouncing back and forth between each other, discussing ideas and seeing what each other agreed and disagreed with.  Deadlines, organising, and fairness were peaceful too. it was simple to just text each other and check up as well as see if we needed any help at all. In contrast, however, there were difficulties with working as a duo. As I discussed earlier, the workload was a lot, we had so much information we wanted to discuss but not enough time or people. It would have also been great to have a second opinion, as Shalisse would agree, we found it hard to disagree on what to do and had very like-minded opinions. After our presentation and receiving the tutor’s feedback, we realised that having a third person with an ulterior opinion could have levelled out our project.

Shalisse’s blog:

BCM300 Game experience analysis – PANDEMIC

BCM300 Game experience analysis – PANDEMIC

The exploration of games in this subject so far has been both insightful and bamboozling. Navigating games that aren’t the standard monopoly or uno was complex, to say the least. The process of reading step by step instructions, setting up the game (which can be particularly hard depending on the size of the game) and then even beginning the game alone is a tedious process – however, it can lead to a pleasant experience or disappointing one.

Drawn in by the loud colours and pictures of many games, it was occasionally a letdown to play some games – the loudness of the advertising not meeting the gameplay, which was quite boring. Fear of playing the game wrong and not fully understanding was also a large frustration. This was the case with the game “Pandemic”. The game started off a bad leg – pieces were missing and the instructions, personally, were way too confusing to understand. The idea itself hooked me to the game, playing unique characters and solving a pandemic, much like Cluedo. However, there were too many elements to the game, too many steps and the confusion amongst this added to a very unsuccessful game.

The group I played the game with then decided to watch a YouTube tutorial to help us further understand the structure of the board game along with the gameplay, but yet again due to the many many components, it was still very difficult to understand, even with the graphics and different perspective.

With many attempts of the game, it was fair enough to say – we gave up.

The design of the game had serious potential, and I believe it could have been seriously fun if we knew how to play it, especially with the deep and thorough story world and character backgrounds. With so many elements In the design layout including the many different types of cards, pieces, instruction pamphlets and storyline paths, it was a struggle to even register how to start.

An easier access point would have made the game much smoother and more accessible, even highlighting specifically where to start and end, people’s exact roles and how to win/lose/gain points.

After talking to my group in class some of the comments they made included –

“The many elements were overwhelming”

“Too much going on at once”

“Instructions felt like they were written in another language, too much going on”

“I wish there was any easier way to start the gameplay, It looked like it really had the potential to be fun and immersive”

So much like my own opinion, the group was on the same wavelength. We just wished there was an easier way to play the game, to the point of even an example gameplay in the instructions.

Overall, the game experience was a disappointment and a failure, not with just the game alone but with the countless attempts and the exciting approach due to the loud colours and characters on the advertising of the box. The game itself had an exciting approach, however, was let down by it’s too thorough and tedious set up – will not be playing again.


Abbott, B., 2022. Pandemic board game review: “A psychological shot of espresso”. [online] gamesradar. Available at: <https://www.gamesradar.com/au/pandemic-board-game-review/&gt; (Accessed 21 March 2021)