Reflecting on CS390, Spring 2026 edition

I taught CS390 Game Studio Preproduction after a year off, and it was to have been the beginning of a three-semester sequence. However, there was an administrative error: an overestimate of the number of students who would need the sequence meant that we had two sections of CS390 running but only enough students to justify one. The compromise with the administration was that we would collapse the two cohorts into one. For various good reasons, mine was the sequence that was cancelled, so my small number of students will be joining with another cohort for next year's production sequence. 

I open with this story because it cast the whole course in a strange light. My original plan for the course was that I would be preparing them to work under my supervision next year, and I had set up scaffolding to support that growth. When I found out that these students would go to another faculty member, I realized that this aspect of my plans were essentially moot: the other faculty member and I have different approaches. At one point, I laid out on the board a list of topics I had planned to introduce and enforce on the preproduction students, and I left it up to them to vote on which things they thought sounded interesting. In the end, the only one they voted for was a bootcamp on command-line git, but I don't even think that "stuck" since I didn't have any follow-ups or see students working through comprehension; many seemed hooked on WYSIAYG GUI tools instead.

It was a good group of students, and it was fun to work with them on the journey. The first several weeks, we explored ideation and prototyping. There were a few concepts left on the table here that I think are absolutely worth pursuing. They ended up settling on two designs to move forward through the formal preproduction process. These were presented to my Games Advisory Board, who generously volunteered their time to give feedback to the students. This pitch presentation was one of the three major deliverables of the course, the other two being a vertical slice and a concept document. All the details, of course, are in the course plan.

This was my third time teaching this course, and a major change is that I did not require reading Lemarchand's Playful Production Process as I have in the past. This was an experiment to see how the students would do with less structure. I am not sure I have a strong conclusion. Parts of it are really powerful, and I found myself missing them. I did not miss the niggling doubt of whether a student actually read and thought about the content. I feel like if I brought the book back, I would need to do it in the way I evolved my handling of Clean Code in CS222, incorporating more explicit instruction on how to take notes and how to transfer from the text to the task at hand. I will need to revisit this before Spring 2027, when I expect to teach CS390 again.

I invested a lot of time during my sabbatical trying to come up with a good concept document framework. I blended together some of my favorite aspects of the old Tim Ryan article, Lemarchand's book, and Sellers' Advanced Game Design. It mostly worked, but there were three pain points in students' documents that I think I can alleviate by improving the recommendations. 

The first relates to project goals. Lemarchand has a whole chapter on this topic where he distinguishes between experience goals and project goals. I abstracted that into what I called design goals, but I think I would do better to just adopt Lemarchand's approach (which he credits to Fullerton, I believe). My students obviously struggled with the idea of making goals for the player's experience. They kept listing their own goals instead. That is, they talked about means where the goals should be about ends. For example, a team mentioned drafting as a core mechanism because they wanted drafting, but they didn't talk about the question that drafting answers. Curiously, this should tie back to MDA, which I know we talk about a lot in CS215 as an analytical tool, but perhaps we need to emphasize it more as a generative tool. Curiously, even after I pointed the teams specifically to Lemarchand's examples from Uncharted 2 in his book, the teams still did not seem to get it. In fact, I realized that they didn't get it in the same way that my CS222 students kept wrapping up technical requirements as user stories instead of doing proper user story analysis. It makes me wonder whether this idea, of user-centeredness or player-centeredness, ought to be a program-level learning objective, at least of the GDD concentration. (I was tempted to put that previous sentence in bold, but that looked really aggressive. Do you think I'll remember this otherwise?)

The second pain point was that I did not have an equivalent of Lemarchand's macro chart. He puts it as part of his "game design macro," which is equivalent to my "concept document." Without such instruction, the students waved their hands around things like how many levels there would be and what powerups might be available. Both teams, loving them as I do, really dropped the ball here: they both described games with a scope that was essentially unbounded due to their lack of quantifiable analysis. A macro chart really would have helped them face the work to be done, especially if I had pushed them to include incidentals that they tend to forget, such as marketing materials and playtesting time. I don't think an entire schedule is necessary, but the macro chart makes one face facts.

The third is that I did not require them to go deeply into what Sellers calls the detailed design. I can see in my own documentation that I shifted toward narrative explanation of core loops using Chambers' approach, but I cannot recall why I stopped there. I don't want to go as far as Sellers' formal system modeling, but I think more documented details would have helped communicate the interactions among systems. During the pitches, one of the board recognized that a project had simple systems with multiplicative effects: that's the kind of observation I want my students to make about their own projects, not for a third party to point out about it.

Taking all that together, it points to something crucial that I need to remember next time I teach the course: push the students to make smaller games. I am not sure how to quantify or enforce that, but it has to be done. They just don't have the experience to interpret subtle or even overt feedback in this regard. Baxter-Webb brings this up in a helpful video, arguing that people making "indie games" need to be familiar with what small games are like. If my students are coming in inspired by large games, they will be thinking of making large games. There may be opportunities here to require a more structured research phase to help set expectations.

For the "final exam," we met and talked about the semester. After some open discussion, I gave them three questions to answer, one at a time, and we went around and shared answers to each. It was a wonderful conversation; I could write a whole blog post about how the students articulated what they learned. The final question I asked was what advice they would give to their past selves or to new students coming into preproduction. The answer that sticks in my memory is to think of game design as making a gift for someone else, not as tinkering for yourself. This wraps up a lot of the meaningful conversation the students and I had about design goals, experience goals, playtesting, humility, and risk-taking. 

That covers the major parts of what I learned from teaching the course this past semester. I am grateful to have had a small group that worked so well together; I look forward to watching their projects from afar during their senior year. In the meantime, I will put this train away, knowing that I will be able to dig it back out in late Fall, when I get ready for the next group.