Apply design thinking and ideation methods to concept

In the last two weeks, our thesis class asked us to apply numerous design thinking and ideation methods in our prototyping process. Personally, I don’t come from a formal design background, so I’ve never encountered any of these approaches and methods in a structured environment before.

The Five Why’s 

This exercise was interesting, but probably more useful for someone who has just recently identified an area of interest. Since I’ve been working on my thesis research since October/November, I already have a very comprehensive list of reasons  why I want to pursue my thesis research. Here were my answers:  

Q: What are you making??
A: A queer game. 

Q: Why queer? Why game?
A: Games as a medium has always given me queer possibilities (even within
heteronormative narratives and settings)

Q: Why?
A: Games expand stories, like films, but offer at least the facade of interactivity, which brings
play, which triggers imagination. 

Q: Why is imagination and play important for this?
A: Play is prehuman, play allows you to let go of other things, lets you learn and make
mistakes in a safe space. Queer spaces often were very playful. 

      Q: Why?
A: Queer spaces such as cruising display many properties of heterotopias, and magic circles, they are temporary boundaries of play that have rules that are assigned either positive or negative. Also some historical queer spaces were straight up LARP (live action role play) such as Molly Houses. Ballroom Culture from New York in the 80s (and contemporary forms) are also versions of LARP (in the realness categories definitely). 

Creative Mind Map 

This exercise was interesting, and it allowed me to view my creative process from a holistic point of a view which gave me the insight on where I spend my time on and what I value in my process.

Making this map made me realize that I spend most of my time researching my initial inspiration/hunch, which as I have mentioned in my previous post is found through investigating lost history. Once I have gathered enough research, which can take months, I start experimenting with my hands and prototyping. In this class, it may seem like I was asked to come up with prototype ideas much quicker than I am used.  However, because I have been doing research for my thesis since October, coming up with some initial prototype ideas weren’t entirely difficult as I have remained true to my creative process.

 VURP (Viewer, User, Reader, Player) Map


At first, this exercise didn’t seem in any way useful to me. Coming from a fine art background, I have never considered how my audience experienced my work. It isn’t because it doesn’t matter, in fact in art school we always talked about how others would encounter the work (the height for hanging, how to install, lighting, blah blah) but the VUPR we considered was always one type of person: a person who is well informed in art, especially contemporary art. We never considered our work for people who don’t understand or care for art.

This exercise made us consider our work centred around the VURP first and foremost, which to me is working backwards and in hindsight, it provided me with a lot of insight namely who I want this project to be designed for? I can’t design for everyone, but it is accessible for everyone. If I am able to identify one type of VURP I am specifically targeting for, many designs decisions would already be identified. I can then choose to follow these decisions or subvert them, if I choose otherwise I have well-informed reasons why.
 

Working Backwards or in Opposition 

The prototype I made for this week’s prototyping class was not a prototype, it wasn’t even a sketch, it was an ideation method. However, treating it as if it was a prototype was productive. I decided that in order to find out what I want to make as a prototype in the next 3 weeks, I need to first work backwards, or in opposition to what my research has led me to so far. I created 3 simple combat level, using standard cover-based shooter mechanics. I explained this process in a more detailed form in my previous post but essentially it allowed me to understand better what I want to subvert and what I want to keep. How am I supposed to break the rules when I don’t know the rules or don’t know how the rules work? I think this might be a more fine art approach to making and creating and I found it a very helpful method to generate more ideas.
 

What Happened? Impression? What Next? What was learnt?
 
This was the most productive and helpful post-mortem exercise I have done. We were broken up into smaller groups, and within the groups we each had to answer verbally what happened, impression, what next and what was learnt? As we tell our peers our thoughts on the prototyping process, they also chime in, asking more questions, pushing you to find deeper answers. While I was reflecting on how testing on different skill level of gamers, from expert to non-players gave me invaluable results, Max asked me “Do you think your final game will be designed with gamers in mind, or with casual players in mind?” This question really struck me, and it made me realize that I want to aim for the former, as I think there are many games targeted for LGBTQ people out there that are friendly for casual gamers such as walking simulators and point and click adventures. What are the possibilities to design a queer game that really utilizes and subverts typical gamer mechanics and standards? Another comment that Max made, and it is because we are both grappling with this issue, is how explicit is the queerness going to be in the final game. Is it the politics that inform that making? Or is it visually explicit? Is it thematically queer? Politically? Theoretically? Currently my thoughts are, well it has to be all! One cannot exist without the other, queerness needs to be omnipresent, it should inform the worldbuilding, politics, mechanics, narrative, characters, movement and performance…etc.

Action and Value

Most recently, we did an exercise in class that asked us to come up with a verb. This verb should identify the core action of how your VURP interacts with your project. My verb was TO PLAY. Once we have identified the core action, then we had to associate a value of our project. At first my value was LOVE, but later changed it to PLEASURE. Lastly, we were asked to connect the action and value together, specifically how does your action lead to your value. In my case, how does my VURP play to gain pleasure?

I think play and pleasure are two words that already have a lot of connections and connotations. Play is often seen as a pleasurable activity; an activity of leisure, which is associate with pleasure. Pleasure is also associated with indulgence and excess, which historically have been a stereotype for homosexuals, as they were considered dandies, creative types, flaneurs, leisurely enjoying life, bourgeoisie, pretentious, anti-productive and anti-capitalistic. This is a very important relationship and informs the way I come to define what is "queer play" and how queer play is fundamental to the "queering of space". For many people, pleasure may not necessarily be a value, but an additional benefit. For me, I deeply associate pleasure as a core value of who I am and my work.

Instead of helping me with my prototype idea, this identification of play and pleasure inspired me to start thinking how to approach my written thesis document in the same way. I asked myself, if my creative project aims to be both playful and pleasurable, then why can’t my written thesis be the same? If pleasure is a core value of mine, then why can’t it extend to my other ways of working such as my methodology, my writing, and my research methods?