Pretty poor course. The lectures are incomplete. Most of the learning process is left for the assignments. Finally, the scoring system for the assignments is very subjective leading to unfair evaluation. Please revise this course because it is a pity so low quality while first course is so good.

The main problem of this course is inadequate assessment of student work. No matter how well the work is done, the student cannot point out errors about which he himself admits. I am absolutely not sure that my game documents are not pieces of garbage.

Well, if Casey had learned to use the word "rigt" less often, it would have sounded much more convincing. Trying to calculate how many times for the course he uses it stopped at 300.

I would recommend adding more links to the GDC videos.

But do not forget about the pros. I never thought that I could write so much. A very important skill in expressing your own thoughts through writing. Explaining your idea to others was quite simple. Make it all in the form of a document - not. Thank you for that.

It was a great experience to realize that game development was much more than coding, designing and audio mixing.

G.R.E.A.T!

Great framework for game design. Got me focusing on a lot of things that I hadn't considered previously. I originally felt it started kind of slow, but that is how any idea starts. It needs to go through all of the steps necessary to make it a reality and Casey O'Donnell is great at teaching the process. Recommended

For me, the course was too general, basically an overview saying you can make game ideas out of nothing; however, it's going to be hard to bring them to life. I would enjoy the course much more if it would provide more practical examples of prototyping without code on different engines, provide more details about free-to-play monetisation and game design principles, etc.

I do not want to be so offensive, but I hold the opinion that this course is useless at all. I will give up my ambition to accomplish the Game Design and Development Specialization after studying half of this course.

First of all, the course itself has a lot of problems. Videos presented by professor, quiz for each small unit and the final assignment for the week, these things have little relevance. Actually I can just complete the quiz without watching videos at all.

Secondly, the assignment workload for each week is not reasonable.For instance, you may write a high concept document in week one and come out with a game prototype in week four, but you cannot complete a game design document in only one week! It is impossible even for native speakers and for most people who study in Coursera we do not just have to learn from Coursera! We may have jobs or we need to seek for a job or we just to study other lessons in campus, we can not just spend one week on this ambiguous course.

Furthermore, the peer review criteria is totally ridiculous! You have only three grades to give others, 1 for accomplish the purpose , 3 for beyond the basic demand and 5 for doing some epic work. The most ridiculous thing is that we should give 1,3,5 points for one demand which is called "Does this assignment is in PDF HTML or TEXT form?" . How to let just uploading files to be "beyond" or "epic"?

To cut the long story short, only people with mature game ideas or only for people who are already act as game designers can fulfill this course successfully but I do not think they need an introductory level course to improve themselves at all.

hghg

Feels dead - not too much mentor/admin activity.

Also, difficult course to rely solely on peer feedback, as it's all highly subjective.

Overall I had a great fun time further flushing out my ideas and learning how to transform them into working prototypes; however, being siloed to feedback from a few "low-quality" peer reviewers is eroding my experience, it would be better if Coursera/this course could ensure a diversity of peer reviewers. Right now it feels like I'm being trolled vs. receiving actionable feedback to improve.

Somewhere between the corse the lectures are mixed up. That means that you first have the questions then in the next part of the week there is a reading and explanation. This was kinda confusing.