For project 3, the re-mediation of project 2, a research-based argument paper, I decided to do a game. Project 2 was written in a way where it would talk about multiple problems one subject has and would go on to the next set of problems from a different point of view. I chose to do a game thinking what is a better way of learning the struggles of each individual in the paper than a game. A game’s property allows the audience to see the full extent of the struggles one has to face. Unlike a infographic, a game teaches the audience in an engaging way by immersing the player in a situation. By engrossing oneself in the scenario given, it is able to invoke pathos for the player is experiencing and feeling in a first person. Unlike in project 2, which mainly used ethos, this game prompts the player to connect the dots evoking logos. However, how the game is made matters too. For example, I made two games: one of Snap and one on Google Forms.
Google Forms:
The form version was originally an alternative for Snap for it was easier to create the game and had good gaming schematic features built in. However, I decided to use it as an outline for coding the Snap version. I realized how visual components matter in how engaging the game is.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
