Collaborative Design Practice - Task 4 : Client Presentation
27.10.2025 - 07.11.2025 || Week 10 - Week 14
Hanson Pea Wei Hao || 0359463
Collaboration Design Practice || Bachelor of Design (Honours) in Creative Media || Taylor's University
Task 4 : Client Presentation
Hanson Pea Wei Hao || 0359463
Collaboration Design Practice || Bachelor of Design (Honours) in Creative Media || Taylor's University
Task 4 : Client Presentation
Lists
1. Instructions
2. Feedbacks
3. Reflections
Instructions
Meeting with The Original Game Creators - Tan Yee Qin & Her Team
After weeks of research, sketching, testing, and redesign, we finally reached the moment we had been working toward: presenting Gluconomy to our client. It was the first time we could see the game leave our drafts and become a real experience. It's not just something we designed, but something people could actually play, react to, and enjoy with us.
Fig 1.1, sharing our idea of the board with client
Fig 1.2, Try out the game with clients
Seeing the game leave our laptops and drafts and become a real experience on the table felt unreal. It was one thing to say “this is our design”, but it was totally different to see people react, laugh, compete, and make choices the way we hoped they would.
Client Feedback after try out the "New" Gluconomy:
Overall, the idea of separating the board so that each player has their own individual board is very good, as it allows for greater flexibility during gameplay. We also like the concept of placing each player’s own ATP cash openly on the board, as this creates a more transparent system. This way, players can clearly see how much ATP other players have, which encourages awareness and strategic thinking. It also prevents situations where players might hide or stack their ATP cash together and suddenly win the game, making the gameplay fairer and more balanced. Moreover, transforming the stock market card into a spinning method is a creative approach that adds novelty to the gameplay. While it may repeatedly land on the same values, unlike card-based mechanics where drawn values are removed and outcomes can be anticipated, each method offers its own advantages. The card system encourages strategic planning and prediction, whereas the spinning method provides greater excitement through uncertainty and randomness.
Regarding the layout of the board game, excluding the board itself and the ATP cubes, most of the visual elements appear to be more related to economics and a Halloween theme than to biology. From a player’s perspective, when they look at all the components of the board game, they may not immediately associate it with biological concepts. Instead, these elements are more likely to be interpreted as representing economic systems and the witch, which can weaken the biological theme at first glance and highlight an opportunity to better integrate biological elements into the overall design.
Try Out The Game With Other
Average Rating : 6.5/10
The players found the game very fun as it mostly involves gambling/Random chances. With that being said however, the game is a bit flawed in its gameplay mechanics because some component such as the "Insulin Attack" card felt a bit useless as converting your glucose to ATP straight without having any drawbacks just means your board will be empty and no attack can be done towards you by another player. Another thing that players pointed out were they inability to draw more cards (except for the shield card) making having the deck pretty pointless once drawn at the start. Lastly, in terms of gameplay, players found that the investment area seems to be a bit too overpowered as you can just stack shields card when you have enough glucose. In terms of design however, people like the modularity idea of the board and said that the artwork for each part of the game were okay. The pointer for the roulette seem to have the most attentions as in their session it landed a lot in between the lines. They also said that the top hat could have also been the pointer. The only other thing players pointed out was the noodle-like fingers on some of the cards/artwork.
Players' Improvement Suggestion
- Only ATP can be converted from glucose once it reaches their turn. However this only works if you have a playable round. For instance if your turn have been skipped, you are not allowed to convert your glucose to ATP.
- Have a way to draw more cards so that more chaos can be unleashed.
- You can only get a shield card from Investment if you win the Investment dice roll. This allows for players to not be able to consistently stack shield cards.
- Make the roulette pointer a bit sharper or just use the hat as the pointer.
Feedbacks
Client's Feedback:Overall, the idea of separating the board so that each player has their own individual board is very good, as it allows for greater flexibility during gameplay. We also like the concept of placing each player’s own ATP cash openly on the board, as this creates a more transparent system. This way, players can clearly see how much ATP other players have, which encourages awareness and strategic thinking. It also prevents situations where players might hide or stack their ATP cash together and suddenly win the game, making the gameplay fairer and more balanced. Moreover, transforming the stock market card into a spinning method is a creative approach that adds novelty to the gameplay. While it may repeatedly land on the same values, unlike card-based mechanics where drawn values are removed and outcomes can be anticipated, each method offers its own advantages. The card system encourages strategic planning and prediction, whereas the spinning method provides greater excitement through uncertainty and randomness.
Regarding the layout of the board game, excluding the board itself and the ATP cubes, most of the visual elements appear to be more related to economics and a Halloween theme than to biology. From a player’s perspective, when they look at all the components of the board game, they may not immediately associate it with biological concepts. Instead, these elements are more likely to be interpreted as representing economic systems and the witch, which can weaken the biological theme at first glance and highlight an opportunity to better integrate biological elements into the overall design.
My main responsibilities focused on the visual direction of the game. I handled parts of the art direction, logo design, power card drafts and partial final designs, and icons for the board layout. As the project progressed, I went through a long cycle of experimentation and redesign by testing different colour palettes, shapes, and styles to build a strong [candy + economy] identity. Some ideas didn’t work, and some designs looked either too childish or too serious, but each failed attempt still pushed the design closer to something clearer and more consistent. It taught me that good visual identity isn’t about one perfect idea, it’s about refining many small decisions until everything feels cohesive.
One of the biggest challenges was clarity during gameplay. I refined the logo and power card layouts by adjusting visual hierarchy, icon placement, and adding low opacity patterns so the designs stayed playful but still readable. There were many difficult design problems along the way, and even now I feel the game could be improved further, but that’s also why I’m proud. Reaching a final outcome under time constraints, while keeping the theme consistent across components, feels like a real growth moment for me.
The most rewarding part came after we met up with our client. Seeing them enjoy the experience and appreciate our work made everything feel worth it. They genuinely liked the game a lot, and that feedback felt like a “proof” that our effort translated into something meaningful. The only complaint was kind of funny, they didn’t like that they didn’t win. But honestly, that reaction also showed they were engaged enough to care about the outcome, and that’s a win in its own way. Overall, this project challenged me, helped me grow, and left me proud of what we created.
Comments
Post a Comment