Play → Name → Make → Reflect

The Sequence

1. Play

Experience videogames firsthand. Not analyzing yet - just playing. Letting the videogame affect you.

What students do: Play assigned videogames with journaling prompts. Notice what they feel. Don't explain yet.

2. Name

Give vocabulary to the experience. "That feeling when you dash" becomes "the dash gesture." "Where did that mechanic come from?" becomes "aesthetic heritage."

What students do: Learn concepts that name what they've already felt. Discuss. Make connections.

3. Make

Create something that embodies the concept. Not just talk about gestures - build one. Use the Code Bank scaffolds.

What students do: Small, focused making exercises. Recreation, modification, original work.

4. Reflect

Step back and understand. What did you make? Why did it work or not? How does this change how you see videogames?

What students do: Written reflection, critique sessions, connecting to larger ideas.

Then repeat. Each week, a new cycle.

Why This Order?

The conventional order - theory first, application second - doesn't work for videogame design.

Conventional	Play → Name → Make → Reflect
Read about jumping	Jump in a videogame, feel it
Learn "game feel" vocabulary	Give name to what you felt
Try to implement jump	Build a jump that matches the feeling
Grade the implementation	Reflect on what you learned

The problem with theory-first: students learn words without referents. "Ludonarrative dissonance" means nothing until you've felt the dissonance.

The Play → Name → Make → Reflect sequence ensures that vocabulary attaches to felt experience, and that understanding emerges from making.

Play: What Counts?

"Play" isn't just passing time with videogames. It's active, attentive engagement.

Good playing:

• Playing with a question in mind ("What makes this jump feel good?")
• Journaling while or after playing
• Playing something unfamiliar (not just comfort videogames)
• Playing critically (noticing choices, not just reacting)

Less useful playing:

• Mindless grinding
• Checking phone while playing
• Only playing what you already know

The assignment matters: what question are students taking into play?

Name: Vocabulary That Fits

Naming should feel like relief, not burden.

If we've shown students Celeste and had them write about the dash, then we introduce "gesture" - they should think "oh, that's what that was!"

If they're confused by "gesture," we introduced it too early. They needed more play.

Naming principles:

• Name what they've experienced
• Use terms that help, not impress
• Let naming emerge from discussion, not just lecture
• Connect new names to old names

Make: Constrained Creating

Making should be scoped and focused, not open-ended.

"Make a videogame" is paralyzing.

"Recreate the Celeste dash using the dash scaffold in 30 minutes" is actionable.

Good making prompts:

• Clear scope (one gesture, one system, one level)
• Available tools (Code Bank scaffolds, not raw engine)
• Time limit (forces prioritization)
• Evaluable criteria (what does "done" mean?)

The constraint is the gift. Freedom overwhelms; constraint enables.

Reflect: Closing the Loop

Reflection is where learning consolidates. Without it, students do but don't understand.

Reflection prompts:

• "What surprised you in the making process?"
• "How is what you made different from what you planned?"
• "What would you do differently?"
• "How does this change how you see the original videogame?"

Written reflection is valuable, but so is critique: presenting work and receiving feedback.

The Rhythm Across VG101

Week	Play	Name	Make	Reflect
2	Celeste, Katamari	Gesture	Recreate a gesture	What is a gesture?
3	Trace gestures backward	Aesthetic Heritage	Heritage Translation	What's inherited?
4	Permission-heavy videogames	Permissions	Permission Audit	What does this allow?
5	Feel-focused videogames	Feedback & Readability	30-Minute Action	What makes feel?
...	...	...	...	...

Each week cycles through the sequence with different content.