The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative.  In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration.  A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic.  It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen.  Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.).  Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form.  For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n.  Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy.  Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.

The Design Process of the hack-a-game game trial was similarly fluid, and seems describable by some combination of playercentric, and iterative.  In a way, the trial group did not consider player experience early enough in the process – something Fullerton would prefer (Fullerton 2008, 10-11) – but it seemed to emerge through iteration.  A good example is when the group discovered they had greatly extended the length of the game, and reactively swapped scoring, for a ‘last-goal-wins’ mechanic.  It is possible that the team was rather lucky with the ‘path’ of hacks chosen.  Perhaps an initial idea was not so foundational, and thus did not end up pigeon-holing any subsequent ideas (i.e. into a similar theme, mechanic, etc.).  Imagining the Process as an infinity of possible hack-decisions at the outset: surely some of these decisions take on a ‘tree-limb’, or fractal form.  For example, decision 1, may only allow for a series of 1a,b,c decisions, and precludes additional decisions of 2, 3, … n.  Another point to consider as part of the Process, is that this trial of the hack-a-game game involved an analog game, and therefore required little computational literacy.  Certain functions, and conditionals were instantiated, and modified in analog – and it is likely that a digital Design Process would be affected by the group’s competency of enacting these (most certainly in speed, or number of possible hack tests) in a digital format.