Material structure and assessment structure.
The material was essentially telling us what makes good design; that if you're going to put something in a video game it should have reason. One small task we were asked to do was draw a chair that could fit into a video game. A mate of mine drew a Banjo-Kazooie chair that was made of jiggys and musical notes. It would fit in banjo-kazooie because of the aspects involved.
Pretty much, if you're designing shit it should look like an engineer designed it so it will look more pro.
Assessment was weird. This was only a 6 week subject, followed by 3 days of intensive tutorials which involved 40% of our assessment. The intensives pretty much were 8am-5pm on Monday and Wednesday, and 8am-8pm on Tuesday of nothing but group uni work in which we had to design shit that represented other shit...the theme was "lightness", so (out of the materials given - white cloth, glow sticks, bamboo, string) we made a computer screen, mouse and keyboard and said "This is represents lightness because now in the world, people are not relying on the sun and are instead getting an artificial light source -- such as one from a screen". It was just lots of stuff like that and two of the major creation tasks made up that aforementioned 40%.
The other 60% was comprised of a Journal that we had to document stuff we see and say how it is aesthetically sound and practically sound and all that shit. It also contained lecture notes and we were graded depending on how in-depth we had done it.
It really wouldn't surprise me if you had essentially the exact same structure dude. I have mates doing engineering and interior design, and they both do this subject but "Games" is replaced by "structures" and "whatever the fuck is involved in interior design", but then again thats because theyre at the same uni as me. haha.
