Mazer

How video games promote teamwork and the

supporting psychology

Modulnummern: CMN6301.S1 (BA)

Modulname: Major Project
Prüfung: Major Project – Schriftlicher Teil
Abgabedatum: 30.07.2021
Abschluss: Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) / Game Art /
Games Programming
Semester: BA0320 März 2020
Name: Lilli-May Gasser
Standort: SAE Institute Zürich
Land: Schweiz
Wortanzahl: 10457

Hiermit bestätige ich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig verfasst
und keine anderen als die angegebenen Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Die Stellen
der Arbeit, die dem Wortlaut oder dem Sinn nach anderen Werken (dazu
zählen auch Internetquellen) entnommen sind, wurden unter Angabe der
Quelle kenntlich gemacht.

08.06.2021. Küssnacht ______________________

Ort, Datum Unterschrift Student

I
 Abstract:
In this thesis, I focus on teamwork and how games strengthen the bonds in a group. Projects that require
teamwork can fail due to psychological imbalances within groups. Companies lose money when they hire
candidates who jeopardise projects. The problem at hand is the selection of suitable team candidates in the
work environment. The challenge is finding a method to improve the selection process. Is there an approach
using a game to identify personal character traits in candidates and therefore assist in improving selection? This
requires an analysis of candidates’ interactions in a competitive environment. As a trained game developer, I
designed a digital game based on a maze for the purpose of analysing cooperative behaviour. The game needed
to be intuitive but also psychologically challenging to provoke emotions. The psychological building blocks used
to analyse user interaction were based on Eric Berne’s book, Games People Play. Berne provides structural
diagrams to analyse psychological interactions. The systematic nature of a game helps identify personalities
suitable for a team. Results have shown that users reveal characteristic behaviour during interactions. This
includes neglecting the team for personal gain and even bullying teammates. Other users bond and build strong
positive dynamics through cooperation. These results are comparable to real-life work dynamics. Due to the
complexity of my maze, users found it challenging to manoeuvre. This resulted in an increased focus on their
character becoming dominant, reducing some of the cooperating dynamics. In conclusion, it was proven that
the digital game allows analysis without informing users of its intention. This reduces the risk of deceptive
behaviour and can increase authenticity. Users revealed characteristic behaviour. Importantly, cross
transactions occurred between users. This resulted in more realistic behaviour than in an artificial test
environment. Good and poor team players often depend on their abilities to complement each other. As a result,
not all users build a compatible team, but they could be beneficial in another group. Further developed games
could serve as instruments for team selection. In addition, rewarding cooperative behaviour, which results in
team success, appears to strengthen team spirit. This could be used to strengthen teams with the help of
gameplay.

In dieser Arbeit werde ich mich auf Teamarbeit konzentrieren und ob digitale Spiele den Zusammenhalt und die
Selektion von Teammitgliedern unterstützen können. Projekte, die Teamarbeit erfordern, können aufgrund von
psychologischen Ungleichgewichten innerhalb von Gruppen scheitern. Unternehmen verlieren Geld, wenn sie
Kandidaten einstellen, welche Projekte gefährden. Das Problem, gestaltet sich um die Auswahl geeigneter
Teamkandidaten für Projekte im Arbeitsumfeld. Die Herausforderung besteht darin, eine Methode zu finden,
um das Auswahlverfahren von Kandidaten zu verbessern. Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, Charaktereigenschaften
aufzudecken, und damit zu einer Verbesserung der Auswahl beizutragen? Dies erfordert eine Analyse von
Interaktionen in einer Team Wettbewerbsumgebung. Als ausgebildete Spieleentwicklerin habe ich ein digitales
Spiel auf der Basis eines Labyrinths entworfen, um das kooperative Verhalten von Kandidaten (im Folgenden als
Anwender bezeichnet) zu analysieren. Das Spiel muss intuitiv sein, aber psychologisch herausfordernd, um
Emotionen zu wecken. Die psychologischen Bausteine, die zur Analyse der Anwenderinteraktionen verwendet
werden, basieren auf Eric Berne's Buch "Games People Play". Eric Berne hat in seinem Buch Strukturdiagramme
entwickelt, welche sich anbieten psychologische Interaktionen systematisch zu analysieren. Die Systematik eines
Spiels soll helfen, charakteristisch persönliches Verhalten zu identifizieren. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass
Anwender tatsächlich zu spezifischem Verhalten neigen. Dazu gehört ein Vernachlässigen des Teams zum
persönlichen Vorteil oder auch Mobbing. Wiederum andere Benutzer gliedern sich ein und bauen durch
Kooperation eine positive Dynamik. Diese Ergebnisse sind mit der realen Arbeitswelt vergleichbar. In diesem Fall
haben sich zusätzlich aufgrund des engen Designs meines Labyrinths, Anwender oft schwer getan den Cursor zu
manövrieren. Dies führte dazu, dass sie sich verstärkt, darauf konzentrieren mussten ihre Figur zu bewegen, was
auf Kosten der kooperativen Dynamik geht. Zusammenfassend ist es jedoch positiv, dass das digitale Spiel eine
Analyse ermöglicht, ohne die Anwender über dessen Absicht zu informieren. Damit reduziert sich das Risiko von
vorgetäuschtem Teamgeist, was die Aussagekraft erhöht. Anwender zeigen spezifische Charakterzüge, welche
es erlauben sie einzuordnen. Ganz wichtig ist, dass Kreuztransaktionen zwischen Anwendern beobachtet werde
konnten. Das sind Reaktionen von Anwendern auf das Verhalten von anderen. Solche Reaktionen genannt (cross
transactions) widerspiegeln persönliche Tendenzen unter Druck. Dadurch ergibt sich ein realistischeres
Verhalten als in einer künstlichen Testumgebung ohne menschliche Interaktion. Gute und schlechte Teamplayer
hängen oft von ihrer Fähigkeit ab, sich gegenseitig zu ergänzen. Folglich sind nicht alle Kandidaten kompatible
für ein spezifisches Team. Diese könnten aber in einer anderen Gruppe eine positive Ergänzung sein. Weiter
entwickelte Spiele könnten als Instrument zur Teamauswahl dienen. Darüber hinaus scheint die Belohnung von
kooperativem Verhalten mit einem Teamerfolg den Teamgeist des Einzelnen zu stärken. Dies könnte dazu
verwendet werden, Teams mit Hilfe von digitalen Spielen zu stärken.

II
1. Introduction 7
1.1 Goal 7
2. Current situation 7
3. Game layout 7
3.1 UI / UX 7
3.1.1 Game environment 8
4. Mazer gameplay explanation 8
4.1. User identity 8
4.2. Game layout and character movement 9
4.2.1 Introduction of added features 9
4.2.2 Boost introduction 9
4.2.3 Point system 10
5.Game-testing factors 10
5.1 Gaming experience 10
5.2 Psychological testing 11
6. Paper version 12
7. Paper test 13
7.1 Test Group Alpha 13
7.2 User starting positions 14
7.2.1 Round one 14
7.2.2 Score 14
7.3 User starting positions 14
7.3.1 Round two 15
7.3.2 Score 15
7.4. User starting positions 15
7.4.1 Round three 15
7.4.2 Score 16
7.5 Final scoring 16
8. Conclusion 16
8.1 Psychological conclusion 16
9. Test Group Beta 17
9.1 User starting positions 18
9.1.1 Round one 18
9.1.2 Score 18
9.2 User starting positions 18

III
 9.2.1 Round two: 19
9.2.2 Score 19
9.3. User starting positions 19
9.3.1 Round three 19
9.3.2 Score 20
9.4 Final scoring 20
10. Conclusion 20
10.1 Psychological conclusion 21
11. Test Group Gamma 21
11.1 User starting positions 21
11.1.1 Round one 22
11.1.2 Score 22
11.2 User starting positions 22
11.2.1 Round two 22
11.2.2 Score 23
11.3 Final scoring 23
12. Conclusion 23
12.1 Psychological conclusion 24
13. Test Group Delta 25
13.1 User starting positions 25
13.1.1 Round one 25
13.1.2 Score 25
13.2 User starting positions 26
13.2.1 Round two 26
13.2.2 Score 26
13.3 User starting positions 26
13.3.1 Round three 27
13.3.2 Score 27
13.4. Final scoring 27
14. Conclusion 27
14.1 Psychological conclusion 28
15. Transactional analysis 28
15.1 Test Group Alpha 28
15.1.1 Test Group Beta 28
15.1.2 Test Group Gamma 29

IV
 15.1.3 Test Group Delta 29
16. Final analysis 29
17. Game development 30
17.1 In-game updates 31
17.1.1 Online server 32
17.1.2 Creating the game files 32
17.1.3 FileZilla 32
17.1.4 Online testing 33
18. Conclusion 33
18.1 Conclusion regarding user behaviour 33
18.1.1 Game conclusion 35
19. Critical self-analysis 35
19.1 Design self-analysis 35
19.1.1 Psychological self-analysis 35
20. References: 36
20.1 Book References: 36
20.1.1 Internet References: 36

V
List of Figures
Figure 1: Vero, K, 2015 ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Gasser, L, Game design ............................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 3: Gasser, L, Game design ............................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 4: Gasser, L, Game design .......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Berne, E, Figure 1.A Structural Diagram,1964 ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Gasser, L, Design of the first level, 2021 ................................................................................................ 12
Figure 7: Gasser, L, Design of the second level, 2021 ........................................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Berne, E, (B) A Duplex Transaction, 1964 .............................................................................................. 17
Figure 9: Berne, E, (A) Type I, 1964 ....................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 10: Berne, E, (B) A Duplex Transaction, 1964 ............................................................................................ 21
Figure 11: Berne, E, (B) A Duplex Transaction, 1964 ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 12: Berne, E, (A) An Angular Transaction, 1964 ......................................................................................... 24
Figure 13: Berne, E, (B) Type II, 1964 .................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 14: Berne, E, (A) Type I, 1964 ..................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 15: Gasser, L, screenshot from Trello, 2021 ............................................................................................... 30
Figure 16: Gasser, L, Screenshot of the game Mazer,2021 ................................................................................... 31
Figure 17: Gasser, L, screenshot of the game Mazer, 2021 .................................................................................. 31
Figure 18: Gasser, L, screenshot of the game Mazer, 2021 .................................................................................. 32

List of Tables
Table 1: User identity .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2: Point system ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Table 3: Level expiriance ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 4: Group Alpha users’ .................................................................................................................................. 13
Table 5: First round scoring .................................................................................................................................. 14
Table 6: Second round soring................................................................................................................................ 15
Table 7: Third round scoring ................................................................................................................................. 16
Table 8: Final scoring ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 9: Group Beta users`.................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 10:Fist game scoring ................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 11:Second game scoring ............................................................................................................................. 19
Table 12:Third round scoring ................................................................................................................................ 20
Table 13:Final scoring ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 14:Group Gamma users` ............................................................................................................................. 21
Table 15:First game scoring .................................................................................................................................. 22
Table 16:Second round scoring ............................................................................................................................. 23
Table 17:Final scoring ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 18: Group Delta users` ................................................................................................................................ 25
Table 19: First round scoring ................................................................................................................................ 25
Table 20:Second round scoring ............................................................................................................................. 26
Table 21:Third round scoring ................................................................................................................................ 27
Table 22: Final scoring .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 23: Users` final analysis .............................................................................................................................. 29
Table 24: Tests summary ...................................................................................................................................... 33

VI
1. Introduction
Entire projects can fall apart when teams do not work cohesively. Successful candidate selection for teams is a
challenge for companies, and the cost of failure can be high. Through my work on this project, I have come to
realise that the individual characteristics of team members and their dynamics are key for failure or success.
Documentation on team management indicates that group activities reveal bonding and sabotaging dynamics
within a group. What if the problem could be addressed from the onset and candidates tested using a platform
to predict who is compatible for a team in a company? As a game developer, I developed a digital game to
analyse whether appropriate candidates can be preselected. To create a familiar challenge, I chose a simple
maze with the challenge that being all users must collaborate to win the game. Candidates are exposed to
competition to evoke emotions and to reveal cross-transaction responses. Assisting other players can be
rewarding for the team result but may come at a personal cost. The analysis of players’ responses will build on
Eric Berne’s structural transaction diagrams published in his book, Games People Play. The goal is to discover
whether personality traits of potential employees (from here on referred to as “users”) can be identified and
used for team selection. Is the behaviour of individuals in an interactive simulation under stress comparable to
authentic responses? Can this serve as a less costly and more reliable selection tool for team compatibility than
analogue questionnaires, which can be manipulated by applicants? Results indicate that high-performing teams
are best achieved by individuals working in coordination. When trusting and supporting others is rewarded with
team success, it appears to have a team bonding effect. The digital game could accordingly be developed as a
teambuilding instrument. The goal of this paper is to create digital gameplay to improve selection and bonding
for teams within companies, thus reducing team-building costs.

1.1 Goal
The goal of this thesis is to create a game that challenges the players and invokes an array of emotions. This can
help companies decide whether an applicant is suitable for a team. Many companies hire unsuitable employees
who slow down production or jeopardise projects; this creates costs and loss of time. Creating a game that is
simple for gamers and non-gamers yet complex enough to arouse emotions is therefore important.

2. Current situation
Nowadays, everyone brings their laptops to work; it is easy to open a game and press play since home offices
have become a significant part of daily life as a result of Covid-19. Social distancing has helped the gaming
industry grow immensely over the past year. Many companies formerly hosted group activities; with the current
restrictions on outside activities, gaming has become a part of a many people’s lives (Berne, 2016). Indie games
are perfect for at-home team building. The gaming industry has come a long way in the past 30 years and
continues to grow. However, there are not many beginner-friendly teambuilding games for users in the age
range of 16–60. The game I designed is alone in the gaming industry as there is nothing like it on the market.
Building my game around the criteria described below, I created a game unlike any other.

3. Game layout
3.1 UI / UX
Before designing and creating a game, a decision must be made regarding UI and UX. UI is the user interface,
the design aspect of the game: its form, aesthetics, orientation, and overall look and feel. Here, I mainly
focused on visual identity (design driven). UX is the user experience without the visual elements, including
navigation, structure, context, and engagement (user driven). Both UI and UX must work cohesively for the
product to be successful.

In establishing who the target customers are, I was able to adjust the game to make the results more accurate
given a specific context and content in the following areas:

● functionality

7
 ● usability
● user adaptability

Since the predesign phase is nonvisual, I needed to be clear about the goal of the game and the platform on
which it would run. First, I analysed the client’s needs by asking, For whom is this game intended?, while
keeping in mind the users’ age ranges, diverse backgrounds, and different levels of gaming skills. Accounting
for the dissimilarity of players, I aimed to build a game that is easily understood and intuitive to play.

Figure 1: Vero, K, 2015

3.1.1 Game environment

To keep the game as uncomplicated as possible, I looked at existing gameplay and games familiar to most
people. For character movement, I studied Snake; this is a game that many have encountered. Up-down-left-
right is how the characters move around their environment. This is an easy system for players. The
environment itself is a maze. Mazes are encountered many times throughout life, be it in comics, newspapers,
or puzzle books. This familiarity with mazes results in the game being self-explanatory. Boosts and barricades
(chapter 4.2.1 Introduction of added features) are new features to some users who do not have gaming
experience, so keeping the features as simple as possible is essential. Players need to make abrupt decisions
and refrain from taking too much time trying to figure out how to use the game features. The final product will
run on PC.

4. Mazer gameplay explanation

There were four test groups (referred to as Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Gamma), each divided into two teams with
three players each. Three rounds of Mazer were competitively played. Each team member participated in each
of the following assignments throughout the three rounds:

● Had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage,
● Has the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier,
● Had access to the boost and were required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.

4.1. User identity

The test groups consisted of six users divided into two teams.
Example:

Table 1: User identity

Team 1 Team 2
1A 1B
2A 2B
3A 3B

8
4.2. Game layout and character movement
The maze was split in half with Team 1 (red zone) on top and Team 2 (blue zone) below, making it easier for the
users to identify their groups. The players' characters glowed on their monitors; this is how they identified their
own characters from the others. For a team to win, all members had to reach the yellow centre.

Figure 2: Gasser, L, Game design

4.2.1 Introduction of added features

To make this a team effort, I introduced three features, namely the barricade, the trigger button, and the
boost:
• Barricade: This allows blocking a single user from reaching the centre.
• Trigger button: When a user activates the trigger button by walking over it, the barricade is lifted,
allowing their team member to reach the centre.

Figure 3: Gasser, L, Game design

4.2.2 Boost introduction

• Boost: This is a speed enhancer that advances the user directly to the centre.
The boost is observed as bait and was intended for the users to activate the trigger button to lift the barricade
considering they had a longer way around the maze. However, the boost was strategically placed to provide
access to users from the same team. This allowed monitoring when users stole the boost from their team

9
members, thus granting themselves an express pass to the centre and increasing their chances for higher
rankings.

Figure 4: Gasser, L, Game design

4.2.3 Point system

Users were awarded points for reaching the centre, thus encouraging competitive behaviour. Personality traits
were displayed when a user stole a boost to their own advantage. The user with the most points by the end of
three games was rewarded with a cash prize. These point systems (Osborne and Rubinstein, 1994) are found
primarily in first-person shooters.
Table 2: Point system

Place Score

1st 15

2nd 10

3rd 5

4th 2

5th 1

6th 0

5.Game-testing factors
.
5.1 Gaming experience
The gaming experience is broken down into three levels to distinguish users’ knowledge.

10
Table 3: Level experience

Low experience: Level 1 Casual gamer: Level 2 Frequent player: Level 3

Board games Board games Board games
Puzzles Puzzles Puzzles
Card games Card games Card games
Mobile / Tablet games Mobile / Tablet games
0–1 hours of gameplay a week PC
0–3 hours of gameplay a week Play Station
Xbox
Nintendo

0–7+ hours of gameplay a week

(https://www.limelight.com/resources/white-paper/state-of-online-gaming-2020/ )

5.2 Psychological testing

The game evokes personal behavioural patterns in users in response to competitive situations, therefore making
it difficult for them to mask true personality traits. It is designed to help companies decide whether an applicant
is suitable for a team. Mazer is not only used to filter out candidates; it is also designed to help existing teams
grow and bond. When emotions are triggered, they are accompanied by a set of behavioural patterns. The
different types of ego states are natural psychological phenomena (Moxon, 2001) representing the different
egos people take on in particular situations. When placed into a social environment, a person exhibits one of
the three ego patterns, and this changes depending on the situation. In trying to understand the human
response to a game, the responses first need to be broken down into these three psychological factors:

1. Ego, which resembles the parent figure;

2. Ego of rationalism, representing adulthood; and
3. Ego of a child.

5.2.1 Parent
The parent ego is manifested when a person takes on a parent's role, which is usually a reflection of the person’s
parent(s). The person will respond in the manner of their parents, be it in speech, posture, feelings, or gestures.
The parent is often shown in two forms: direct and indirect. The direct form is expressed in the phrase, “Do the
same that mummy does”, while the indirect form is expressed by “Don’t copy mummy, just do as I say”.

5.2.2 Child
Reacting in the same manner as a child is not to be mistaken for behaving childishly. Child or childlike in this
context describes the most valuable parts of one’s personality, such as being charming, carefree, rebellious, and
creative. The words “mature” and “immature” have no meaning in this context; however, ignorant and short-
tempered are also seen as features of the child's ego.

5.2.3 Adult
The adult ego is seen as the rational one; it forms a realistic understanding of its surroundings. The encounters
tend to proceed in chains so that each response is, in turn, a stimulus. The first rule in communication is that
communication will proceed smoothly as long as the transactions are complimentary. What the people involved
are actually engaging in is irrelevant. When two people are gossiping, it is seen as a parent-to-parent interaction.
Solving problems is seen as adult-to-adult, and playing with or comforting one another represents child-to-child
or parent-to-child. Communication is broken off when a cross transaction occurs. The most common cross
transactions are caused by social difficulties.

11
Figure 5: Berne, E, Figure 1.A Structural Diagram,1964

6. Paper version
Sketching the outlines for two mazes starting with squares placed inside each other was challenging.
This set the foundation for seeking six individual pathways leading to the centre, drawing with three different
colours to differentiate each player’s route. I ensured that there were three entrances on both halves of the
maze from which players could start. To free up dead-end pathways, borders had to be partially erased. The
paper version was used as an introduction, allowing players to familiarise themselves with the game.

Figure 6: Gasser, L, Design of the first level, 2021

After the initial introduction, hindrances and boosts were introduced, but the gameplay remained the same. On
the digital version, a short tutorial popped up for the players, making it easier for them to visualise what each
symbol represented.

12
Figure 7: Gasser, L, Design of the second level, 2021

7. Paper test

7.1 Test Group Alpha

Table 4: Group Alpha users’

Team 1 Age Job Experience Team 2 Age Job Experience

1A 23 Optometrist Level 3 1B 16 Student Level 2

2A 20 Student Level 2 2B 22 Student Level 2

3A 24 Gardener Level 3 3B 19 Student Level 2

Alpha players were those experienced in gaming and playing board games; the teams were randomly split into
groups and introduced to the gameplay and mechanics.

Game layout level 1: Played a couple of test rounds of the game to familiarize themselves with the character
movements.
Game layout level 2: Added features. Introduction of hindrances and trigger buttons.

The groups were aware that all team members collectively had to reach the centre to win the game. Team
members motivated and supported each other to reach the goal together. It became evident that after playing
with the added features, the participants, who were unfamiliar with each other, formed bonds that
strengthened their teams by motivating each other and working efficiently in stressful situations (Riad EN,
2019e). After completing a few rounds including hindrances and trigger buttons, another feature, the boost, was
introduced. The boost is a speed enhancer for the player with the longest path around the maze to activate with
a trigger button, allowing their team member to pass the barrier (1up Indie, 2021); it helps the player reach the
centre after assisting their fellow team member. However, in this experiment, the boost was strategically placed
so that only players 1A, 3A, 3B, and 2B had access to it. The boost was intended to be used by Players 3A and
3B. In the first few rounds, Players 1A and 2B avoided stealing the booster to ensure their team’s win (Riad EN,
2019f). In many games, players with more points received a reward; therefore, I intentionally refrained from
informing them that I kept track of who reached the centre first. Once I informed them of their scores, little
interest was shown as all were focused only on their team winning. The points were reset to 0. Proceeding with

13
a game of best-of-three, I placed a CHF 50 note in the centre of the field as bait and informed the participants
that the player with the highest score at the end of the game would win the money. Immediately, the players
started looking at each other (Spalding, 2015b). Player 1A asked the question that was on everyone's mind: “So,
let's say one of us has the highest score. They get the money, but what if that person's team loses the game?
Does the score influence the team winning or not?” I explained to them that the rules remained the same:
everyone had to reach the centre for the team to win; however, the first person to reach the centre would gain
the most points, resulting in them winning the money, regardless of whether the team won. I placed the players
in the same position as in the last game.

7.2 User starting positions

Team 1:
Player 1A had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 2A had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 3A had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the barrier.

Team2:
Player 1B had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 2B had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 3B had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.

7.2.1 Round one

As the game began, Player 1A rushed to the boost to be the first at the centre; this slowed down Player 3A, and
they lost the first game. Team 2 worked together and ignored the bait. Team 2 won the first game. Team 1 was
annoyed by Player 1A for losing the game for their own selfish needs.

7.2.2 Score
Table 5: First round scoring

1A 1st 15

2B 2nd 10

3B 3rd 5

1B 4th 2

2A 5th 1

3A 6th 0

7.3 User starting positions

Team1:
Player 1A had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 2A had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.
Player 3A had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage

14
Team2:
Player 1B had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 2B had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 3B had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.

7.3.1 Round two

Round 2 played out a little differently than anticipated. Team 1 helped Player 1A. Team 2 played poorly. Player
1B received no points in the last game, so they stole the boost and came in first. However, Player 3B finished
last. Team 1 won this round. Player 3A did not steal the boost from Player 2A, as players 2A helped them in the
previous round. However, Player 3A confronted Player 2A as to why they helped Player 1A and did not let player
1A stay behind the wall. Player 2A responded that they would rather finish with a tie than lose another game.
Team 1 was upset at Player 1B for stealing the boost. In their defence, Player 1B responded that the team was
still in a tie, and the team should direct all their efforts towards winning the next round.

7.3.2 Score
Table 6: Second round soring

1B 1st 15

3A 2nd 10

2B 3rd 5

2A 4th 2

1A 5th 1

3B 6th 0

7.4. User starting positions

Team1:
Player 1A had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.
Player 2A had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 3A had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.

Team2:
Player 1B had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 2B had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the barrier.
Player 3B had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.

7.4.1 Round three

As soon as the game began, Player 1A rushed to the boost and made it into the centre first. Player 2A had to
retrack all the way back to the trigger button to help Player 3A so they could finish. Player 2B told Player 3B to
take the boost and go for the win. Player 2B followed, also making it to the centre, leaving Player 1B stuck behind
the barrier.

15
7.4.2 Score
Table 7: Third round scoring

1A 1st 15

3B 2nd 10

2B 3rd 5

2A 4th 2

3A 5th 1

1B 6th 0

7.5 Final scoring

Table 8:Final scoring

1A 1st 31

1B 2nd 20

2B 3rd 20

3B 4th 15

3A 5th 11

2A 6th 5

8. Conclusion
Group Alpha was a success; the game worked as I had anticipated. At the beginning of the testing, all participants
were strangers. After playing a few rounds, they started to form a bond and became a team. Everyone in this
group had gaming experience; no one had a problem understanding the game. I found that learning to play and
work as a team and listening to one another provides an excellent way for teams to bond as well as an icebreaker
in becoming comfortable with one another. When the bait was placed, it was easy to see which players fell for
it and which did not. Players who refrained from the bait tended to stick closer together, encouraging one
another to reach the goal. This was interesting and different from what I had expected; I did not expect those
who played by the rules to stick together, help each other, and consequently sabotage the player who went for
the bait. This shows that when stress levels rose, certain team members sought to help each other reach the
goal.

8.1 Psychological conclusion

As soon as the bait was planted, two out of the six players fell for it and completely disregarded their teams.
When Players 1A and 1B played to their advantage, the rest of the team worked together and played against
them. This was a new finding. Player 2A even backtracked to help their teammate. Comparable to Team 2,
Players 2B and 3B forged ahead, leaving Player 1B stuck behind the wall. In Group Alpha, Players 2A and 3A

16
proceeded to act out a transactional stimulus seen as an adult-to-adult transaction (Figure 1); the stimulus was
transparent. The same was found with Players 2B and 3B; they also sent out a stimulus-response from adult-to-
adult egos. Player 2A helped Player 1A after 1A had betrayed them (Riad EN, 2019g). This is an adult-to-adult
response on a social level, being rational and helping win the game rather than losing. Players 1A and 1B both
played on a child-to-child psychological level (Figure2) based on an attitude of “Me over everyone”.

Figure 8: Berne, E, (B) A Duplex Transaction, 1964 Figure 9: Berne, E, (A) Type I, 1964

9. Test Group Beta

Table 9: Group Beta users`

Team 1 Age Job Experience Team 2 Age Job Experience

1C 18 Student Level 1 1D 45 Secretary Level 2

2C 19 Student Level 3 2D 21 Delivery Level 3

man

3C 19 Student Level 2 3D 63 Accounting Level 1

For this team dynamic, I divided the group by age to see if the younger group would work faster than the older
group. The game itself should be playable for all ages, but splitting the players up by age could show whether
the teams approach the game differently based on this factor. Once the game was set up and explained, the
players practiced with a couple of test rounds. After they became familiar with the gameplay, I introduced the
features. Team 1 did better than Team 2. Player 3D did not understand that the trigger button had to be
activated to help the other player, but after having it explained again, they understood. After a few more test
runs, all the players felt comfortable with the game. The first few games were played without the boost. The
teams bonded faster than expected. Each team had a leader: Team 1’s leader was 3C, and Team 2’s was 1D.
Team 2 was slower than Team 1, and it was clear that the differences in age and gaming experience formed the
root cause. Team 1 worked well together in ensuring that everyone reached the goal, especially by assisting
Player 1C as this person’s gaming experience was lacking. Team 2 started to pick up the pace, becoming equally
as fast as Team 1. After three games, Players 1D and 3D started to quarrel. Player 1D felt that Player 3D was
purposely playing poorly to slow them down. I was unsure what the impact of the bait would be as Team 2 was
already falling apart. However, I continued to the baiting. The boost was introduced. I informed the players that
points would be added, and I explained the point system. They seemed indifferent. As soon as I placed the CHF50
note in the centre and mentioned that the player with the most points would win the money, Team 1 began
strategising to win the game and take the money, while Team 2 focused on helping Player 3D, thus increasing
their chances of winning.

17
9.1 User starting positions
Team 1:
Player 1C had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.
Player 2C had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 3C had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.

Team 2:
Player 1D had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 2D had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 3D had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.

9.1.1 Round one

As the game commenced, Player 3D rushed to the trigger button and activated the boost, surprisingly playing
better than in the test rounds (Spalding, 2015a). Team 2 played well together, charging to the centre. Both
teams worked comprehensively in striving to win the game.

9.1.2 Score
Table 10: Fist game scoring

2D 1st 15

3C 2nd 10

3D 3rd 5

1C 4th 2

1D 5th 1

2C 6th 0

Team 1 won the first game. Players 1D and 2D were elated by how well 3D played. Meanwhile, Team 2 was
strategising over the next game to guarantee a win.

9.2 User starting positions

Team1:
Player 1C had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 2C had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 3C had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.

Team2:
Player 1D had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.
Player 2D had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 3D had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.

18
9.2.1 Round two:
As the game began, everyone rushed to get to the centre. Team 2 won. Team 1 was eager to win the final
match. No one showed interest in the points or money.

9.2.2 Score
Table 11: Second game scoring

1C 1st 15

3D 2nd 10

2C 3rd 5

3C 4th 2

2D 5th 1

1D 6th 0

9.3. User starting positions

Team1:
Player 1C had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 2C had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.
Player 3C had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.

Team2:
Player 1D had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 2D had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.
Player 3D had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.

9.3.1 Round three

Player 1C rushed to steal the boost, taking it to their sole advantage, declaring victory, and grabbing the money.
The room fell silent; even I was surprised ‘Let’s Learn This Together’ 2018. No one was interested in finishing the
round. The participants were all taken aback by player 1C’s callousness. I asked the winner why they played the
way they did. They responded that they had the shortest route in the final round and just finished first by luck.
They knew that they had the win in the final round, giving them enough points to win the money. I then asked
player 1C if they did not consider their team, they could have lost because of them. They responded by saying,
“I wanted the money and did not care for the team”.

The tension in the room began to rise. Player 1C announced they would be leaving. The other participants were
still perplexed over the experience. I then explained to them the true intention of the game.

Test Group Beta was a success. Akin to Group Alpha, strangers started to bond. It was interesting to see how
rapidly the participants bonded, affirming that the game works quite well as an ice breaker, and how some
people only thought of themselves instead of working together towards a goal.

19
Team 2 initially struggled to bond due to Player 3D’s age and lack of gaming experience (It took Player 3D longer
than the others to understand the game).

A minor dispute broke out between Players 1D and 3D. Player 1D’s perception of Player 3D was that they
deliberately played poorly to agitate Player 1D. However, testing showed that Player 3D was the best player on
the team.

In test group Beta, only one participant stole the bait. Nonetheless, this did not mean that the others were not
willing to do the same.

9.3.2 Score
Table 12:Round three scoring

1C 1st 15

2C 2nd 0

3C 2nd 0

1D 2nd 0

2D 2nd 0

3D 2nd 0

Considering that the other players did not want to finish the game, I placed them all in second place with zero
points.

9.4 Final scoring

Table 13:Final scoring

1C 1st 32

2D 2nd 16

3D 3rd 15

3C 4th 12

2C 5th 5

1D 6th 1

10. Conclusion
I was sceptical of Team 2 and lacked confidence that they would work together. Player 1D distrusted Player 3D,
claiming that they were deliberately playing poorly to make the team lose. With the observed change in Player
3D’s character, this player quickly became the best on the team. Team 2 worked hard together for the win.
Throughout the game, Player 1C turned their back on the team and stole the bait. Again, it can be seen how the
game tricks users into falling for the bait, although this transaction was only seen towards the end.

20
10.1 Psychological conclusion
After the bait was placed, Team 1 was eager to win the game and money. On both Teams 1 and 2, the
transactional stimulus was adult-to-adult, the whole team nudging each other to win the game. However, in the
last round, Player 1C changed their stimulus to child-to-child, disregarding the rest of the team and playing to
their own advantage. This often occurs: A response suddenly activates the child's ego. In this test group, it can
be seen how the stimulus changed from adult-to-adult to child-to-child. The stimulus can swing back and forth
depending on the situation. Being dismayed by the actions of Player 1C, the rest of the participants did not
continue the game.

Figure 10: Berne, E, (B) A Duplex Transaction, 1964

11. Test Group Gamma

Table 14:Group Gamma users`

Team 1 Age Job Experience Team 2 Age Job Experience

1E 50 Teacher Level 1 1F 21 Salesperson Level 2

electronics

store

2E 16 Student Level 2 2F 25 Nail technician Level 1

3E 23 Salesperson Level 1 3F 47 Bank Level 2

clothing store accountant

Paring the players up by age, I placed the two eldest into separate groups to see how they integrated with the
younger participants.

When I explained the game and the rules, it seemed that everyone understood quickly. After three rounds, I
introduced the features.

Both teams quickly understood that one is responsible for the others in their team. I then added the boost and
explained its purpose. When I let them play a few rounds, nothing much happened. I then planted the bait. They
seemed confused, not taking it seriously; they pointed out that they did not want to take money from me. I then
proceeded with the best-of-three.

11.1 User starting positions

21
Team1:
Player 1E had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 2E had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.
Player 3E had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.

Team2:
Player 1F had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the barrier.
Player 2F had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 3F had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.

11.1.1 Round one

As the game began, both teams rushed to the centre, trying to ensure the win. Player 3E came in second to last.
Player 1E was frustrated and raised their voice, accusing Player 3E of being too slow. Player 3E responded that
they were being careful not to steal the boost from Player 2E, resulting in a loss. Player 2E pointed out that
Player 3E could avoid this by taking a different route and thanked Player 3E for considering this outcome. Team
2 did not mind losing; instead, they strategised on winning the next round. Player 1E seemed annoyed by Player
3E and behaved with hostility towards them.

11.1.2 Score
Table 15:First game scoring

1E 1st 15

2E 2nd 10

2F 3rd 5

3F 4th 2

3E 5th 1

1F 6th 0

11.2 User starting positions

Team1:
Player 1E had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 2E had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 3E had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the barrier.

Team2:
Player 1F had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 2F had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the barrier.
Player 3F had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.

11.2.1 Round two

Before the second game began, Player 2F remarked that they hoped Player 3E did not mess up and cause Team
1 to lose the game. Player 1E indignantly looked over at Player 3E. Player 1E yelled at Player 3E to get out of the
way and rushed over to the boost, hitting the trigger button and shouting, “Get over to the centre!” By the time

22
Player 1E reached the centre, Team 2 had already won. Player 1E was so upset that they got up and left. Player
2E commented that they did not think what Player 2F said was fair, knowing full well that Player 1E would
become upset and do something irrational. Player 2F responded by saying, “It worked, didn’t it? We won, and
that’s all that matters”. Participant 3E felt uncomfortable and wanted to leave. Players 1F and 3F agreed that
what 2F did was wrong and said they did not want to win that way, showing compassion for Player 3E.

11.2.2 Score
Table 16:Second round scoring

1F 1st 15

1E 2nd 10

2E 3rd 5

3F 4th 2

2F 5th 1

1E 6th 0

11.3 Final scoring

Table 17: Final scoring

1E 1st 25

2E 1st 25

1F 2nd 15

1E 2nd 15

2F 3rd 6

3F 4th 4

Player 1E handed the money to Player 2E and said they deserved it, adding that it “was not fair what the others
did”. Player 2E at first did not want to take it, but 1E insisted. Player 2F did not understand why the others were
upset at them wanting to ensure the win for the team.

12. Conclusion
To my surprise, this game turned out differently compared to the previous two. Instead of going for the money,
two of the players were so focused on winning that they were untroubled by whom they harmed in the process.
This was a different result than I expected. In the group, there were two players who were willing to go to further
lengths if it was beneficial to them. A new discovery was that the game alone without the bait affected some of
the users. In conclusion, the bait did not work as I anticipated; however, the game still had an emotional impact
on the participants.

23
12.1 Psychological conclusion
Players 1E and 3E exhibited adult-to-child transactions (Figure 3). Player 1E was furious at Player 3E for almost
losing the game. Player 1E took on the child ego in being irrational and short tempered. Player 3E, however, did
not respond, thus exhibiting the adult ego. As the second game started, a more complex transaction was
introduced. Player 2F took the role of the adult on a psychological level (Figure 12). Player 1E fell for this
transaction and took the role of the child ego (Figure 4). When trying to trick someone into behaving in a certain
way, this is seen as a cross transaction at a psychological level (Figure 12), causing the dynamics to fall apart.
Based on this response, Players 2E, 1F, and 3F empathised with Player 3E. Although Players 1F and 3F were on
opposite teams, they showed compassion and comforted Player 3E. The transaction here was parent-to-child
(Figure 5). However, Player 2F was arrogant and did not understand why everybody was upset; if it were not for
player 2F’s actions, Player 1E would not have been so hostile towards Player E3; this transaction is at a child-to-
child psychological level (Figure 3).

Figure 11: Berne, E, (B) A Duplex Transaction, 1964

Figure 12: Berne, E, (A) An Angular Transaction, 1964

Figure 13: Berne, E, (B) Type II, 1964

Interestingly, in this test group, all three transactions – adult-to-adult, parent-to-child, and adult-to-child – were
demonstrated; however, in the other test groups, only a maximum of two were seen.

24
13. Test Group Delta
Table 18: Group Delta users`

Team 1 Age Job Experience Team 2 Age Job Experience

1G 24 Delivery man Level 3 1H 23 Hairdresser Level 1

2G 23 Bank assistant Level 2 2H 22 Salesperson, Level 3

gas station

3G 19 Student Level 3 3H 21 Mechanic Level 3

There was no significant age gap in group Delta, and the team was split randomly.

As always, the participants played the paper version a few times to become comfortable with the gameplay.
They caught on fast, and features were added. Once the features were explained, I let them play a few rounds.
The participants started to grow a bond and work together.

Once everyone was ready to play best-of-three, I again placed the bait. Similarly to the previous group, no one
seemed very interested. The teams began discussing the fastest way to the centre.

13.1 User starting positions

Team1:
Player 1G had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 2G had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 3G had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the barrier.

Team2:
Player 1H had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Payer 2H had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.
Player 3H had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.

13.1.1 Round one

The players all rushed to the centre, pushing and motivating each other. Team 2 won the first game. Team 1 was
not upset at all, instead bantering amongst each other in preparation for the next round.

13.1.2 Score
Table 19:First round scoring

3H 1st 15

2G 2nd 10

1H 3rd 5

1G 4th 2

1H 5th 1

25
 3G 6th 0

13.2 User starting positions

Team1:
Player 1G had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 2G had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the barrier.
Player 3G had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.

Team2:
Player 1H had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the barrier.
Player 1H had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 3H had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
13.2.1 Round two
Before the game started, it was silent; everyone was noticeably focused. As soon as I said “Start”, players rushed
to the centre. Team 1 won the second round. Team 1 gave each other high fives, motivating one another for the
final game. Team 2 analysed their last gameplay, hoping to get the final win.

13.2.2 Score
Table 20:Second round scoring

3G 1st 15

3H 2nd 10

1G 3rd 5

2H 4th 2

2G 5th 1

1H 6th 0

13.3 User starting positions

Team1:
Player 1G had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the barrier.
Player 2G had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 3G had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.

Team2:
Player 1H had no assignment but could steal the boost to use to their advantage.
Player 2H had the shortest route; however, they were behind the barrier.
Player 3H had access to the boost and was required to go around the maze to help the player behind the
barrier.

26
13.3.1 Round three
The two teams were joking with each other before the round began; there seemed to be no tension. Both teams
tried their best to win the game. Team 1 won the final game. While I was adding up the points, the two teams
started to bond with each other; this was new, unlike the other three test groups.

13.3.2 Score
Table 21: round three scoring

2G 1st 15

3G 2nd 10

1H 3rd 5

3H 4th 2

1G 5th 1

2H 6th 0

13.4. Final scoring

Table 22:Final scoring

3H 1st 27

2G 2nd 26

3G 3rd 35

1G 4th 8

2H 5th 7

1H 6th 6

After I handed over the winnings to Player 3H, they invited all the participants out for drinks. During this test, a
strong bond formed between the users. This was again a different outcome than I had anticipated. Delighted
with the results, I began working on the statistics.

14. Conclusion
For the first time, I saw a group dynamic. Teams 1 and 2 grew a close bond over a short period of time. Out of
all the test groups, Delta did the best. None of the users played selfishly or showed any signs of wanting to
proceed with a cross transaction. Group Delta was the perfect example of how this game helps team bonding.
Mazer is an excellent tool for team building, helping generate trust and mutual assistance. Mazer was not only
created to see where conflicts could arise; it was also designed to help teams grow.

27
14.1 Psychological conclusion
Test Group Delta grew a strong bond with one another. From the beginning of the game, everybody pushed one
another forward and played with banter. Once I had placed the bait and explained the rules of the boost, none
of the participants seemed to be interested. Team 2 won the first game. Team 1 was eager to win the next game,
so they stuck firmly together to secure the win. As the last round commenced, both teams were joking with each
other; there seemed to be no conflict at all. Player 3H won the money and invited the rest of the players to go
out for a drink. These transactions were all positive, each one resulting in an adult-to-adult transaction. Out of
the four test groups, Delta did the best, showing an adult-to-adult response and not interacting in a cross
transaction.

Figure 14: Berne, E, (A) Type I, 1964

15. Transactional analysis

15.1 Test Group Alpha

1A Age 23

1B Age 16

2A 3A Ages 20, 24

2B 3B Ages 22, 19

Here, Players 1A and 1B went against the team, while Players 2A and 3A as well as 2B and 3B stuck together.

15.1.1 Test Group Beta

1C Age 18

2C 3C Ages 19, 19

28
1D 2D 3D Ages 45, 21, 63

In Group Beta, only one user played selfishly (Player 1C).

15.1.2 Test Group Gamma

1E Age 50

2F Age 25

2E 3E Ages 16, 23

1F 3F Ages 21, 47

Group Gamma had the most transactions; here, I was able to see how users switched between the different
egos and how one player impacted another.

15.1.3 Test Group Delta

1G 2G 3G Ages 24, 23, 19

1H 2H 3H Ages 25, 22, 21

Here, there was only one stimulus response. Group Delta worked well with one another.

16. Final analysis

Table 23: Users` final analysis

User number Age Job Experience Intention

1A 23 Optometrist Level 3 Sabotaging the team for their own win
1B 16 Student Level 2 Sabotaging the team for their own win
1C 18 Student Level 1 Sabotaging the team for their own win
1E 50 Teacher Level 1 Bullying team members
2F 25 Nail Level 1 Starting conflict for the team’s win
technician

Age, work background, and gaming experience did not impact on behavioural patterns. The game itself worked
as designed. There were different outcomes and reactions; the game functioned well as an icebreaker and team
builder, and it filtered out users who used a cross transaction to break off communication.

29
16.1 Does the game function as it should?
The game functioned as intended, having both positive and negative psychological effects on the users.

16.1.1 Will this game work for hiring?

My research has proven that Mazer will be a success in the marketplace. Based on the results, I see that this
game was successful. Feedback from employers indicated that the game has never been tested under these
circumstances. An applicant might know they are being tested and take on a different ego; however, it is still an
excellent way to see how the applicant functions with the team. Do they listen to instructions given to them?
Do they work well under pressure? How is the communication within the team?
As this game has not yet been thoroughly tested in the workplace, I will gather statistical data as I receive the
results from employers.

16.1.2 What else is this game suitable for?

Good team dynamics begin with the team listening to and trusting one another. The game is based on these two
actions: listening to one’s teammates and trusting that they will help reach the goal. When a new member is
introduced to a team, they are sometimes shy at first; this is a great opportunity to get to know the team and
for the team to get to know the new applicant. The game can also be used as a team-bonding exercise.

16.1.3 What will this game provide in the future?

Through further testing and development, new levels and boosts will help the game evolve and further my
studies.

Human relationships comprise a complex topic, and it was interesting to see certain scenarios unfold. Building
the game and testing it has broadened my knowledge of human relationships as well as game creation. This has
been a new development for me as I now approach game design differently.

17. Game development

Figure 15: Gasser, L, screenshot from Trello, 2021

Using GameMaker, I decided to do drag-and-drop instead of writing the code myself since I have little-to-no
experience with coding. Using the drag-and-drop version of GameMaker made it easy to set up the first version
of the game. I learned to easily create commands to make my characters move up, down, left, and right, and I
implemented all the objects. When creating character movement, the object is first created; then, keys are
assigned to trigger certain commands.
Once the character successfully moved inside the game, I created collisions around the maze. For the walls
themselves, I had to make separate collisions for each one.

30
I test ran the game after every adjustment to ensure that it ran smoothly without any glitches.
At this point, I came to a dead end. I could not find any helpful tutorials. Most of the information I needed was
written in code. Deleting the progress I had made and starting over with code was the only option. This set me
back, but it also provided me with more variations and tutorials to help create the game. To my surprise, I
managed to finish the game in half the projected time, which gave me extra time to fix and polish larger
obstacles.

17.1 In-game updates

Regarding in-game collisions, players tended to get stuck on the edges of the walls. This was due to separate
collision boxes not being properly aligned. I went back and fine-tuned all the boxes, making sure none of them
overlapped or overlined the walls. Now, players will not become stuck when moving, allowing for smoother
gameplay.

Figure 16: Gasser, L, Screenshot of the game Mazer,2021

In Figure 16 above, it can be seen that the black collision boxes are not placed correctly, causing
characters to lag when games were played online. This was fixed by adding a smoothing logic to the player's
avatar to stop it from jittering around or lagging out of the game.

A lobby queue was also implemented. Players are placed in the lobby, waiting for the game to start.
Here, the players can practice moving their characters, familiarise themselves with the boost, and so on before
entering the competitive game.
When a game is in progress, a new player must wait until the game session has finished before joining a new
game. Players who finish a game are put at the bottom of the waiting list.

Figure 17: Gasser, L, screenshot of the game Mazer, 2021

31
Characters picking up the boost are now projected to the centre. This only happens in-game and not in the
lobby since the lobby is for testing and learning the manoeuvres.

Figure 18: Gasser, L, screenshot of the game Mazer, 2021

When entering the lobby, players can choose their own characters' names. Players are split into groups at
random. In the lobby above the maze, I placed the tutorial. All the boosts are placed at random so the user can
play around and get used to the game before it begins. Once all six players have entered the lobby, the first
game commences. In-game players can see the score and how many users have finished. Once a game has been
completed, a pop-up screen shows the final score of all the players and who won the match.

17.1.1 Online server

GameMaker has an option to export a game as a desktop application; however, the game is only accessible for
Windows users. My game should be assessable to all users, Mac, Windows, and Linux, so I decided to make an
online server so that anyone can assess it with their laptop, and there is no need for any downloads or
installation.
https://help.yoyogames.com/hc/en-us/articles/360011152612-HTML5-Uploading-Your-Game-To-A-Web-
Server
Through YoYo Games, I found a link that shows how to set up an online server.
Using HTML5, one can easily upload the game to a server that anyone across the globe can access. Having an
online server for testing is a great advantage. Due to the pandemic, home offices have become standard, and
the server allows people worldwide to play together. The online server also allows me to see how people play
and whether the game is easy for the users to understand.

17.1.2 Creating the game files

In creating game files, there is an option in GameMaker called “Create Executable” that saves the game as a zip
file using https://www.freewebhostingarea.com/ as the host. When signing up for an account, the user can
create a custom subdomain or use a domain they already own. Since I did not have a domain registered, the link
that was created is a line of randomised numbers. After setting up the webpage, I used FTPs from the same
website. Making an FTP account helped me to upload my game correctly to the online server.

17.1.3 FileZilla
In FileZilla, I was able to log in using the generated FTP account. FileZilla then created all the files needed for the
website. Uploading files from FileZilla is a simple process. First, a new directory is created for the games in the
web host by right clicking in the right pane and selecting "Create Directory and Enter It". This then opens a
dialogue directory (HTML5Games); the directory will open in FileZilla. In the explorer, one can now browse to
the location of the file and drag the HTML5 file into the right pane; this will be uploaded to the new directory.
From here on, users can access the game via URL.

32
 17.1.4 Online testing
With the game online and running without lagging or crashing, the testing phase began. Before I started testing
with people who lived farther away, I asked a group of friends and family members to sit down together and
test the game. This way, I was able to see if anyone was struggling or if there were any server problems. Once
everyone was set up and ready to play, I gave them the link to join. Players entered their names and started to
play around in the lobby. Here, the first few complications arose. Those who were not used to playing video
games struggled to navigate through the maze. From this, I could tell I needed to simplify the design. The maze
had too many walls. As soon as the game began, I saw that the players found it easier to play the game in full-
screen mode. The layout of the second level is larger than that of the lobby; this allows the players more space
to move around. After a few games, everyone was used to the gameplay and enjoying it. Although the game
works online without bugs or crashing, it is still a design in progress. As a tabletop game, it functions ideally;
players are quick to learn and understand it. As a tabletop game, this is where I saw the most psychological
exchanges. It took the group of users who play video games regularly longer than expected to begin to steal
each other’s boosts, think ahead, and bond as a team because they had no verbal interaction.

18. Conclusion

18.1 Conclusion regarding user behaviour

Users were asked to participate in a game I developed called Mazer. It was interesting to see strangers sit
together and play the game. The following observations were made. Users tested the multiplayer game, which
allowed them to strategise and either work together or against one another. When people are randomly divided
into teams, they tend to split into roles based on their strengths. Mazer is a digital maze. The game can only be
solved through teamwork, helping each other overcome obstacles (see Chapter 5 Gameplay). Without
cooperation among team members, it is impossible to win. The participants were not informed of the intentions
of the game to ensure natural behaviour. Four groups were tested, each resulting in different outcomes. Mazer
was created for candidate selection. In this artificial environment, I allowed the players to act out on a series of
behavioural patterns (see Chapter 5 Gameplay – 5.1.3 Adult). Based on transaction analysis (Chapter 15
Transactional Analysis), I was able to see which users were potential candidates for the particular job and which
were not. For the Beta tests, Mazer was tested as a tabletop game. I worried that the users could be aware that
they were being tested on their behaviour, causing them to purposely act in an affected manner. Since each of
the test groups produced different results for varying reasons (Chapter 16 Final Analysis), Mazer was proven to
work for selection. Initial tests were successful.

Table 24: Tests summary

Group Team 1 Age Team 2 Age Cross transaction Complimentary Conclusion

transaction
Alpha 1A 2A 3A 23 20 24 1B 2B 3B 16 22 19 Users 1A and 1B both Users 2A, 3A, 2B, (Chapter 15.1 Test Group
engaged in a cross and 3B all engaged Alpha) Group Alpha
transaction. Figure 6: in a complementary played well together
Berne, E, (B) A
transaction. Figure until the bait was placed.
Duplex Transaction,
7: Berne, E, (A) Type I, Users 1A and 1B fell for
1964.
1964. the bait, sabotaging their
team to win the prize
money.
Users 2A, 3A, 2B, and 3B
stuck firmly together,
trying to complete the
game by the rules and
showing strong team
bonding skills (Chapter
16. Final Analysis, 8.1

33
 Psychological
Conclusion)
Beta 1C 2C 3C 18 19 19 1D 2D 3D 45 21 63 User 1C engaged in Users 2C, 3C, 1D, (Chapter 15.1.1 Test
a cross transaction. 2D, and 3D engaged Group Beta) Users 2C, 3C,
Figure 8: Berne, E, (B) in a complementary 1D, 2D, and 3D were
A Duplex Transaction, transaction. Figure shocked by the actions of
1964. 7: Berne, E, (A) Type I, 1C. Group Beta did not
1964. finish the final game due
to the circumstances. In
the final match, User 1C
sabotaged their team for
the prize money, leaving
the whole group puzzled
by these actions (Chapter
16 Final analysis, 10.1
Psychological
Conclusions).
Gamma 1E 2E 3E 50 16 23 1F 2F 3F 21 25 47 Users 1E and 2F Users 2E, 3E, 1F and (Chapter 15.1.2 Test
both engaged in a 3F all engaged in Group Gamma) User 1E
cross transaction. complementary bullied their own team
Figure 10: Berne, E, transactions. Figure member (user 3E), while
(A), An Angular 7: Berne, E, (A) Type I, user 2F started conflict to
Transaction, 1964. 1964. ensure their team's
Figure 11: Berne, E,
success. Users 2E, 1F, and
(B) Type II, 1964.
3F showed compassion
to User 3E (Chapter 16.
Final Analysis 12.1
Psychological
Conclusion).
Delta 1G 2G 3G 24 23 19 1H 2H 3H 25 22 21 All users engaged in (Chapter 15.1.3 Test
a complementary Group Delta) Delta was
transaction. Figure 7: the only group in the
Berne, E, (A) Type I, entire testing phase that
1964. engaged in only one
stimulus (adult-to-adult).
No conflict arose (14.1
Psychological
Conclusion).

• Group Alpha had two different psychological interactions, one complimentary and one a cross
transaction (Chapter 8 Conclusion – 8.1 Psychological Conclusion). Two out of the six users engaged in
a cross transaction (Chapter 15.1 Test Group Alpha).

• Group Beta also engaged in two different psychological interactions, one complimentary and one a
cross transaction (Chapter 10 Conclusion - 10.1 Psychological Conclusion). One of the six users
engaged in a cross transaction (Chapter 15.1.1 Test Group Beta).

• Group Gamma had a total of three transactions, one complimentary and two cross transactions
(Chapter 12, Conclusion 12.1 Psychological Conclusion – 12.1 Psychological Conclusion). Two out of
the six users engaged in cross transactions (Chapter 15.1.2 Test Group Gamma).

• Group Delta only engaged in one transaction (Chapter 14 Conclusion – 14.1 Psychological Conclusion).
All users engaged in a complementary transaction.

34
18.1.1 Game conclusion
Mazer split the users into the three different psychological sectors: adult, parent, and child (Chapter 5.1.1 Parent
– 5.1.3 Adult). The simplicity of the game's layout made it a user-friendly experience for all participants.
Throughout the basic testing, maze users were introduced to gameplay and game functionality. Once the
booster and point system were introduced, group dynamics faltered. This is the outcome I expected. Mazer
allows players to act as they usually would without masking transactions. Natural transactions are vital for this
experiment. As the users were not informed about the game's intentions, they were able to break off
connections or build stronger bonds. This decision was up to the users and was not forced. Through allowing
the users to make the decision as to what stimulus transaction to act out on, it becomes apparent to the
employer who is a suitable candidate. Mazer was tested as a tabletop game throughout this paper. All test
results showed outcomes proving that Mazer works for candidate selection. The fact that a group of people
were able to overcome conflict and cooperate as a team by using a game indicates that games promote personal
growth and development among users. Even if one of the players makes a mistake during the game, it is in the
interest of the whole team that this member be forgiven and given another chance to contribute. Mazer turned
out to be a success. It is an interesting concept that can have various outcomes, proving that the game works in
the way intended. As a tabletop game, Mazer worked flawlessly. In future, once the game has had more time to
be revised and the layout has been adjusted, it will work flawlessly as a digital game. It is perfect for team
selection and team bonding. In conclusion, multiplayer games are an excellent tool for promoting teambuilding,
giving people the opportunity to have real interactions in a simulated world

19. Critical self-analysis

19.1 Design self-analysis

Throughout this project, I grew as a designer. This was the first game I ever created on my own. It was a great
experience working with people, seeing their reactions, and having a first-hand user experience. Working with
different age groups and gaming backgrounds gave me a great deal of feedback and insight into how games
have different impacts on individual users. The first tests were paper versions of the game; this worked
flawlessly, which was excellent. As a designer, it is rewarding to see an idea come to life and users learn how to
use it, proving that a simple concept can create new experiences for people. I came across a few bugs during
the production phase. Learning a new programme with which I wasn’t familiar provided a learning curve for me.
Not knowing how to code was a problem I faced. When I started working on the game, I decided to work with
the drag-and-drop option. Then, I came to a dead end halfway through the game development. I had to stop
and restart what I was doing due to lack of information available online. Learning to code was a great experience.
I obtained a deeper understanding of ‘the pipeline’. Now, I am confident in approaching coding tasks. After
completing the digital version of Mazer, I noticed that users had a difficult time navigating through the game. It
became quite frustrating for users to complete a level. This user feedback gave me the understanding to rectify
and adjust some of the flaws in the code. Knowing that some games succeed and some fail did not deter me.
Having time to reflect on the problems I faced helped me to improve as a designer. I learned much about the
user experience and how to improve my designs for future projects. I now know to run more tests on participants
throughout production to ensure that game functionality is understandable, this to avoid finishing a game only
to find that the layout is too complex. Overall, this was a great learning experience for me, and it helped me
grow as a developer and designer.

19.1.1 Psychological self-analysis

When I began this project, I knew little about the psychology behind human behaviour in a social environment.
Through this project, I obtained valuable insight into the world of psychology. This helped me understand how
games affect users, and it has improved my abilities in designing a game to achieve certain emotions. I learned
much about multiplayer games and how to build them up to ensure team dynamics. I found that psychology
plays a significant role in the game industry, and I want to further educate myself in this field. In designing games
in the future, I will account for the psychological impact a game has to ensure a memorable experience for the
user.

35
20. References:
20.1 Book References:
Berne, E. (2016) Games People Play: the Psychology of Human Relationships. Penguin Books. do:

10.1192/s0007125000219247.

Moxon, D. (2001) Human Relationships. Heinemann.

Osborne, M. J. and Rubinstein, A. (1994) A course in game theory. MIT Press. doi: 10.1016/0898-

1221(95)90101-9.

20.1.1 Internet References:

1up Indie (2021) Trigger, button, lever [Game Maker Studio 2 | Advanced], YouTube: 1up Indie. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Jd5ImorTo&ab_channel=1upIndie (Accessed: 17 May 2021).

Alexander, M. (2021) HTML5: Uploading Your Game To A Web Server, YoYo Games. Available at:

https://help.yoyogames.com/hc/en-us/articles/360011152612-HTML5-Uploading-Your-Game-To-A-Web-

Server (Accessed: 3 June 2021).

Berenger, Z. (2016) Game Maker Studio: Let’s Build a Multiplayer Shooter #1, YouTube: RealTutsGML. Available

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_bhmfhN20Y&ab_channel=RealTutsGML (Accessed: 17 May 2021).

Gamemaker Game Programming Course (2014) GameMaker How To Power Up Speed, YouTube: Gamemaker

Game Programming Course. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpC1BSmiht0&ab_channel=GamemakerGameProgrammingCourse

(Accessed: 17 May 2021).

Games for Change (2016) How the Science of Game Design Can Inform the Science of Games for Change,

YouTube: Games for Change. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryUwT52pv0I&ab_channel=GamesforChange (Accessed: 3 June 2021).

Let’s Learn This Together (2018) [GameMaker Studio 2] - Perfect Top Down, Platformer, RPG Collisions,

YouTube: Let’s Learn This Together. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VISOUbdx_eE&ab_channel=Let%27sLearnThisTogether (Accessed: 17

May 2021).

Penner, C. (2015) Smooth Path Planning Tutorial [Game Maker], YouTube: Cameron Penner. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5kSTi-JHH0&ab_channel=CameronPenner (Accessed: 17 May 2021).

Riad EN (2019a) Multiplayer Game in Game maker Studio 2 Part 1, YouTube: Riad EN. Available at:

36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yM99q5ZaCY&ab_channel=RiadEN (Accessed: 3 June 2021).

Riad EN (2019b) Multiplayer Game in Game maker Studio 2 Part 2, YouTube: Riad EN. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6A57f34yVw&ab_channel=RiadEN (Accessed: 3 June 2021).

Riad EN (2019c) Multiplayer game in game maker studio 2 part 3, YouTube: Riad EN. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgEqYL-KDik&ab_channel=RiadEN (Accessed: 3 June 2021).

Riad EN (2019d) Multiplayer Game in Game Maker Studio 2 Part 4, YouTube: Riad EN. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lYRGb6gE5Y&ab_channel=RiadEN (Accessed: 4 June 2021).

Riad EN (2019e) Multiplayer Game in Game Maker Studio 2 part 5, YouTube: Riad EN. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppKiqwGG4GI&ab_channel=RiadEN (Accessed: 4 June 2021).

Riad EN (2019f) Multiplayer Game in Game Maker studio 2 part 6, YouTube: Riad EN. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeBmNgxAPF4&ab_channel=RiadEN (Accessed: 6 June 2021).

Riad EN (2019g) Multiplayer Game in Game Maker Studio 2 Part 7 - YouTube, YouTube: Riad EN. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Yhf667low4&ab_channel=RiadEN (Accessed: 6 June 2021).

Riad EN (2019h) Multiplayer Game in Game Maker Studio 2 Part 8, Youtube: Riad EN. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy3ITMqiL6Q&ab_channel=RiadEN (Accessed: 7 June 2021).

Spalding, S. (2015a) GameMaker: Studio - Your first game 5: Score Tracking, YouTube: Shaun Spalding.

Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oosPQnxUjA&ab_channel=ShaunSpalding (Accessed: 8

June 2021).

Spalding, S. (2015b) GameMaker: Studio - Your first game 9: Game Over, YouTube: Shaun Spalding. Available

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdfykv7mDCE&list=PLPRT_JORnIuo-

DyoWbB7LBrhqlJnsltJq&index=12&ab_channel=ShaunSpalding (Accessed: 8 June 2021).

VTR Studios (2019) GameMaker Studio 2 - Smooth Movement Tutorial - Part 1, YouTube: VTR Studios. Available

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExvNInS98Dc&ab_channel=VTRStudios (Accessed: 3 June 2021).

Wizirdi (2019) Multiplayer Networking Tutorial (Part 1) [2020] GameMaker Studio 2 | Multiplayer Online

Games, YouTube: Wizirdi. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbsXRuNijlo&ab_channel=Wizirdi

(Accessed: 15 June 2021).

37