Useful but as with the first course of the specialization very light on content

getting a review in the peer grade assignment is so time cosuming

The assignments are good, but the videos don't teach much.

it's okay,

I will have to be honest here, I only finished this course because it was needed to complete the specialization. Compared to the other courses in this specialization this one was extremely lacking. The lessons felt improvised and the assignments unfulfilling. In each lesson the teacher seemed like he was going to give the definition of a concept and then he goes on to give questions that you should ask yourself when defining something or just game examples in games of a concept you haven't learned. This makes note taking difficult and leaves you trying to figure out the concept for yourself without knowing if what you infer is correct. The assignments felt like something you can do in 30 minutes and still pass because the example given and the requirements don't match. I graded assignments where you can clearly see the student had no idea what to turn in. In the other courses you felt progression in each weeks assignment. In this course you can pretty much do the assignments with what you learned in the previous two courses. You can tell he knows a lot on the topic but this course should be redone more thoughtfully. I began to investigate more about World Design outside because I felt I learned very little from here.

I found the videos hard to follow and the homework was not very clear or particularly engaging. I think the other courses had a much better framework to understand the topic. I still don't know what are the key elements of a game world or how to judge if one world is good or bad or why it is good or bad.

I was a little bit dissapointed with this course because, in my opinion, it is not structured well, it is just an amount of questions we need to think about. It has ended but I have the feeling I still have no good idea about what is world design for video games...

Too basic. Feels like it could've been one lesson but it was cut and stretched over 4 weeks because in this specialization we pay for time, not content. I could learn as much from a Ted talk or similar.

I did not found this course much useful. I expected more detailed examples of worldbuilding, but talks were quite vague and unspecific. "Sit think about this, go learn about that".

Not a very interesting course. The material all revolved around finding art online and never really getting a solid foundation for creating a real world for video games.

Very poor content. Everything is already said in last courses in this specialization. Also they didnt gave any techniques or tips how to easier create game worlds

The lectures did not always fully relate to the assignments. It often felt like the instructor was rambling rather than teaching.

This course didn't interest me very much. I now know about maps of world design, one more facet to video game development.

articulation needs to be improved, talked too fast, content doesn't give much

The course is very abstract.

few specifics and examples

I learned next to nothing from this course; the professor just rambles on and on jumping schizophrenically from aspect of aspect. One moment he's talking about physics, and in the same sentence he's suddenly talking about whether the game should have a crafting system. Some of the information even seems out of touch.

He doesn't state any information with certainty because he always tends to add "or not!" or "...maybe!" after sentences, leaving you to wonder if there's anything left to take away from the lessons. The entire course could be condensed down into a "list of questions to think about while designing your game world" - it really doesn't contain anything more than that.

Sometimes entire segments are dedicated to trivial things (such as "your game could have invisible walls!"), whereas in other segments he works through a hundred different questions without going in-depth to any of them.

Speaker is hard to understand due to his lack of proficiency with the English language and the subtitles are often incorrect.

On the plus side, you will learn what a "ha-ha" is.

This instructor is incredibly difficult to listen to, his cadence and non-neutral accent make it a conscious effort to focus on what he's saying rather than how he says it. If you're uncomfortable in front of a camera, that's fine, just team up with someone who can present your material on your behalf; this is why we can collaborate with others to whom our strengths compliment one another. I highly advise that Théo take a second pass at the video content with a colleague who is comfortable in front of a camera and has a neutral speaking voice, as I'm finding that I am absorbing little to no content (which is rather counterproductive) unless I pause the video and simply read the transcript.

Sorry for the low review :{ .. i just expected a more organised step by step level design rich content.. i think the instructor clearly has much to give, but the course content isn't organised enough, the speech in the videos is just talking around, some things are repeated again in different parts in a way that causes confusion i think .. i hope this is a helpful review :S and thanks for the course

It's often not clear the point the professor of this course is trying to make. Instead he often seems to ramble pointing out a 100 little questions that a world designer might ask himself/herself during the process without ever focusing on any. The reader is left not knowing what the key take aways were

Very bad lectures: very hard to understand the lecturer (very bad english), no material/knowledge shared only a lot of unanswered hypothetical questions brought up.

I feel like the lectures were short summaries - not actual college level lectures. I really don't feel I learned anything.

Incredibly vague and hand wavy. I didn't feel like I had to write anything down.

Boring and common sense.