Serious Game · Client Work
Space Odyssey
Narrative game for the Chicago Refugee Coalition.
Overview
A narrative-driven serious game created with the Chicago Refugee Coalition to build empathy around forced migration. The game is a sci-fi narrative experience designed to be emotionally grounded — accessible, respectful, and educational — playable in 15 minutes.
Design Goal
Design an emotionally grounded refugee story players can finish in 15 minutes — accessible, respectful, and educational.
My Contributions
- Mapped full narrative branching logic using flowcharts
- Designed UI wireframes and mockups
- Codex screens (faction lore, character bios, political updates)
- Transitioned design documentation from Twine → Ren'Py
- Collaborated on tone, pacing, and worldbuilding documents
- Integrated UX principles to support readability, flow, and emotional clarity
- Conducted internal playtests with peers to refine logic + layout
The Challenge
Create a branching narrative system where player choices feel meaningful, character voice remains consistent across divergent paths, and moral complexity drives emotional engagement without relying on binary good/evil mechanics.
Initial playtesting revealed critical issues:
- Story lacked character depth and worldbuilding
- Choices felt flat and emotionally unimpactful
- Players could "call the bluff" — recognizing that narrative stakes weren't real
Research & Approach
I grounded the narrative redesign in the Narrative Taxonomy of Choices, focusing on creating moral tension even when choices were structurally constrained. The goal was to make "fake" choices feel emotionally real by embedding them in character relationships and worldbuilding consequences.
Key Design Principle: Illusion of agency matters as much as actual branching. If players believe their choices reflect their values, the narrative succeeds — even if paths converge later.
Narrative Iteration Process
First Iteration
- Initial story lacked character depth and worldbuilding
- Choices felt flat — emotionally unimpactful and low-stakes
- Playtest feedback: narrative didn't resonate; players weren't invested
Second Iteration
- Applied Narrative Taxonomy of Choices to restructure player decisions
- Planted moral tension in every choice point
- Result: Playtesters immediately identified weak narrative illusion — this insight drove the final rewrite
Third Iteration
- Introduced sub-narratives branching off each major decision
- Side threads funneled back into the main plot, preserving narrative cohesion
- Strengthened illusion of agency while keeping emotional arcs tight and intentional
Character Design & Voice
I developed three main characters with distinct voices, backstories, and emotional arcs:
Zaira Morvayne
Age 39 · Doctor · Herbalist. Intellectual, sharp, emotionally guarded. Witty and prone to pessimism. The family's anchor — stubborn, brilliant, disorganized.
Sorin Morvayne
Age 44 · Skymarshal. Direct, commanding, duty-driven. Carries the weight of every soldier he's lost. Buries his soft heart under armor and discipline.
Orius Morvayne
Age 17. Uses humor to deflect pain, seeks his father's approval but never gets it. Soft heart hidden under sarcasm — the emotional core of the story.
Narrative Structure
I designed a three-chapter branching system:
- Chapter 1 — The War: Establishes core conflict (war, identity erasure, survival). Players choose to leave or stay after an attack, with sub-branches for each path.
- Chapter 2 — New World: Introduces moral ambiguity — refugee status, illegal immigration, seeking asylum. Players navigate bureaucratic and human obstacles.
- Chapter 3 — Finding Hope: Escalates consequences based on prior choices. Players find community, isolate, or forge new connections.
Playtesting & Results
After Iteration 2
- Playtesters immediately identified weak points in narrative illusion
- Feedback shaped the decision to introduce sub-narratives rather than purely linear branching
After Iteration 3
- Players reported stronger emotional investment in character relationships
- Moral tension made choices feel consequential even when mechanical outcomes were limited
Key Learnings
- Moral tension > mechanical branching — Players care more about choices that reflect their values than choices that change the plot
- Voice consistency across branches is critical — Character dialogue must feel authentic whether the player is aggressive, diplomatic, or avoidant
- Iteration based on real feedback > theory — The Narrative Taxonomy of Choices provided structure, but playtester reactions revealed what actually worked emotionally
- Sub-narratives preserve agency without sprawl — Branching paths can funnel back to a main story without feeling "fake" if emotional consequences persist
Reflection
What I'd do differently: get the game in front of actual target players, not just peers. Internal playtests with peers were fast and useful for catching flat, unimpactful narrative choices early, but peers already understand games and narrative framing the way I do. The audience this is meant for — 14+ players with varying familiarity with refugee narratives — might react to the same choices completely differently, and I won't know that until the Ren'Py build is far enough along to test with them directly.
In Progress
- Ren'Py build: Coding in dialogue logic and conditional events
- Trust system: Visualizing bias shifts per interaction
- Finalizing UI styles (color palette, typography, hover states, sound cues)
Impact
This project pushes the boundaries of what serious narrative games can do when grounded in real-world parallels. While still in development, the systems and worldbuilding work already model how to blend gameplay, UI, and sociopolitical storytelling into a cohesive experience.