“game aesthetics and mechanics should be framed through further designers’ lenses in order to motivate choices and outline future challenges. In addition, the concept of “flow” should be connected to immersion and presence in a more effective way. [Indeed] the concept of “flow” [should be tied] to your argument (e.g., what are the consequences of triggering this state in terms of immersion and presence?) strengthening the part about the final boss, which is the most significant passage of the game (according the theme of the article) but sounds overlooked in comparison with the rest. ”

Reviewer 1 – Enrico Gandolfi, Kent State University, April 2016. 

” The hierarchy and relationship between the artifact and the paper is not entirely clear. […] As a reader, I had the impression I should 1) read the theoretical intro / literature review in the paper, 2) play the game, 3) come back to the paper. Is this what the author intended? Or should players/readers first experience the game and its challenge to immersion, and then proceed to the paper? Most options are fine for me, but the author should be clearer on this point. As a consequence of this, the clarity of the author’s argument would be improved if he could articulate better what the game actually is in relation to the paper. Is the game presented as some kind of demonstration of the reasoning expressed in the paper? Is the game an incipit for the paper? Should the game stand on its own? Is the game some sort of “Research through Design” effort with which the author aims at developing design sensibilities by means of experimental artifacts? Is it more a philosophical experiment? Is it a critical reflection? Is it more akin to art for art’s sake?”

Reviewer 2 – Wishes to remain anonymous, July 2016.