In the Orientation and Understanding phase the main objective was to gather enough information that could grant me the necessary knowledge to translate the research into game design field. The methods used in this phase:

• 1.1. Client interview

The client interview was conducted in the first week of September, being the first method used to understand the problem context and my client’s needs and requirements.

• 1.2. Cybersecurity desk research

A detailed study was conducted on cybersecurity, covering its core concepts, threats, prevention methods, types of cyber-attacks, hackers, hacking techniques, history of cyber-attacks, and tools used. The goal was to provide clear and useful information to better understand the field and make it easier to address related challenges in the future.

• 1.3. Serious games desk research

The desk research method on serious games was conducted to help me understand games designed for teaching and educating. Key findings from this method include Baaden et al.’s (2018) study, which identified rules for creating and improving serious games.

• 1.4. Competitive Analysis – Serious Games

To better understand how products in my area of interest function, a competitive analysis was conducted, focusing on serious games. Several serious games were reviewed, and key insights were organized into bullet points.

• 1.5. Behavioral change desk research

One key point raised by my client during our first interview was that students show little interest in the information they get from the survey, leading to no changes in their behavior. To better understand how to encourage behavior change, a literature review on behavioral change was carried out. The main findings come from a research done at Liverpool John Moores University (2011).

• 1.6. Target audience questionnaire

After gaining a clear understanding of the problem and the product’s context, I created a questionnaire. Its goal was to identify what the target audience needs and enjoys about games, helping shape the design direction for the next steps. The questionnaire was shared with the target audience during the Test’n Chill session at Hanze University of Applied Sciences, where 28 students participated.

• 1.7. Adventure games desk research

After reviewing the questionnaire results, I chose to place my product in the adventure genre. As a result, I conducted a literature study on adventure games based on Rober (2014).

• 1.8. Competitive analysis adventure games

Once the main elements of creating adventure games were identified, a second analysis was done.

This analysis focused on how adventure games handle their introductions, the number of characters in the story, how missions or challenges are tracked, and the average time needed to complete the game.

• 1.9. How Might We

After gathering the needed information, the “How might we” method was used. This approach helps define solvable problems starting with the “How might we” statement. It allowed me to identify solutions and address gaps in my work.

• 1.10. Bull’s Eye Diagram

To compare the number of meaningful ideas from the methods discussed earlier, the Bull’s Eye Diagram method was used. This method organizes ideas based on their importance to the project. The ideas are placed within three circle layers: critical (center), important (middle circle), and peripheral (outer circle).

For the concepting phase, two methods have been used.

• 2.1. Brainwriting method

The brainwriting method was used to generate a variety of concepts. In this team-based approach, each person starts by writing down 3 ideas within 2 minutes. Then, every 2 minutes, participants add one idea to each of the original concepts until everyone has contributed to all ideas.

This process was repeated 5 times, reflecting the typical team size based on my experience as a student. In the end, a total of 15 concepts were produced.

• 2.2. Weighted matrix