Game:
Team:
ID:
Website:
(short comments, if any)
Flyer:
(short comments, if any)
Video:
(short comments, if any)
Box:
(short comments, if any)
Game:
General impression
Design
Realization
(comments / review)
Rating:
POOR
FAIR
Award nomination: YES / NO
2011-2012
GOOD
EXCELLENT
Comments on the ratings
Promotion material: website, flyer, video, and box are generally rated based on the following criteria:
• What is the overall impression and do they have a nice and appealing look?
• Do they illustrate the game and game play idea?
• Do they highlight the technological enhancements of the game?
Ratings are done on a five star basis with
0 stars = not delivered or inacceptable
1 star = poor
2 stars = fair
3 stars = good
4 stars = excellent
The actual game: ratings are roughly based on
• General impression, in particular:
o How finished / polished is it?
• Design (ontwerp), in particular:
o Analysis of existing and new technologies
o Creativity and game play idea
o How challenging and innovative is the idea?
• Realization (realisatie), in particular:
o Is the game playable?
o Have the goals been achieved?
o How is the gameplay experience?
Ratings are done on a five star basis with
0 stars = inacceptable
1 star = poor
2 stars = fair
3 stars = good
4 stars = excellent
Overall rating: in general, the promotion material contributes 1/3 to the final rating and the actual game contributes 2/3.
Notice that this weighting is only a rule of thumb and that the jury can give certain issues a higher or lower weight if they
have been done particularly well or bad, respectively. The overall rating is done in four categories:
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
EXCELLENT
In general, your game should be rated at least as “fair” in order to pass this course. Notice however, that the ratings can,
but don’t necessarily have to translate to concrete marks in the final grading. In particular, tutors have the right to increase
or decrease the rating for both individuals as well as the whole team based on your overall performance during the whole
course of the project. They can also consider issues such as previous knowledge and experience of the team members,
individual problems or dropouts of members, etc.
2011-2012