Assessment
| Component | Weight | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Game Project | 45% | Term-long group project with 4 checkpoints. Please read about the Effective Project Grade before proceeding. |
| Individual Homework | 5% | Individual video presentation about your favourite game. |
| Midterm Examination | 30% | Conducted in Week 8. Consists of Part A: Concepts (15%), and Part B: Game Jam (15%). See below. |
| Lab Checkoffs | 20% | Lab Submissions (15%) and Group Presentation (5%). See below. |
| End-of-Term Course Survey | 2% | Completion of the end-of-term course survey. |
Midterm Examination
| Part | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Part A: Concepts | 15% | 1.5-hour, paper-based examination covering both game design concepts and Unity Lab concepts. |
| Part B: Game Jam | 15% | Take-home assessment, to be completed within 48 hours. You will be given a starter Unity asset and a list of requirements. You may implement the game in any way you choose, but must be prepared to justify selected features using game-design concepts taught in the first five weeks. |
No Cheat Sheet
No cheat sheet is allowed for Part A of the examination. We will not be asking you trivial memory-based questions such as =Write exactly the definition of X.
Lab Checkoffs
| Component | Weight | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Lab Submissions | 15% | Five submissions, worth 3% each. Optional pair work. Submit a recording + repo link via eDimension. |
| Lab Presentation | 5% | One lab presentation, marks are group-based. Randomly selected during Weeks 2–6. |
Lab Presentation (1x per project group)
When: Week 2-6 Lab session, randomly selected at least 1 week prior
Grading: 0-25 pts (5%)
Format: Group-based
Duration: 10 minutes (exact)
Submission: Slides as PDF
Task: Explain one code feature/challenge/peculiar bug from the lab that you discovered and solved, and connect it to a design principle, either a game design principle or a programming principle.
You might need to take the liberty to read ahead or search online if relevant game design principles have not yet been covered in class.
| Criteria | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lab Understanding | No clear explanation | Minimal, unclear | Partially correct | Mostly correct | Correct, clear, and insightful | Correct, clear, and insightful |
| Code Insight | No code feature discussed | Feature vague/irrelevant | Basic mention, little detail | Explained but shallow | Clear, relevant detail | Deep, well-chosen insight or challenge |
| Design Connection | No principle mentioned | Incorrect/misapplied | Weak or vague link | Correct link but not explained | Clear explanation of principle relevance | Strong, convincing link showing real understanding |
| Clarity & Delivery | Disorganized, unreadable slides | Slides barely usable | Slides/readout somewhat messy | Understandable, some issues | Clear and organized | Very clear, concise, professional |
| Group Preparation | No evidence of joint work, looks thrown together | One member did it all, others unaware of content | Some input from others but weak overall | At least two contributed (content + slides), uneven but okay | Clear shared prep, presenter(s) represent group well | Highly coordinated prep, content polished and everyone understands it, even if only one speaks |