This rubric has been collaboratively created by the class to guide Brendan in evaluating the Game Proposals being produced as the final project for the course.
| Evaluative Element | per-fect | very well done |
done | not so well done |
not done |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outline or pre-proposal due 27 Nov (25pts) | |||||
| Rough draft due 4 Dec (25 pts) | |||||
| The project provides a thorough, detailed description of the game and its contents, including narrative description, levels, characters, and other elements. (30pts) | |||||
| The game proposed and its elements show strong creativity and/or originality. The project makes clear how it differs from other similar games available currently. (30pts) | |||||
| The proposal is presented in a coherent, structured way. It shows a clear sense of organization and presents its elements and ideas smoothly. (20pts) | |||||
| The proposal addresses the appeal of the game to players. This discussion may focus on marketability or the game's attractive features or both. (20 pts) | |||||
| The proposal uses one source to explain choices and elements included in the design. The proposal draws quotes (with citations) from the source and explains how decisions were made. (30 pts) | |||||
| The proposal uses one source to explain choices and elements included in the design. The proposal draws quotes (with citations) from the source and explains how decisions were made. (30 pts) | |||||
| The proposal uses one source to explain choices and elements included in the design. The proposal draws quotes (with citations) from the source and explains how decisions were made. (30 pts) | |||||
| The proposal includes a complete, careful Works Cited page (in MLA format). (10pts) NOTE: Deal breaker -- projects missing a Works Cited page will receive an incomplete. |