School of Creative Technologies Unit U12059: Introducing Art and Programming for Games (INTROG) Academic Year 2011-12 Credits: 20 Unit Lecturers: Andy Bain (andy. [email protected] ac. uk) Neil Dansey (neil. [email protected] ac. uk) Unit Handbook v1. 3 Contents Contents2 Learning Outcomes2 Unit Introduction3 Unit Operation3 Assessment4 Hand-in Dates5 Appendix A: Marking Scheme for Group Artefact (Deliverable 1)6 Appendix B: Marking Scheme for Group Pitch Document (Deliverable 2)7 Appendix C: Example Peer Review Sheet (Deliverable 3)9

Appendix D: Marking Scheme for Individual Report (Deliverable 4)10 Appendix E: Marking Scheme for Individual Activity Log (Deliverable 5)11 Appendix F: Contact Details13 Appendix G: Check Questions13 Learning Outcomes On successful completion of this unit, students should be able, at threshold level, to: 1. Assess and understand game code and graphics. 2. Demonstrate a creative and technical ability to undertake project-based work. 3. Identify gameplay, control, visual and technical issues. 4. Appreciate group dynamics.

It is important when you complete your coursework that you keep these learning outcomes in mind, as they will be used for guidance when assessing your work. Unit Introduction This unit is intended to give you a taste of what working as part of a group in the computer games industry might be like. Not only will you have a chance to develop your awareness of group dynamics, you will also have the opportunity to test out your potential career path and experience some of the problems a typical person might encounter in such a career path.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

This unit adopts a practical, problem-based learning approach – it is intended that you will often find yourself in unfamiliar, unspecific or difficult territory as this is a common occurrence in professional games development situations. Your analytic and problem-solving skills will be put to the test, as will your patience, but with regular attendance, effort and cooperation with your group you will no doubt succeed. INTROG is not a series of lectures on ‘how to make games’. Nor is it a unit which can be passed by cramming a series of PowerPoint slides at the last minute.

Instead, you are responsible for directing and demonstrating your learning, inspired by the challenges and boundaries provided by the brief. Unit Operation You will see that each week there is a dedicated slot on your timetable for INTROG sessions. During the first couple of sessions of the semester we will be organising groups and getting started on the coursework, but after this the content of these sessions will be flexible depending on your needs. As a bare minimum, use this slot as a reliable time to catch up with your group and the unit lecturer.

In between sessions you will be expected to carry out self-directed work, as the supervised hours alone will not be enough to complete the coursework. This is a 20-credit unit, so you are expected to put in up to 200 hours of work (minus timetabled sessions) if you want to gain the maximum amount of benefit from the unit. You are free to make use of the multimedia labs and equipment during opening hours as long as you adhere to the CCI student charter with regard to conduct whilst doing so.

You will be put into a group of approximately 5 people by week 2 of the semester, using information provided by you about your preferred career path during week 1. Groups will be as balanced as possible, and this group allocation process is not random. It is likely that you will not know everybody in your group, but this is something you will need to get used to for university, and indeed industry. Assessment The INTROG assessment is split into 5 deliverables, all due towards the end of the academic year.

For deliverables 1-3, your group will give a 30-minute presentation on the development of a technical demo for an original, current-gen computer game, for the fictitious American publisher, Big Games Inc. The presentation will be given at the end of the semester and will include the following: 1. Group artefact (17. 5% of final mark): As a group, create, present and evaluate a working, playable technical demo for an original current-gen computer game. The demo must contain all key features of the proposed game, and must be created using legally-acquired hardware and software. This deliverable addresses learning outcomes 1 and 2. . Group pitch document (17. 5% of final mark): As a group, create a pitch document to ‘sell’ the game demonstrated in deliverable 1. The content of the document should be visually appealing, interesting, concise and relevant. It should also cover the pertinent visual, technical, gameplay, and commercial aspects. This deliverable addresses learning outcomes 2 and 3. 3. Individual peer review (15% of final mark): During the presentations you will each be given a confidential peer review form with which you should assess the performance of the other members of your group, with brief justification.

If you feel someone in the group has not contributed well, you can say so here. Thus, 15% of your overall mark will be determined by how the other members of your group assessed your contribution. Tactical peer-reviewing will not be tolerated. Deliverables 4 and 5 are pieces of coursework carried out individually, and are as follows: 4. Individual 2000-word reflective report (25% of final mark): A reflective report discussing the team dynamics, aims and objectives, planning, self-analysis and conclusion of the project. Marks will be deducted for poor scholarship, missing sections, lack of referencing or missing the word-count significantly.

For extra guidance, please refer to the marking guide for essays included in Appendix D of this document. This deliverable covers learning outcomes 2 and 4. 5. Individual activity log (25% of final mark): An ongoing log containing evidence of your contribution to the project, including ideas, problems encountered, intermediate reflections, artefact analysis and understanding of the key gameplay, visual, technical and control issues. You may also refer to this log as an appendix in the reflective report to help illustrate your points. Your submission will be compared with those of the other members of your group for consistency.

This deliverable addresses learning outcomes 1, 2, 3 and 4. Further information regarding deliverables will be given in due course during the practical sessions. Please remember to consider the learning outcomes of the unit when completing deliverables. Hand-in Dates Deliverables 1-3: Submitted via a presentation after the end of the semester, during the week of the 14th – 18th May 2012. The exact date and time for your group will be allocated in due course. A clearly-marked CD or DVD containing the pitch document and all of the files required to install and run the demo should also be handed to the panel at this time.

Deliverables 4 & 5: These should be submitted in Microsoft Word document format, both on a clearly-marked CD or DVD and printed out. Submit to the CT Admin Office, Eldon Building, before 3pm on Friday 11th May 2012. Late submissions will be capped at 40%. Appendix A: Marking Scheme for Group Artefact (Deliverable 1) (The possible 100 marks here will make up 17. 5% of your final INTROG mark) The Artefact • Low (e. g. nothing to show, or intolerably buggy, most key features missing) • Med (e. g. runs mainly okay, a few technical hitches, some key features missing, or demo looks a bit unpolished, but seems fairly fun to play) High (polished demo, running fine, all key features present, makes you want to play it) Score awarded:……………. out of 30. The Evaluation • Low (e. g. no evaluation or very shallow evaluation, descriptive, inflexible) • Med (e. g. considers the learning outcomes, no real wider contextualisation, honest evaluation with evidence of lessons being learned) • High (e. g. good evaluation of artefact with wider contextualisation to current industry practices and levels of skill, objectives identified to refine skills etc. ) Score awarded:……………. ut of 30. The Presentation • Low (e. g. poorly rehearsed, nothing to say, boring to watch, impression given that things didn’t actually go as reported, bad attitude with questions) • Med (e. g. fairly over / under length, rambly in places, awkward transitions between people, unnecessary language (swearing etc), answers questions fairly confidently) • High (e. g. well-prepared, presentation flows well, finishes on time, interesting to watch, honest, pleasant attitude, answers questions well) Score awarded:……………. out of 30. Discretionary Score points here for anything else that goes above and beyond what was required, or for ambition, good attitude etc.

Score awarded:……………. out of 10. TOTAL: …………………………….. out of 100. Appendix B: Marking Scheme for Group Pitch Document (Deliverable 2) (The possible 100 marks here will make up 17. 5% of your final INTROG mark) Is the document visually appealing? • Low (e. g. Plain-looking Word document or similar, looks rushed, inconsistent) • Med (e. g. fairly attractive, typos present, flawed composition, over-the-top, underwhelming) High (e. g. visually interesting, seamless use of graphics and text, looks professional) Score awarded:……………. out of 10. Is the document interesting? • Low (e. g. cliched in a non-ironic way, long paragraphs of text, makes game look bad) • Med (e. g. a few interesting points, some originality, could be improved into something substantial) • High (e. g. engaging, funny, original, works for a variety of personalities, looks like a well-developed document) Score awarded:……………. out of 15. Is the document concise? • Low (e. g. ar too rambly, far too much information, or nowhere enough detail given, misses significant details altogether) • Med (e. g. seems about the right amount of information, efficiently explained. 1 or 2 obvious questions remain) • High (e. g. just the right amount of details, answers at least most of the immediate questions, presented in an easy to navigate manner. ) Score awarded:……………. out of 10. Is the document relevant? • Low (e. g. misses the point of the exercise, concentrates on lots of unnecessary detail, misses out pertinent information) • Med (e. g. airly good attempt to convey the appropriate information, a few required details missing, a few unnecessary details added) • High (e. g. covers all of the expected information without straying into irrelevance) Score awarded:……………. out of 15. Are the visual aspects of the game pitched? • Low (e. g. hardly any mention of graphical finesse of the proposed game, or not mentioned at all, or ridiculously over-ambitious) • Med (e. g. some graphics aspects poorly explained, underwhelming) • High (e. g. graphics ideas are innovative, feasible, leaves no significant issues or questions)

Score awarded:……………. out of 10. Are the technical aspects of the game pitched? • Low (e. g. hardly any mention of technical finesse of the proposed game, or not mentioned at all, or ridiculously over-ambitious) • Med (e. g. some technical aspects poorly explained, underwhelming) • High (e. g. technical ideas are innovative, feasible, leaves no significant issues or questions) Score awarded:……………. out of 10. Are the gameplay aspects of the game pitched? • Low (e. g. no idea what the game actually is, or seriously flawed ideas, or lack of consistency) • Med (e. g. ameplay sounds okay, resorts mainly to conventional tropes, or is naive in terms of the developer’s job) • High (e. g. gameplay well-explained, well-rounded idea, no significant questions unanswered, no obvious feasibility issues) Score awarded:……………. out of 15. Are the commercial aspects of the game pitched? • Low (e. g. seriously naive in terms of any of the following: cost, platform, pricing, timescale, target audience, sales figures) • Med (e. g. fairly competent, but some oversights in any of the following: cost, platform, pricing, timescale, target audience, sales figures) High (e. g. considers most or all of the following with good understanding, without being too boring: cost, platform, pricing, timescale, target audience, sales figures) Score awarded:……………. out of 15. TOTAL: …………………………….. out of 100. Appendix C: Example Peer Review Sheet (Deliverable 3) Please remember to add comments. Do not review yourself. Tactical voting will not be tolerated. MY GROUP NUMBER: MY NAME: MY STUDENT NUMBER: GROUP MEMBER: Mark out of 100%: Comments: GROUP MEMBER: Mark out of 100%: Comments: GROUP MEMBER: Mark out of 100%: Comments:

GROUP MEMBER: Mark out of 100%: Comments: GROUP MEMBER: Mark out of 100%: Comments: Appendix D: Marking Scheme for Individual Report (Deliverable 4) (The possible 100 marks here will make up 25% of your final INTROG mark) These notes are taken from the QAA guidelines applicable to essays, reports and aspects of projects and dissertations. 0-29 points – No serious attempt to address the question or problem, and/or manifests a serious misunderstanding of the requirements of the assignment. Acutely deficient in all aspects. 30-39 points – Work in this range attempts to address the question/problem ut is substantially incomplete and deficient. Serious problems with a number of aspects of language use are often found in work in this range and the work may be severely under/over-length and/or fails to grasp the nature of the topic matter. Content, analysis, expression, structure and use of sources will be very weak or missing 40-49 points – Adequate work that attempts to address the topic & demonstrates some understanding of the basic aspects of the subject matter. Topic is researched using mainly books & Internet. Attempts to use &/or present references/bibliography according to convention.

A basic attempt to follow directions regarding organisation, structure, use & flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, diagrams, tables etc. 50-59 points – As above plus: Work that demonstrates understanding of the topic area with some attempt to discuss material. Evidence of research in the topic area extending beyond key texts. Satisfactory presentation &/or use of references/bibliography according to convention. A satisfactory attempt to follow directions regarding organisation, structure, use & flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, diagrams, tables etc 0-69 points – As above plus: A very good, well presented piece of work covering much of the subject matter and which is clearly and lucidly written. Good attempt to consider and evaluate the material presented. Evidence of research in the topic area and satisfactory use of sources and references. Good organisation, structure, use & flow of language, grammar, spelling, format, diagrams, tables etc. 70-79 points – As above plus: Very good work which is clearly written, well argued and covers the subject matter in a thorough, thoughtful and competent manner. Contains some originality of approach, insight or synthesis.

Good evidence of research and good use of source material. Good use & presentation of references. Very good presentation, presentation, organisation, grammar, spelling, punctuation, diagrams and tables 80+ points – As above plus: Excellent work which contains relevant material & shows analysis, originally or creativity of approach and a clear, well- articulated understanding of the subject matter. Wide research incorporating up to date, relevant original material. Accurate citation and use of references. Excellent with few or no errors in organisation, structure, grammar, spelling, punctuation, use of diagrams & tables.

Appendix E: Marking Scheme for Individual Activity Log (Deliverable 5) (The possible 100 marks here will make up 25% of your final INTROG mark) General impression of log and evidence of contribution • Low (e. g. no contribution, struggling to support claims, using “flowery” language to exaggerate poor effort, log is short or contains lots of pasted source code to bulk it out) • Med (e. g. some basic descriptive evidence, doesn’t really represent expected amount of work, fairly underwhelming but passable, a few ideas or areas of good effort) • High (e. g. ood evidence of contribution in a variety of areas, plenty of ideas and discussion thereon, it is clear that the student has had a significant impact on the project) Score awarded:……………. out of 30. Understanding of audiovisual issues • Low (e. g. little or no discussion on audiovisual issues, no potential causes or solutions suggested, no real understanding displayed) • Med (e. g. some discussion on audiovisual issues, limited potential causes or solutions offered, or evidence of inflexible thinking or assumptions, demonstrates adequate understanding) High (e. g. plenty of good quality audiovisual discussion, appreciation of various potential causes and flexible approach to solutions offered, demonstrates good understanding) Score awarded:……………. out of 10. Understanding of technical issues • Low (e. g. little or no discussion on technical issues, no potential causes or solutions suggested, no real understanding displayed) • Med (e. g. some discussion on technical issues, limited potential causes or solutions offered, or evidence of inflexible thinking or assumptions, demonstrates adequate understanding) High (e. g. plenty of good quality technical discussion, appreciation of various potential causes and flexible approach to solutions offered, demonstrates good understanding)

Score awarded:……………. out of 10. Understanding of gameplay issues • Low (e. g. little or no discussion on gameplay issues, no potential causes or solutions suggested, no real understanding displayed) • Med (e. g. some discussion on gameplay issues, limited potential causes or solutions offered, or evidence of inflexible thinking or assumptions, demonstrates adequate understanding) High (e. g. plenty of good quality gameplay discussion, appreciation of various potential causes and flexible approach to solutions offered, demonstrates good understanding) Score awarded:……………. out of 10. Understanding of team issues • Low (e. g. little or no discussion on interpersonal issues, no potential causes or solutions suggested, no real understanding displayed) • Med (e. g. some discussion on interpersonal issues, limited potential causes or solutions offered, or evidence of inflexible thinking or assumptions, demonstrates adequate understanding) High (e. g. plenty of good quality interpersonal discussion, appreciation of various potential causes and flexible approach to solutions offered, demonstrates good understanding) Score awarded:……………. out of 10. Intermediate analysis • Low (e. g. no intermediate analysis of artefact, or very shallow analysis, no offering of possible improvements or weaknesses) • Med (e. g. basic analysis indicating some understanding of strengths and weaknesses of artefact, key points might be too obvious or irrelevant, or mainly summative rather than formative) • High (e. g. trong analysis of strengths and weaknesses of artefact throughout the project, providing formative insight and summative evaluation, demonstrates that student knows the project well and has engaged throughout) Score awarded:……………. out of 15. Intermediate reflections

• Low (e. g. reflection is missing or very shallow, log is very descriptive, no evidence of a development in thinking) • Med (e. g. basic reflection displayed in context of passing the unit, still contains fair amount of descriptive content, evidence of basic lessons being learned, conclusions might be obvious) High (e. g. plenty of ongoing reflection that has clearly informed the student’s later actions in the project, log is thought provoking, evidence of reflection in wider contexts such as current industry standards and practices) Score awarded:……………. out of 15. TOTAL: …………………………….. out of 100. Appendix F: Contact Details Neil Dansey School of Creative Technologies Room 2. 08, Eldon North Wing Tel: 023 9284 3024 Email: neil. [email protected] ac. uk Andy Bain School of Creative Technologies Room 2. 08, Eldon North Wing Tel: 023 9284 5462 Email: andy. [email protected] ac. uk If you wish to arrange a meeting outside of sessions, please email in advance to check availability. Appendix G: Check Questions You should know the answers to all of the following questions before you begin work: • What are the benefits of doing INTROG? • How many credits is the unit worth? • How many hours am I expected to put in to this unit? • How many deliverables are there? • What is required for the deliverables, and how are they marked? • How much does each deliverable contribute to my final mark for the unit? • How and when are the deliverables submitted? What are the learning outcomes of the unit? • How do learning outcomes affect my final mark? • What can be done if one of my group members doesn’t do any work? • What does ‘self-directed study’ mean? • What does ‘reflective report’ mean? • What does ‘problem-based learning’ mean? • Where can the University of Portsmouth’s guide to referencing be found? • What are the contact details of the unit lecturers? • What are the contact details of my personal tutor? • What are the contact details of the Study Support Centre? • Where is the CCI charter for use of multimedia labs?

x

Hi!
I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out