BUILD & WIN CONSTRUCT 2 CONTEST JUDGING CRITERIA
When April 1st hits, and all entries are ready, the judges will be responsible for playing all of the entries (either to their completion, or atleast to a point where they find they can no longer continue, due to bugs or unreasonable difficulty).
We will be using this point-based rubric to assess each game, and total all points (total possible: 24pts, + 6 potential tie-breaking points, in the case of a tie or near-tie).
[Note that it will be possible to score a '0' in categories where you have met NONE of the requirements; e.g., you'd get a '0' in Sound if you have no music or sounds at all.]
JUDGING RUBRIC:
Stability:
1. Game is broken. There are game breaking bugs, and overall sloppy programming. Possibly wrought with severe lag or ridiculous load times.
2. Game is buggy. There may be a game breaking bug, but we had to work hard to find it. There are unintended results due to sloppy programming that don't break the game. Lag may be a real problem.
3. The Game is solid. No bugs are apparent in a casual play through. A thorough play through can find a minor bug here or there. Game may lag, or take a really long time to load.
4. No bugs. No lag, either. Everything handles as intended.
Fun:
1. Gameplay is completely tedious and utterly uninspired. Or, gameplay is horrendously balanced, to be either way too difficult or easy to enjoy. You'd stop mid play through.
2. Gameplay is run of the mill, but playable. You wouldn't play it again, and/or, you wouldn't really recommend it to anyone.
3. Gameplay is enjoyable. You feel you've wasted your time wisely.
4. Gameplay is amazing. You don't think you'll be seeing the sun anytime soon.
Innovation:
1. Utterly unoriginal. Completely derivative of other games. Nothing particularly engaging or new. May feel like it's just a crummier clone of another game.
2. Attempts a new spin on a genre of gameplay, but falls short. Or, attempts something original, but comes off extremely gimmicky, difficult to grasp, or full of unnecessary parameters. May be a game which feels a lot like other popular games we've played before, without trying to add many "new" or "unique" elements to it.
3. Successfully puts a new spin on an established genre of gameplay, which is a bit refreshing or accomplishes something original and enjoyable. Definitely seems like its own game, and doesn't make anyone think "oh, this is just a rip-off of _____."
4. When you play through you wonder how it is that no one has thought of this before. This designer must be some kind of genius or lucky.
Graphics:
1. Graphics are unoriginal and poorly utilized. They make you cringe at all times with their hideousness. They may even break the game.
2. Graphics are unoriginal but utilized adequately. Or, graphics are original, but unattractive, and dysfunctional at times.
3. Graphics are unoriginal but utilized very effectively for a pleasing experience. Or, graphics are completely original and are attractive & adequately utilized.
4. Graphics are great, and completely immersive. A great amount of care has been given to them.
Sound:
1. Sound is poorly utilized. Is unoriginal and annoying. And lacks functionality. May have music, but lack sound effects, or vice-versa (where appropriate).
2. Sound is functional but not original. Or, sound is original, but lacks complete functionality.
3. Sound is well managed throughout the product and adds to gameplay. Or sound is original but functional.
4. You find yourself humming the hypnotic BGM's and love the lovely squish your platforming hero makes as he crushes the opposition.
Marketing Relations:
1. The designer does very little to hype their game in the thread. They don't respond to player feedback, or worse, respond negatively to constructive feedback. Their thread is ugly, just a pile of boring paragraphs, or hard to read. Instructions on how to play the game may not be clear.
2. The designer keeps a journal of changes and design or posts screenshots and demos. Player responds somewhat to user feedback but doesn't seem to really try and out reach to users for opinions. Their thread isn't terribly attractive to the eye, but it's legible.
3. The designer is very responsive to feedback and designs promotional material such as logos and userbars to get people to check out their thread. They participate in userbar exchanges, and their game's thread has been given attention to design. It's easy to read, though may or may not be extremely pleasing to the eye.
4. The designer is very responsive to feedback, and is able to get other users to involve themselves in their marketing machine. They have come up with innovative ways to drum up interest in their game, have perhaps used social networking; their thread is beautiful and easy to read, and they generally have knocked every recommendation in the HYPE! thread out of the park.
In the occurrence where scores for top-ranking games are either tied or are VERY close to each other (i.e. +/- 2 pts), we will factor in the following rubric:
PUBLIC VOTE: +2 potential points Revised: 1 point per vote (old system resulted in further stalemates)
(This is restricted to 2 points as we don't want a member's popularity to greatly modify their standings.)
COMMUNITY: (This would be scored by Venetia only, in case of ties)
1. User does not offer help in the construct 2 support forum to other contest participants, or post feedback in other people's threads.
2. User sometimes offers help in support forums to other contest participants, or posts feedback in other people's threads. Feedback may be lacking in depth and helpfulness.
3. User regularly offers help in support forums to other contest participants and posts feedback in other people's threads.
4. User is a model member of the community and is always helping others and giving people helpful feedback that is useful for making better games.
Total possible: 24 pts., per judge.
(Scores will be averaged & rounded DOWN between all judges: For example, if there are 3 judges, and a game is scored 18, 20, and 21, we will say it scored 19 points.)
When April 1st hits, and all entries are ready, the judges will be responsible for playing all of the entries (either to their completion, or atleast to a point where they find they can no longer continue, due to bugs or unreasonable difficulty).
We will be using this point-based rubric to assess each game, and total all points (total possible: 24pts, + 6 potential tie-breaking points, in the case of a tie or near-tie).
[Note that it will be possible to score a '0' in categories where you have met NONE of the requirements; e.g., you'd get a '0' in Sound if you have no music or sounds at all.]
JUDGING RUBRIC:
Stability:
1. Game is broken. There are game breaking bugs, and overall sloppy programming. Possibly wrought with severe lag or ridiculous load times.
2. Game is buggy. There may be a game breaking bug, but we had to work hard to find it. There are unintended results due to sloppy programming that don't break the game. Lag may be a real problem.
3. The Game is solid. No bugs are apparent in a casual play through. A thorough play through can find a minor bug here or there. Game may lag, or take a really long time to load.
4. No bugs. No lag, either. Everything handles as intended.
Fun:
1. Gameplay is completely tedious and utterly uninspired. Or, gameplay is horrendously balanced, to be either way too difficult or easy to enjoy. You'd stop mid play through.
2. Gameplay is run of the mill, but playable. You wouldn't play it again, and/or, you wouldn't really recommend it to anyone.
3. Gameplay is enjoyable. You feel you've wasted your time wisely.
4. Gameplay is amazing. You don't think you'll be seeing the sun anytime soon.
Innovation:
1. Utterly unoriginal. Completely derivative of other games. Nothing particularly engaging or new. May feel like it's just a crummier clone of another game.
2. Attempts a new spin on a genre of gameplay, but falls short. Or, attempts something original, but comes off extremely gimmicky, difficult to grasp, or full of unnecessary parameters. May be a game which feels a lot like other popular games we've played before, without trying to add many "new" or "unique" elements to it.
3. Successfully puts a new spin on an established genre of gameplay, which is a bit refreshing or accomplishes something original and enjoyable. Definitely seems like its own game, and doesn't make anyone think "oh, this is just a rip-off of _____."
4. When you play through you wonder how it is that no one has thought of this before. This designer must be some kind of genius or lucky.
Graphics:
1. Graphics are unoriginal and poorly utilized. They make you cringe at all times with their hideousness. They may even break the game.
2. Graphics are unoriginal but utilized adequately. Or, graphics are original, but unattractive, and dysfunctional at times.
3. Graphics are unoriginal but utilized very effectively for a pleasing experience. Or, graphics are completely original and are attractive & adequately utilized.
4. Graphics are great, and completely immersive. A great amount of care has been given to them.
Sound:
1. Sound is poorly utilized. Is unoriginal and annoying. And lacks functionality. May have music, but lack sound effects, or vice-versa (where appropriate).
2. Sound is functional but not original. Or, sound is original, but lacks complete functionality.
3. Sound is well managed throughout the product and adds to gameplay. Or sound is original but functional.
4. You find yourself humming the hypnotic BGM's and love the lovely squish your platforming hero makes as he crushes the opposition.
Marketing Relations:
1. The designer does very little to hype their game in the thread. They don't respond to player feedback, or worse, respond negatively to constructive feedback. Their thread is ugly, just a pile of boring paragraphs, or hard to read. Instructions on how to play the game may not be clear.
2. The designer keeps a journal of changes and design or posts screenshots and demos. Player responds somewhat to user feedback but doesn't seem to really try and out reach to users for opinions. Their thread isn't terribly attractive to the eye, but it's legible.
3. The designer is very responsive to feedback and designs promotional material such as logos and userbars to get people to check out their thread. They participate in userbar exchanges, and their game's thread has been given attention to design. It's easy to read, though may or may not be extremely pleasing to the eye.
4. The designer is very responsive to feedback, and is able to get other users to involve themselves in their marketing machine. They have come up with innovative ways to drum up interest in their game, have perhaps used social networking; their thread is beautiful and easy to read, and they generally have knocked every recommendation in the HYPE! thread out of the park.
In the occurrence where scores for top-ranking games are either tied or are VERY close to each other (i.e. +/- 2 pts), we will factor in the following rubric:
PUBLIC VOTE: +
(This is restricted to 2 points as we don't want a member's popularity to greatly modify their standings.)
COMMUNITY: (This would be scored by Venetia only, in case of ties)
1. User does not offer help in the construct 2 support forum to other contest participants, or post feedback in other people's threads.
2. User sometimes offers help in support forums to other contest participants, or posts feedback in other people's threads. Feedback may be lacking in depth and helpfulness.
3. User regularly offers help in support forums to other contest participants and posts feedback in other people's threads.
4. User is a model member of the community and is always helping others and giving people helpful feedback that is useful for making better games.
Total possible: 24 pts., per judge.
(Scores will be averaged & rounded DOWN between all judges: For example, if there are 3 judges, and a game is scored 18, 20, and 21, we will say it scored 19 points.)
ADDITIONAL SCORING NOTES!!!!
You should not ACTUALLY provide your final scores on the games until you have played all the games.
That way, you can measure the games on a curve.
You will be able to assess which games really go above and beyond, in comparison to all other entries.
Keep notes as you go.
A good strategy will be to very quickly play about 1-2 minutes of all games first, and THEN sit down and seriously start doing full play-throughs, so you can make better judgments.
As far as categories go, in general:
>> If the game exceeds all your expectations, and is clearly superior to all or most of its competitors in that category, award them the full 4 points.
>> If the game makes an obvious attempt at exceeding your expectations, but simply does not seem to be THE BEST of all games in that category, award 3 points.
>> If the game manages to fulfill most judging requirements, but is lacking polish in that category, award 2 points.
>> If the game fails to fulfill most judging requirements, and seems like one of the worst among the competition in that category, award them 1 point.
>> If the game is entirely lacking (i.e. no effort at all) in a category, such as entirely lacking sound, award 0 points.
IMPORTANT: Do not let your judgment of other categories affect scores in unrelated ones.
For example, if the game is EXTREMELY innovative, and earns a 4 in Innovation, but has awful graphics, do NOT "boost" their graphics score.
Likewise, if a game has horrible sound effects, and earns a 1 in Sound, you shouldn't let that affect what you think about the Stability category.
ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS WHILE PLAYING THE GAME to assess how you will be giving them points!:
('+' = positive question; '-' = negative question)
Stability:
- Have you encountered any bugs or errors?
- Did the game crash at any point?
- Does the sound take a really really long time to load (as in, more than 10-15secs)?
- Does the game chug, or get noticeably laggy?
- Does the game take longer than 30 seconds to load, in Chrome, on a good internet connection?
(Note that load times should only very minorly affect your judgment in this category, but nasty load times CAN make a game go from a '4' to a '3' if it is otherwise bug-free.)
Fun:
+ While playing, do you find yourself WANTING to progress to the next level, or to earn more points (etc.)?
+ Does the game reward you somehow, with some form of an incentive to either want to keep going, or to play it again?
+ Did you smile or laugh at any point during gameplay? Or, did you feel encouraged or inspired by it somehow?
- Does the game "punish" you, in a way that makes you feel like you want to give up?
+ Could you describe your experience as "addictive"?
+ Based on the fun factor alone, could you see yourself recommending this to any other game enthusiasts?
Innovation:
- Is the game instantly reminiscent of another specific [very popular] game?
>> + If so, does the game feel like it has added a new twist or spin on that type of game?
>> + OR, if so, does the game seem like it would take a lot of innovation to make it work by using Construct 2?
+ Do you feel like this is very unlike most games you've played in the past?
+ Does the game introduce new concepts or interesting ideas? Did you ever say something to yourself while playing, such as: "That's clever!"?
+ Can the game be categorized as something other than 'platformer', 'casual arcade game', or 'space shooter'? (Note that basic platformers and space shooters are the easiest types of games to make with Construct 2, so things like Adventure Games, RPGs, Puzzlers, or RTSs should be considered more innovative.)
- If you hypothetically paid money for this game, would you feel "gypped" that it's a "clone" of another game?
Graphics:
+ Are the graphics custom-made?
+ Even if the graphics aren't custom, does everything look congruent (i.e. all the same art style)?
+ Does it look like the entrant spent a good amount of effort on making the game just generally look decent?
+ Do the HUDs, GUIs, or menus look nice & consistent? Do the letters or fonts stand out in an attractive way?
- Do you notice a lot of texture problems, fuzziness, or stray pixels? How about awkwardness/ugliness in animations?
- Does it feel like the aesthetic of the game could be pulled off by anyone, even your colorblind uncle missing 3 fingers?
+ Do any of the sprites have any impressive-looking animations?
+ If particle effects are used, are they used well, and do they look attractive?
Sound:
+ Were the sounds and/or music tracks done custom, just for this game?
- If there is no music present, do you wish there were? (i.e. does it FEEL like it needs music, but there is none?)
- Did you find yourself annoyed by the sounds or music at any time?
+ Are there appropriate sounds that react to things that happen (e.g., gunfire sound when shooting, or switch-flip sound when toggling switches, etc.)?
+ Does the sound, music, or ambient noise make you feel "drawn into" the game -- more immersed?
Marketing Relations:
+ Did the entrant make an attempt at putting an advertising link to their thread in their signature?
+ Did the entrant come up with any outside websites, or social marketing pages (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), for their game?
+ Did the entrant make their thread stand out -- was it themed, and nice to look at?
+ On the game's thread: Was it instantly easy to find a direct link to their game, and instructions on how to play?
+ Was everything spelled correctly, with proper grammar?
+ Was there a logo (and does it look nice)?
+ Did the entrant make an attempt to linkshare, advertise other peoples' games, or post feedback in other entrants' threads?
+ Did the entrant post their game elsewhere, such as the Scirra Arcade, Scirra Forums, or one of their own websites?
+ Did the entrant pay attention to user feedback while making their game?
+ Did the entrant try to get their audience to post screenshots of playthroughs, compare scores, or actively participate in demonstrating that they play(ed) the game?
- Was the entrant's thread's original post too wordy, or, not wordy enough? Were spoilers covering up too much?
+ Did you feel like you could assess what the game was about from quickly looking at the entrant's thread?
+ Was there a backstory, explanation of characters, or other types of fun little additional information that makes the game stand out to fans?
COMMUNITY:
+ Did the entrant attempt to help other entrants?
+ Did they participate in linksharing or advertising other entrants' games?
+ Did they post feedback or information outside of the C2 Contest board (e.g., the Construct 2 Support board)?
+ Did they make an introduction for their self in the Introductions forum, or post in social boards, such as General Discussion, Video Games, or Other Entertainment?
+ If someone on this forum asked you "What do you think about [entrant's name]?", do you think you'd be able to identify who that member is, and answer the question?
(Please base your assessment on their activity as of the past month, so to not be unfair to newer members.)
You should not ACTUALLY provide your final scores on the games until you have played all the games.
That way, you can measure the games on a curve.
You will be able to assess which games really go above and beyond, in comparison to all other entries.
Keep notes as you go.
A good strategy will be to very quickly play about 1-2 minutes of all games first, and THEN sit down and seriously start doing full play-throughs, so you can make better judgments.
As far as categories go, in general:
>> If the game exceeds all your expectations, and is clearly superior to all or most of its competitors in that category, award them the full 4 points.
>> If the game makes an obvious attempt at exceeding your expectations, but simply does not seem to be THE BEST of all games in that category, award 3 points.
>> If the game manages to fulfill most judging requirements, but is lacking polish in that category, award 2 points.
>> If the game fails to fulfill most judging requirements, and seems like one of the worst among the competition in that category, award them 1 point.
>> If the game is entirely lacking (i.e. no effort at all) in a category, such as entirely lacking sound, award 0 points.
IMPORTANT: Do not let your judgment of other categories affect scores in unrelated ones.
For example, if the game is EXTREMELY innovative, and earns a 4 in Innovation, but has awful graphics, do NOT "boost" their graphics score.
Likewise, if a game has horrible sound effects, and earns a 1 in Sound, you shouldn't let that affect what you think about the Stability category.
ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS WHILE PLAYING THE GAME to assess how you will be giving them points!:
('+' = positive question; '-' = negative question)
Stability:
- Have you encountered any bugs or errors?
- Did the game crash at any point?
- Does the sound take a really really long time to load (as in, more than 10-15secs)?
- Does the game chug, or get noticeably laggy?
- Does the game take longer than 30 seconds to load, in Chrome, on a good internet connection?
(Note that load times should only very minorly affect your judgment in this category, but nasty load times CAN make a game go from a '4' to a '3' if it is otherwise bug-free.)
Fun:
+ While playing, do you find yourself WANTING to progress to the next level, or to earn more points (etc.)?
+ Does the game reward you somehow, with some form of an incentive to either want to keep going, or to play it again?
+ Did you smile or laugh at any point during gameplay? Or, did you feel encouraged or inspired by it somehow?
- Does the game "punish" you, in a way that makes you feel like you want to give up?
+ Could you describe your experience as "addictive"?
+ Based on the fun factor alone, could you see yourself recommending this to any other game enthusiasts?
Innovation:
- Is the game instantly reminiscent of another specific [very popular] game?
>> + If so, does the game feel like it has added a new twist or spin on that type of game?
>> + OR, if so, does the game seem like it would take a lot of innovation to make it work by using Construct 2?
+ Do you feel like this is very unlike most games you've played in the past?
+ Does the game introduce new concepts or interesting ideas? Did you ever say something to yourself while playing, such as: "That's clever!"?
+ Can the game be categorized as something other than 'platformer', 'casual arcade game', or 'space shooter'? (Note that basic platformers and space shooters are the easiest types of games to make with Construct 2, so things like Adventure Games, RPGs, Puzzlers, or RTSs should be considered more innovative.)
- If you hypothetically paid money for this game, would you feel "gypped" that it's a "clone" of another game?
Graphics:
+ Are the graphics custom-made?
+ Even if the graphics aren't custom, does everything look congruent (i.e. all the same art style)?
+ Does it look like the entrant spent a good amount of effort on making the game just generally look decent?
+ Do the HUDs, GUIs, or menus look nice & consistent? Do the letters or fonts stand out in an attractive way?
- Do you notice a lot of texture problems, fuzziness, or stray pixels? How about awkwardness/ugliness in animations?
- Does it feel like the aesthetic of the game could be pulled off by anyone, even your colorblind uncle missing 3 fingers?
+ Do any of the sprites have any impressive-looking animations?
+ If particle effects are used, are they used well, and do they look attractive?
Sound:
+ Were the sounds and/or music tracks done custom, just for this game?
- If there is no music present, do you wish there were? (i.e. does it FEEL like it needs music, but there is none?)
- Did you find yourself annoyed by the sounds or music at any time?
+ Are there appropriate sounds that react to things that happen (e.g., gunfire sound when shooting, or switch-flip sound when toggling switches, etc.)?
+ Does the sound, music, or ambient noise make you feel "drawn into" the game -- more immersed?
Marketing Relations:
+ Did the entrant make an attempt at putting an advertising link to their thread in their signature?
+ Did the entrant come up with any outside websites, or social marketing pages (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), for their game?
+ Did the entrant make their thread stand out -- was it themed, and nice to look at?
+ On the game's thread: Was it instantly easy to find a direct link to their game, and instructions on how to play?
+ Was everything spelled correctly, with proper grammar?
+ Was there a logo (and does it look nice)?
+ Did the entrant make an attempt to linkshare, advertise other peoples' games, or post feedback in other entrants' threads?
+ Did the entrant post their game elsewhere, such as the Scirra Arcade, Scirra Forums, or one of their own websites?
+ Did the entrant pay attention to user feedback while making their game?
+ Did the entrant try to get their audience to post screenshots of playthroughs, compare scores, or actively participate in demonstrating that they play(ed) the game?
- Was the entrant's thread's original post too wordy, or, not wordy enough? Were spoilers covering up too much?
+ Did you feel like you could assess what the game was about from quickly looking at the entrant's thread?
+ Was there a backstory, explanation of characters, or other types of fun little additional information that makes the game stand out to fans?
COMMUNITY:
+ Did the entrant attempt to help other entrants?
+ Did they participate in linksharing or advertising other entrants' games?
+ Did they post feedback or information outside of the C2 Contest board (e.g., the Construct 2 Support board)?
+ Did they make an introduction for their self in the Introductions forum, or post in social boards, such as General Discussion, Video Games, or Other Entertainment?
+ If someone on this forum asked you "What do you think about [entrant's name]?", do you think you'd be able to identify who that member is, and answer the question?
(Please base your assessment on their activity as of the past month, so to not be unfair to newer members.)
As onzephyr says, I'm also going to be having a heck of a lot of fun playing and talking about everyone's games too 