Project Assessment
[[Name]]
[[Student Number]]
Assessment
Project Details
Name
Student Number
Project Title
Project Overview
Project Overview
Key Outcomes
Languages
[[Provide a brief one paragraph overview of your project in terms of
the overall aims]]
[[Briefly outline, using bullet points, the key functional outcomes
associated with your project, i.e. what it is that you have
accomplished]]
[[Provide details of the languages, tools or technologies that you
used during your project]]
Assessment Distribution
Area
Organisation and Approach
Complexity of Development
Quantity of Development
Code Architectural Quality
Code Performance Quality
Mark allocation
10
[[10-40]]
[[10-40]]
[[10-40]]
[[10-40]]
The ‘Organisation and Approach’ section is fixed at 10 marks. The remaining sections are project
dependent, with a minimum of 10 assigned marks and a maximum of 40 assigned marks. The total
number of assigned marks across all five sections must sum to 100.
Areas of Assessment
The following sets of assessment criteria assume that a quantity of 30 marks has been allocated to the
particular section (this does not apply to the Organisation and Approach section which is worth a
fixed number of marks).
Allocating less than 30 marks to a particular section will entail that it is easier to score a high
conceptual mark. Allocating more than 30 marks to a particular section entails that it is more difficult
to score a high conceptual mark.
Organisation and Approach
This section is concerned with how you approach the project. In other words, the extent to which you
approached the project in a manner that helped you succeed and make progress within your project.
Mark Category
1st [70-100]
2.1 [60-70]
2.2 [50-60]
3rd [40-50]
Fail [0-40]
Description
Worked with exceptional effort through-out sprints. Demonstrated excellent planning skills.
Demonstrated excellent reflection within sprints.
Worked with strong effort through-out sprints. Demonstrated good planning skills.
Demonstrated good reflection within sprints.
Worked with acceptable effort through-out sprints. Demonstrated acceptable planning
skills. Demonstrated acceptable reflection within sprints.
Worked with acceptable effort in most sprints. Demonstrated acceptable planning skills.
Demonstrated insufficient reflection within sprints.
Worked with acceptable effort in few sprints. Demonstrated unacceptable planning skills.
Demonstrated insufficient reflection within sprints.
Complexity of Development
This section is concerned with the algorithmic complexity of your development. Was the development
complex in the sense of being mathematically or computationally rich? Being able to tackle a complex
development demonstrates not only that you can conceptually handle the complexity but also that you
can develop and debug software that deals with such complexities. Complexity within this section will be
measured against the following intertwined metrics:



Mathematical complexity (does your development involve significant mathematical modelling).
Algorithmic complexity (does your development involve significant algorithmic computational
complexity, this might be in terms of a highly parallelised algorithm, complex internal logic, etc.).
Hardware complexity (does your development involve complex hardware interaction, e.g.
utilising hardware such as a GPU/PPU).
Mark Category
1st [70-100]
2.1 [60-70]
2.2 [50-60]
3rd [40-50]
Fail [0-40]
Description
Project assessed to have very high complexity
Project assessed to have high complexity
Project assessed to have reasonable complexity
Project assessed to have borderline complexity
Project assessed to have insufficient complexity
Quantity of Development
This section is concerned with the size of your development (crudely as measured in terms of LOC). It
is important to stress that a project which offers a small set of features may still be considered a large
development (measured used a LOC metric).
It is also important to stress that artificially inflating a project’s LOC count (to include inefficient code
and/or irrelevant functionality) will not count towards this section.
The baseline of comparison is that which could be reasonably expected of a Level 3 student (where
the student has been assumed to be working on the project design, code development and code
debugging for an average of six hours/week over a twelve week period).
Mark Category
1st [70-100]
2.1 [60-70]
2.2 [50-60]
3rd [40-50]
Fail [0-40]
Description
Project assessed to strongly exceed base expectations
Project assessed to comfortable exceed base expectations
Project assessed to match base expectations
Project assessed to fall short of base expectations
Project assessed as inadequate against base expectations
Code Architectural Quality
This section is concerned with the quality of your architectural design. In particular, have you
designed your game component so that it can be easily integrated with other components, or easily
utilised by an end-developer, or easily extended/modified to incorporate new behaviour or change
existing behaviour.
Mark Category
1st [70-100]
2.1 [60-70]
2.2 [50-60]
3rd [40-50]
Fail [0-40]
Description
High extensible and customisable component design that can be readily and flexibly
integrated into a wider game engine and offers ease of use to end developers.
Extensible and customisable component design that can be readily integrated into a wider
game engine and offers ease of use to end developers.
Extensible component design that can be integrated with some effort into a wider game
engine.
Component design with limited extensibility / customisation that can be integrated into a
wider game engine with some dependencies/assumptions.
Component design with inadequate extensibility / customisation that could not be readily
integrated into a wider game engine.
Code Performance Quality
This section is concerned with the performance quality of your code. In particular, have you written
your game component in a manner that is likely to be fast/efficient – measured in terms of execution
time, memory footprint, cache usage, etc. To score high marks you should be able to demonstrate the
coding standards and practices you have adopted to maximise code performance.
To score highly in this section every line of code need not have been written to maximise
performance, although, you should have been able to identify execution critical sections which have
then been optimised.
Mark Category
1st [70-100]
2.1 [60-70]
2.2 [50-60]
3rd [40-50]
Fail [0-40]
Description
Comprehensive approach adopted towards identifying critical code regions, coupled with
excellent high performance optimisation.
Comprehensive approach adopted towards identifying critical code regions, coupled with
appropriate high performance optimisation.
Partial approach adopted towards identifying critical code regions, coupled with mostly
appropriate high performance optimisation.
Limited (scattergun) approach adopted towards identifying critical code regions, coupled
with some regions of mostly appropriate high performance optimisation.
No approach adopted towards identifying critical code regions, coupled with some few
regions of mostly appropriate high performance optimisation.
Final Mark
====================================================================
Weighting Assessment
Organisation and Approach
10
Complexity of Development
Quantity of Development
Code Architectural Quality
Code Performance Quality
Overall Project Score (/100)
0.0
====================================================================