A group for discussion of the games design NPA
Richard Scott.
Richard ScottI am part of a team revising the arrangements for the NPA in Computer Games Development at levels 4, 5 and 6. My particular area of responsibility is unit 3, “Computer Games: Development”.
Have your say now. I am keen to start a dialogue to discuss how to improve these units. As lead writer for the NPA I can also pass on any constructive comments you may wish to make regarding the other two units.
Here is a reminder of the current content of the Development units at 4, 5 & 6:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Level 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1 Create a working computer game.
(a) Construct a working game based on a game design document and adhering to the game design brief.
(b) Correctly add media assets as specified in the game design document.
(c) Carry out testing to eliminate all major errors, and ensure that the game is playable.
2 Evaluate a computer game.
(a) Accurately evaluate how well the completed game meets the requirements of the game design brief.
(b) Accurately evaluate how well the completed game matches the game design document, justifying any changes from it.
(c) Clearly describe feasible improvements that could be made to the game.
3 Promote a computer game.
(a) The aims of the promotional activity are clearly stated.
(b) Identify a suitable and feasible activity to promote the computer game.
(c) Produce a clear plan for the activity to promote the computer game.
(d) Carry out the activity in accordance with the plan.
(e) The activity satisfies the stated aims.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Level 5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1 Create a working computer game.
(a) Construct a working game based on the design document and adhering to the game design brief.
(b) Demonstrate an ability to alter the behaviour of objects.
(c) Correctly add media assets as specified in the design document
(d) Devise a test strategy.
(e) Carry out testing to eliminate all major errors, and ensure that the game is playable.
2 Evaluate a computer game.
(a) Accurately evaluate how well the completed game meets the requirements of the game design brief, justifying reasons for evaluation.
(b) Accurately evaluate how well the completed game matches the game design document, clearly justifying any changes from it.
(c) Produce a user review of the game highlighting strengths, describing feasible improvements and applying a rating system.
3 Promote a computer game.
(a) The aims of the promotional activities are clearly described.
(b) Clearly describe two suitable and feasible activities to promote the computer game.
(c) Produce a clear and detailed plan for the activities to promote the computer game.
(d) Carry out the activities in accordance with the plan.
(e) The activities satisfy the stated aims.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Level 6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1 Create a working computer game.
(a) Construct a working computer game based on the design document and adhering to the game design brief.
(b) Demonstrate an ability to alter the game-play or to construct complex interactions.
(c) Correctly add media assets, as specified in the game design document
(d) Devise a detailed test strategy.
(e) Carry out testing to eliminate all major errors, and ensure that the game is playable.
2 Evaluate a computer game
(a) Analyse how well the completed game meets the requirements of the game design brief, providing a clear and detailed justification of the analysis.
(b) Analyse the completed game to determine to what degree it matches the game design document, clearly justifying any changes from it.
(c) Analyse the completed game and clearly describe feasible improvements.
(d) Analyse the game development environment used to create the game and justify its selection.
(e) Complete a user review, applying a rating system, and comparing the completed game with one of the same or similar genre.
3 Promote a computer game.
(a) The aims of the promotional activities are clearly explained.
(b) Clearly describe three suitable and feasible activities, one of which must be branding, to promote the computer game.
(c) Produce a clear and detailed plan for all three activities to promote the computer game.
(d) Carry out the activities in accordance with the plan.
(e) The activities satisfy the stated aims.
Richard ScottMany of you may have been involved in the scoping for this review, carried out by Colin Maxwell. I would now like to open up this conversation to everyone here, whether you were involved in the scoping process or not.
These have been tremendously successful courses and we are therefore wary of tampering with them too much.
The scoping for the NPA at all three levels resulted in the following conclusion:
Broadly, the aims are relevant; however, the range of aims leads to too many topics to be covered in the available time, and too high an assessment burden. Problems with delivery, assessment and progression have been identified by several respondents (Mainly performance criteria relating to Principal Aims 4 and 5 – listed below.):
With the following recommendation for change:
Revise all units, reducing the range of topics and amount of assessment.
It is clear from the feedback that there are too many topics to be assessed in each unit, leaving little room for any depth in the delivery or the learner response.
Focus on the design, development and evaluation of a computer game, and reduce the areas highlighted in the responses that lead to over-assessment. Provide clearer guidance on the requirements for the development of a computer game, to differentiate between the three levels of the award.
Richard ScottMany of you may have been involved in the scoping leading to this revision.
The conclusion of this scoping process is:
Broadly, the aims are relevant; however, the range of aims leads to too many topics to be covered in the available time, and too high an assessment burden. Problems with delivery, assessment and progression have been identified by several respondents (Mainly performance criteria relating to Principal Aims 4 and 5 – listed below.):
Leading to the consultant making the following recommendations:
Revise all units, reducing the range of topics and amount of assessment.
It is clear from the feedback that there are too many topics to be assessed in each unit, leaving little room for any depth in the delivery or the learner response.
Focus on the design, development and evaluation of a computer game, and reduce the areas highlighted in the responses that lead to over-assessment. Provide clearer guidance on the requirements for the development of a computer game, to differentiate between the three levels of the award.
Richard ScottThe team and myself have our own ideas about how these arrangements could be improved but I would be keen to hear any comments you may wish to make regarding improvements.
In relation to unit 3, Development (my responsibility), some ideas that have been mooted include:
I am keen to hear your thoughts.
The team revising these courses are only just getting started but we have a short timescale so please get involved in the conversation/debate.
Kirsteen NakauI had just started delivering this course and had completed most of the first two units before changing schools. I found it well structured and enjoyed delivering it, just found it frustrating that so many of the relevant sites required for research were blocked by our council simply due to “Game” nature.
I did not get to the promotional activity part but had no particular concerns about it due to the wide range of options available.
Kirsteen
Richard ScottThanks Kirsteen, good to hear positive feedback. We are wary of tampering too much with the content.
I guess council blocking of sites we require is a different issue and should not necessarily direct the content of our courses; that would be like the tail wagging the dog.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.