Difference between revisions of "Application Evaluation Criterion"
(Created page with 'Initial thoughts by Allen. These absolutely do not yet reflect the combined thoughts of the team Suggest we use a less rigid, more holistic evaluation process. * Identify those…') |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Ask the teams to submit: | |
| − | + | * list of games run | |
| + | * list of games played | ||
| + | * Character role of the team (scientists, journalists, government officials, investors, or other) | ||
| + | * in-character CVs for each player on the team--just a *short* paragraph listing the fictional papers they've authored or whatever achievement is relevant to the role they've chosen | ||
| + | * science fair exhibit | ||
| + | * which run(s) of the game they're available for | ||
| − | + | We will also interview each team with both interviewers and interviewees in character--like 6 minutes max. At the interview we'll ask them to present their science project. For those teams that find it challenging to interview in person, we'll also accept Skype interviews or a simple video of them presenting their project. | |
| − | * | + | |
| − | * | + | The hope is that the interviews will |
| + | |||
| + | * be fun for all involved | ||
| + | * communicate the tonality of our game and introduce them to the main characters | ||
| + | * give us information about which teams will have fun playing along with our plot | ||
| + | * get the players in character even before the game begins | ||
| + | |||
| + | We'll do our best to ask similar questions of the different teams. And we'll try to take careful notes and ratings from the interviews since it will be so easy to forget the details after we've interviewing 60 teams. We may even videotape the interviews. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The selection process will go something like this: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * identify the teams that are not a good match for our game, if any | ||
| + | * identify the applications we all love so much we just have to have them in the game | ||
| + | * use contribution to community (games run) to help allocate the remaining slots. | ||
| + | |||
| + | We will emphasize to the teams that we will be looking for creativity and fun in their applications, *not* production values. We will explicitly encourage them to not spend *too* much time on the applications. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:40, 6 May 2011
Ask the teams to submit:
- list of games run
- list of games played
- Character role of the team (scientists, journalists, government officials, investors, or other)
- in-character CVs for each player on the team--just a *short* paragraph listing the fictional papers they've authored or whatever achievement is relevant to the role they've chosen
- science fair exhibit
- which run(s) of the game they're available for
We will also interview each team with both interviewers and interviewees in character--like 6 minutes max. At the interview we'll ask them to present their science project. For those teams that find it challenging to interview in person, we'll also accept Skype interviews or a simple video of them presenting their project.
The hope is that the interviews will
- be fun for all involved
- communicate the tonality of our game and introduce them to the main characters
- give us information about which teams will have fun playing along with our plot
- get the players in character even before the game begins
We'll do our best to ask similar questions of the different teams. And we'll try to take careful notes and ratings from the interviews since it will be so easy to forget the details after we've interviewing 60 teams. We may even videotape the interviews.
The selection process will go something like this:
- identify the teams that are not a good match for our game, if any
- identify the applications we all love so much we just have to have them in the game
- use contribution to community (games run) to help allocate the remaining slots.
We will emphasize to the teams that we will be looking for creativity and fun in their applications, *not* production values. We will explicitly encourage them to not spend *too* much time on the applications.
