Checkpoint Judging Rubric.xlsx

	A	B	C	D
1	Checkpoint Jam - Judging Rubric
2
3	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
4	Prototype & Gameplay (30 Points)			Assessment objective:
5				The overall quality, playability and engagement of the submitted game prototype, including its mechanics, usability, presentation and technical stability.
6	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
7	25–30	Outstanding	Highly engaging, polished and intuitive prototype. Core mechanics are well executed, with strong usability, presentation and technical stability.	Judges should consider: Is the core gameplay loop clear, enjoyable and engaging? Can players understand the objectives, controls and available actions without excessive explanation? Do the mechanics provide meaningful challenges, decisions or opportunities for interaction? Does the game maintain an appropriate balance between difficulty, progression and player feedback? Do the visuals, audio and interface support the intended experience? Are technical issues minor, or do they prevent meaningful engagement with the game? Does the prototype demonstrate a sufficiently complete core experience, even if additional features remain unfinished?
8	19–24	Very Good	Strong, enjoyable gameplay with a clear core loop. Minor usability, balance or technical issues do not significantly affect the experience.
9	13–18	Good	Functional, enjoyable prototype demonstrating competent mechanics, although aspects of usability, balance or polish require refinement.
10	7–12	Fair	Basic playable concept with noticeable shortcomings in gameplay, controls, usability or technical execution.
11	0–6	Limited	Prototype is incomplete, difficult to play or significantly affected by technical issues that prevent meaningful evaluation.
12
13	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
14	Theme Integration (30 Points)			Assessment objective:
15				How meaningfully, accurately and responsibly the game explores the prevention of violent extremism through its mechanics, narrative, interactions and player experience.
16	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
17	25–30	Outstanding	PVE concepts are fundamental to the game's design. Mechanics and player experiences demonstrate nuanced, accurate and responsible exploration of prevention, with meaningful decisions and consequences.	Judges should consider: Which specific PVE concepts or prevention challenges does the game explore? Are those concepts integrated meaningfully into gameplay rather than simply appearing in dialogue, text or visual elements? Does the game encourage players to recognise, question or reflect upon harmful manipulation, misinformation, exclusion or other relevant influences? Are players presented with meaningful choices that demonstrate the consequences of actions and decisions? Does the game promote constructive understanding, resilience, empathy or positive alternatives where appropriate? Are the issues represented with appropriate nuance, avoiding simplistic explanations of why individuals become involved in violent extremism? Does the game avoid inadvertently normalising, glamorising or rewarding extremist behaviour? Does the game explore prevention through an engaging experience rather than relying primarily on lectures or information delivery?
18	19–24	Very Good	Strong and consistent integration of relevant PVE concepts. Gameplay meaningfully explores prevention, although some opportunities for greater depth or nuance remain.
19	13–18	Good	PVE themes are clearly identifiable and relevant, but integration is uneven or relies partly on explicit narrative and instructional content.
20	7–12	Fair	PVE themes are present but superficial, inconsistently explored or weakly connected to player actions and mechanics.
21	0–6	Limited	Little meaningful integration of PVE concepts, or substantial inaccuracies or problematic representations undermine the intended preventative message.
22
23	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
24	Creativity & Innovation (20 Points)			Assessment objective:
25				The originality and inventiveness of the submitted game, including its concept, mechanics, storytelling, presentation and interpretation of the Checkpoint challenge.
26	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
27	17–20	Outstanding	Exceptional originality and experimentation. Distinctive mechanics, storytelling or creative choices deliver a memorable and innovative experience.	Judges should consider: Does the game offer an original concept or a fresh interpretation of familiar ideas? Are its gameplay mechanics inventive or combined in an interesting way? Does it explore PVE-related themes through creative approaches rather than conventional instructional formats? Are storytelling, art, sound or interactive systems used imaginatively? Does the game experiment with different perspectives, relationships or consequences? Do the creative elements meaningfully contribute to the player's experience? Is the game memorable or distinctive compared with other submissions?
28	13–16	Very Good	Strong creative vision with several distinctive or inventive elements that meaningfully enhance the experience.
29	9–12	Good	Competent concept featuring some original ideas or creative combinations of familiar mechanics.
30	5–8	Fair	Limited innovation, with substantial reliance on familiar approaches and relatively little distinctive interpretation.
31	0–4	Limited	Little evidence of originality, experimentation or a recognisable creative identity.
32
33	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
34	Cultural Relevance (20 Points)			Assessment objective:
35				How thoughtfully and authentically the game represents relevant cultural, social and regional contexts, including its sensitivity to diverse identities, beliefs and lived experiences.
36	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
37	17–20	Outstanding	Exceptional cultural awareness and authenticity. Relevant social and cultural contexts are represented with nuance, respect and clear understanding. The game avoids harmful generalisations and meaningfully reflects its intended audience.	Judges should consider: Is the game's cultural or regional context appropriate to its intended audience and subject matter? Are communities, beliefs, identities and social relationships represented respectfully? Does the game avoid associating violent extremism with particular religions, ethnicities or communities through unsupported generalisations? Are characters portrayed as complex individuals rather than stereotypes? Does the game acknowledge that social circumstances and experiences can differ substantially between individuals and communities? Are language, symbols, settings and cultural references used appropriately and accurately? Does the game avoid unnecessarily sensationalising violence, conflict or vulnerable communities? Would the intended audience be likely to recognise the representation as thoughtful, relevant and credible?
38	13–16	Very Good	Strong cultural relevance and sensitivity. Representation is thoughtful and appropriate, with only minor opportunities for greater depth or contextual understanding.
39	9–12	Good	Generally appropriate and respectful representation, although cultural context may be broad, simplified or insufficiently developed.
40	5–8	Fair	Limited cultural awareness or relevance. Some representations may lack nuance, rely on generalisations or require substantial refinement.
41	0–4	Limited	Cultural context is absent where essential to the game's premise, or representations contain significant inaccuracies, stereotypes or potentially harmful assumptions.
42
43	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
44	Overall Experience & Execution (10 Points)			Assessment objective:
45				How effectively the game's design, presentation, narrative, mechanics and intended message work together to create a cohesive and memorable experience.
46	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
47	9–10	Outstanding	Exceptionally cohesive and well-executed experience. Gameplay, presentation and thematic intentions work together to deliver a clear, engaging and memorable result.	Judges should consider: Do the gameplay mechanics, narrative, presentation and theme work together effectively? Is the game's intended experience or central message clear? Does the experience maintain an appropriate and consistent tone? Does the player journey feel purposeful and coherent? Do the game's individual elements support one another rather than feeling disconnected? Does the game leave a meaningful or memorable impression? Does the finished prototype successfully communicate the development team's creative vision?
48	7–8	Very Good	Strong overall execution with good cohesion and only minor inconsistencies.
49	5–6	Good	Clear and generally effective experience, although some elements lack refinement or consistency.
50	3–4	Fair	Recognisable intended experience, but inconsistent execution reduces clarity, engagement or impact.
51	0–2	Limited	Significant shortcomings in cohesion or execution prevent the game from communicating its intended experience effectively.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100