Final Zoud Judging Rubric.xlsx

	A	B	C	D
1	Zoud GameLab (FinLit Jam) - Judging Rubric
2
3	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
4	Prototype & Gameplay (25 Points)			Assessment objective:
5				Evaluate the quality, playability, technical execution and overall player experience of the submitted prototype.
6	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
7	21-25	Outstanding	Highly polished prototype demonstrating excellent gameplay, intuitive controls, strong visual and audio presentation, technical stability and an engaging player experience. The game feels cohesive and well-tested.	Judges should consider: - Core gameplay: Is there a clear and engaging gameplay loop? Are the player's objectives and actions understandable? - Controls and usability: Is the game intuitive to navigate and play? Are instructions and feedback sufficient? - Engagement: Does the game encourage continued play through meaningful challenges, choices, progression or discovery? - Balance and pacing: Are difficulty, rewards and progression appropriate for the intended experience? - Presentation: Do the visual design, audio and interface contribute effectively to the gameplay? - Technical stability: Can the game be played reliably? Do bugs or performance issues significantly disrupt the experience? - Completeness: Does the prototype successfully demonstrate its core concept, even if some secondary features remain unfinished?
8	16-20	Very Good	Strong gameplay with a polished core experience. Minor technical or usability issues may exist but do not significantly impact enjoyment. Demonstrates clear iteration and refinement.
9	11-15	Good	Functional and enjoyable prototype with competent gameplay. Core mechanics work well, although polish, balance or technical quality could be improved.
10	6-10	Fair	Basic playable prototype demonstrating the core idea but with noticeable issues affecting gameplay, usability or stability. Limited polish or incomplete implementation.
11	0-5	Limited	Prototype is incomplete, difficult to play or significantly affected by technical issues that prevent meaningful evaluation.
12
13	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
14	Financial Literacy Integration (25 Points)			Assessment objective:
15				Determine how meaningfully and accurately financial literacy is embedded within the game's design and player experience.
16	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
17	21-25	Outstanding	Financial literacy is fundamental to the game design. Concepts are seamlessly integrated into core gameplay mechanics, player decisions and progression. Learning emerges naturally through play without relying on explicit instruction. The interpretation of the theme is accurate, engaging and highly creative.	Judges should consider: - Relevance: Which financial literacy concepts does the game explore, and how relevant are they to the intended audience? - Gameplay integration: Are financial concepts embedded in player decisions, mechanics, systems or progression? - Meaningful choices: Do players make decisions involving trade-offs, consequences, risk, resources or financial planning? - Accuracy: Are the financial principles presented accurately and without potentially misleading implications? - Natural learning: Does the game communicate financial concepts through interaction, rather than relying primarily on text or quizzes? - Consistency: Is financial literacy integral to the experience, or confined to isolated sections? - Theme interpretation: Does the game offer a thoughtful and engaging interpretation of FinLit is Fun?
18	16-20	Very Good	Financial literacy is strongly integrated throughout the experience. Core concepts are meaningful and clearly connected to gameplay, although some elements could be developed further or integrated more consistently.
19	11-15	Good	Financial literacy is present and relevant but integration is uneven. Some mechanics effectively reinforce the theme, while other aspects rely more heavily on narrative, text or superficial references.
20	6-10	Fair	The game includes financial literacy elements, but they feel disconnected from the gameplay or are only lightly explored. The theme is evident but lacks meaningful interaction.
21	0-5	Limited	Little or no meaningful financial literacy integration. The theme is absent, inaccurate or only referenced superficially.
22
23	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
24	Educational Impact (15 Points)			Assessment objective:
25				Evaluate the game's potential to improve players' understanding of financial literacy and encourage meaningful reflection.
26	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
27	13-15	Outstanding	The game creates a meaningful learning experience through gameplay. Players are encouraged to think critically about financial decisions and are likely to gain lasting understanding or behavioural insight.	Judges should consider: - Learning outcomes: Is it clear what players are intended to understand or learn? - Clarity: Are the financial concepts communicated in an understandable and appropriate way? - Learning through experience: Does gameplay allow players to explore consequences, experiment and learn from decisions? - Reflection: Does the experience encourage players to reconsider assumptions or think critically about financial choices? - Practical relevance: Could the lessons or insights gained have relevance to real-world financial situations? - Audience suitability: Are the complexity, language and learning approaches appropriate for the intended players? - Retention: Are the ideas sufficiently memorable or reinforced through gameplay to support understanding beyond a single interaction?
28	10-12	Very Good	Financial concepts are communicated clearly and effectively. The game promotes understanding through interaction, although some opportunities for deeper learning remain.
29	7-9	Good	Educational objectives are evident and generally effective, although learning may rely on explicit explanation rather than player discovery.
30	3–4	Fair	Educational content is present but limited in depth, clarity or effectiveness. Learning outcomes are inconsistent or weakly connected to gameplay.
31	0–3	Limited	Little evidence of meaningful educational impact. Financial concepts are unclear, inaccurate or unlikely to improve player understanding.
32
33	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
34	Creativity & Innovation (15 Points)			Assessment objective:
35				Evaluate originality, experimentation and creative execution across the game concept, mechanics and presentation.
36	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
37	13-15	Outstanding	Demonstrates exceptional originality through innovative mechanics, creative design choices or a fresh interpretation of the theme. The experience is distinctive and memorable.	Judges should consider: - Originality: Does the game offer a distinctive concept or a fresh interpretation of familiar ideas? - Mechanics: Are there innovative gameplay systems, interactions or approaches to player decision-making? - Theme interpretation: Does the game explore financial literacy in an unexpected or imaginative way? - Creative execution: Are narrative, visual, audio or interface elements used inventively? - Experimentation: Does the project demonstrate a willingness to explore unusual ideas or challenge established conventions? - Cohesion: Do the creative elements complement one another and contribute to a recognisable overall identity? - Memorability: Does the experience contain distinctive ideas or moments that help it stand out?
38	10-12	Very Good	Strong creative vision with several original ideas or interesting design decisions that differentiate the game from typical approaches.
39	7-9	Good	Competent and enjoyable concept that includes some creative elements but generally follows familiar conventions.
40	3–4	Fair	Limited originality. The game relies heavily on existing mechanics or familiar ideas with only minor creative interpretation.
41	0–3	Limited	Very little evidence of creativity or innovation. The concept feels derivative or lacks a clear creative identity.
42
43	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
44	Development & Commercial Potential (20 Points)			Assessment objective:
45				Assess the feasibility and potential of developing the submitted prototype into a more complete, sustainable and commercially viable game.
46	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
47	17–20	Outstanding	Demonstrates exceptional potential for continued development into a commercially viable product. The concept has strong market appeal, realistic scope, a well-considered production plan and budget, and clear opportunities for future growth.	Judges should consider: - Core concept: Is the central idea sufficiently strong to support a complete game? - Target audience: Is there a clearly identifiable audience, and does the game offer meaningful value to that audience? - Market appeal: Could the game attract players, users, educational institutions or other relevant customers? - Development scope: Is the proposed scope achievable within a realistic development period? - Production planning: Does the submitted concept document or GDD demonstrate a credible understanding of the work required? - Budget: Is the proposed budget clear, proportionate and supported by realistic assumptions? - Future growth: Is there potential for additional content, refinement, replayability or expanded distribution? - Commercial strategy: Is there a credible approach to reaching the intended audience and sustaining the product? - Delivery confidence: Does the team demonstrate an understanding of the technical, creative and production challenges involved?
48	13–16	Very Good	Shows strong commercial promise with a credible production plan and realistic budget. The project appears feasible for further development with relatively minor refinements.
49	9–12	Good	Demonstrates reasonable development potential. The concept has identifiable strengths, although aspects of the production plan, scope or commercial strategy require further consideration.
50	5–8	Fair	Some potential exists, but significant concerns remain regarding feasibility, planning, market appeal or long-term sustainability.
51	0–4	Limited	Little evidence that the project could realistically progress beyond the jam. Planning, budgeting or commercial viability is insufficiently demonstrated.
52
53	BONUS POINTS
54
55	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
56	Localization Bonus UAE / Arab Region (up to 5 points) rewards authentic regional adaptation, not just translation.			Assessment objective:
57				Recognise meaningful adaptation to the cultural, linguistic and financial context of the UAE and wider Arab region.
58	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
59	5	Outstanding	Deep, authentic localization; Arabic language, culturally appropriate financial framing (e.g. interest-free concepts where relevant, Zakat,...), regionally specific scenarios (AED currency, UAE/Gulf cost of living, local financial institutions or systems), design sensitive to local norms.	Judges should consider: - Language: Does the game provide effective Arabic-language support where relevant? - Cultural relevance: Are characters, settings, scenarios and interactions appropriate and meaningful to regional audiences? - Financial context: Does the game accurately reflect relevant regional financial practices, systems or concepts? - Authenticity: Does the localization demonstrate understanding beyond simple translation or cosmetic references? - Player experience: Does the regional adaptation improve the game's accessibility, relevance or educational value for its intended audience?
60	3-4	Good	Strong localization; Arabic support and clearly regionally-relevant content, though not fully comprehensive.
61	1-2	Fair	Some localization effort; regional references or partial Arabic support, limited depth.
62	0	Limited	No meaningful localization beyond a generic/global approach.
63
64	Criteria			Guidance for Judges
65	Inclusivity & Accessibility Bonus (up to 5 points) rewards games designed to reach and be usable by the widest possible range of players.			Assessment objective:
66				Recognise deliberate design choices that make the game more accessible, understandable and welcoming to a diverse range of players.
67	Score	Performance Band	Descriptor
68	5	Outstanding	Strong, deliberate inclusivity; accessibility features for diverse abilities (e.g. visual, hearing, motor, cognitive considerations such as colorblind-safe palettes, audio cues, adjustable text/subtitles, simple-language mode), and design that welcomes varying ages, genders, financial literacy levels, and backgrounds without stereotyping. Clearly playable by and relevant to a broad audience.	Judges should consider: - Visual accessibility: Are text, contrast, colour choices and interface elements accessible to players with different visual needs? - Audio accessibility: Are subtitles, captions or visual alternatives available for important audio information? - Motor accessibility: Are controls manageable, adaptable or simplified where appropriate? - Cognitive accessibility: Are instructions, language, pacing and interface design easy to understand? - Inclusive representation: Does the game avoid unnecessary stereotypes and respectfully represent different audiences? - Financial accessibility: Can players with limited prior financial knowledge understand and participate meaningfully? - Intentionality: Are accessibility and inclusivity integrated into the design rather than added superficially?
69	3-4	Good	Notable inclusivity considerations; some concrete accessibility features or deliberate choices to reach a broader/more diverse audience, though not comprehensive.
70	1-2	Fair	Minor considerations; basic accessibility touches (e.g. clear text, simple language) but limited depth or intentionality.
71	0	Limited	No evident consideration of accessibility or inclusivity beyond a default/general audience.
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