cgd1rc

Richard Coyle


 * clips** - these are well selected and well presented; there is ever an issue with in-game clips that they can be dark, so you may need to do some photoshopping in later projects. But, overall, good work - B1 (63%)


 * personal report** - this is a valid account of what happened, who did what, etc. and even has aspects of self-criticism. However, the main weakness is a lack of looking forward beyond the present/past towards the future. What does this project mean to you as a future games developer? what would you do differently next time? what pitfalls might you avoid? what strengths might you work on emphasising? what weaknesses do you need to consider? These are the kinds of questions that a good, reflective (in the mind) and reflexive (in practice) softwar develoepr needs to work on. So, OK, but lightweight - C (48%)


 * QA Plan** - this is an outworking of the QA plan, but needs quite a bit more evidence of it having been planned as well as done (but more of that later in the testing report, I expect.) You should have shown more visibile consideration of who will test, when they willt est, what they will test, how you will act upon feedback, etc. So, some evidence, but not a lot - D (32%)


 * roll-out plan** - this is much better. With a major, totally-thought-out project you will get more and more detail to such a plan. but this shows a good depth of thought, and a clarity of rpesentation which shows coverage of major aspects of the development. It reflects the fact that the team, while not perfect in tis planning, was never overwhelmed by events, but reacted well to them. A good piece of work, even perhaps an examplar of how to keep a lot of detail in a small place - A (72%)


 * QA data gathering** - a very clear presentation of this work. Not too many words. Goo to see how the three different testing scenarios are presented: as you show, just be honest and make the most of what you find. The data analyses are good. I like that you have presented both qualitative (words) and quantitative (numbers) analyses, and not tried to over-read into the data gathered. Thanks for the scans too as extra proof. A strong piece of work - A (71%)