Slashdot Mirror
On The Muse Of The Videogame
Thanks to the IGDA for its 'Ivory Tower' article discussing whether the creative training for game developers is being taught alongside the technical specifics in university and other educational programs. The article argues: "Vocationally-focused university programs and trade schools have jumped on the opportunity to supply the next set of technically trained personnel for the game industry... but who will supply the next set of visionaries and artists?" The author goes on to suggest: "In large part, education for the game industry is a predictably useful business... what we need in the game industry are technically competent developers, artists, and designers who are fundamentally versed in the rich subtleties of human experience." Can this kind of game design vision be formally taught?
Well the games industry is going to bring in people who have gone through game making degrees / college courses as programmers / level designers, Artists for the graphics, Sound Techinicians and Musicians for Sound Effects and Music. Degree's could not teach the full wealth in all the area's, nor would should it hope to.
Does NASA only employ astronauts?
The best video games come from people who love what they do AND go after all the technical knowledge required to do the job. Love of the game can't be taught. This is true of every profession, not just making video games.
Finally, to be truly excellent a person needs to have a natural apptitude for the work. Enjoying it is first, going after the technical skills is second, and finally a person must have a natural skill.
"Imagineering."
Others have tried to capitalize in other ways upon the creative process by quantifying and boiling it down to as simple a process as possible. (With varying success.)
I'd say that the process of creativity can't exactly be taught, but it can be inspired by teaching people to think in different ways. The teaching shows them the door. Creativity doesn't happen until they go through and start to explore.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Unfortunately game design isn't as well understood as narrative design.
/random/ events?
/why/ pacman was so popular when crystal castles was not. There has been no formal study of games beyond their technical specifications.
Narratives have been studied for centuries, resulting in our understanding of pacing, foreshadowing, dramatic irony, and such.
Interactives on the other hand are still very new. How much interaction is too much? too little? When should we simulate, and when should we emulate? How do you pace an interactive? What makes a puzzle frustrating, and what makes it fun? How does camera angle selection affect the player? How does unlimited save/reload affect tension and flow? What is the impact of having gameplay elements hinge upon
Furthermore, for narratives, there is a wealth of traditional study of classic pieces. By studying those works and the critiques of them - writers can be made aware of the less immediate reactions to their creations: the abstracted interpretations, allegories, metaphors and conventions.
For interactives, there are classic works to study(though not as many) - but there has been no formal analysis of them. No one has looked into
Compare video game reviews to book reviews, or even film reviews. Film critics don't spend time discussing the technical proficiency of the editing or color balancing in movies (except in extreme cases). They discuss what the color balancing adds. They talk about whether the editing fits the flow of the film, or detracts from it - whether the framing lends the appropriate feelings.
While designers can learn a bit from classical studies, and while even one good course would be better than none - there is certainly enough material to at least justify a specialized degree.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Although I'm not in the games industry at the moment, working on a computer game has been my dream job ever since I gave serious thought to the matter of my profession. I always liked computers and took to programming immediately, however I also have always had a passion for storytelling and writing. With this in mind, I chose computer science as my major in college and also took a minor in creative writing. I got the technical training and the creative exercise.
That's what creative writing classes are, really. Exercise. If the talent isn't there in the first place you'll find that you can never write a good story, no matter how hard you try or how many classes you take. There's no formula for a good story, just as there's no formula for a good game. You can't teach that sort of thing. You can, however, exercise it. If you want to include the creative side of games in the education process the easiest way is to add a creative writing class or two, just to exercise your students' creativity. Because either they already have it or they don't, there's no learning it.
Publishers won't take risks on games that are creative, innovative or even interesting. None of them will take the gamble anymore. They are all run by scared little men who are now standing precariously on licenses and sequels.
... things are getting ready to crash.
The game industry is fast becoming like the toy industry. Feeding off the entertainment industry, rather than becoming one.
License, sequels, no innovation
The thing about programming is that it is getting to the point that most any motivated person can do it. The problem is that they can create a lousy experience. Often times the programmers don't even understand what a user is attempting to accomplish but are able to fill business requirements fine, it still makes for a crappy program though.
In a computer game, it is all about the user experience, not just the story but how the user interacts with the program too. If it is too hard, or too clunky people will not even consider it. People who can create a good user experience, in the interface and the presentation should be worth their weight in gold.
There are good reasons people hate browsing some business sites, not to mention boring and uninformative. This is something that a smart business should always invest in, but will be relucant to even acknowledge its importance not understanding the subject.
well.. the school was called CDIS, but it was recently bought by the arts institute, so now I think they are calling it AICDIS. You can check out their site at Artschool From what I've heard, they will soon be offering a degree program in game development. The teachers there for the most part are very skilled and good to the students. The cost is kind of high because it is a private institution also. As far as getting a job... I ended up getting a programming job at a business doing .NET and database stuff... but at this point I don't have a demo reel to give to any companies I apply at which can be a HUGE bonus. Some of the other people I went to school with (as well as one one my past teachers), do have jobs... some with ubisoft... and a couple other companies. On the whole.. it was a positive experience, but for a career, I recomment a computer science degree from a university, and spend you spare time making a demo to hand out as well as reading all you can on game design and engineering. 3d math, physics, and good object oriented design are key things to know. Game companies seem to be willing to teach you the sdk related things once you are working there... you are best off with a solid grounding in the concepts you will be using while there.
Wouldnt you like to be a pepper too?
The best starting point would be formal training in "Video Games Appreciation".
Similar to art appreciation, it would not only teach how to break down a game into its components, style, and cultural context, but it would also make students intimately familiar with classic examples of both good and bad games.
"Why was game X so well-loved? Why did game Y tank so badly? Which game designers consistently turned out the best games, and what were each of their approaches that worked so successfully for them? What were the major recognizable styles of games, and when did each style gain prominence, and what was unique or interesting about each style?"
So many game designers today keep making the same stupid mistakes that have been made ad nauseum for decades now. If they had competent backgrounds in video game appreciation, I think we would see the quality of games rise across the board in the industry.
Or, to put it super-simply: learn from the mistakes of generations past, and stop repeating them.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.