Slashdot Mirror
Design Educations Under Criticism
Via GameSetWatch, a story at CollegeNews.org about the crass reasons higher learning institutions have for offering game design courses. From the article: "Video game design as a college major? It's yet another sign of the coming of the apocalypse. Schools of higher learning are simply cashing in on a fad that is destructive to society. Electronic Arts, the nation's largest game maker, has led the way in encouraging ivy-stained institutions to teach the design of such games as Grand Theft Auto, World of Warcraft, Doom, Wolfenstein 3D, and Mortal Kombat. Last year, the company contributed millions of dollars to establish a three-year master of fine arts program in 'interactive entertainment' at USC." More on GamePolitics.
Didn't they say the same thing about people getting film degrees in the last century?
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
The author's smirk (not to mention the terrible logic) makes me think this type of article is just done for attention.
Does it really make sense to say that teaching game design is wrong because most games are violent? Wouldn't it make more sense to base an argument fighting game design courses based upon games' infancy as a medium, and its potential lack of academic value?
It just doesn't seem real logical to say that game design courses must be bad because games today promote violence. That'd be kind of like saying that we shouldn't teach film courses because movies and television are too violent.
Wouldn't it be a good thing to offer game design courses, because that'd provide chances to teach potential designers responsibility and ethics?
Hey, it's my OPINION that dogs have eight legs and make a sound like a car horn every time they take a piss.
Paragraph two, referring to the offering of video game design programs:
.wait for it. . .sound.
Schools of higher learning are simply cashing in on a fad that is destructive to society.
Paragraph four:
Video games are big business--rivaling the movie industry. In 2004, video game sales totaled $9.9 billion. Electronic Arts alone employs 4,300 video game makers.
Make up your mind! Passing fad, or major industry. You can't have both.
He goes on to present some random evidence that seems to purport that some games aree violent and that some young gamers prefer these violent games. Brilliant, Sherlock.
And then the final paragraph:
Offering degrees in video game design is to kidnap American education. Higher education needs to be rescued from such destructive nonsense.
Ted Reuter is apparently a graduate of the Jack Thompson School for Jingoist Rhetoric. His assertion that video game design should not be taught because video games are bad, m'kay, makes much less sense than saying that nuclear physics should not be taught because some applications of it can cause big explosions, or that biochemistry should not be taught because mustard gas exists. Got news for you, Ted: What you don't know can and will hurt you.
If you want a chuckle, read up on Mr. Reuter's quixotic battle against. .
I want the fire back.
Saying that gaming his highly destructive to society is highly subjective. I think that certainly the right kind of gaming is good for society. I can only hope that more video game designers can lead to more unique ideas and mind-stimulating gameplay.
The amount of low quality games cashing in on franchises is at an all-time high. I blame us, the consumer, because we keep buying the garbage games.
Seriously, what good is a game design degree, anyway? The graduates from one semester would already be more designers than the whole industry needs. What they DO need is grunts. Coders, artists, sound guys, etc. The guys who don't think* but do. Most people who say "I want to make games" think they get to decide what games get made. You only need one or two of those on a team, compared to 50+ grunts on larger teams.
Plus, a degree isn't worth much in the games industry anyway, your skill and especially past experience (often a required number of shipped titles for major companies!) are what's important. Many graduates are worse than the self-taught people. Most jobs with degrees require stuff selftaughts don't even know the name of (how many selftaught coders can do code verification?) so the degree makes sense but the processes involved in games is nothing your average selftaught doesn't know about (or, in case of complex coding, a computer science degree won't teach you).
In the no-degree-required positions it's even recommended to have a degree that's not game related so you can take another high-paying job if you get burned out (or pissed off) by the games industry. If you only have a games degree the rest of your life would involve asking customers whether they'd like fries with that.
*=Yes, I know all of these jobs require thinking. I mean they don't think up the game, just its implementation.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Why wouldnt universities get in on this? Video games are clearly a strong, and continually growing industry. Companies need trained workers for their fields, and universities provide training for people... so I think that its a very natural and sensible move by most schools to get in on it. Its time people woke up and figured out that video games are more than a fad. We aren't going anywhere.
Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the annunciation of truth.
I can only imagine that the writer of this article would think the saga of Carl Johnson, in book form, would be a literary marvel cronicling the rise to power of a disenfranchised African-American.
the crass reasons higher learning institutions have for offering game design courses
Wha'? There was nothing here even hinting at "reasons". The article was a (somewhat disjointed) opinion rant: "1.) Video games are violent. 2.) Video games are popular. 3.) Schools are starting video game design courses (and should not)" (although not specifically in that order).
This article makes weak connections at best between violent video games and the detriment a game design program would have. The title of the article, the statement of the article, and the supporting points in the article seem to come from three totally different places. It's kind of a lukewarm ADD-rambling grumble. There might be a defensible position here, but I can't make it out.
In short, "This is news?"
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
What a crappy article. None of studies he mentions have links or refernces to the actual data. He makes unsupportable acusations. His picture makes you want to smack it. He mentions that the game industry rivals the film industry. But hasn't gaming outearned films for the past couple of years? "Rival" does not strike me as the best word choice. All in all, just a troll, and a poor one at that.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Does anybody else look at this guy and think about Dwight from the American version of the Office? I'm sure either one would be the same amount of fun to hold a conversation with.
The gist of the article is a repeat of Jack Thompson-esque rhetoric about how violent games make violent kids, etc.
Ted Rueter, the author of the article, is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at DePauw University. I don't remember many friends or acquaintances in college that majored in PolySci, unless they were A) planning on going to grad school, or B) not planning on getting job (seriously!). I think we have a case of bona-fide "marketable skills envy" here! Remember--this is coming from a man who has no apparent expertise in the realm of child psychology. In other words, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He mentions studies that supposedly prove that violent games make kids more aggressive, but doesn't reference them. I did find it humorous that Rueter derides the fact that "Many games are based upon a scenario in which a woman is kidnapped or has to be rescued". Is he trying to say that chivalry and heroism are ruining our society?
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
this is your usual "violence in video games is destroying our children" article.
This is a complex problem. First off, funding for institutions of higher learning comes from a multitude of sources. Colleges need to attract funding and in order to do that they need to attract students. In order to attract students, they need to create programs that are attractive to students. In Canada, colleges and universities are publicly funded and their funding is largely based on the number of students. This competition for students is unfortunate because students who are 19 years old tend to be relatively short-sighted about what constitutes a good education.
Secondly, I believe almost any course of study can become excellent education depending on the teachers/instructors/professors. My father is probably the best professor one could ever have: his background as a professional fine artist combined with experience in education and volunteer activities, plus his interest in philosophy and science makes him singularly capable of delivering an excellent course regardless of the subject matter. He is constantly creating new and better methods of instruction for his courses that he teaches at Keyano College. Incidentally, he has been investigating the creation of a game design program at the college... because it is cutting edge in terms of the arts!
I personally strongly feel that if I had focused on a purely technical or vocational path in my education I would not be nearly as far along in my career as I am. I studied sociology, philosophy, anthropology, linguistics, French, Russian, marketing and accounting in addition to my core computer science and mathematics classes. The benefits of these classes have become clear 15 years later as I am doing management consulting for Agile methods. If a program is going to be about game design, make sure that it includes a diversity of relevent subject matter such as gender studies, theatre, story-writing, linguistics, adult educational theory, etc. in addition to the technical stuff.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
...and was FORCED to make violent ones. The market wouldn't have anything else.
After creating a game engine very similar to Valves Source, I went on to make a few really beautiful and compelling titles: Getting ready for Work, Chores!, Making Dinner and Making Dinner 2: Grocery Store. All of these titles could hook into each other anad make for a wider game. Multiplayer online options were available - whats more exciting that doing your chores with a friend!?! Nothing, i tell you!
For some reason none of them really sold at all. Focus groups kept trying to take the coffee pot with them on the way to work the smash their boss with it. In another test, the kids kept trying to order pizza and steal the guy's car. In no tests did the subjects try to actually try to meat their actual goals of living a mundane everyday life.
I blame the universities.
s'wut i sed.
NCTV surveyed 176 Nintendo video games. They gave the XUnfit rating to 11 percent of games. Forty-three percent received an XV and 15 percent earned an RV.
Wait... 69% of Nintendo's games are highly violent, to a degree unfit for kids? By what standards? Do those people consider the Road Runner cartoon a bloodbath or what? Mario jumping on goombas is hardly "extreme violence".
A different survey found that 40 of the 47 top-rated Nintendo video games had violence as a theme.
Now it's a theme? Um, hellooooo? What are these guys smoking and can I have some of it? If your definition of "violence as a theme" is "can involve hitting other characters" then yes, that may be true. After all, you're hitting people with turtle shells in Mario Kart or with your sword in Zelda (complete with ultrarealistic flashes and sounds! Hear them bleep and bloop for mercy as you turn them into clouds of smoke!). But if that is your definition of violence, what kind of deranged psycho will your kid grow up into? Some freak who at 47 still tells everyone "my mommy said that is bad!" "my mommy said only bad people do that!"?
Or is someone just too fucking retarded to realize that Nintendo is not the entire games industry and not even the current market leader?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Once teachers start deconstructing the underlying motifs to first-person shooters, will kids flee the stultifying horror of academic respectibility?
"Okay, students, who can tell me the five elements of situational puzzle resolution?
"Anyone?"
"Anyone?"
"Buehler?"
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
It could be different if USC wasn't just a degree factory. I am in one of the Master's programs akin to the Interactive entertainment one (albeit through the engineering school). The problem with it, and with all the USC MS degrees is it seems that they basically churn out degrees for money.
USC is not cheap. It is currently $981/credit. Assuming that a MS consists of 16-20 credits per year, this new Game Design curriculum is going to set back each candidate by on average 3x18=$52k. Thats in USD. Granted they get a MFA for that price, and there are some classes sponsored by EA and other game companies from the area, but if you get admitted into the program, you will graduate and with at least a 2.5GPA.
Supposedly, education at USC isnt really about the education and more about the networking. Like I said, there are many game industry jobs in the area which are always trying to foster communication with academia. And since USC is private, corporate sponsorship is easier to do so with them than with any of the other CalState/UC schools in LA. It doesnt mean that the corporations actually hire out of the USC programs (nor are these programs proven to lead to succes in the industry... they are too young for that!), but there are enough USC alums in those companies that getting a job at one isnt really difficult with your 2.5GPA, because odds are someone you know will know someone to recommend you.
And a USC recommendation is better than a 4.0 MIT degree. Which is what you pay for.
Let's do away with every game genre that could be influenced by these programs, starting with games aimed at poor, innocent children.
And who's the most guilty? V-Tech and Leap Frog! Those companies need to have criminal charges filed against them, because they're marketing video games designed to brainwash little children!
</sarcasm>
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
How much has George Lucas given to the USC Film School? Hmmm? Or newspapers to language schools? Submitter needs to pull their head from their rectum and realize that industry will support itself by trying to get possible future employees of the highest caliber, even if it means actually teching them something in the process of their education.
I found the "Any" key.
Oh of course these degree programs are complete bull... why should we think that a degree that involves classes like calculus, artificial intelligence, C++ programming, 3d asset production, creative writing and behavioral science would involve any type of learning process and teach people skills that would make them an asset to the computer business world.
Seriously though, putting down degrees that are based on video games is wrong and usually completely biased. Most colleges that are offering "game design" degrees are actually offering "game development" degrees, "game design" is just a label. These game design degrees are usualy similar to a computer science degree's but the programming and computer theories taught are more focused on interactive real time programming rather then business applications. There are of course exceptions to this where the game degree is actually closer to a creative writing degree as well. But that seems to be in the minority.
Most people who bash the game degrees just want to make themselves look superior for some reasons. It happens with computer science grads too.
... and then i remembered that this was written by a political 'scientist'. then i went back to not caring.
odds of this guy understanding enough to even begin to appreciate the process involved in creating a game: about 40 billion to 1 against.
odds of this guy understanding his ignorance: about 40 billion to 1 against
odds of this guy understanding that there is more to the game market than gta, halo, etc.: again, about 40 billion to 1 against
given this, what are the odds he should be taken seriously?
1. Video games are evil.
2. Evil video game companies (which is reduntant as creating video games is the equivalent of selling poisoned milk to school children according to the article) are spending money to encourage colleges to create courses teaching people how to add poison to milk for schoolchildren.
3. All video games are evil and violent, including such games as Nintendo's Mario.
4. In conclusion, video games are evil and video game design courses have no place on a college campus or even existing at all.
How worrying is this? Well, academia has a lot of strange people working in it sometimes as professors. (When I was at school, one of my tenured professors would proudly boast that he was a card carrying communist. This was in the 80's when Reagan was in the White House and communism wasn't popular. Incidentally, I liked him, he had a good sense of humor but he was dead serious about the communism.) On the other hand, I have found some great articles from people in academia defending video games either directly or simply because they are disgusted by the lack of intellectual rigor of some famous opponents of video games.
I've never heard of this University, so here's the Wikipedia Article it doesn't sound particularly out there.
Obviously he has never heard of Metroid but I imagine his spin on that would be to take the most negative and sleazy interpretation.
Maybe he's after some of the great riches realized by Lt. Col. David Grossman or the likely more modest earnings of Jack Thompson. I expect more and more people like this will come out of the woodwork and start bashing games. Maybe we'll see public burnings like with D&D.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
No doubt there is an issue here. Still, from TFA:
by Ted Rueter, Assistant Professor of Political Science at DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana
Now clearly, here's a fella with his finger firmly on the pulse of the gaming medium, and, for that matter, fully qualified to discuss its relevance in terms of higher ed.
If I teach programming, can I spout off about the high cost of drug prices and get a front-page href at webmd.com?
Can we get the opinions of some staff members at the Culinary Institute of America on this matter next?
Oh Noes! Traditional 'Education' is under attack!
God forbid we let business trends and the interests of young people influence the cirricula on college campuses.
Also, and perhaps this is the elitist in me, but it is my experience that a trained baboon can obtain a poly sci degree.
How is this any different from, for example, an oil company sponsoring university programs in petrochemical technology?
Well, I suppose that oil companies HAVE been sponsoring petrochem programs for many, many years longer. And, yes, I suppose that it is a generally established fact that consumption of petrochemicals has a detrimental effect on the environment, as opposed to half-baked "studies" about their effects.
Exxon Mobil had over $100 billion in revenues in this quarter alone! And they donate about $40 million of it to education, part of which supports research and dissemination on selected topics of interest to the energy industry!! OH NOES! The apocalypse MUST be coming! Keep reading!
Adults also seem to enjoy driving powerful cars with poor fuel efficiency. I bet I could find (and not bother to reference, or just make up entirely) a convincing "study" that shows how having a powerful engine makes adolescent males more aggressive and prone to misbehaviour. Then I could say that a "study" showed that driving large, powerful, petrochemical-propelled vehicles provides a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations. Here are some arbitrary stats that are probably true in some demographic somewhere: Middle-class suburbian resident males now spend an average of 13 hours per week in their vehicles. It can be shown that spending more time driving in rush hour conditions leads to violent thoughts and poor family relationships.
Therefore, we should do away with petrochemical technology studies! After all, people that study petrochem tech will ONLY go on to the EVIL oil industry, which as you can see by the "proof" above is slowly destroying our society! There are clearly no other applications of petrochemical studies, such as producing cleaner-burning fuels or developing more efficient engines. Likewise, there are no other applications to studying the development of video games, such as, say, developing educational games. Clearly, all games are focused on one thing -- soul-rotting, american-flag-burning, pro-Nazi games such as Wolfenstein 3D. The proof is left as an exercise to the reader.
Car ads have traditionally shown male drivers in a dominant pose, with the female resigned to the passenger seat. If you thought that was bad, remember the 9/11 attacks? The jets were powered by kerosene, a petrochemical. The pilots was allegedly trained by playing flight simulators. We need to halt education and research in both Petrochemical Technology and Video Game Design now, before these fields of study get dangerously out of hand!
wellll, looking at the picture i think he's just envious that we gamers get laid more than him.
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.