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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Another nice quote:
"In Nintendo games, women are often depicted as victims. The covers of Nintendo games show males striking a dominant pose."
For example... this game depicting males as the "breadwinner" of the household. Sick.
Or perhaps this one. Another classic example of a "dominant male pose". Will somebody think of the children?
Or what about these three games, which blantantly reinforce the negative stereotype that males possess superior athletic ability to females?
And this horrid game. Another generic shooter about some steroid-addicted metallic dude saving a damsel in distress.
Don't even get me started on this one. How could anything be so offensive?
[/sarcasm]
This article is so ridiculous it's (almost) funny.
Chances are you generally don't want a mechanical engineer(my dad is a mechanical engineer[MS], you don't want him doing this, trust me) doing repairs on your car, you'd probably prefer a mechanic. And the inverse is true for say, designing an engine. Same principle applies to software.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."