What They Don't Teach You At Game Design School

The Guardian Gamesblog has a piece wondering out loud at what they do and don't teach in game design courses. From the article: "Games development requires expertise, and hiring graduates fast-tracks game development. Arguably, the release from the burden of training should allow developers to create new technologies. The industry has encouraged the university games courses, sending development kits to departments and staff to seminars. Since Abertay's flagship programme launched almost nine years ago, 165 games-related degrees have sprung up across the UK, a trend equalled in other countries around the world."

Comments

What?

[cooley]

I think this article is basically saying that you can't learn creativity in school, and that the games industry could benefit from fresh, outside voices.

How is this any different from any other creative industry?

Did I miss something?

Re:What?

[Jacius]

Maybe Gamers are the worst people to make games. I don't know. You might could actually blame games for that, a first in my book.

Loving to play games doesn't necessarily mean you are good at creating games. And it's not just this way with games.

Just because someone liked Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies doesn't mean that they could have done a good job directing them. And that tubby, dancing, shirtless football fan in the 5th row could not replace his favorite team's quarterback with a moment's notice. And, unfortunately, just because it's fun to hear about some new scientific discovery, doesn't mean you could have discovered it yourself.

But that doesn't mean that there is a negative correlation, i.e. "no one who is interested in something has skill in it". Evidence suggests otherwise. Peter Jackson obviously has great interest in film, or he wouldn't be directing. Most of the best video game creators have a lot of interest in video games, too.

I'd summarize the situation like this:

• Being interested in something doesn't mean you are good at it.
• But, it helps.
• It's not the only thing you must have in order to be good, though.

So, looking at video games:

1. Not everyone who is interested in video games is good at making them.
2. But, most of the people who are good at making them are also interested in them.

There is something that the great creators have, which the ordinary fans don't have. Let's call it creativity. The article says that creativity isn't being taught in game-design degree programs, and so you should get a liberal arts degree instead. But if creativity isn't being taught to game-design students, that doesn't mean that it cannot possibly be taught.

I myself am working towards an AAS in 3d Computer Animation, and there has been a very heavy artistic emphasis; some of the required courses are photography, acting, film appreciation, and sculpture. There is another degree program entitled "3d Computer Graphics Programming", which covers the more technical aspect, and is lighter on the "artsy fartsy" stuff; some of the required courses are C programming, data structures, and OpenGL programming. There are several classes that overlap between the two programs, though, and thus interaction and collaboration between the two types of students.

So it seems to me that the problem is not that the game degree program is mostly technical. The problem is that there is no corresponding art-focused program. What they should do is rename the technical program into game engineering, and create a new program, the true game design degree program. Games do need code monkeys, but they also need prima donna artistes. If you only have the one, you get tech demos. If you only have the other, you get paint splatters and jars of urine.

But if you have both... then, you get truly great stuff: tech demos where you make paint splatters and jars of urine using a built-in fluid dynamics engine!

Why would they?

[TeaQuaffer]

College != Trade school.

Uh, is this guy for real?

[blanktek]

While I have no personal experience of working in the industry or attending one of the courses, I tell people to get a degree in English literature, psychology, world religions, history, creative writing or philosophy.

Would you like fries with that? Seriously, I do have respect for these fields. However, this is not the type of education good for the majority of computer game design. If you have a talent for 3D art, go for it if you can face the competition. How about computer science? Duh! Math and physics are good too. Then again, why was some random blog post on front page again?

Re:Uh, is this guy for real?

[Morpeth]

Actually I've been a successful developer (mainly in the financial & civil engineering industries, not gaming) for 12+ years and have a Liberal Arts background; a BS in philosophy/psychology. And yes, I also enjoy the hard sciences and math, not all L.A. majors disdain the sciences as many people assume.

I taught myself enough coding and sql to get an entry level job years ago, worked my butt off, and have done just fine. I actually consider -- as have many of my managers -- my degree an asset. I have solid logical and analytical skills, much of which I attribute to my college studies. I also communicate significantly better than many of my counterparts -- that can be rather valuable when trying to confer ideas in a meeting or writing technical specs or a design doc.

A lot of people mistake philosophy for 'comtemplating you navel', but a lot of branches of the field required some heady thinking -- try really getting your mind around people like Kant, Heidegger & Nietzche and you'll understand my point. There are a lot of abstract, multi-faceted, complex ideas in their work. Believe it or not, a lot of that kind of thinking can translate nicely into the IT industry.

My 2 cents anyway...

Re:Uh, is this guy for real?

[Morpeth]

"Philosophy isn't something you write about, its something you experience. If you need to read philosophy, you're missing the whole point."

Utter nonsense. Actually you're missing the whole point as you're obviously of the philosophy as "touchy-feely goobley gook" mindset, and I doubt ever took a single real course in the discipline. Have your read "Being and Time" by Heidegger, "Genealogy of Morals" by Nietzche, or say "Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant? Obviously not.

"If you need to write about philosophy, you just like to stroke your own ego."

More nonsense. Would you say this about someone publishing a math theorem, an archaeological discovery, or say some new genetic sequence? I doubt it. Why is writing about philosophy (as academic field, like epistemology and phenomenology, not the meditative pop culture bullsh*t you're talking about) any different? And don't forget most early philosophers like the Greeks were also scientists, mathematicians, political theorists, and they even took the first shot at what we would call psychology. But I guess their work was just stroking their egos too? Whatever.

My Take

[th1ckasabr1ck]

"I am often asked what kind of course a prospective games designer should enrol in. While I have no personal experience of working in the industry or attending one of the courses, I tell people to get a degree in English literature, psychology, world religions, history, creative writing or philosophy. This is echoed by a number of long-term jobbing designers I have spoken to, none of whom has a games-related degree."

For what it's worth, I'm a game programmer and the designers that I've worked with have almost all come from other walks of game development life. They start out as QA guys, artists, assistant producers, programmers, etc. and then transition over to design.

I'm still not exactly sold on these game development majors yet. If you want to program games, get a CS degree. If you want to be a game artist, study art. If you want to be a level designer, make levels. If you want to comvince a company to make your next grand idea for a game, well then good luck.

While you're getting your degree, work on game-related projects on the side. It worked for me.

And your point is...?

[kaldrenon]

This article certainly raises a good question, but fails to answer it. If the game development programs offered at universities don't teach people how to design games, then what should be done about it?

The author says that "in most creative industries, the people from the outside have the brightest ideas and the cleverest approaches to solving problems." In effect, what he's saying is that for game development to flourish, the degree programs offered for game development should be ignored. Seems a little contrary to me.

Along with the fundamentals of programming, the core of a Computer Science degree, a game developer could need countless different references and sources, depending on the projects he intends to develop. A person making a football game, for example, needs to know more about sports, physics, and physiology, depending on the intended realism, whereas a person making an insightful and thought-provoking RPG with a deep storyline would want to do cultural, historical, or anthropological studies.

Because of the vast variety of secondary resources needed to develop certain different games, and because no one can really teach innovation, I say that all a game development degree can teach in order to assure its usefulness are the fundamentals of programming in modern video game design. A few more electives than other courses would certainly not be amiss, but learning to program is the only thing every game developer needs. Everything else depends on their objectives.

who really design the games?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you graduate school and immediately start designing games? Is that how the industry works? I thought you had to work your way up, then your opinion/experience starts to actually matter.

First thing they don't teach you at Game Design

[WillAffleckUW]

school:

Just because you can make Yet Another FPS or Yet Another Driving Game or Yet Another Sports Game doesn't mean you should.

The second thing? How to cash virtual checks from virtual money made in virtual gaming world from virtual designs.

I still haven't figured that one out yet ...

Don't go on computer game courses!!

[Kamineko]

I'm currently taking a BSc Computer Games Technology course in Liverpool John Moores University, and it's one of the worst mistakes I've ever made in my entire life.

It's a terribly watered down degree, similar to CS but without any of the reputation or respect. Can you honestly take anybody seriously with a 'Computer Games Technology' degree?

The only reason I'm on this damned course is that I was told that I would gain experience with the Nintendo/SN Systems SN-TDEV development Gamecube. Sure enough, they do have a room full of 'em, but none of the staff know the first thing about them. They just... sit there unused.

The entire course content is very basic stuff with respect to the complexity of some sub-areas of computer game development... You're not going to be making The Experimental Gameplay Project any time soon. Heck, you'll have to wade through two years just to get off the teletype games!

My only hope is a possible switch from CGT to CS at another university at the end of this year, or, because SCEE Liverpool are literally just down the road, I could possibly do my placement year there (fat chance, but you've gotta hope, right?)

Please, stay the hell away from these degrees. You want some serious skills that you can use, and a degree you don't have to be ashamed of? Take a classical subject, or just plain old CS. Make some games in Allegro, SDL, OpenGL or DirectX in your spare time.

Another thing: These degrees course content is all on the internet anyway. I mean literally... the third year OpenGL syllabus is word for word NeHe. Seriously.

"Third year?" You yell?

Yup, Liverpool JMU CGT is a low-requirement course for folks who want to start from the bottom up. And I mean the VERY bottom... it's only on this years syllabus that they changed from DarkBASIC to C++.

Beware.

Fully in support

[cgenman]

Despite what some people are saying here, the article is basically correct. The cross-pollination of ideas is what makes for great gaming. Original takes, fresh ideas... these are all essential. You need a broad knowledge and love of history, dance, psychology, engineering, sociology, and a lot of other fields. And all of these interact in interesting ways.

For example, say you're knocking out another wrestling game for THQ, and you're grappling with the problem of how to represent grappling. A few perspectives:

The gamer perspective: Press the A button rapidly / wag the sticks until one player achieves dominance. That player then executes an attack by pressing the A button again. This attack should be of similar magnitude to if the players had been simply smacking eachother around in the ring, though increase that if they've hardly grappled this round and decrease that if they've been grappling constantly.
The dancer perspective: Using the joysticks, the two players are trying to direct eachother's energies around eachother in a game of chicken. Commit too much to a movement, and your opponent can take advantage of your momentum and lose you. Commit too little, and you will never win.
The film criticism perspective: The player who "is on a comeback" or "is the underdog" gets a big boost to do a series of dramatic moves culminating in an amazing near-victory that is quickly shattered by a last-minute stunning turn of events, hopefully not involving yet another metal chair.
The engineering perspective Wrestling involves a series of roughly 15 positions and holds, and 19 reversals. The transitions between these states usually follows a set pattern of movements, each of which can be blocked by the opponent if they can react in time to the visual clues. The game, therefore, is a glorified back-and-forth of rock paper scissors to first manipulate your opponent into the position you want them and then release your damage move.

I often feel that my weakest trait as a designer is that I know too much about videogames. When a problem arises I know the solution, which just happens to be the same solution I've seen seven or eight other games employ. Pushing back against the easy answer during a crunch period when everyone has a 24 hours worth of stuff to do every day is difficult.

Likewise, game criticism plays a fault for a lot of the overall blandness. If you listen to Miyamoto talk about gaming, he talks about the wonderment of finding bottlecaps underneath bushes when you're outside as a kid. If you listen to the Silent Hill 4 team, they talk about the isolation of modern living in a apartmentalized, regimented society. If you listen to Game Pro, games are about polygon seams and framerates. We need deeper criticism. We need to be able to look at the ways in which games reflect the human condition. Film criticism does this pretty well, and is one reason why film crit is a valid if not necessary thing to study if you're going to become a film maker. Game criticism is, by comparison, hollow. That's one of the reasons why designers need to study everything: they each need to discover on their own how to take a critical yet humanistic eye to the finished product of gaming.

Other things they don't teach you in design school:

The team's enthusiasm is your most important resource. Sometimes it is worth throwing in a cheap but useless feature that everyone wants just to keep people happy. Sometimes you have to yank a great idea so that your programmer can see his wife.

Two to three weeks at the end of the project will be lost to nitpicky, contradictory requirements that the console manufacturers push onto everyone. Even if you've gone through it before and know that "This time it won't happen to us." it will. And ultimately it will have no bearing on the quality of your game: you're just tearing your hair out to keep the big three happy.

There is polish that developers notice, and polish that gamers notice. A develope

One thing they must have skipped.

[geminidomino]

"Never put a save point right outside a casino."

*goes back to Sabatar*

Re:Not all Games degree courses are like that!

[Kazzahdrane]

The sound processor is right at the other end of the hardware next to the part that deals with the encryption and stuff like that, i.e. the stuff Sony wouldn't want everyone to get their hands on who bought an £80 dev kit. The professionals use an actual full box kit whereas we use a harddrive in the PS2 with Linux on it.