Slashdot Mirror
Portal On the Booklist At Wabash College
jamie passes along this quote from a post by Michael Abbott at The Brainy Gamer:
"This year, for the first time, a video game will appear on the syllabus of a course required for all students at Wabash College, where I teach. For me — and for a traditional liberal arts college founded in 1832 — this is a big deal. Alongside Gilgamesh, Aristotle's Politics, John Donne's poetry, Shakespeare's Hamlet, and the Tao Te Ching, freshmen at Wabash will also encounter a video game called Portal. "
Please note that we have added a consequence for failure. Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an unsatisfactory mark on your official testing record, followed by death.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
Buying into how absurd this is since Portal isn't a book, I guess Cliff's Notes should publish a Youtube runthrough of the game with annotations.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
I bet that course is a total piece of cake
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
Oxford: AD1610:
"In addition to ye Greeke and Latin Classics and learned tomes of divinity and medicine, freshmen shall this year encounter Hamlet the work of a vulgar modern playwrite..."
If you go with the "You can't require any non-proprietary software," attitude you'll find you don't go very far. In the business world this is particularly true, they'll tell you precisely what you are going to use and you'll do so or get out. However university is the same way. I work at an engineering college they teach students on what is used in industry. Students use Cadence, Matlab, Solidworks, Office, and so on. We have labs, of course, since much of that software isn't licensed for use on non-university equipment. However you WILL use it to do your homework or you WILL fail. That is life. We aren't interested in philosophical debates about if information wants to be free, we are interested in teaching the tools companies want to help students get jobs.
Now I understand Portal is rather stupid as part of a curriculum, the whole thing sounds like what happens when you get a bunch of English majors together and they start overanalyzing everything. However it being proprietary is not a problem, not unusual.
If you go to university they will tell you what you have to get, and it often requires spending hundreds of dollars on particular books, using certain software packages and OSes and so on. That is life. You do what you like at home on your own time, but you don't get to tell your professor how to teach class, or your boss how to run a business.
We aren't interested in philosophical debates about if information wants to be free, we are interested in teaching the tools companies want to help students get jobs.
Yeah, Education for the Future!
Actually, real colleges are EXACTLY the place where you want to have philosophical debates about EVERYTHING so you don't become one of those idiots who think the University system exists to service Industry instead of building developed minds capable of critical thinking...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I won't name my employer, for various reasons, but it is a Tier 1 research institution. We bring in some big research dollars and we grant PhDs. A diploma mill this is not.
If you want to have philosophical debates that's fine, then go take some philosophy courses, we have a pretty good philosophy department too. Though I'll warn you even there as an undergrad you are expected to learn what they choose to teach you. You will be reading philosophers who's opinions you don't agree with and if all you do is argue, your grades will be poor. You aren't expected to agree, but you are expected to understand and analyze their point of view, something that many who claim to want a "philosophical debate" seem to be bad at.
However the engineering college is for training engineers. In particular, undergraduate work is largely based around getting people jobs. Most people only come for undergraduate degrees and they want to be employable. That means teaching them the theory of whatever kind of engineering they've chosen, and teaching them skills on the tools they'll use in the real world. If you don't like it, well then too bad.
You want more self directed research? Fine, come get a masters degree and then a PhD. Then you get the freedom to work more on what you are interested in, then you get more choice in the tools you use. However undergraduate degrees are for laying basic theoretical groundwork. To do that you are going to have to use tools. You cannot teach someone how to use an oscilloscope without actually giving them one to use. You can't teach how to so a Spice circuit simulation without actually running simulation software. We choose to use the tools that industry wants. Why? Because it helps our students get jobs and that's what most of them are there for.
If you want a liberal arts degree, fine get one. The university offers a great many. However don't try and demand that all program should be that way. Some are very practical in their orientation of teaching, and research. Those are also some of the large ones. It brings in the big research dollars, and many people want to leave university with a degree with practical applications. Philosophy is fine but don't expect it to help you get a job, you'll need skills outside of that. Engineering will go a long way to getting you employed in the same field.
Oh and PS, I DID do liberal arts in university (an interdisciplinary degree in cognitive science) I'm just very aware of how useless that is. My skills, and work history, in computer support got me my job here, not what I learned in university. It was interesting and I don't regret it at all, but then I didn't need training for my career, I had it already.
First, even if we posit that Portal has no depth, it's a class for freshman. Sometimes it's better to start people off with something simple so things are a bit more clear. For example, in a linear game with a strict narrative, everyone will have similar/comparable experiences with the game and so there will be common experiences to talk about.
However, I don't agree that Portal has no depth to talk about. Valve is a solid developer and their games have a lot of refinement and details. You might point at something like the lack of dialog with the main character and say, "obviously this is because Valve isn't taking the story seriously enough to bother to write dialog." On the other hand, they've claimed that they never game Gordon Freeman any lines because they wanted the player to be able to imagine himself in the role. When a game character speaks, he speaks with a voice that is not the player's. He says things the player wouldn't really say. But in the game, Freeman's (or Chell's) only response is the player's response.
In some ways, art isn't just in the brushstrokes a painter makes, but in the brushstrokes the painter does not make. As a writer, what you don't say can be just as important as what you do say. One of the things that I found amazing about Portal was how much of a story it has given that there's almost no exposition. You have a strange-sounding computerized voice prodding you through an obstacle course. Meanwhile you notice an empty observation room with an overturned chair. The voice makes some promise of cake when you complete the course, but then you find a small compartment "behind the scenes" of the course with writing scrawled on the wall, "The cake is a lie." You realize the AI is psychotic. You realized the AI is probably intending to kill you at some point. You realize that the AI has already killed others who have attempted the obstacle course before you, and has also killed the people who created these tests and created the AI. From very little explanation, an entire backstory emerges:
Aperture Science is company pushing forward with new and dangerous technologies in order to compete with Black Mesa. An AI charged with running a testing facility begins to take its role too seriously, killing anyone who gets in the way of scientific progress. Something has happened to the world outside (the events depicted in Half Life?), so no one comes in to reclaim the facility. Eventually everyone is dead, except for a lone test subject (which may be a clone created by the AI for the purpose of testing).
Now if you play the game again, pay attention to what it is that you're explicitly told. Think about how much you know and how much you can guess at, relative to how little you're told. I think you'll have to admit that Portal's narrative is brilliantly constructed.