[game_edu] game_edu Digest, Vol 54, Issue 18 Tighten Up those Graphics! (Robertson Holt)

[Rob Holt]

A clueless interviewer for a games teaching job once asked me "So,
what do you know about this internet thing?"

Having both higher academic and studio development experience, the
game education scene was initially a big shock.

I feel like most of the time we are selling them something in between
a dream and a blatant lie for a very exorbitant sum of money. Maybe
it's not that different from offering a student a Philosophy Grad
degree, but at least they have some deep thoughts to fall back on
about why no one is returning their calls.

Schools seem to accept anyone that breathes, and then lets them slowly fail out.
Obviously schools need enrollment, but this translates into a row of
kids in the back that play flash games for 2 terms or the like. This
makes it hard on the students who do try, but also a quasi realistic
simulator for how frustrating development can be.

Programs seem to be split into 5 types

1. Programming curriculum's with an XNA course slapped on the end
2. 3D degree that has an exporting class
3. Mod School that only teaches one engine that the industry doesn't use much
4. Comprehensive art, design, sound & programming.
5. Universities that don't really want gaming in their programs
because it is unacademic & tiptoe around it

Do students even want ludology instruction or do they just want to
know how to make big explosions in Unreal. Do they want to learn C++
and concept art? From my experience, they want one or the other.

They should want both, because to me development is not about the
'hard skills' but about communication. And you can't communicate if
you don't speak the languages.

How do we engage all levels of students so that they feel like they
got something for their education. There certainly aren't jobs for all
the students we produce and a term of Photoshop isn't going to cut it
when they try and enter other industries.

We've been using a mini studio model for the last term where there are
project leads, lead artists, etc and the 'less dedicated' do the QA
roles.

Honestly the computers as long as they work and aren't riddled with
viruses don't need to be top of the line. The only students who
actually know what the pixel fill rate of the cards is, aren't going
to be happy with them anyway.

No Ps2 or xbox titles were made with quad cores, & I know students can
be very stunned with stars in their eyes because there is a lab of the
latest shiny whatever but the instruction is what matters & they
typically won't be pushing those machines until the last term anyway.
Better or dual monitors & good chairs are worth more than an extra 512
on your graphics card.

I feel these advertisements sum up many of the problems we face as
game educators, #1 being gross misrepresentation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwlE1aASc4g
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/11/cheesy-game-designers-tighten-up-the-graphics/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zI-Z0VgQTY&feature=related

better, but the comments are telling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxey9-3m9Ws&feature=related

"Step 5. Shell out 50K for an "associates" degree from a school that
has no idea what accreditation is. I feel your pain. "


I wish all programs came with some disclaimers

'If you like playing games, you probably won't like making them'

or

'High school Math & Physics with pictures and frustration'