[game_edu] Industry luminaries slam universities' games courses

[Casey ODonnell]

On Oct 17, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Yusuf Pisan wrote:


> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2010-10-15-industry-luminaries-slam-universities-games-courses

> 

> "We do not need them teaching a philosophy about games, we need

> computer science, art and animation."


So the full article isn't as bad as that one line, because in a lot of respects, comments like, "They've crossed out the word media studies and put computer game studies," is true. So here are my thoughts...

What the article has correct:

1.) There are a lot of awful classes out there being offered by people who don't really know anything about game development, game design, game programming, or game art/animation. This is even happening here at my institution, something I consistently battle against.

2.) The game industry hasn't done a good job of really reaching out to academia. But that is always a two way street. Its about fashioning, as Darius notes, programs that create strong critical thinkers who want to make games rather than meat for the grinder, which doesn't really even work, as Peter Molyneux comments in the article, "The games industry changes so quickly that, by the time a student has gone through their three year course, the games industry could have changed radically." For most people in academia, the game industry is opaque so they have ideas about what it is or what it does that bears little resemblance to reality.

3.) Enrollment in CS programs IS on the decline. Same for other areas as well critical to games. Basically if it is technically difficult, it is largely on the decline. But CS isn't all of game development. It's 30-60% depending on the studio/project. Art and game design are there too. Even Ian left design off his list, which is odd.

What the article has wrong or "luminaries (Ian Livingstone) has wrong:

1.) The job of academia is not to produce laborers, but thinkers capable of working or throwing the whole thing on its side and doing something crazy and new (people Darius wants to hire...).

It really bothers me that game development (as a broad category) and game art, game engineering, and game design largely get the shaft as areas of expertise. There are philosophical/theoretical (come on, object oriented design is theoretical if not philosophical) ideas that span areas of application, but there are also aspects specific to game development that should be incorporated into a program worth its salt. Many people teaching classes don't even realize that the IGDA exists or that there has been an IGDA curriculum framework since 2002.

[as a side note, and something I'm bringing up at Meaningful Play this week, is that a lot of researchers now chasing "game" funding from the NSF and NIH don't see game development as an area of expertise either, so the fact that people are making crappy classes simply mirrors a lack of understanding and respect more broadly about what game development is. They're just submitting crappy grants instead of making crappy classes.]

That isn't to say that we shouldn't be teaching media studies to game students, more better, help them understand what media studies helps them see and what it obscures from view.

Ultimately I think this article is about universities offering "game" classes/programs that have little to do, really, with game development more broadly. That's a good critique. Unfortunately a single line like the one above masks the real critique.

Best.
Casey

-- 
Casey O'Donnell, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Telecommunications
Grady College, University of Georgia

http://www.caseyodonnell.org