[game_edu] question from the community

[pawlicki at cs.rochester.edu]

Does the "nope", refer to "perhaps inadvertently"?

Jim - don't you find it just slightly ironic that you
manage to teach in what you term a "creative" major
while all your formal training has been in what you
seem to classify as the "non-creative" fields of
mathematics/CompSci/Informatics ? Isn't the example
of success and creativity demonstrated by your own
life and career the in direct contradiction to the
advice you seem to offer? Doesn't this just seem
a bit along the lines of "do as I say, not as I do"?

No offense.

Ted




> Nope.

>

> Computer science is more than programming, but it is not less.

> (Dijkstra) It is the programming skills, and to some degree a knowledge

> of algorithms, that game developers use most. It is the algorithms that

> are embodied in the tools I mentioned, and CS folks and engineers

> certainly participated in the development of those.

>

> Creativity is a different issue, and perhaps Ted and I have different

> sets of students to draw on. Creativity is a relatively rare thing, in

> CS and in other fields. That's one reason I like to see masters degrees

> - more time to assess that aspect. But having taught in CS, Art, and

> Drama, I noted that what I thought of as creative existed to a lesser

> degree in the science students. Also, what I think of as mathematical

> existed to a lesser degree in the art students. No offense, simply an

> observation (from one who spent most of his career with CS students).

>

> The answer, IMO, is to always pick from the top few percent of the group

> you are hiring from. Using the best is always a better promise of success.

>

> Jim

>

> On 6/28/2011 10:11 PM, pawlicki at cs.rochester.edu wrote:

>> Ryan,

>>

>> I don't want to get into an argument, but I do feel the need to

>> debunk some common myths in the post below. Jim's post (perhaps

>> inadvertently) implies that computer scientists are "programmers".

>> Computer Science is not "programming". (That's like calling

>> astronomers "telescopers").  Jim's post also (perhaps

>> inadvertently) implies that computer scientists exhibit low creativity.

>> Or that CS is not a "creative subject".

>> The fact is that computer science offers one of the highest career

>> opportunities for creative expression.

>>

>> Yours,

>>

>> Ted

>>

>>

>> (http://www.schoolsintheusa.com/TopReasonstoMajorInComputerScience.cfm)

>> Top Reasons to Major in Computer Science Programs In America

>>      Computing is part of everything you do (really)!

>>      Computing will develop your ability to solve complex problems.

>>      You will make a difference.

>>      Computing jobs are among the highest paid and have the highest job

>> satisfaction.

>>      There are more computing jobs than there are people to fill them.

>>      A computing major can serve as a competitive advantage regardless

>> of

>> what career filed you chose.

>>      Computing is creative and supports creativity in other fields.

>>      Computing allows you to work independently or as a member of a

>> team.

>>      Computing is seen by employers as part of a well-rounded graduate.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>> Interesting

>>>

>>> As one who taught Computer Science fot 26 years, and created the game

>>> programming course and concentration in my department, I found that CS

>>> was a discouraging and negative place to try and work on games. I

>>> finally gave up and moved to the drama and art departments.

>>>

>>> There are many ways they were negative, in the face of evidence that

>>> they were mistaken, but the most telling statement was from a theory of

>>> computation person who said that offering courses on games 'sent the

>>> wrong message'. Not sure what that message was, but perhaps it was

>>> 'computer science can be fun and interesting'.

>>>

>>> My opinion is that it very strongly depends on the school and the

>>> department, and a CS degree is not always (or even often) the best

>>> route. When putting the course together, it became clear that the

>>> programmers on a game development team had the least creative

>>> contribution, often limited to statements like 'we can't draw that many

>>> polygons per second'.

>>>

>>> Nowadays the tools available have reduced the need for programming

>>> quite

>>> a bit. When I started this work in 1999 there were about 6-7

>>> programmers

>>> on a team of 10 on a development group. Now its more like 2-3. The game

>>> engines and physics packages have really helped, and now we can say ' I

>>> want to do this' and not have to express it in code all of the time.

>>> The

>>> tools can do it, and the programmers can easily link those into the

>>> game.

>>>

>>> In that sense game development has become much more democratic.

>>> Creative

>>> people can now create prototypes even, and that is quite helpful in

>>> demoing mechanics. My art students can now build games in weeks that

>>> used to be a whole semester in CS.

>>>

>>> Encouragement comes in many forms - mine would be that you don't have

>>> to

>>> be a computer science major to develop games, and it's not even an

>>> advantage in many cases. The Nike rule 'Just Do it' would be my

>>> offering

>>> to them. Build a portfolio, work with programmers and artists and

>>> designers, and take a degree in a creative subject. Get a masters would

>>> be good advice.

>>>

>>> Jim

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> game_edu mailing list

>>> game_edu at igda.org

>>> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu

>>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> game_edu mailing list

>> game_edu at igda.org

>> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu

>>

>>

> _______________________________________________

> game_edu mailing list

> game_edu at igda.org

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu

>