[game_edu] Brenda Braithwaite's game_edu rant at GDC

[pawlicki at cs.rochester.edu]

William Huber asks :


>In U Rochester's computer science program, how would designers -

>with background in the arts, perhaps, and little computational experience

>before college, who are also pursuing a wide-ranging education to make them

>interesting producers of interesting things - fare in the typical data

>structures, algorithms, and complier sequence that is the lower-division CS

>program?


Truth be told, most of the students I get who want to go into the game
industry arise from strengths in the sciences (mathematics and computer
science) who have a strong personal interest in entertainment software.
In short, they are "CS gamer geeks" who have interests in and who need
formal training in the humanities of art and digital culture. So, they
tend to do very well in the standard CS curriculum. This is there
"home", so to speak.

I don't get many students from the humanities and/or fine arts. However,
I believe that such students could do well in rigorous Computer Science
courses. Unfortunately, they have been culturally conditioned to believe
that such topics are for "computer nerds". In short, they don't lack the
brains - rather, they lack the guts. They have been told all their lives
that there is a divide between the arts and the sciences that simply does
not exist, but they are forbidden to cross. They don't lack ability.
They lack confidence due to cultural conditioning.

Ted Pawlicki
Undergraduate Program Director
Computer Science Department
Hajim School of Engineering
University of Rochester.





> I have taught at SCI-Arc, and I can assure you that architects are farther

> away from being engineers than game designers are from being programmers.

> The "engineering" classes they take are much, much easier than the

> equivalents taken by engineers.

>

> Undergraduates are required to learn - trigonometry. That's it. Any other

> math - or science, or engineering - is elective.

>

> SCI-Arc is one of the most highly rated architecture programs in the

> country.

>

> USC, the other program I'm familiar with (and also in the top 10 of

> national

> programs), has a "physics for architects" requirement for its B. Arch.

> Essentially the same as the "programming for designers" derided by

> Brathwaite in her rant.

>

> Jonathan Ive studied industrial design. That is not an engineering degree,

> either. It is a design degree: industrial designers do not necessarily

> understand the "under the hood" technology for the products they design.

>

> Brathwaite went beyond the "it's good to understand computers and

> software"

> description you make. She specifically called for a computer-science level

> ability  - one, by her own admission, that she lacks. I consider that a

> very

> bad idea. In U Rochester's computer science program, how would designers -

> with background in the arts, perhaps, and little computational experience

> before college, who are also pursuing a wide-ranging education to make

> them

> interesting producers of interesting things - fare in the typical data

> structures, algorithms, and complier sequence that is the lower-division

> CS

> program? I have seen what happens when many design students - creative,

> intelligent students would could create fantastic games - are told to take

> those classes: they fail, they don't enter into the interactive field, and

> they go elsewhere.

>

> I have to ask: if Brenda sees a woman's name, with a degree from a USC or

> a

> Georgia Tech or such - on a resume, without programming abilities, will it

> wind up in her trash folder? Does she think her oft-repeated goal for

> increased diversity in the industry be achieved by this kind of sorting

> strategy?

>

> William Huber

>

> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:50 PM, <pawlicki at cs.rochester.edu> wrote:

>

>>

>> I'm not an architect, but from reading the National Architectural

>> Accrediting Board publications and looking at the curriculum of

>> schools of architecture it sure seems that you have to be pretty

>> close to being an engineer to be an architect. (You need to take

>> physics, and structural analysis. You need to take courses in

>> safety, financial systems - all standard engineering trade-off

>> topics). It's not all about concepts, pretty pictures, and

>> paper mock ups. In order to be an architect you have to understand

>> how buildings work at a basic level.

>>

>> A game designer without a rigorous understanding of digital hardware

>> and software systems is akin to an architect without an understanding

>> of structural systems. I think that is the point Braithwaite's rant.

>>

>> Ted Pawlicki

>> Undergraduate Program Director

>> Department of Computer Science

>> Hajim School of Engineering

>> University of Rochester.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> > As an architect I would say that architects are not engineers, but

>> > they still design buildings.  Given the collaborative process of

>> > design some knowledge is important in order to positively contribute

>> > to feasibility of the project.  However being able to bring good ideas

>> > to the table does not require that you be an expert in everything.  In

>> > fact, sometimes not having the knowledge could allow 'out of the

>> > container' thinking (why does it have to be a box?) and open up

>> > greater creative possibilities.

>> >

>> > D. Rovere

>> >

>> >

>> > On 3-Mar-11, at 11:39 AM, pawlicki at cs.rochester.edu wrote:

>> >

>> >> Consider:

>> >>

>> >> Do you need to be an engineer to design a sports car?

>> >>

>> >> I think that you do. Sure sports cars are "fun". You can't

>> >> design a sports car without understand issues of art, style,

>> >> and the psychology of interaction with the machine and

>> >> technology. Nonetheless, you need to be an engineer to

>> >> design a car because you have to understand how the technology

>> >> "under the hood" determines the user experience. The two

>> >> are not separable.

>> >>

>> >> Likewise, and for the same reasons, you need to be an engineer

>> >> to design a game. The technology is not separate from the

>> >> user experience.

>> >>

>> >> Ted Pawlicki

>> >> Department of Computer Science

>> >> Hajim School of Engineering

>> >> Univerisity of Rochester

>> >>

>> >>

>> >>> 'Good', yes. But there are inferences in what you are saying that

>> I'd

>> >>> like to clarify.

>> >>>

>> >>> You are describing the process as a solo one. I think that's not

>> >>> usual,

>> >>> and the role of the designer in the development team is not one that

>> >>> involves programming (at least not necessarily). Programming is not

>> a

>> >>> big part of the design phase at all IMO, and only once one has a

>> >>> clear

>> >>> design concept can you really build anything, then iterate it.

>> >>> Assuming

>> >>> that the designer holds the game in their hands until it solidifies

>> >>> into

>> >>> a playable is not something I personally would do.

>> >>>

>> >>> JP

>> >>>

>> >>> On 3/3/2011 11:10 AM, Seth Sivak wrote:

>> >>>> I think it is good for designers to be able to code.  They do not

>> >>>> need

>> >>>> to be "engineers" but be able to code enough to prototype their own

>> >>>> designs.  As soon as you add in another person the iteration loop

>> >>>> gets

>> >>>> much longer, and the longer the loop the fewer iterations that can

>> >>>> be

>> >>>> completed.  Once the game is out of the design phase and more into

>> >>>> production the game design role becomes more about problem solving

>> >>>> than pure creativity, so at that point it is fine to no longer code

>> >>>> and let pure engineers create the production level stuff.

>> >>>>

>> >>>> Seth

>> >>>>

>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:53 PM, jparker <jparker at ucalgary.ca

>> >>>> <mailto:jparker at ucalgary.ca>> wrote:

>> >>>>

>> >>>>    Interesting rant, and she certainly has credentials.

>> >>>>

>> >>>>    Still, I don't think that game designers are necessarily

>> >>>> excellent

>> >>>>    programmers. They need to understand limits and possibilities,

>> >>>> and

>> >>>>    to be able to communicate well with programmers. Game design is

>> >>>>    not a programming task, and game development is not a software

>> >>>>    business. It's a business that does involve software to be sure.

>> >>>>    Computer science programs (in my observation over only the past

>> >>>> 12

>> >>>>    years) produce relatively poor game designers, as their focus is

>> >>>>    rather different than that of most design fields. It makes as

>> >>>> much

>> >>>>    sense that a CS major could design a good chair or house as

>> >>>> design

>> >>>>    a good game. And in fact, the game programmers on a team

>> >>>>    traditionally have relatively little input to the creative

>> >>>> process

>> >>>>    (again, there are certainly exceptions, and things are changing

>> >>>> in

>> >>>>    some places).

>> >>>>

>> >>>>    If a game designer has a vast knowledge of programming that

>> could

>> >>>>    be a good thing. I don't believe it to be a requirement. Thus

>> the

>> >>>>    question is 'is it worth the time needed to become an excellent

>> >>>>    programmer'? That's hard to answer with authority.

>> >>>>

>> >>>>    Jim

>> >>>>

>> >>>>

>> >>>>    On 3/3/2011 8:38 AM, Peter Border wrote:

>> >>>>

>> >>>>        For anybody else who's stuck at home this week.

>> >>>>

>> >>>>

>> http://bbrathwaite.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/built-on-a-foundation-of-code-game-edu-rant/

>> >>>>

>> >>>>        Peter Border

>> >>>>        Game and Application Design Chairman

>> >>>>        Globe University/Minnesota School of Business

>> >>>>        1401 West 76th St

>> >>>>        Richfield, MN 55423

>> >>>>        pborder at msbcollege.edu <mailto:pborder at msbcollege.edu>

>> >>>>        ________________________________________

>> >>>>

>> >>>>        _______________________________________________

>> >>>>        game_edu mailing list

>> >>>>        game_edu at igda.org <mailto:game_edu at igda.org>

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

>> >>>>

>> >>>>

>> >>>>

>> >>>>    --

>> >>>>    From Hauptmann

>> >>>>

>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------

>> >>>>    The inflated  style is itself a  kind of euphemism.  A mass of

>> >>>> Latin

>> >>>>    words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the

>> >>>> outlines and

>> >>>>    covering up all  the details. The  great enemy of  clear

>> >>>> language is

>> >>>>    insincerity.                                          —George

>> >>>> Orwell

>> >>>>

>> >>>>    Dr. J. R. Parker,                    Digital Media Laboratory

>> >>>>    Professor of Play http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jparker

>> >>>>    <http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7Ejparker>

>> >>>>    Faculty of Fine Arts                 jparker@ ucalgary.ca

>> >>>>    <http://ucalgary.ca>

>> >>>>    University of Calgary                403-220-6784      AB606/

>> >>>> AB611

>> >>>>

>> >>>>

>> >>>>    _______________________________________________

>> >>>>    game_edu mailing list

>> >>>>    game_edu at igda.org <mailto:game_edu at igda.org>

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

>> >>>>

>> >>>>

>> >>>>

>> >>>>

>> >>>> --

>> >>>> +Seth

>> >>>

>> >>> --

>> >>> From Hauptmann

>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------

>> >>> The inflated  style is itself a  kind of euphemism.  A mass of Latin

>> >>> words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and

>> >>> covering up all  the details. The  great enemy of  clear language is

>> >>> insincerity.                                          —George Orwell

>> >>>

>> >>> Dr. J. R. Parker,                    Digital Media Laboratory

>> >>> Professor of Play                    http://www.ucalgary.ca/~jparker

>> >>> Faculty of Fine Arts                 jparker@ ucalgary.ca

>> >>> University of Calgary                403-220-6784      AB606/AB611

>> >>>

>> >>> _______________________________________________

>> >>> 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

>> >

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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

>