[game_edu] Ph.D. in Digital Game Design

[Mike Sellers]

Lee, I agree with your last (okay, penultimate) statement: "a PhD program
should turn a game maker into a game maker/studier/teacher" -- but this
presupposes that the PhD candidate is in fact already a game maker. With
due respect to the great preparatory undergrad programs out there (and
we're seeing more and more of them), getting a BS in game design is not
sufficient to understand what being a game developer is all about. This is
why I said that I would consider industry experience prior to entering a
PhD program to be crucial. I'd draw the analogy to how many top MBA
programs de facto require real-world business experience rather than taking
people right out of an undergrad program.

I think you also bring up a good point about what game research can be;
"big R little d," as opposed to the "little r big D" found in the games
industry -- that is, actual research in the games industry is vanishingly
rare. Supplementing this by a strong academy in areas of user interaction,
emotional response, narrative construction, innovative graphical
techniques, etc. would be a big step forward. We see this a bit now, but it
seems sporadic and poorly coordinated.

Which takes me to the point about publication. We all know how important
this is for academic success. The problem is, there really aren't any "game
design journals" of note. There have been some (they may even still be
around), but they lack the imprimatur of a major university and/or
publisher, along with the momentum of a pipeline of notable research
papers, to keep the flame alive. Maybe this will change in the future -- I
hope so. In the meantime, I suspect strongly that presenting at GDC or the
like wouldn't particularly impress a tenure committee.

Okay, back to the original question: the requirements for a PhD program.
Industrial, full-cycle experience, as I've said. To me that one is table
stakes. Beyond that:
- showing an understanding of the history of game genres, technologies,
mechanics, and platforms.
- Demonstrating an ability to do game design.
- Learning how to do *meaningful* research in game design and development,
and being part of the vanguard of peer-reviewed game-relevant publication
(which means starting in non-game journals)
- Showing an ability to teach and mentor students.

There are probably other important requirements; these are off the top of
my head. A program like this is not about "game criticism" IMO; if nothing
else we're not mature enough as a medium for that to be meaningful.

Good, timely discussion.

Mike Sellers


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Lee Sheldon <clsheldo at gmail.com> wrote:


> Since I've been straddling the fence between the industry and academia for

> a few years now, I'm going to continue to do so here. And in the process

> I'll get to disagree with both Mike and Ian (but I'll also agree with

> them!).

>

> I think undergraduate and Masters degrees are where a PhD candidate needs

> to learn the skills necessary to make games. And there are plenty of places

> these days to publish research, including papers at conferences that should

> be perfectly acceptable to a PhD program. Ian, as far as I'm concerned its

> the job of commercial and applied game developers to seek out the research.

> If there was a pocket PhD at each of them, they would also know where to

> look.

>

> What would the PhD curriculum look like? it would teach the candidates how

> to research, how to construct an experiment and how to measure its results,

> how to write papers, and yes, how quantitative and qualitative research

> works in other forms of media studies. We can extrapolate a lot of good

> material from a film PhD program. There is a major disconnect in many media

> studies programs, as Ian points out, that many only reside on the outside

> looking in, and for some reason many media studies people would rather

> build theories as to the methods and motives of creators, rather simply

> asking them what they thought they were doing. But others actually DO ask,

> DO get down to the nuts and bolts we put things together with. And that

> kind of media studies can be a benefit, not an extraneous nuisance that

> gets quoted by extraneous politicians.

>

> PhD candidates in games are people who are not looking for jobs in the

> commercial game industry that is perfectly capable of hiring undergraduates

> right out of college, if they have the talent and a necessary skill set.

> These would be academics who see another path, who have the talent and

> skill sets to teach, maker games, get grants, and further their research.

> That research leads to better applied (serious, educational) games as well

> as commercial games. Or at least it should.

>

> For myself I would not have realized how easy it is to create classrooms

> as games with no cost, compared to educators still living in the 1980's who

> think paying to bring video games into classes is the only way to go.

> Bringing bad games into classrooms (and there are thousands of them) does

> not help anybody except the charlatans and the misguided who make them.

> (Remember Jesse Schell burning that $50 bill last year at GDC?) Once I made

> the pretty obvious connection between designing games and designing

> classes, it opened up a whole new world for me.

>

> I've already moved beyond my initial multiplayer classrooms because of

> what I've learned as a professor in a games program. I'm now experimenting

> with sustained storytelling and integrated gameplay in four separate games.

> However, just as I had to teach myself writing and designing video games,

> I've had to teach myself how to do R&D, something PhD programs do as a

> matter of course. Yes, commercial game companies do R&D too, but it is so

> often focused on tech than on context. A PhD course, in addition to my

> terminal degree MFA, might have smoothed my education considerably. And

> since I still make commercial games, I have been able to apply what I've

> learned through experimentation to those. (Thanks, Harmonix!)

>

> I know I'm wandering a bit here. I didn't have much time to write this.

> But the takeaway is this: I suspect a PhD program should turn a game maker

> into a game maker/studier/teacher (who may already instinctively be one,

> but missing the tool set to become a become a fantastic

> maker/studier/teacher) who will help us to push past the development and

> content boundaries we now bump up against on a regular basis, and teach

> future generations to explore beyond those boundaries at will.

>

> Lee

>

> Lee Sheldon

> Associate Professor

> Department of Communication and Media

> Co-Director Games and Simulation Arts and Sciences

> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_edu mailing list

> game_edu at igda.org

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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_edu/attachments/20130514/f46eb3b9/attachment.html>