Wed 30 May 2007
The Escapist posted a complete issue dedicated to education related topics One of the articles, for which I was interviewed in, looks at the challenges and pitfalls with schools offering dedicated game development education.
Of course, this is something the IGDA has been wrestling with for years. And, as I note in the article, “we want to be a valuable resource to all educators interested in game dev education and provide the resources and guidance they need to not suck.” Indeed, the IGDA’s Education SIG is working on a knowledge base project to catalog course syllabi, among many other worthwhile efforts.
The UK has been pushing heavily for a much more formalized approach with full on accreditation standards. This has largely been fueled by negative perceptions around game programs that were initially set up to exploit the newfound demand. (With the infamous quote that grads are not fit to work in QA, adding more spark to the debate.) Though, to be fair, there are indeed many great programs in the UK.
At a recent industry/academia summit in Montreal, many of these challenges were explored. From finding and teaching the teachers, to establishing more robust internship programs, or even addressing the resistance of parents towards a career in games.
Anyway, this all leads back to the question of talent. Will be interesting to see when the industry as a whole (especially the bigwigs, execs, managers, etc) wake up to realize we need to pay a lot more attention - and resources - to talent (and I don’t just mean compensation). From acquisition to retention and continuous improvement. Education is one small part of that overall equation - but a very important one.


May 31st, 2007 at 7:16 am
Sorry for self promotion, but if anyone is in the UK in July then come along to GAMES:EDU, europes only academic/industry get together, this year focusing on talent and technology.
http://www.gamesedu.co.uk
Toby
May 31st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
The timing of all this is bizarre for me. I just graduated from Bard College, where I completed a full, theoretical academic curriculum for teaching game design as my senior thesis. The project includes detailed syllabi, required readings, exercises, assignments, and example games that would be generated by students in the curriculum.
It’s liberal-arts-oriented, meaning that students would be completing the major while simultaneously taking classes in other disciplines. It’s also design-oriented, and under-emphasizes technical mastership in lieu of a creative approach to games.
It’s a creative approach to what I believe to be a creative topic. My impression from this year’s Education Workshop at GDC was that far too many academics approach education from a technical standpoint (do we teach them Flash? What book do we use? etc.) I feel it’s important to keep in mind that education in a non-technical sense is a broadening of experiences, and enhancing the potential for what one can bring to a craft, be it writing, music, or game design.
Thus endeth my $0.02 rant.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:38 am
Regarding post 2…
You raise an interesting point in your third paragraph. I got me to thinking about my university experience.
I did a Co-op program at the Univ. of Waterloo in Math (Comp. Sci.) At that time, the curriculum was very theoretical; we had a lot of courses use teaching languages (such as Pascal or Turing) in our first year. A lot of math (obviously), courses on data management, algorithms, all that stuff…but nothing on any language in particular.
Contrarily, the Engineering department would have their theoretical courses (for whatever engineers do), but they would also have MANDATORY courses on C/C++.
When the Co-op rounds came around (every four months), guess who got the jobs. Yup, the engineers (well, at least a lot of the ones that the CS students wanted). Why? Employers wanted that C/C++ experience, so they immediately had an advantage.
Granted, this example does come from the realm of design, but I think the point is obvious. In my opinion, employers are often more interested in the technical-based experience of an individual and not the theoretical. Now, this statement is clearly not a new revelation and I’m sure it’s been said a million times before. However, assuming this is a given in most hiring situations, I would consider it an advantage to push a technical-based curriculum (balanced with theory, obviously). It would have helped me over 10 years ago, that’s for sure!
(One other thing…enrolling in Co-op was mandatory for the Engineering Dept. at the time, but not for Math. They had better breed their frosh for the workforce!)
June 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Ryan:
Yeah, the antithesis to my entire argument is the fact that my CompSci-major friend who graduated at the same time as me got offered a job at Apple right out of school, and I’m struggling to find a company that wants a creative, non-technical game designer.
As Jason points out, the position “entry-level game designer” doesn’t really exist in the industry. A creative position generally seems to be rewarded after years of technical work. But what to do if you’re a non-technical individual? I don’t regret my creative-oriented education, but it’s making this whole real-world thing a lot harder. I’ll let you know how it goes.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 am
Scott:
I guess you would find a way to show your design skills while minimizing the tech; either by being involved the design aspects of a student project (involving coders), working on a mod team, or picking up tools like Aurora (Neverwinter Nights) and building a scenario as outlined by Bioware for “potential designer candidates”. Sure, it’s tough for the artistic crowd but you will never escape the tech in the game industry - it’s driven by it. This is why more and more artists now are being asked to be more like “technical artists” (solving and working out technical solutions) rather than pure artists.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Regarding post 4 (and post 2)…
First, minor correction to my post (2). My example is NOT a design example (obviously).
Second, regarding post 4, I’d be REALLY interested how things turn out on your end…
June 11th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
[…] Pac-Man creator, Toru Iwatani, retires from Namco at age 52 to teach game design at Tokyo Polytechnic Institute. Nice to see such a famous developer survive until retirement (and, this can only mean good things for the education challenge noted previously). […]