If you really want to argue against a degree in Game Design, the best way would be with some hard statistics. Get the statistics on hire rate out of these game schools and make the argument that you most likely won't get hired to do what you're wanting to be hired for. That way the readers can at least pretend you're not just flailing around looking for a reason why your opinion is valid.

The only decent argument I've seen against game degrees vs a CS degree is that the CS degree is more flexible, and would give you better chances at getting hired at more places. I'm merely seeing if anyone else is actually willing to back up other arguments since whether an industry has many or a few disciplines behind it has nothing to do with how cohesive a college program is for that particular industry.

We would need some proof that these degrees lack cohesion. This will, of course, involve a breakdown of the courses and the course work involved in these degrees in addition to the hire rate statistics. Multi-disciplinary programs are not the same as non-cohesive programs, and those are not the same as the random college that does a worse job with the degree program than others. And none of those have anything at all to do with the issues surrounding for-profit universities.

Because until that happens, all I see are a bunch of people getting all hurt about someone taking a "lesser" path to game development. The exact same mentality used to be done by a few people against using game-making tools to make games (as opposed to programming them), and it was just as misguided then.

Quote: Original post by JustChris
1. We would need some proof that these degrees lack cohesion.
2. Because until that happens, all I see are a bunch of people getting all hurt about someone taking a "lesser" path to game development.

1. Kinda difficult without statistics. If you get some, do let us know!
2. Who are these people who are "getting all hurt"? You mean those of us who recommend CS degree over game school degree (for aspiring programmers only, of course)? We aren't "all hurt" at all.

Well, somebody is feeling a little belittled, aren't they?

I'm not really for or against 'game design' schools. You should go for whatever type of education that works best for you. Traditional and trade schools both have their pros and cons.

I'm a big proponent of the 2-year technical schools, since we need more people in the crafts--skilled workers, rather than the surplus of people with four year degrees who can't find a job that makes use of their skills, especially given the current employment levels (current U6 unemployment in the US is around 17%). Why accrue a monstrous student loan when you'd make a better contribution to society as an electrician than a lawyer?

Don't get me wrong, I have no regrets for pushing through a masters degree, because I liked the research. But higher education is not that utilitarian in most cases, both for the individual and for society. I can't imagine than more than 20% of people should need to go into a four year program or beyond.

Anyway, I think game degrees should be transitioned more towards the 2-year trade school type of thing, since it makes sense for them to be much more specific. While game programming may touch on most areas of computer science, the majority working on specific areas can be limited to their domains, so a mix of specialists would work with just a few generalists needed.

Quote: Original post by Prune
Anyway, I think game degrees should be transitioned more towards the 2-year trade school type of thing, since it makes sense for them to be much more specific.

I disagree. Many people can get through a 4 year CS program and still be terrible at computer science. I shudder to think what quality candidates are produced by a smaller program, which doesn't even focus on what they need to be successful.


I can buy the argument for more people attending a trade school for an established trade. It doesn't take 4 years to learn how to be an electrician (I think), and there's not too much change going on in that field.

But programming is not a trade in the traditional sense. You're not repeating tasks in slightly different environments, you're applying knowledge and experience to differing problems. The more knowledge and experience you have, the more problems you can solve, better. Worse yet, the profession is so immature that your tools change every 5-10 years. Skimping on the practical foundations of computer science in favor of specialized trade schooling is foolish. I don't really see how statistics are necessary to understand that. And even if you did compile hire rates out of school, that is insignificant with regard to the 40 some years you're likely to spend in the workforce.

From Scientific Ninja's journal on game design schools, well specifically the message Ravuya states:

Quote: Game development is just an extension of software development - games are, after all, a specialized kind of software. It follows, then, that in order to excel at game development, you should also excel at software development in general. This is the crux of my biggest problem with game schools. They focus very heavily on the games-specific aspect of the process, often neglecting huge swaths of knowledge, techniques and best-practices from the traditional, fundamental grounding of software development; since the programs are often so specific and focused, you also lose a lot of general education course and course options that can help shape you in a well-rounded individual with a strong ability for problem solving and for thinking on your feet. It’s an education focused on the goal, not on the journey. This is a shame, because the journey is where the real experience is.

This bolded part, this is why I compared the arguments against game design degrees to those against using high level game creation tools like Game Maker. They are borne out of exactly the same attitude by the same class of people.

Software development is but one aspect of a successful game. Heck, it may not even be the most important aspect of game development anymore, I would be shocked if software development even came close to being the most expensive part of game development nowadays.

As far as I'm concerned, the core of most people's issue with game design degrees is that they're not CS degrees coupled with the popular view that you need to be a software developer to "break in" to game development.

Quote: coupled with the popular view that you need to be a software developer to "break in" to game development.

Yes, some people say "you have to be a programmer if you want to work in games," but those people are wearing horse blinders (they're programmers or aspiring programmers and they assume everybody else on gamedev is also a programmer or aspiring programmer -- or they just don't know anything about the game industry). So what? A lot of people say a lot of wrong things. Just don't listen to those people.
But surely that isn't the entire point you're trying to make?