This Open House summary is courtesy of John Henderson, attendee at the Open
House, and a student in the program. This is his coverage of the open house,
infused with a lot of his opinions, in an article for Game Career Guide, a new
subsite of Gamasutra focused on education and career development.
" Student Soapbox: Out of School - John Henderson "
He asked me about my game design class, so I tried to tell him.
"Well, in the last class we talked about core gameplay, and about systems and content ..."
"You mean like the engine?"
"... No... this is just a design class." "..."
"Here, those two guys over there are instructors."
It was the third open house for Austin Community College's video game development program. I'd been to the other two, but this was the first time I attended as a student. For this I got to wear a name badge with a blue outline on it, so people would know they could ask me questions. It'd be nice to think I did my best, but this was 10 a.m. on a Saturday morning. It wasn't my best.
ACC's program began through the efforts of Bob McGoldrick, coordinator for the college's High Technology Institute, which includes technical certifications useful for IT jobs in hardware and software management. Retired from IBM and now a workforce development specialist, McGoldrick readily admits, as he did during open house, that he is not a gamer. Rather, his interest in game development came from realizing how important it was to Austin, as a subset of the city's technology sector as well as creative arts. After talking to several developers, studio heads, and academics, some of whom make up his advisory board and instructor base, the next step was creating a curriculum, separating the disciplines, and designing the program to encourage specialization in art, programming, design or production - but also to encourage cross-training for a more well-rounded experience - all with the help of pro developers with first-hand knowledge of the business.
"I had no preconceived notions about what we should do," he told the 60 or so would-be students, several with family members in tow (most appeared to be parents with a few spouses), gathered at the open house. "What you see here is what the industry needs - at least the industry here in Austin."
|
ACC's program had about 60 students in its first year, and 100 its second. As a continuing-education program, students get credit hours and certificates rather than degrees, but they also get face time with instructors, many of whom work on games in the day and teach at nights and on Saturdays, and do projects that can be used to build a portfolio, useful for landing a game job. The classes are offered "a la carte" with many that have little to no prerequisites, but for those who want to go for the full slate of classes, a group of four students, one from each of the study tracks, will be put together ("You don't get to pick your teammates") to work on a game project for a semester, presenting "milestone" progress and a finished product to the program advisory board. Just like a developer working with a publisher.
But, McGoldrick warned, the program is not a guarantee of a job any more than any other field of study is for any other field of employment. Nor are the classes "sit and listen" - the assignments are hands-on work. And, he added, the program has been recognized by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, a mark of legitimacy for game development instruction as well as an opportunity to land financial aid or loans for students who need them.
McGoldrick then turned the floor over to a few advisory board members present. Denise Fulton, head of the Midway Games studio in Austin, lauded the program for staying in touch with the needs of the game industry - a rarity among such programs, she said. Tony Bratton, formerly of the Digital Anvil studio in Austin and still the specialization director for ACC's Game Programming track, said working on games was the second-most fun job he'd ever had, next to playing in a band. "Can't really beat that one. This is pretty darned close." Ariel Comstock, an advisory board member and mother of a 17-year-old gamer son, encouraged parents in the audience to learn more about their children's fascination with games, which they could do with the program's help. "When you do, you'll find out why they want to make games... This is a great place to want your kids to go to."
Damion Schubert, recently of the Bioware Austin studio and director of the Design track, said working in games is an opportunity to work on the cutting edge of technology and to find creative ways to use it. Getting a foot in the door is tough, he said, reiterating the importance of hands-on work and building a portfolio. Spencer Zuzolo of the ACC- and University of Louisiana-affiliated GameCamp echoed that, saying he'd just finished a summer of eight summer-camp sessions showing kids in middle and high school about game development, possibly the next generation of collegiate students and game developers. "They're on their way," he said.
The presentation overall wasn't as dire as previous open houses, probably in part because most of the advisors who like to be doom sayers weren't present. At last year's open house, game development was compared to being in a war, that the industry "eats its young," and that going to work on games was a great way to "destroy a perfectly good hobby." A few of the advanced students who stood up to talk at Saturday's open house gave milder warnings, mainly to underline that the classes weren't just an opportunity for students to sit around and talk about games - that they'd be expected to work.
Such warnings sounded corny the first two times I heard them. How could anyone think, I wondered, that game development wasn't an immensely complicated job requiring specialized skills? Why would school programs exist if there wasn't something to teach and be learned? And why, should someone sign up and go to a college class, even if it's "about games," then not expect to have to work?
And then I met the young man quoted in the opening lines. And the answers fell into place.
They think they already know.
They've been thinking and talking about games for years, and they think that counts.
They don't know any better.
They can't.
And it's not their fault.
 |
Not everyone there was an example of this. There was a couple from New York I didn't get to meet, and Brad and Sandy Williams, who came all the way from Grand Rapids, Michigan to research ACC's program. The Williamses were planning to move to Austin and find new jobs there, Sandy said, not necessarily in games, though Brad had been studying 3D art rendering programs and wanted to continue. And there was Abby Buchanan, whom Bob McGoldrick ushered to me because I'd taken the design class - she started by saying she had interest in fashion design, but then claimed to have completed a game in Flash and spent her free time with an RPG tool, "because I don't have Internet."
What visitors like Abby seemed to understand is that making games isn't something one has to go to college to do. And, if she spent any amount of effort on it, she probably found that it's not about instant gratification, so even if it's an interesting pastime, it isn't "fun" in the way actually playing a finished game is fun. That seems like a fundamental notion. Further, if games are accepted as a means of communication, then it should follow that understanding them is a form of literacy, just like there is for reading books or watching movies or listening to popular music. From there, it follows that having a love of playing games doesn't make a person adept at creating them any more than reading makes one an author, watching TV a producer, or listening to music a rock star. There are things one needs to know to create any of that stuff, and it might not have anything to do with being a consumer or even a connoisseur. Does this line of thinking escape people?
Maybe I'm being unfair. I'm probably 10 years older than most of the people there. I've been a professional writer and editor for almost eight years. I'm personal friends with game developers and talk to them regularly. There are opportunities I've had that most people haven't. A lot of them I've stumbled upon rather than sought out. There hasn't been much of a plan about most of it, the ACC program included. I ended up moving within driving distance of Austin and used events related to its local industry as an excuse to go. Many of them were free lectures offered by ACC's then brand-new game program, which came to be offered nearly every month. This summer, I found time in my work schedule and the money to pay tuition, mainly because it seemed like the right thing to do after going to so many lectures for free.
 |
The class textbook, Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping and Playtesting Games, was hard for me to read at first. The first two chapters have a particularly soft touch when introducing its target readers into subject matter - the second chapter begins by comparing Quake to Go Fish. (Yes, the card game.) "Do all games share the same exact structure? Of course not... There is something, that they must share, because we clearly recognize them all as 'games.'"
It turned out better than I'm making it sound, but it's worth pointing out that most of the articles on this site, and most media about games from books to web sites to magazines, don't talk about such things. It's taken as a given that readers understand what "games" are, or at least have thought enough about the subject to consider new perspectives. Or, which is probably more often the case, it's just not important, such that the mention of it would get chuckles and dismissive replies if it was ever brought up in public.
Yet, there it is in my college textbook. Quake and Go Fish are both games. This is important. This is fundamental. This will not, however, be on any test most gamers are likely to take. But at any given moment, there are gamers thinking about their favorite games and trying to pick them apart and imagining how they might be made different, bigger, better. The thought might take flight, elevating their daydream-selves to positions of control over what they imagine as their own creation, never mind that someone else made it. In their minds, they could be game developers, like a kid with a new guitar he'll never learn to play. Just try and tell him he's not a rock star.
It doesn't bother me, and it's not wrong. Game development will probably always remain in the same category as playing games for most people. Not a job, not stressful, not hard work, not anything only a few people can do or should try. For those who came to the open house with that frame of mind and sign up for an introductory class, an unpleasant surprise may be in store for them. Either way, I'm sure ACC will be glad to take their fees. College programs have a long tradition of supporting themselves with students who have little to no direction in life, far older than any game school. That's not wrong, either - it just means that those who put the most into school get the most out of it, and the winners of this game are the ones with the best frame of mind before the first class begins.
It's why I'm happy with the prospects of GameCamp and other programs meant for younger people. Lessons learned earlier in life usually last longer. But not all students or teachers are made alike, and there are no guarantees. The most any of us can do is support and promote any opportunity to learn, admit we might be ignorant, and be ready to learn along with everybody else.
Class dismissed.