Serious Help needed: Naming a Video Game Design Course

(ConchMan) #21

that must be infuriating and frustrating. Most, if not all of my CS friends say when they started looking for a job, their B.S. degree was considered almost worthless.

(Ifurita) #22

Well, look at it from the interviewer/recruiter’s perspective. I’m looking to fill a very small number of slots with people who are going to make my life easier. So, am I going to take a chance with the person who has a couple of nice shiny degrees or someone who has a demostrated track record of turning out good products (e.g., maps, art, etc)

We do the same thing in the consulting world. Graduating from x university with y GPA keeps your resume from getting throw away, but once we’re in the interview, I’ll make a simplifying assumption that you’re smart and now I want you to show me you 1) have a track record of sucessfully starting projects and ending them with solid, quantifiable results and 2) you have an analytical, structured, problem-solving mindset.

(CptnTriscuit) #23

Last year was my senior year of high school, and the school I attended offered a program of ‘independent study’. The student can fill out a form proposing a topic of study with the guidelines: ‘whatever the hell you want’. The only catch was you had to get the principal and a teacher to sign off on it. The title I used was something to the effect of ‘level design using quake3 arena technology’. …Or something.

When the administrators hear the word ‘game’ or recognizes ‘quake’, they think upset parents, school shootings, satanic cults, baby eating…etc. Luckily for me, the person who had agreed to be my “supervising instructor” was an art teacher who was very skilled at convincing said administrators into making the ‘risky’ choices. I’m not sure if any of this will help or even be relevant to the process you have to go through, but here are some tactics from our pitch:

  • Use the phrase “incorporating technology into the educational curriculum” often.

  • Quote some statistics that include lots of big numbers. Bring up Sony, and how their game division brings in a large chunk of their change each year. Mention how many games are sold each year, how much money that brings in. Let them know how many companies are out there; legitimize the industry for them. (To them: game = baby eating!)

  • Outline for them all the different aspects that go into game production, then focus on what goes into making a map: 3d modeling, textures, scripting, blah blah blah.

  • Reassure them that it won’t be fudge up the budget.

  • Use the phrase “incorporating technology into the educational curriculum” again.

  • Inform them about the pressures and deadlines present in the industry.

  • Tell them you’re dead serious about the class, that it wont be ‘hangout and play games’ time. Tell them you will be expecting project deadlines to be strictly enforced, because that’s how it is in real life (don’t cite halflife2 as an example here…). Also, tell them that students not doing what they are there to do will be promptly kicked out.

  • Tell them that the skills learned in this class can be transferred to other fields (animation, graphic design, etc).

  • Tell them that this class will provide students who may not have even considered game development to be a career possibility an opportunity to discover their talents.

  • Use the phrase “incorporating technology into the educational curriculum” again.

  • Experience is a valuable asset in this field, so why not start early?

  • If the district where you teach puts on some annual event where student work is displayed, tell them that your students will have work to submit. (We had this art show thing at my high school, and I promised I would have a presentation of my project…it seemed to be a strong selling point for getting them to agree to this.)

Well I that’s all I can remember. I really hope you can get this thing off the ground and wish you the best of luck doing so. And finally, some possibilities if you do have to cut words from the title:

  • Design and Development of Real-Time 3d Interactive Environments.

  • Design Principals and Asset Creation for 3d Interactive Environments.

  • Baby Eating 101

…oo scratch that last one…
Best of Luck!

(sock) #24

is that true? i know SD are happy to employ cookie munching badgers but what about other companies[/quote]

Before everyone starts bashes people who study for Degree’s, people should consider that they are worthwhile if spent studing something relevant to your final job. Degrees also allow you to move around from country to country more freely. (Big plus if you are looking for a job in the states) The UK/Europe games market is really too small atm and seriously needs to grow. The states is full of alot more companies who are willing to try people with loads of enthusiasm and willingness to work like crazy. Plus while studying for your degree you can build up a community name and portfolio at the same time.

The majority of games dev jobs are gained by recommendation. TBH SD is no different in that respect and personally I have a checklist of things I look for:

  1. I know of someone’s work (community name) and are impressed by what they do.
  2. I can look at their website with all their work on it. (Online digital portfolio is vital nowadays)
  3. I then check to see how they interact on forums with other people. Are they helpful, arrogant or just damn annoying etc.
  4. Finally I will try and speaking via mail or IRC.

Then and only then would I personally recommend someone for a Games Dev Job. Previous job experience certainly helps but how they react and intergrate with the community is also equally as important.

Sock
:moo:

(blushing_bride) #25

sounds like a good course but will you teach more than radiant? The reason i ask is that radiant seems to be coming to the end of its natural life…

(CptnTriscuit) #26

:eek: er? What makes you say that? :eek:

Doom3’s maps are being developed on the latest spawn of radiant. DoomRadiant isnt it?

(Machine for to kill) #27

How can you say you don’t need a college degree. If I was hiring for a gaming company (and god willing some day i will be) I wouldn’t consider anyone without at least multivariable calculus. College degree might not say that you know how to map but it certainly says you have devotion to start something and carry it to the end, and that you know the basic principles of mathematics, programming and computers. Of course we’re talking about CS and CE and even math/physics/any science degrees. If you have some kind of communications degree then you are wasting your time. Then again I am very science inclined and I consider any one without an advanced calculus knowledge an idiot but that’s me.

(hummer) #28

Yeah, from what I understand, Quake 3 mapping skills will definitely be useful for Doom 3. From screen shots I’ve seen and from what people have said about the doom editor, it’s very similar to radiant. Can anyone confirm this?

(blushing_bride) #29

is this is true i’ll dance for joy, it takes so much time to learn new editors and stuff. But i assumed that the doom 3 engine would be more like unrealed where most of the work is done in 3dsm and then imported. If its like radiant that would be sweet. Don’t suppose you SD fellas would car to enlighten us.

(CptnTriscuit) #30

Speculation:

DoomRadiant is just a step up from the current Radiant. I amagine it will be like jumping from quake2 mapping to quake3.

Though the shader script system for textures is very similiar to quakeIII, there will be new hoops to jump through in order create new assets like textures, becuase mostly all are combined from multiple maps, -difuse -bump - specular, ect…

Quoting Fred Nilsson, “all the textures are actually models, they are not just painted anymore, everything is modeled very detailed, very high res, and then we’ll build the lower res off of that, and with the new John Carmack magic, its adds all the details back in.”

Im not sure if this is only applies to models like monsters/map objects, or if all the textures for walls and floors are created in the same way. So 3dsMax/Maya/Milkshape may prove a big part of Doom3 mapping.

Also, the 3d view in DoomRadiant renders lights and stuff in real-time, so it takes the guesswork out of placing light entities. I also remember hearing about the .bsp process being done away with, that maps get compiled as you go along…but im not too sure about that one.

…But this is all just speculation…so plz SD, correct me!

In any case, I am very excited about it! :clap: :banana: :clap: :banana:

(Machine for to kill) #31

I think ID has released very very little information about the engine. I think most of the stuff that you hear are just rumors that grow and grow through forums. I did hear though that the doom 3 engine will be no good for outdoor environments, which in my opinion makes it completely worthless because outdoor maps are the only ones I like (well those space ones are fun too). Since the halflife engine confidently brags about its outdoor capabilities then halflife it is. Though I’ve been hearing bad rumors about that one too. It seems today everything is just hype. Plus let’s not forget about the unreal editor. That one is not bad either. Americas Army looks very good, granted it was done with a pretty good budget.

(Ubiquitous) #32

I remember taking a multimedia design class when I was in high school. All I did all day was play Sim City 2000, and I still got an A. My high school was lazy.

(rgoer) #33

Seems like it is (once again) time for a reality check:

Flash back to 1999. Quake 3 Test is everybody’s favorite thing to play. All the maps are indoors. The Quake 3 engine is obviously no good for outdoor environments. Oh yeah, and the most powerful video card anybody had at that time was a 16MB Rage 128. Ooh boy!

Fade to black, then bring up a shot of the present day. Doom 3 looms on the horizon, bringing with it tons of new capabilities. However, all the maps are indoors. The Doom 3 engine is obviously no good for outdoor environments. Oh yeah, and in the four years since Quake 3 Test, graphics cards have gotten so much more powerful that games regularly make use of the Quake 3 engine to draw badass outdoor environments. Wait a minute–last I checked, the Quake 3 engine was obviously no good for outdoor environments! What gives?

Hmm, maybe iD plans on keeping the Doom 3 engine around for a few years? Maybe even long enough for graphics cards to get some balls again? Maybe even enough balls to draw outdoor environments a la Quake 3? Ooh boy!

If I had a quarter I’d buy you some foresight, MftK.

(Machine for to kill) #34

Of course ID will add more features to their engine. The outdoor capabalities of the Q3 engine were added with Q3 Team Arena if I am not mistaken.

The real reality check is this.

Version 1.

1.) summer 2004 Doom3 comes out, outdoor capabilities limited by engine and current hardware limitations.
2.) Sometime in late 2005 (maybe early 2006) a D3 engine update is released through an expansion. This new update has improved engine performance, and better support for outdoor environments.
3.) In late 2006 new compilers and proper documentation give the ability for full conversion mods with large outdoor environments.
4.) Early 2007 “Mod Project” begins
5.) Early 2009 (hopefully) “Mod Project” ends

Version 2.

1.) April (hopefully) 2004 Half Life 2 engine is released with optimized support for outdoor environments.
2.) Late 2004 new compilers and better documentation give the ability for full conversion mods.
3.) Early 2005 “Mod Project” begins
4.) Early 2007 (hopefully) “Mod Project” ends

These paterns have occurred before so it is only logical to think that they will probably occur again. Now I’m young and I don’t like wasting my time. If you want to wait then by all means be my guest. I have my thoughts and you have yours, but somehow you think that yours are better. Some people might call that arrogance, but i don’t care because I mind my own business.

P.S.
Sorry hummer for hijacking your thread. I won’t post any more things here unless they are related to the original topic.

(hummer) #35

Heh, couldn’t resist… but I was under the impression that D3 engine maps don’t need to be compiled. If this were true, there wouldn’t be any improvement through compiling.

Also, this is the first I’ve heard about the quake 3 engine changing, getting updated, etc. Can anyone confirm this with some documentation? I mean, I know companies purchase the engine, tweak it themselves, etc. But has id actually taken their engine, updated it, re-sold it, etc?

(damocles) #36

I don’t have the documentation, but yes I can tell you from what I’ve read in the past and seen and editted, Q3 has undergone some serious revisions - both from ID and from other companies.

Some companies have added small improvements such as the dimsmberment features of soldier of fortune. Others add new shader technology. ET added the ability to shoot through sky surfaces (easily the best feature of the new engine). ID added outdoor environments and blended terrain for Q3TA. FYI most games that use the Q3 engine actually use the Q3TA engine.

The actual improvements to the engine are a lot more subtle and mostly came about through compiler improvements. Improvements in the BSP and VIS processes have allowed for extra performance on older machines. The latest update of the Q3 compilers produces maps wayyyy more efficient than the originals, because great people like ydnar spend their time adding to it and refining it beyond belief.

Perhaps you should hunt down the info and add it to your classes hummer? Might help the students to know more about the evolution of 3D and why things are done the way they are done.

But to the point of D3 not being able to handle outdoor environments as seamlessly as source (or any modern engine for that matter) is going to be it’s achilles heel. IT was fine for Q3A to have that flaw simply because it suited the games of the time and the only engine that was a threat was the unreal engine which was far more geared towards sci-fi settings as opposed to Q3s gritty approach. Now though with engines like source, Unreal2 and the Cry engine showing how things can be done, there is noe excuse not to include large outdoor area capabilities in the engine. Even though D3 doesn’t really need large outdoor areas for the game, ID aren’t planning to make their real money from D3 but from sales of the engine. They charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for a commercial D3 license. When a company could buy a similar engine with outdoor capabilities thrown in, what reason do they have for choosing Doom?

(G0-Gerbil) #37

I wouldn’t say that’s entirely true - there’s an awful lot of tools out there for creating complete games from ‘scratch’ - I know of 3 or 4 engines you can license either cheaply or for free for non-commercial work (which of course you’d use to pitch to a big company if you could be arsed).

There still is the era of the ‘bedroom’ programmer - I know this because I’m one of 'em. I run a company (me and another guy), and in a couple of months, from scratch I’ve come up with:

http://www.inludo.com/inprogress/fps05.htm

Nearly finished too. I did all the coding myself, collision detection, (ropey) AI, graphic effects etc. Oh, and the level modelling is me too (although still working on it for more variety - god I hate max).

So it’s possible to do decent enough things pretty much on your own - it’s motivation and knowledge.

Personally, and don’t take this the wrong way, Hummer, I’d say a course purely on level design using only radiant is a really bad way to ‘get someone into the industry’. As widely used as radiant is, many more places use max / maya which is a much more valuable ‘general’ skill.
Also, level design itself is such a small sub-set of creating a game that it’s simply not enough to appear attractive to games companies IMO. Also, and this is the hard part to swallow - are you really fit to teach people the rules they’ll need to create playable levels? We see many maps released here to a variety of standards, and the bottom line is most of them suck to play, even with feedback from this forum.

To be honest, I’d say since most of us here can use the mapping tools reasonably efficiently, any one of us could produce another ‘official’ map - assuming we had the time and a large number of people giving constant feedback on playability. It’s these that make the difference, not a set a ‘rules’ anyone can be taught to follow. It’s also these things that people won’t get from a course…

So my suggestion would be:

Broaden the area you cover - there’s been some decent mentions of other areas - eg Open GL / general basics of 3D programming etc. Games theories / styles (not everyone wants to do FPS games!). AI, pathfinding, graphics, computer /console history / cycles, current markets and big players etc. etc.

The more the better - it’s not like you have to churn out jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, you just have to give them a taste of the various areas so people can choose for themselves what they like best, and let them focus on those areas themselves (since IMO a lot of the benefits from University / degree courses are to be had in pissing around yourself, not simply learning by rote what ever the current lecturer is preaching about in front of you).

(damocles) #38

There still is the era of the ‘bedroom’ programmer - I know this because I’m one of 'em. I run a company (me and another guy), and in a couple of months, from scratch I’ve come up with:

http://www.inludo.com/inprogress/fps05.htm

Nearly finished too. I did all the coding myself, collision detection, (ropey) AI, graphic effects etc. Oh, and the level modelling is me too (although still working on it for more variety - god I hate max).

So it’s possible to do decent enough things pretty much on your own - it’s motivation and knowledge.

That’s exactly what I’m saying - the ones pushing the originality envelope are the ones in their bedrooms. one, two or three man teams using whatever tools they can get their hands on. Big companies don’t push originality, they push technology. Technology sells, originality doesn’t. It’s that ingrained publishing premise that is crippling the industry. And that’s why I think the indusatry will go full circle and the bedroom programmer will have their chance to shine once more.

Nice game demo by the way - is it openGL or shockwave3D?

(hummer) #39

Hey, that’s pretty cool!

I’d say a course purely on level design using only radiant is a really bad way to ‘get someone into the industry’. As widely used as radiant is, many more places use max / maya which is a much more valuable ‘general’ skill. Also, level design itself is such a small sub-set of creating a game that it’s simply not enough to appear attractive to games companies IMO.

Right, but you gotta remember one thing. Radiant / ET are free, which school districts like. There’s no way I’m going to get the district to pony up for 30 Max licences. Plus, I’ve used max, but I’m not nearly as handy with it as Radiant. The big payoff with Radiant is the kids get immediate satisfaction… something they can run around in and play once they’ve made it.

As for the rest of it, the class isn’t about lecture… I’m sorry if I gave that impression. The class would be project based for the most part, with explanations now and then of why things work as they do. The 2nd semester would be a group project, where a level design team would be modeled. The end product would be a level the entire class worked on. There would be testing, debugging, making efficient levels, game flow, etc, etc. lessons sprinkled throughout.

You gotta remember, this isn’t college. It’s a public high school. Some kids just want to get a feel for what “making games” is like. Some will be awesome at it, some simply won’t get it. You gotta shoot for the middle ground. Teaching them Open GL and algorithms without first learning a programming language is impossible. Keep in mind the kids slightly less than an hour a day to work. That’s a little under 5 hours a week. How fast can anyone really pick up level editing, 3-d design, etc, if they work on it for less than an hour a day?

You’re right about everyone not wanting to make an FPS, but again, when teaching a class, unfortunatley, you can’t have everyone doing what they want. Especially with a class of 30 kids or so. It simply too demanding on the teacher, and it tough to track individual progress. There have to be activities everyone can do / accomplish. Radiant is a great cantidate, because as you said, anyone can get the hand of the tools fairly quickly (relatively speaking). I was thining about a few other free level editing tools, possibly for an advanced class, but at the moment, I’d like to stick with something I’m familiar with :slight_smile:

(G0-Gerbil) #40

You gotta remember, this isn’t college. It’s a public high school

Oops, my bad - I got the impression it was a degree level course!
In which case, I’d say your stuff is probably fine :smiley:

PS It’s shockwave :slight_smile: