Do Many Game Designer Even Usually Study The Game Theory?

Study Game Design Theory (Ex. University Interactive Art And Design Theory)
I sort of went into a interactive art and design university class that is teaching the game ideas and the design theory. But, I am a major in computer science. The interactive art and design school is mostly teaching the scientific way of design, word terms, theory, research, and readings that is coming from the other professor.
I already know that most game designer job that only does the game idea is a very hard and a very rare job to get. But, one of my professor did got a game designer job that his task is to only to design a game idea, because he got a interactive art and design PHD. My professor told me that only a big game company hires a idea person. Which the big game company will only hire a highly knowledgable person like my professor with a PHD. So, I won't be a idea person, because I already know that the many interactive art and design student with a undergraduate degree will mostly not get a job that easily.
It is sad that some of the game design school that only teaches about a game idea will not get a game designer job that easily. Also, some of the interactive art and design student with a undergraduate degree will have a hard time finding a game job.
Examples of a university game interactive art and design theory:
-- Games needs to have difficulty to be fun by Juul= http://www.jesperjuul.net/text/fearoffailing/
-- Games needs to have a fantasy remediation by Bolter Grusin=
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Bolter-Grusin-Remediation-Intro1.pdf
-- Games needs to have elements of play like... human naturally needs to have a freedom to have a break playing a game by Homo=
http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/1474/homo_ludens_johan_huizinga_routledge_1949_.pdf
-- Classification of Games needs to have competition, chances, simulation, or illusion by Roger=
http://cs.uvm.edu/~rsnapp/teaching/cs32/homework/man_play_and_games_chapters_1_and_2.pdf

-OR-

Making Games As You Are Designing
I was thinking the most practical way of designing a game is to make games. I think the Extra Credits game design videos is the most practical way of designing a game instead of a theory way. Maybe, is because some of the Extra Credits youtube maker do actually make games. The Extra Credits design videos usually does have the technical design skills instead of designing a theory base.
I believe making more games is much more easier to get a game designer job inside a small game company. But, I think some of this kind of game designer will not understand a very deep design theory.
Examples of a practical development and thinking practices:
-- Game Balancing

-OR-

You Need Both, Make Games + Theory.
"My main argument is that I think a lot of the game designer does not know and read the game design theory books."

____________________________________

Thx, @samnarain for summarizing my question that is more understandable. Here is basically my question.

 

Seriously, I thought it is interesting that not a lot of designer do study video game design theory from books.

 

I think you should major in English because it's difficult to understand what your post is about. Maybe you can simplify and organize your post.

 

Ok Thx, I just change a little bit of my perspective, wordings, and my poll question to make more sense now. Now, my main point I think a lot of the game designer does not really know many of the game design theory.

 

Man, is my English still that bad or my post was too long? Because, I am begining to think every body hates to study game design theory that is been already been made like from the school, universities, or books. Because, I did not really recieve any replies yet. Maybe, you guys rather enjoy making a game as you are designing a game, or just having a creative self taught with a design technic instead of having to do any studying at all that comes from else where. I think it is true, because your design forum seems to be learning in that way only.

 

Going to school can't teach you experience. But gaining experience DOES teach you how to do something.

There's a reason most (technical) jobs are seeking people with experience, not simply people with degrees.

 

Sorry, to be unclear. I do not meant only from going to school. I also meant reading from the free resourses from the professor that you can get from online like from my forum post about the theory examples.
I was always talking about not much people do research on the other people's game theory. But, they only make their games as they are designing.

 

Well, I couldn't say how "valuable" these resources are. And I suppose when going to school for game development, you probably actually make games (I have no idea, that's just an assumption). So in that case you would be gaining experience.

So all things being equal, I'm pretty sure most people would rather go to school and learn about making a game as they're making theirs.

But all things are not equal. Time spent learning all these other things (not all of it related) is time away from your game. Money spent on college is money not spent on your game.

 

Maybe, you are right. I guess we should all only learn game design theory from books or from the free online resources instead of paying for school.
But, still not many people does any learning from a free game design theory resources. But, instead they only make a game as they are designing. I think is because studing the theory is non manatory for most people in a game design.

 

I don't think there's any "we should only do this." It's up to each person to decide how to most effectively use their time.

 

Game design theory is still super new. The oldest examples of 'good design' are only about 30 years old. That means the study of game design is younger then many people working in the industry. While the theory is useful, its still very unsettled as to what the theory actually is. Studying it is useful, but breaking the rules is often just as relevant as following them.

Game designers do benefit heavily from studying. Many game designers study people and how they interact with the world. Others study physics or art, history or mathematics, philosophy or engineering. Develop a set of obsessions outside of games, and use them to inform you game designs. This will add colour and life to your game that you won't be able to get from the simple study of games

For some concrete examples

• Mass Effect pulls from old science fiction and philosophy ideas
• Portal pulls from a general love of physics
• Kerball pulls from an obsession with all things space related
• Minecraft pulls from a love of building things
• Pond Wars pulls from an obsession with waves and water physics

And so on.

 

Game theory and game design theory are not the same thing.

 

That remark about "to take a major in english" is something you could've had omitted. Since you opened the door for personal cheap shots, I'll add one just for you.

Excellent addition to this post!

I've seen worse, but you could've asked your question more clearly.

Well, you are drawing that conclusion over an industry, a community and some other involved parties. The information that backs your conclusion are surely not from a credible source included in your post. Unacceptable sources are for example popular YouTube video "claims" or some rough biased, opinionated article.

So, until you can provide such sources, I've no reasonable information to agree or disagree with your statement.

You are quite mistaken. The amount of research required to create a good (quality) and successful (market value) game is often the biggest time consumer. The amount studied on theories, depends on the scope of a project (and its added value to the project). Many game designers use post-mortem information and eat "Game Design" theories as breakfast. Just to find the applicability of theory to convert knowledge to their use cases.

"Game Theory" have added value for designers, who work on bigger budget projects, as they are have to provide the higher level design which is required to implement complex logic inside a game. But, certainly this not exclusive to big budgets only; there are many indie developers operating as one-man-armies, who definitely use Game Theory to make for example, complex mobile puzzle games or insight tools.

Being a game designer requires more than reading some books, attending some lectures and social drinks. You have to do a lot to get your dream job. If your statement is true, I find it sad that most people don't get that part or that such a school apparently exists to exploit such people.

To finish up and I will answer your question:

In order to make a game, you need some parts of your brain to function. Everything else adds to the "quality" of the game (remember that adding a negative value decreases the quality). Including theories. Someone who does game design, could do without, but would certainly investigate existing and new theories to expand their knowledge.

 

LaneFox actually raised a very good point, being able to communicate an idea is a very important skill. Many technical folk are halted in their progress by a lack of soft skills.

The OP is a bit of a mess. I'm not sure what question is being asked, or what they want to discuss.

 

It is not "one" question, and even if it would be in perfect english, they would be still confusing for some people, as a lot of assumptions are made from a cultural perspective. Sadly, some people do not understand the motivation of these questions, as they have little experience with other cultures.

Basically, translated into something those people "could" understand:

- Is it useful for students to adopt published theories - or - should they choose the pragmatic approach by creating games themselves? The goal for the students should be to maximize their success rate to have a career as professional game designer.

- Why do so many people not use existing theories, yet are the requirements for professional game designers often include knowledge about existing theories?

 

Thx, for so much. I think I should sometimes think simpler and write simpler like you just did now.

 

We are all here to learn.

 

It wasn't a cheap shot or a cultural misunderstanding. Blunt? Absolutely, but welcome to the real world. If you can't communicate properly then you have a serious issue in any working environment and no game design course is going to make up for that.

 

Anyone who is 35 or older probably finished college before game design courses existed. I would have taken them if they had been offered, but instead I got similar classes about the theory of fiction, narrative, audience psychology, screenwriting, and that kind of thing.

 

Your English is fine. You mostly need to work on formatting. A jumble of text is always harder to read. An easy approach to this is simply to insert some additional spacing between paragraphs and keep each paragraph to a minimum number of lines.

 

Ok, thx for telling me how to type in a better forum. But, to stay on topic. Can someone answer @samnarain 's question that is kind of from my question? That will summarize everything that I was about to say.

 

Honestly I have to agree with @BoredMormon's earlier post for the first question. Game design theories are simply too new to be very practical by themselves. There is nothing wrong with studying them but don't expect them to always be accurate as there are games that have gone against them and become successful.

For the second question I believe it's simply a matter of most game developers simply haven't studied them. After all it isn't like most developers go through a formal education centered around game development. We've had threads in the past where people listed their degrees and many of them weren't even related to computer technology let alone games.

 

If we could all study everything that would make us better game developers, we would be in school forever. That might be fun, but at least in my country it is often very expensive or they won't let you in if you already have an advanced degree.

Some studies that might come in handy:
Geography (designing communities), Geology (designing terrain), Economy (designing your games economy or your business' budget), Physics, English and Composition, Technical writing, Business, Marketing, Illustration, History (more believable stories), Anthropology (better cultures), and dozens more I imagine.

So my suggestion is to realize that all of us have different backgrounds and many of us have some specialty, some even in one of the above. Cherish the knowledge you get from every one here and any team members you might work with because bringing all of this together makes a great game.

Game Theory is fascinating but it is just another in the list that can help you understand games, or gamefication.

As for learning from books, who says that sitting in front of a professor all day long is any better? I guess it depends on one's attention span and how well they absorb the written word compared to lectures. A classroom is only as good as the instructor, and I learned more math, chemistry, and especially physics from life's experiences and books, rather than from some really bad instructors in college and graduate school. Learned a lot from the good ones though!

But...after I get those degrees, I can learn much more from reading books...an infinite amount actually, and it costs a lot less.

 

Okay, to tackle the questions specifically.

Both. Always both. Learn as much as you can about everything. Then apply it as much as you can. I really don't know anyone who has been successful in game design without a solid understanding of the concepts, and significant experience.

However its worth noting that all published theories in game design are old. Most of the land mark game designs come from people breaking the prevailing notions of the time. Look at MineCraft. In 2011 the contemporary game design wisdom was very much 'More graphics, more realism, give the player more cool stuff.' MineCrafts design is basically 'forget graphics, forget realism, give the player nothing'. And yet despite breaking all the rules, MineCraft is the second highest selling video game of all time.

Where are you getting the idea from that theoretical knowledge is a requirement for professional game design? Unless you are working in academia, there is no real requirement for an in depth theoretical understanding.

Honestly, I believe your professor is lying to you. Or at least there is a miscommunication somewhere. The role of idea person does not exist anywhere in the industry. Throw a handful of people together in a room and they will come up with hundreds of ideas in the space of half an hour.

The role of the designer comes after the ideas. Its the designers job to take the ideas and flesh them out into a playable game. Its a designers role to build the systems that let the ideas turn into an actual game. An idea might be 'Lets let the player craft any weapon they want'. A designer comes and looks at that and figures out the parameters to be exposed to the player, how the player is going to actually craft each weapon, what the real limitations on crating will be, how the different weapons interact with the rest of the game world, and so on.

Check out The Door Problem for some good analysis.

 

I looked at my professor profile. He took English and Film Studies course with a Master, and a PHD Philosophy. I am not sure is he very experience with the game design, a media studies, a theory, and a game philosophy. But, he did told me he was a game designer before.
Maybe, he is a game designer who is mostly correcting their companies idea and a business marketing theory.

 

Game designers do not need game designer degrees. Those are relatively new and many of them are just tech schools trying to get more students.

It is very likely that your professor was a game designer.

 

@computertech take this advice as your compass. It doesn't only apply to game designers, but to every discipline that is practiced until mastered.

The "idea" person is not someone who generates the creative content, but more someone that would look like a project manager who works tightly with a product owner, doing game design. It is really a localized phenomena. Like sleeping at your workplace to secure your family honor to get the job done, instead of the intrinsic motivation to overcome the challenge. This might be alien for you to understand; and I can recommend you only to investigate this when you have been offered the position as game designer in certain African and Asian countries to work effectively with your new team. Also, the professor is most likely trying to help his students to achieve their goals in a local, "traditional" environment.

I couldn't agree more.

You are bright enough to understand what you need to do and you know there is only one way to find the truth. So, gather all your bravery, request a private conversation so the professor is never exposed of losing face, formalize your request that your intent is to learn from the teachers path and do not expect an answer. If the professor is "unreachable", find your nearest peer and gather favors to get your answer. If this is not possible as well, try a written request. Just make sure you do not use agitative words that might cause you becoming his new mission to teach you by "traditional" means.

 

The idea that a PhD is required to be a game designer is the incongruity in your story I was calling out. Note that all PhDs are called philosophy, in reference to the ancient Greeks. But very few these days actually consist of a traditional Philosophy component.

PhDs are associated with super specialist academics and researchers. In general the closer someone is to their PhD, the less in touch they are with the day to day realities of the industry. A PhD is a valid option if you want to study games, or teach games in an academic setting. But if you just want to be making games, its a massive overkill.

 

Really happy I haven't studied any of this nonsense.

Learn by doing. It's the same as driving a car. You can read all you like about it but you'll suck balls until you get some small titles out and understand that even if you were given a step by step 123 ABC guide for gameplay, it would still stink because it's far too open to interpretation.

 

I just got done with school. I have a degree in game development. Yes, I made several games while I was in school. I had plenty of practice. No, I don't think I would have learned the things I did in college the exact same way if I just watched some Youtuber online. I think that's what we need to recognize here. No, you don't NEED to formally learn anything... But it doesn't hurt. It helped me so much and I don't regret it at all. I learned & absorbed the skills I needed to know so that I could make games on my own volition more efficiently and with more knowledge. I'll always be "learning as I go", but school gave me a great leg up. I wouldn't advise sitting here knocking it off as a waste of time as if there's nothing to gain. If you have the money, if you have the time, go try it.

 

That's the best bit.

 

What I've learned in school, is not so much about applying theory. The most valuable lessons learned for me, are understanding how to practice research, composing either new ideas, defending old ideas against current trends or mix these and explore deeper than just the surface.

A YouTube video might get you bootstrapped, but great things are accomplished by doing the real work: reading, learning, reading, sharing, learning, reading and so one. I also believe that you'll meet and learn to work with like-minded peers and require the experience to deal with disappointment or conventions that do not make rational sense.

Education as we know it often suck balls. I hope for the future generation there will be a lot more of platforms like this one:
https://www.khanacademy.org/

 

Absolutely! College gave me a new perspective on the world and it helped me get jobs. It shows that you can commit to something and finish it.

However, I still say beware of for-profit schools. I know to many people with huge debt and no jobs in the game industry and pretty much only menial jobs available to them. Plus, huge amounts of debt..and I mean like $100,000. Wherever you go to school, make sure your debt matches your chances of getting a job and your prospective salary. And if you quit school somewhere along the line, make sure your future job potential allows you to pay what you already owe.

Sad to see friends going to expensive tech schools, getting these design degrees and then spending the rest of their life working as waiters or in retail just to pay off student loans.

On the other hand, lots of community colleges and universities in the states are starting to offer digital art, programming, and game development degrees. Yes, you have to take those general education classes, but if you tailor them, you can learn a lot in earth science, anthropology, history, and those math classes to make you a better game designer.

 

Because surely it would harm your brain to read others' thoughts about how entertainment works, what fun is, or what their design techniques and principles are...

 

No.

 

@hippocoder means do not spend and waste too much money on school that teaches too much theory without teaching you enough on how to make a game.
So, far my game programming university teaches you a bit of game theory. But, my school is a little bit lacking on game art or a game development in my first year. My programming university class is so hard for me, because my programming class focuses more into software engineering, instead of using a pre made software to help you a game programming like Unity. In my first year, I already have a problem programming a word search puzzle AI with a array.

 

yep - I can and do choose to learn from the entire internet and all games I play - everything you can possibly find is freely available from forums, from blogs, from net - you don't even need to look far for theory. What people do lack though is hands on experience.

It's just like driving - you know you should avoid obstacles without even being taught - but you don't know how to smoothly avoid them without experience. And your game is a new terrain with obstacles nobody's seen before.

 

Oh yeah I agree. I should mention that I had grants, federal aid, and also went to a community college that let me transfer credits to University lol. Art schools are usually not worth it.

 

But they are a lot of fun!

 

So is robbing a bank but the final cost tends to rarely be worth it.

 

I used to go to digital animation college. I know many art college around Ontario. It only worth going into a top few digital art college like in Ontario there is Sheridan, Humber, and Algonquin which is okayish. It totally does not worth going into an art college with too many students with a bad art portfolio. I already know four digital art school in Ontario will always fail to get a good art portfolio performance. Fine art college is so useless, unless you are going into Sheridan to apply into a very competitive art school. The animation college that I used to go is okish, but could of done better. Because, my good art teacher somehow have a problem could not force most of my classmate to work harder and do it better when most of my classmate sucks at art. I was one of the top art student getting 75 average meanwhile their overall class average is 60. Is like I can always imagine most of my classmate will never get a digital artwork job.

 

Is only fun when your professor train you hard enough to get a art job.

 

You never know. With practice one can get better. But there are other skills you need to get a job.

Ability to communicate, work with others, be humble, admit mistakes, and not cut down your peers and colleagues all the time. Arrogance is often a reason not to hire someone. Those sorts are often hard to work with and are more often finding fault with others than trying to improve themselves.

Also, you are the one who has to train yourself to get a job. The professor just gives you the knowledge and tools to do that.

I suggest that you go work on your people skills, communication skills, and your art skills, even if you are 75..whatever that means.

 

Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the Computer Science Network (CSNET). In 1982, the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) was introduced as the standard networking protocol on the ARPANET. In the early 1980s the NSF funded the establishment for national supercomputing centers at several universities, and provided interconnectivity in 1986 with the NSFNET project, which also created network access to the supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations.

Those universities and education institutes are completely useless! Why need them, when I can learn from the internet, heck let's burn those institutes! Oh, wait...

In 1987, MINIX, a Unix-like system intended for academic use, was released by Andrew S. Tanenbaum to exemplify the principles conveyed in his textbook, Operating Systems: Design and Implementation. ....

I wonder what this strange academic project would've lead to. Useless research!
Everything is available online in the form of blogs, forums and videos. Who needs academics! Who needs undergraduates discovering traditional approaches and jump ship to create something better! Let's burn them dowwwn!

Maybe I lack the ability perform some research and back my arguments with facts. But I can't imagine any institution that would cultivate such behaviour in someone like me. If I only had choices in life...

If someone finds the money not worth the value of the education, it is not so much the fault of the school, but the adult who made that decision. If someone had expectations that are were not met, they fell for a brochure.

Someone doesn't need a college education to make a succesful game. Someone can have a college education and still isn't able to make successful game. Education however makes you aware of a very broad field, and if you do so through the Internet (while being naked) or attend a highly respected University, none are bad as long as you are developing yourself to become better in what you do.

Perhaps some poetry is in place here; it is your duty and responsibility to make your dream come true. Else you will remain a dreamer. Meaning that if a college degree will make your dream come true, pursuit that. If it means watching YouTube tutorials, pursuit that. If it means both, travel both roads.

This should be the first thing everyone needs to understand before getting a job. Yes, even teenagers.

I find that a quite distasteful joke, where you find it funny to think about stealing from society, by holding people hostage against their will, just to satisfy your dysfunctional desires. I guess you've missed something about ethics in your education. So, haha, very funny. Not.

As we're discussing careers and college paths, such remarks in public are often enough to render any college degree useless.

The job of a professor is to educate you; if you want training to get a job, find a job coach (who will advise you to get an education). What you do with the knowledge exposed to you is your own responsibility.

Don't hate studies of Art. You'll probably need an artist at one point in your project, and you'd be happy to work with someone who understands light, color, scenery and is able to sketch characters from your abstract ideas

Moral of the story:
Creating a fun game doesn't require a specific education. Education in itself provides no guarantees. A perfect example is golf. It was basically about a shepherd who used his stick to knock sheep dong into a gopher hole. Others cloned this and used little flags to add visual aids during the game, add obstacles to provide different levels of difficulty and made a better sheep dong swinging sticks to get better success rates in making the dong not splash mid-air. This development continued and today one can either play this game at home or as a pro athlete, get a license for it at a registered guild and game manuals are available in almost every language. I bet the shepherd didn't have a bachelor degree to help him with the physics implementation.

Sheep dong can even lead to a successful game without the availability of a YouTube video or Game Design theories. Now let this be an inspiration to write your own brown colored displacement shader!

 

So arguing because? It doesn't matter if you disagree - there are multiple ways people approach game development. Mine is hands on. Someone else might want a lot of college for specifically, game dev (although I'm just not seeing any successful indies who so far took this route yet).

I'm sure it's useful, but taking a solid programming course in C# might well be far more useful. And actually completing Unity's learn materials.

My problem is these courses all promise indie greatness and don't really focus you into a decent game dev job. Because you're really just not going to magically fall into that game designer job after Uni, which is one of the reasons so many kids these days are so pissed off and disillusioned. They've sold years of their lives for jobseekers allowance.

That's a pretty grim reality for many people. I personally would like to see a return to form for apprenticeships and so forth, plus some reality checks.

I'm talking about game dev specifically.

 

That sounds a lot better than branding college education as "nonsense". I am not arguing; as you are as free to choose your choice of words in a forum that abide the rules, I am as free to respond to the information you've chosen to share. Let's enjoy this liberty while we still can

Actually I support that fact; many success stories evolve around people jumping ship. Yet, it does also not guarantee success stories to quit college

 

Back then the Internet was basically useless and out of reach for most individuals. Instead people relied on Bulletin Board Systems, User Groups, computer clubs, books they could purchase from stores or borrow from local libraries, etc.

My first programming language (QuickBASIC) and my earliest experiences were picked up entirely without the Internet and even without the aid I listed above because Microsoft back then actually shipped physical manuals with their products (it was a heavy box too) in addition to a very extensive on-disk help system.

Companies were just as important back then as universities for research and I have no doubt that if DARPA had not funded a concept like the Internet then organizations like Xerox PARC would have. Many modern technologies came from companies just as much as it came from universities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)

None of them may be bad but I would argue that some of them may be a better choice. If you're into the programming aspect of game development, for example, I would recommend a more general purpose programming degree rather than one aimed at game development.

Because there are no guarantees in the game development industry (aside from working at places like EA) and having a more general purpose degree will give you a far larger safety net to fall back into if you're unable to land the job you want.

 

Actually, on that one I would disagree

Completely agree. And I believe they are both equally important today and in the future.

 

Just like my Brock game programming university does. It is partnership with Niagara College game development college and Brock computer science university. The Brock computer science teaches general programming, but also teaches with discrete math, and software engineering, and making your own class libaray, which is much harder than just programming in Unity, or just prgarmming in general.
Brock game university have two graduate stream. Game design or game programming. To be honest I think the game design stream does not teach you how to make a digital artwork enough. I believe all 3d artist workers must be able to almost make a AAA artwork. But, instead they teach you game design theory a bit too much.

 

I agree with this. However, a degree from a reputable school, a not-for-profit or even better a state college or university is not a waste of time.

My son wants to work in game development. He is going to college. But he is getting a software development degree with management courses. And he is building games. He knows that if he can't find a job in gaming, he can always go find one in software development or some other similar field.

In the meantime, he is learning multiple coding languages (in school and on his own), is learning how to communicate within a business, learning how to be a project manager, adding to his knowledge of databases and networking, and showing future employees that he had the discipline to commit to something and finish it. The degree will give him opportunities and contacts, not just in game development, but in other areas. We have looked at jobs in our area that he might like and every single one of them requires at least an associates degree but most a bachelor's degree in some related computer area.

He might find one without the degree but the salaries are low, the benefits non-existent, and the jobs are not stable. Even the temp companies here want people with degrees.

It is easy to sit on our high horse at our ages and look back and say college is a waste of time. I am no longer working in the field I studied or using the degrees I earned. But I do use the knowledge and the skills. I still have the contacts. I still have the confidence that I gained through the process. I doubt I would be the same person I am now. Every student loan payment was worth it...of course, I went to "real" universities, and had grad school paid for by the university. My education is something no one can take away from me.

Those art and technical for-profit schools, both on and offline charge 10 times what I paid for my state university education. And you pigeon hole yourself into one area. Companies looking for software developers or similar jobs might pass you over. Plus you owe tons of money. Yeah, you sell your life and you pay that off for years while working and Walmart. A few lucky ones then go on to be evangelists for the school getting more 'stars in the eyes' students to sign up.