Teaching game design in primary education

What the majority of people think to be "game design" actually has vanishingly little to do with the way games are truly designed. It isn't just a matter of slapping together some backstory, a few gameplay rules, and a plot (or whatever fits the game genre of choice).

Being a good game designer requires a breadth of knowledge - without that, no amount of depth in the games field will turn you into a good designer. Refining and perfecting a game design requires a tremendous amount of understanding of the human psyche - how, why, when, and where people play games in the first place. Without that knowledge, you're just thrashing around in the dark.

I have a couple of examples I like to refer to when the discussion turns to game design:

• Mass Effect 1 vs. Mass Effect 2. The changes here are radical, and are almost universally praised as being extremely well done. I tend to agree that ME2 represents a tremendous step forward for the series itself, as well as the genre at large. A great game design exercise is to pick three or four of the changes made in ME2, and try to understand the logic of why things were modified in that particular way. Good designers will catch the reasoning behind the changes quickly; people who merely think they know game design will probably draw a complete blank.
  


• Halo 3 vs. Modern Warfare 2 (multiplayer). I know a few people who play MW2 obsessively, and a few other people who play Halo just about as much. MW2 players seem to exist in some sort of state of denial; they swear up and down that the game is excellent, far superior to the others in the genre, blah blah blah. And yet they constantly complain about "cheap tactics" and "noob weapons" and so on. Fascinatingly, everyone I know who plays upper-level Halo hates MW2. Why? They all agree that MW2's game design is hideously unbalanced. This is worth pondering in depth.
  


• MMORPGs. A good friend of mine has been working on an MMO design for the better part of the past three years. He is constantly refining it, improving it, and sometimes outright discarding it and starting over. It may sound like he's just not cut out to finish the project, but that couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, he plays as many different games as possible, analyzes what makes them tick, and factors those discoveries into his own design. We've spent countless hours talking about psychology, history, physics, economics, religion, visual aesthetics, and so on - all of which were channeled into refining his game design. Compare this to the average Help Wanted post where someone in high school wants to make the next WoW from his parent's basement.

I'll leave you to form your own opinions from those examples, but for myself, I truly believe that game design should be a skill taught/learned on a solid educational foundation. It cannot be taught in vacuum, and your average high schooler (and many college graduates, sadly) has no background whatsoever for half the requisite knowledge and life experience.

I think my logic was that Game Design is also highly dependent on technical knowledge, which most primary school students would have no grasp of. Especially given the lack of education in that area.

I was reading a good article called "Digital Immigrants Digital Natives" about errors in the American (probably applies to other cultures too, I just haven't experienced them so I can't say) education system. Mainly on the fact that we are teaching our children the same way we taught them before we had any computer technology, when that technology has in fact changed the way we learn. The logic being that you can't teach the same way when children are learning differently.

Anyone interested can read it here:
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/

I took an accredited game design program through an accredited arts school. They swore up and and down about how the course itself was geared towards the true nature of game design and not directed towards programming and modeling skills. The basic ideas of the Homo Ludens series was presented and we where shown a few examples of what is considered a game mechanic <= lol.

From this course load I took a few things. I learned how to program a game mod and how to model. I am quite familiar with design documentation and the Writers Journey! I can not however cite any examples of design patterns(I did read rules of play.) I think this was large and in part the product of an industry that knows what game design is but truly has never practiced it.

I agree with this:

Quote:

Original post by ApochPiQ I'll leave you to form your own opinions from those examples, but for myself, I truly believe that game design should be a skill taught/learned on a solid educational foundation. It cannot be taught in vacuum, and your average high schooler (and many college graduates, sadly) has no background whatsoever for half the requisite knowledge and life experience.

However an elective in high-school that teaches design patterns, not quite unlike the plays in a football coaches play manual, could be quite beneficial to chemistry students and should most definitely be introduced.

Perhaps we should first spend more time making sure that game design courses in tertiary education aren't completely stupid.

Please god no!

Learn the basics. If you're that interested in game design, forming a game design club would be good rather than actual classes.

The amount of people in the games industry (let alone University) that don't have a working knowledge of linear algebra, or know how to write proper english (among other things) is ridiculous.


What ApochPiQ suggested (disscussions surrounding games) is actually more important than you'd think. Just understanding why certain games are unbalances (or balanced well), or motivations surrounding design decisions actually help you when designing your games or assessing your games in action.

Wouldn't teaching video-game design in primary school be like trying to teach Hollywood script writing?

It'd be more suitable to teach them to design a modification to "snakes and ladders"...

Quote:

Original post by ApochPiQ What the majority of people think to be "game design" actually has vanishingly little to do with the way games are truly designed. It isn't just a matter of slapping together some backstory, a few gameplay rules, and a plot (or whatever fits the game genre of choice). Being a good game designer requires a breadth of knowledge - without that, no amount of depth in the games field will turn you into a good designer. Refining and perfecting a game design requires a tremendous amount of understanding of the human psyche - how, why, when, and where people play games in the first place. Without that knowledge, you're just thrashing around in the dark. I have a couple of examples I like to refer to when the discussion turns to game design: Mass Effect 1 vs. Mass Effect 2. The changes here are radical, and are almost universally praised as being extremely well done. I tend to agree that ME2 represents a tremendous step forward for the series itself, as well as the genre at large. A great game design exercise is to pick three or four of the changes made in ME2, and try to understand the logic of why things were modified in that particular way. Good designers will catch the reasoning behind the changes quickly; people who merely think they know game design will probably draw a complete blank. Halo 3 vs. Modern Warfare 2 (multiplayer). I know a few people who play MW2 obsessively, and a few other people who play Halo just about as much. MW2 players seem to exist in some sort of state of denial; they swear up and down that the game is excellent, far superior to the others in the genre, blah blah blah. And yet they constantly complain about "cheap tactics" and "noob weapons" and so on. Fascinatingly, everyone I know who plays upper-level Halo hates MW2. Why? They all agree that MW2's game design is hideously unbalanced. This is worth pondering in depth. MMORPGs. A good friend of mine has been working on an MMO design for the better part of the past three years. He is constantly refining it, improving it, and sometimes outright discarding it and starting over. It may sound like he's just not cut out to finish the project, but that couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, he plays as many different games as possible, analyzes what makes them tick, and factors those discoveries into his own design. We've spent countless hours talking about psychology, history, physics, economics, religion, visual aesthetics, and so on - all of which were channeled into refining his game design. Compare this to the average Help Wanted post where someone in high school wants to make the next WoW from his parent's basement.

Don't those examples actually 'prove' that you can have a very successful game without much of a design? I mean really, do Gears of War or Quake4 or Doom3 or UT really look like they were created by people who have "a tremendous amount of understanding of the human psyche - how, why, when, and where people play games in the first place"? Seriously? Let me also say, btw, that I have a bit of a problem with this phrase; I think if you have a tremendous amound of understanding of the human psyche you'd do more important things than silly video game weapon balancing.

Anyway. Not to say that designing is an easy job, but I think you're greatly exaggerating; 95% of the games out there play it safe; they don't make any innovative steps at all, just rehash old and tried rules. And the ones that are well balanced, well, ok, they are just that; well balanced video games, not something that shows an 'understanding of the human psyche'(sorry for repeating that phrase, but it really rang wrong in my ears). My opinion is, let's not try making video games sound more important than what they are; they are not a science nor an art, nor a trade particularly important. I mean really, if highschool students can handle learning languages, history, science, math, then I think it's, well, ok to be tought video game design. Not that I think game design should be in the highschool material, I don't see any reason why it should, the world needs people to cure cancer and such, not make Halo 4. I like video games, I like playing them, making them, I want to work on them, but let's be serious; it's just a silly passtime, at best. It's the equivalent of b-movies. And the very few games that are world-changing, like chess, are one in a millenia; not to mention that none of them is a video game(no, super mario or tetris is not the same as chess, sorry).

[Edited by - mikeman on February 10, 2010 1:47:41 AM]

I don't think we disagree [smile]

You are of course completely right that many games are successful, even in the absence of good design principles. Modern Warfare 2 is a perfect example. Very few games introduce new mechanics, or break ground that has not been well-trodden before. I'm not talking about the kind of "design" that lets you emulate what already exists and is successful (although as you correctly point out that's the majority of games right there). I'm talking about the kind of design that breaks into those areas in the first place; although to be fair a lot of that "design" was dumb luck.

I'll grant that perhaps my wording was a bit too strong and melodramatic; it's a bad habit [wink] In all seriousness, though, I truly do think that the best game designers are good at their job because they really do have a very deep and fundamental grasp of why humans play games.


Sure, video games are just a silly pointless waste of time, for the most part. But that doesn't mean they don't have the capability to address something primal and fundamental about ourselves. It's sort of a popular trend right now to downplay games as unimportant, but I personally feel that this goes a bit too far. Yes, we're not changing the face of the world, blah blah blah, but there is some fascinating stuff going on because of the advent of video games. If you really think the world hasn't changed due to gaming, talk to your grandparents for a few minutes [wink]

A bit off-topic, but talking about MW2, what's with with reviewers these days, it's like they rave and orgasm by default if it's a multi-million blockbuster game irrelevant of its quality. I haven't played the multi-player yet, but the single player is really really mediocre, the missions are tiny in length, and even then most of the time is spent being pinned down in the same spot by waves of enemies(do they keep spawning or something? I haven't figured it out, but at some points they seemed endless, I got tired of trying to clear the place before proceeding, and eventually took my chances of blasting through sprinting in order to get to the next checkpoint). Didn't enjoy it at all. Not to mention one mind-numbingly-spacetime-warping-ultra-stupid plot element, where you actually have the villain in front of you with a gun loaded, but...you can't shoot him(!). Plus the graphics weren't a big improvement, the surface textures were quite poor I might say. Meh meh meh.

[Edited by - mikeman on February 10, 2010 9:34:13 AM]

Quote:

Original post by ApochPiQ If you really think the world hasn't changed due to gaming, talk to your grandparents for a few minutes [wink]

My grandparents and their relatives were hard-core gamers. How hard-core?

They played MW, CoD and Crysis IRL. With guns, bombs, the Normandy was a beach, not a space ship, guerrilla warfare took place in freezing Alps, not tropical jungles, no respawns either, ...

Just some food for thought.

r= \*-*/< - <===== I call this one Boom Headshot :P

I pretty much agree with the OP. Grade school is much too young. Perhaps game design could be taught as an elective for juniors and seniors in high school, but I see the exercise as similar to teaching how to write a book or perhaps a screenplay.

Quote:

Original post by Buttacup However an elective in high-school that teaches design patterns, not quite unlike the plays in a football coaches play manual, could be quite beneficial to chemistry students and should most definitely be introduced.

Chemistry? I think not, but how about you further explain your idea?

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by Buttacup However an elective in high-school that teaches design patterns, not quite unlike the plays in a football coaches play manual, could be quite beneficial to chemistry students and should most definitely be introduced. Chemistry? I think not, but how about you further explain your idea?

Nucleophilic Substitution and Elimination reactions are great design patterns easily transposed to the gaming industry... EPM(Electrostatic Potential Maps) could prove quite useful and rearrange in several ways to add a new level of functionality to things such as AI....

How it would help a chemistry student to know game design patterns? Well effectively many of the same tactics are shared between the two fields! The only time I presently recall using a game as an analogy to chemistry related activity was in explaining electromotive force but if you look at how a chemist finds pathways for reactions it is much like finding the possibilities for plays; from a design pattern respect.... I haven't really put anything together yet it's just been something on my mind while I have been studying.... I'm seeing some useful ideas in programming design patterns as well.... observer pattern most recently.

The comment was injected to insight more-so thought on the reverse being how a video game could be more like chemistry with the added advantage of an excuse to introduce a course in highschool, yus? o-o

Quote:

Original post by LessBread I pretty much agree with the OP. Grade school is much too young. Perhaps game design could be taught as an elective for juniors and seniors in high school, but I see the exercise as similar to teaching how to write a book or perhaps a screenplay.

GDC: The Future of Story In Game Design

Quote:

Original post by Buttacup Nucleophilic Substitution and Elimination reactions are great design patterns easily transposed to the gaming industry... EPM(Electrostatic Potential Maps) could prove quite useful and rearrange in several ways to add a new level of functionality to things such as AI.... How it would help a chemistry student to know game design patterns? Well effectively many of the same tactics are shared between the two fields! The only time I presently recall using a game as an analogy to chemistry related activity was in explaining electromotive force but if you look at how a chemist finds pathways for reactions it is much like finding the possibilities for plays; from a design pattern respect.... I haven't really put anything together yet it's just been something on my mind while I have been studying.... I'm seeing some useful ideas in programming design patterns as well.... observer pattern most recently. The comment was injected to insight more-so thought on the reverse being how a video game could be more like chemistry with the added advantage of an excuse to introduce a course in highschool, yus? o-o

Primary education... primary...

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: Original post by Buttacup Nucleophilic Substitution and Elimination reactions are great design patterns easily transposed to the gaming industry... EPM(Electrostatic Potential Maps) could prove quite useful and rearrange in several ways to add a new level of functionality to things such as AI.... How it would help a chemistry student to know game design patterns? Well effectively many of the same tactics are shared between the two fields! The only time I presently recall using a game as an analogy to chemistry related activity was in explaining electromotive force but if you look at how a chemist finds pathways for reactions it is much like finding the possibilities for plays; from a design pattern respect.... I haven't really put anything together yet it's just been something on my mind while I have been studying.... I'm seeing some useful ideas in programming design patterns as well.... observer pattern most recently. The comment was injected to insight more-so thought on the reverse being how a video game could be more like chemistry with the added advantage of an excuse to introduce a course in highschool, yus? o-o Primary education... primary...

I'm not sure what constitutes primary education anymore :( Hell I wasn't quite sure what constituted primary education twelve years ago when I was in it.... He did say highschool! I was building Autonomous Robots and studying books on Neural Physics from MIT..... I didn't fully comprehend the later of the two but I was quite capable of biasing a transistor... I'm sure a twelfth grader would be more than capable of analyzing patterns as approached by game design...

I see a course like this being not quite unlike a Sciences version of Media English...

I'm really not too particular either way on the subject as I will never have to go back to highschool nor will the children I am incapable of having have to suffer such traumas either....

I run away now...

Quote:

Original post by Buttacup Quote: Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by Buttacup However an elective in high-school that teaches design patterns, not quite unlike the plays in a football coaches play manual, could be quite beneficial to chemistry students and should most definitely be introduced. Chemistry? I think not, but how about you further explain your idea? Nucleophilic Substitution and Elimination reactions are great design patterns easily transposed to the gaming industry... EPM(Electrostatic Potential Maps) could prove quite useful and rearrange in several ways to add a new level of functionality to things such as AI....

Those subjects are not taught in high school chemistry.

Quote:

Original post by Buttacup How it would help a chemistry student to know game design patterns? Well effectively many of the same tactics are shared between the two fields! The only time I presently recall using a game as an analogy to chemistry related activity was in explaining electromotive force but if you look at how a chemist finds pathways for reactions it is much like finding the possibilities for plays; from a design pattern respect.... I haven't really put anything together yet it's just been something on my mind while I have been studying.... I'm seeing some useful ideas in programming design patterns as well.... observer pattern most recently.

Shared tactics? As far as high school chemistry goes I think it would be a bad thing to inject the idea that chemical reactions follow design patterns into the classroom. Design implies designer and that's a huge distraction. One area for design in that locale is experimental design - but you've got to remember that high school chemistry is very very basic chemistry. Students are not "finding reaction pathways" and the like. They're still getting used to stoichiometry and mols and so on.

Quote:

Original post by Buttacup The comment was injected to insight more-so thought on the reverse being how a video game could be more like chemistry with the added advantage of an excuse to introduce a course in highschool, yus? o-o

I agree it was an excuse.

You might want to consider using Kodu ... it's a free release from Microsoft Research dept. It enables kids as young as 6yo to learn the basic elements of programming and build games.

If you're thinking about introducing game design to primary school age children, it's the ideal platform.

Oh, and it's great fun :-)

Cheers

Martin Jorgensen
planetkodu.com