IT University Game Development 2008 project videos

[Ascard]

The course is a part of the Media Technology and Games degree, which has two lines: Design and Analysis and Technology. The first is about game design and the second about programming which means that the games should not be judged too much on the visuals as there were no real artists.

Then they will not be Properly Prepared. I teach a class, and the goal is to be artistic in your programming and Level design. Making it work is pie, but making it awesome is the challenge. We use source, and after 2 years, the games I've made with the students I had, were sadly alot better. I'd expect more from a 4 year class.

Zackers course does sound pretty broad 2 me, more of an overview of development and then an attempt to put some ideas into practice, to use Unreal on the first attempt and come out with something abstract is quite an achievement.

If this is the first shot at a game you really shouldn't class these pupils as 4 years of games dev study but 4 years of creative media studies (photography, cinemotography, compositing, narrative studies, journalism, media and audience and whatever else usually comes under that bracket), and some of these concepts ( or as I interpret the trailers which I assume are accompanied by presentations to anchor them) seem very intresting to me with a few scripters and artists or just experience, there's room for strong products imho

[2d-chris]

Oh great work for a 5-6 month development cycle with half a dozen people. Might I remind negative posters who diss Uni projects it usually takes a good year for professionals in much larger groups to make modern games, consering your often starting from no experience at all.

That being said, I think these broad and generalized course's can be useful, but then you don't really spend long enough doing a single aspect to stand out in a world full of so many talented modders. This is why usually a released modification far outweighs the importance of a game course, not always though I guess it depends how old school and clued in the developers are.

My suggestion to any "general" game development school would be to split the 4 year cycle into 2 phases, the first year would be a genral outlook of the different jobs commonly seen in game development, art, animation, design and programming. Then after that year you decide which aspect of development interests you the most and the following 3 years are spent learning that skill to a compitent level, certainly enough to get a job as a junior. The biggest downside to a system like this is the amount of special teachers you would need.

That way, you could potentially team up and make something really good, it's far better speaking from some experience than having everyone in the group think they should design, make art and code :S What a royal mess.

Anyway, bravo.

[Ascard]

I agree I think the generalised courses are a great resource especially for producers, the main problem with them IMO though is they tend to attract people who arn't sure what they want to do, and arn't likely to have a paticularly strong aptitude for code or art as those students are more likely to have taken a course with more direction.

Generally speaking these kinds of course end up pushing out wanna be producers and designers in the final years and therefore the group projects tend to be have great ideas but not much content.

In England our courses are mostly 3 years long, the first 2 years are broad knowledge and the final year directed study into your chosen field in a individual 'and' a group project. Being directed rather than taught cuts on the number of specialist tutors required. Individual projects are generally strong whereas group projects tend to spend alot of time again arguing about roles... >.>

[Minos]

I like to think that it's not about how good or bad a course is, but how interested YOU are. I'm saying this because there are 35 students in my class (I study Graphics and Product Design) and only about 5 out of them are really interested (myself included). Those are the people who research new techniques, browse design sites daily, buy design mags, take all assignments seriously and most specially, spend their free time improving their skills instead of just waiting for a teacher to teach them everything. Those people usually surprise teachers with inovative and good looking works, whereas the rest of the class just go with the flow and don't give a shit to anything, creating shitty designs and just wasting their time and money.

If an outsider look at my work he's going to think my course is the best. If the same people look at some of the "crowd guys"'s work he's gonna think the exact opposite.

My course is pretty generalistic but I have always had in mind what i wanted to do, so I "specialize" myself in my free time. This should be the case for game courses student, they should decide which field they want to work and improve their skills in their free time. Being a generalist is not bad but you have to excel in at least the area most interests you.

[Ascard]

Yeaps i defo agree, unfortunatly its painfully difficult to fail a degree, and those that see the degree its self as there target coast through, as opposed to those that aim to top thier field