Let me start by immediately apologizing to Brian Nathanson. He’s about to get the brunt of my anger for something I’ve been dealing with for some time now, and I apologize that he just happened to publish an article that I so strongly disagree with right as I was thinking I needed to write another post on game education and its role in breaking in to the game industry.

I am, in some respects, an industry “insider.” I’ve worked at one game studio and one game middleware startup. I’ve gone through crunch on a triple A title, I’ve helped ship patches and expansions on said title, and I was around for the pre-production of another triple A title due out soon. But, I only graduated from James Madison a scant 4 years ago (almost to the day, wow), so I feel I still have that connection to what it is like to be trying to break in. In another few years, I’ll probably be too far removed to give this same advice, but for now I feel like I still know enough about what it’s like that I can make some educated comments. Unfortunately, these comments are going to be directed at Brian, since he’s publicly come out to talk about his experiences at a game school. Again, I’m sorry Brian.

First I want to enumerate what Brian did wrong, though some of this is going to be speculation from talking to other people that have had the same problems. First, Brian went to a school with a game program, probably without visiting the school, without knowing its teaching methodologies, it’s success rate, and probably only because it offered a game development program. This is a mistake. Do your research on a school. If you haven’t read my GCG article on the subject, please do. What you will learn is that there are a lot of things that make a school good or bad for any given student looking to go into game development, and the existence or non-existence of a game development program is not one of them. If Brian had visited his school before hand, he probably would have noticed that there are very few game companies in Arizona (comparatively) which means very few opportunities outside of the classroom, and that the school’s staff was (probably) made up of mostly educators that were re-tasked into the game development program when they heard that game development programs were the next big thing. That would have set off warning bells saying this was probably not a place he wanted to go to school. But hey, game development degree means you’ll work in the game industry right?

Which brings me to Brian’s second mistake. He assumed that having a game development degree would entitle him to a position at a game development company. Because of this, he didn’t work on networking and he didn’t put the extra effort he needed into his portfolio (which he admits is not very competitive). I’ve actually heard this same “rant” from other people as well, at many different schools. They feel that a game degree somehow entitles them to a position at a game company, to which I say you are deluding yourself. Regardless of where you go and what you study, you’re going to have to put work into networking and you’re going to have to put work into being as good as you can be in your particular field. It’s a supply and demand issue. There’s a huge supply of people that want to be in the industry, and a fixed demand, partially determined by the amount of money that is flowing into it at any given time.

Which actually brings me to the crux of what I hate about this article. It’s encased in these two quotes from Brian. First:

I believe the industry needs to allow for outside and inexperienced people to reinvigorate the game development process. I believe that those who have a shipped title on their resumes, while talented and dedicated, perhaps are closer to burning out than an individual out to make his or her mark…. Individuals with base skill sets and true passion are ready and waiting to be given a chance to shine. These talented and passionate people bring fresh new energy and commitment into an industry that seems to always be juggling profitability with volatility. New ideas, new game mechanics, and new appeal could be created by those who just want to make a game they would like to play. Smaller, more tightly focused, and perhaps less expensive games could be the result if the industry allowed more inexperienced developers to work while growing their skill sets.

I hear this all the time. This is bullshit masquerading as wisdom. Yes, you’re right, the industry needs more new people, more fresh ideas, and more companies should take risks on recent graduates. I myself was a risk, and I’m very glad that someone somewhere decided that I was a risk worth taking, hiring me into the game industry after only a year of non-game work. But there are companies out there that hire interns all the time (EA, Bethesda, Harmonix, Ubisoft and LucasArts just to name a few) so there are people out there taking the risk of getting new energy. But this idea that all you need is a base skill set and passion? No. If you had enough passion you’d find a way other than getting a game development degree and you wouldn’t be writing this article. In addition, there’s nothing stopping you from doing a small, tightly focused game with a few friends on the cheap, but that’s not what you want. If it was, you’d be doing it regardless of anything else. What you want is a job at a big game company doing big games, and you’re upset they won’t hire you straight out of college when you don’t have any experience save what your teacher assigned you.  Sorry, but there are people out there in the giant supply of recent graduates that did more, regardless of whether they have a game development degree or not.

It comes down to this: If you really wanted to make games, you’d be making them. Stop giving me the excuse that the guys with the money aren’t giving you the time of day. You make something interesting enough, the guys with the money eventually come knocking.

But the last idea here is what I think really misses the mark:

Having more game education schools at more recognizable public universities would attract more people into the field and would go a long way toward getting more women involved in the industry.

Because having a computer science school at basically every major public university got more women interested in computer science? Sorry, this is completely off the mark. There are people that work very hard getting more women (and other minorities too) involved in the hard sciences and in computer game development. The only thing this solution does is make game development degrees more common, which is not something we need to see. Sorry.

In the end, I think Brian’s just frustrated with the closed nature of the industry, and I can understand that. But, again, it comes down to supply and demand. Lots of people want to be in the game industry because games are cool.  But not many actually want to really make games, and the distinction is very very key (though we can get into that another time).  For now, though, the only way we can tell the difference between these candidates is by the amount of work they put in to actually being a part of the industry. Regardless of what school you’re at do these things (though the good schools will make you do this anyway): Go to GDC. Go to IGDA meetings. Network. Have your own personal projects.  Prototype games small games.  Finish small games.  Do stuff outside of class and show us that you really want to MAKE games.  Show us that you’re worth the risk and we’ll take it. If you’re not going to bother, why should we?

(Final disclaimer: I’m not trying to put down all game schools here.  There are some great ones, and there are some programs I wish were available when I was looking for schools, but honestly, do your research before going anywhere that advertises a game development program.  Most of them really suck.  In addition, I don’t know Brian and I’ve never met him, so I’m potentially putting a lot of words in his mouth.  This is not intentional.  I’m ore using him as a name for lots of other people who have had similar complaints in the past.)