I think that would go over better than say working from the ground up just to create a game with a ufo shooting some asteroids in cheesy 2d.

If you'd be so kind as to stop calling 2D graphics cheesy you'd probably come off as less insulting. Not all of us programmers are artists too so we do what we can to get on with our work. You should know by now that the graphics you import into Game Maker (or whatever software) are either going to be what you provide or what your students do on their own. And if the students have been learning from you that means you'll be the one responsible for the way things look either way.

You say that GM:S does that. How exactly does it work/how much do students have to learn to do that?

We are all pretty much experts here at working with software, it wouldn't take us long. If you tried it out yourself you'd get a better idea of how long it'll take a student with little experience.

When someone has a question here, it's not unusual for someone to reply with, "What have you tried?" I think you have to start trying out the tools. Don't be afraid to download something and experiment with it, especially if it's free. It doesn't mean that you have to commit yourself to the software if you think it's not going to work out. And you'll get the best answers to your current questions with some hands on experience. With respect, if you don't have the time to test out a few different tools to see what's going to work then you don't have the time to put together the curriculum for this year.

On a separate note to try to sound less confrontational...

I remember my high school electronics class. No theory to it what so ever, which was disappointing to me but we were guided through enough that we could follow a simple schematic, design and etch a printed circuit board on our own, solder the components on, and prey we did it all correctly so that the project did what it was supposed to. And the experience of doing that was great.

In my opinion, the equivalent of this is indeed a Game Maker project (or similar software). Software like this is certainly a common stepping stone for people interested in game development so it certainly seems appropriate to me. I have used such software something like 25 years ago and while it always felt like I should be actually programming, I did get a bit of a sense of how things can be made to fit together to produce something playable. And seeing your own creation come to life is a rewarding experience regardless of your ability to make something pretty.

I think you should cover minimal theory of actual game design other than looking at the various high level components of what you'll be putting together for the main project. A general overview (mostly identifying that these areas exist) of the areas you'll be looking at to create tile maps, define sprites, create events and define any logic. (are we ignoring sound?)

I think you should constrain the type of game the students will be looking at. Something like saying it'll be an arcade platform style game that has one or more levels that occurs on a single screen (not including any menus or settings and assuming that scrolling beyond the screen adds additional complexity. if it doesn't then go for it) where the player has to collect a number of objects and reach a goal while avoiding enemies (colliding with them means the player looses a life). I believe there's still plenty of room for creativity (there are 1000s of games with this basic gameplay), especially if students do their own graphics. By having a common type of game, that you also attempt before the class starts, you'll be able to provide rudimentary support to at least get it working like yours. If I were a student, I think I'd be happy with that (though I did grow up in the 80's).

"Programming" or "scripting" can come in many forms. Usually we think of it as writing code but it can also be done by entering or selecting information in settings windows (dialog boxes). The software I used 25 years ago did it all through dialog boxes so I'm presuming Game Maker can do a lot in a similar manner. You will not be able to avoid this. If that's a problem or too complex (it really shouldn't be) then you should probably put an end to this plan for a class. As I said before, to get a handle on how much time it'll take or how tough it is to learn, you're best at determining that because we all already have a certain level of understanding which you or your students might not actually have yet.

Take seriously the posts that emphasis the complexity involved in creating a game and consider the possibility that your hopes and expectations for what technology can do just might not be a reality yet.

To deal with students clamoring for something in 3D, put them in the position that you're in right now. Tell them, "This is the software that we'll be working with this year that covers the basics and meets our time constraints (and budget). By all means, go try out some other engines yourself. I hear that Unity and Unreal Engine are a good choice."

I genuinely think the course is a good idea but that you should be planning it for 2017.

It's not that the students would be demanding 3d, it's just what I think looks good- and I am from the 80s (as far as video games go) as well. Donkey Kong is still my favorite game. Although Tekken is also amazing!

FYI the reason I haven't downloaded and started working with software is because there is a lot of stuff I have to do in preparing for the course. If I am confident that a certain approach and software will get me what I need, I can move ahead and then start learning the software this summer in preparation for the course in the fall.

Anyway, I made a remark about that issue- that I don't even know how kids today will view the matter (i.e. are they completely wrapped up in 3d expectations or will the ability to create something 2d be fulfilling enough to not be an issue that it's simple in terms of graphics).

It sounds like you are saying its better for them to build something simple than use 3d forms and have less control/authorship. Or are you? I don't think you directly addressed the question: Is it better to have them do more building and make something simple in 2d or do more collaging and make something that looks fancier-in 3d?

If you'd be so kind as to stop calling 2D graphics cheesy you'd probably come off as less insulting. Not all of us programmers are artists too so we do what we can to get on with our work.

Sorry. Didn't realize that was a touchy subject in your field. Please be patient and remember that I am an art educator, not a computer programmer. If you walked into my world you would be just as clueless.

2D and 3D to game developers is like different kinds of media in fine art. Whether something looks good or not is up to the creation and the audience, and almost never based on the type of medium alone. I agree with you that some of the stock assets that come with game creation toolkits aren't very good, but don't fall into the trap of generalizing an entire medium.

If you'd be so kind as to stop calling 2D graphics cheesy you'd probably come off as less insulting. Not all of us programmers are artists too so we do what we can to get on with our work.

Sorry. Didn't realize that was a touchy subject in your field. Please be patient and remember that I am an art educator, not a computer programmer. If you walked into my world you would be just as clueless.

In fairness, it might just be me and on this particular day. But I do spend hours of time working on my 2D graphics. Though I consider it a hobby and I know there a tons of people that are better than I am, I don't care for the insinuation that 2D graphics are crap. Even if your intent is more to get the interest of your students (which I think you are highly underestimating).

I might be just as clueless in your field. Or not. It's fair to say I don't have the same teaching experience or artistic talent as you likely have. But in this case we're looking at planning a project and everyone here has experience in that.

My suggestions are still the same and I meant it to be constructive. Analyze the tools that have been suggested to you thus far and take seriously those that are saying that you need to pare down your expectations of what technology is currently capable of.

I think you can come up with a good course, but you'd be better off with more time.

Thanks for pointing that out. But what about the idea of using ready made assets (?) and just moving them around (composing) and then choosing actions (whatever the term is)? You say that GM:S does that. How exactly does it work/how much do students have to learn to do that?

Again, time is limited. So yes they are just going to get their toes wet. But if they can just plug in cool looking graphics into a system that already has most of the work done for them, I think that would go over better than say working from the ground up just to create a game with a ufo shooting some asteroids in cheesy 2d. The latter may teach them more of the mechanics, but that's not what I'm prioritizing in an intro class. I am going for a broad approach (paper games, history, art, game making).

They've got about 180 hours of instructional time. Based on your earlier list and discussed revisions, the first 90 hours would be focused on mostly history, art, design, and perhaps a few hours of programming. The second 90 hours would cover GM:S programming by following a textbooks, and the remainder making their own game.

Since your recent post seems to imply you have not downloaded GM:S yet, go play with the free version and contact them (through your school's email system) requesting information on the educational discount and for a key for a single user while you evaluate it.

With this type of tool there are a few barriers. There is an initial learning curve as you wonder how to do anything. Depending on the people involved, this may be five to ten hours. A few hours in you know what the controls do and can figure your way around the program. Another ten to twenty hours (total:15-30 hours) watching tutorial videos and you'll have a quirky little system where things move around on screen and you've got something that forms a simple game. Then you want to start putting in all the fun elements you're thinking about. Each idea typically takes a little longer than the last because you need to make it work with all the other systems. Since the students are only working during class time, plan around 5-10 class hours each for the first five or so big ideas. So five game ideas = 25 to 50 hours (total:40 to 80 hours depending on student aptitude). You'll want menus, sound, effects, and a bit of polish, so there's another ten to twenty hours. (total: 50 to 100 hours). At this point your slower students are out of time and the course is over. The advanced students have time they can help others and still get a great project built.

Even if you provide your own beautiful art assets, students who have never programmed before and who struggle with math are going to struggle to develop a simple game in that 90 hours. GM:S has many existing tools in it, yet still some students are going to struggle to complete their game even if you gave them the entire 90 hours to build the project even if you give them all the art, all the sounds, and they follow along with a book. Programming requires abstraction skills that some people struggle with.

Some students will probably have already had their own programming experiences outside the class, and may have aptitudes in the field. For these students, if they are presented with a good collection of assets, building the game logic will be a simple thing. For these students the 90 hours will be enough to make a masterpiece.

And hopefully you already know how to effectively pair up the more advanced students with the students who are lagging behind. The more advanced students get a reinforcement, the students who fall behind get more support as long as they are paired appropriately.

On a separate note to try to sound less confrontational...

Huh???
You are imagining that.

Please read more carefully. He was saying HE was trying to sound less confrontational in what he wrote after the ellipsis.

If you'd be so kind as to stop calling 2D graphics cheesy you'd probably come off as less insulting. Not all of us programmers are artists too so we do what we can to get on with our work.

Sorry. Didn't realize that was a touchy subject in your field.

A lot of the touchiness you've seen in our replies is because you started off dismissive, opinionated, and arrogant. Your characterization of all 2D graphics as cheesy is just one example of the attitude you've presented in this thread. Your tone has improved a little, but you do backslide now and then. Just so you know.

Can you tell us now, 11 days after starting this thread, which books that we've suggested you have ordered or started to read, and what software you have downloaded and started to try out? Because so far all we've seen is 11 days of talk.

FYI the reason I haven't downloaded and started working with software is because there is a lot of stuff I have to do in preparing for the course. If I am confident that a certain approach and software will get me what I need, I can move ahead and then start learning the software this summer in preparation for the course in the fall.

As an educator myself, I can't see how you can begin to prepare the course without first having even tried any of the software.

I didn't see this reply earlier.

It's not that the students would be demanding 3d, it's just what I think looks good- and I am from the 80s (as far as video games go) as well. Donkey Kong is still my favorite game. Although Tekken is also amazing!

FYI the reason I haven't downloaded and started working with software is because there is a lot of stuff I have to do in preparing for the course. If I am confident that a certain approach and software will get me what I need, I can move ahead and then start learning the software this summer in preparation for the course in the fall.

If it were me, I think I'd want 2 months of actually building the game and creating the documents and presentation material for students to follow along with. That's after familiarizing myself with the software. I don't know you and I'm totally making a guess about your skills with new software here but I suggest that you allow yourself more time to become familiar with the software.

Anyway, I made a remark about that issue- that I don't even know how kids today will view the matter (i.e. are they completely wrapped up in 3d expectations or will the ability to create something 2d be fulfilling enough to not be an issue that it's simple in terms of graphics).

As for a modern kid's expectations... Well, certainly everyone wants their ideas to be realized in the most spectacular way they can imagine. But as it happens we're living in an age where a large share of the game market has taken a step backwards from the most advanced technology to make immersive experiences into the form of mobile games that just aim to be entertaining for a period of time. While many mobile games are indeed 3D, many more are 2D and have the appearance of something that could've been available 20 years ago. In other words, yes, they have indeed been exposed to these games that are not AAA titles that have 9 figure budgets. They all likely carry several titles on their smart phones.

It sounds like you are saying its better for them to build something simple than use 3d forms and have less control/authorship. Or are you? I don't think you directly addressed the question: Is it better to have them do more building and make something simple in 2d or do more collaging and make something that looks fancier-in 3d?

I am saying that you're going to be screwed if 25% of your class wants to make an RPG, another 25% want to make a platform game, another 25% want to make a puzzle of some kind, 5 % want to make a Yu-Gi-Oh card game clone, and the rest want to make a Call of Duty clone (which GM won't be able to handle at all). I can believe that you'll be prepared for one type of game by September but not all four and any others I haven't thought of. You need constraints on the type of project that everyone will be working on. At the very least until such time you have more than a rudimentary understanding of the software.

I am also saying that what you are hoping can be automatically taken care of by software like GM is not something that currently exists. It likely will one day but not for some time. It's already been said that 3D stuff is hard. When you said earlier that you were giong to drop the notion of working in 3D, I respected that and saw how this course might come together. In my limited experience with Blender, years ago, I was fighting a lot with the controls and it took weeks to model something that looked even close to a person. And that was before any attempts to colourize the model or try to rig up the skeleton to be able to move it around. I can imagine a course that focuses on Blender specifically might go ok for someone well prepared but not as part of a game creation course with the time constraints you have.

You seem to be a bit concerned about stifling creativity. I don't think it's going to be an issue. Especially if the students are able to create their own art assets. Even if they use something you provide, there's still opportunities for creative level design or anything else they might be bold enough to try on their own. I would suggest that being given some limits can actually encourage creativity more than being given wide freedom.

I don't really care for stock assets either. But I if that's what I have to work with I would certainly try damn hard to take what I'm given and make something awesome.

Reading through this thread makes me wonder, gameteacher, if you ever play some of the retro/classic video games from the 70s, 80s, and 90s (assuming that's around the years you were growing up)?

Not asking if you have touched a joystick, or maybe pop in some quarters, but I am talking about getting really into it. Playing it so hard, immersing yourself, and loving it.

Angry Birds or Farmville do not count! (jk)

A lot of people who got into video game development started with this passion. It's the biggest reason why they are willing to put in thousands of hours into making their own. And your students will come with this passion, and if you don't share that passion, I think you'll be at lost of how to direct your students, regardless of your tools.

If you don't, that's something that you are going to have to learn.

If you have had that, that's something that you have to dig back deep from your memory.

If you have that passion, you wouldn't be saying things the way you are saying it now. A lot of games nowadays are using 3D graphics, but intentionally redraw the whole thing in 2D style. Example here. Why? Why do you think the developers chose this style? First is the retro feel. Second, the side-scrolling action that 2D games brought has its own design elements that you can't have in the immersive-movie-like-cutscene-full-of-camera-pans 3D graphics. Coincidentally, they are typically easier to create and play.

A lot classics like Tetris, Asteroids, Zelda, Metroid, Doom brought in that new experience to players, and you need to know what that experience is or was. You need to get excited over some tiny mechanics inside a larger game. Get excited over how the games are presented. Get excited over every single details.

A lot of the touchiness you've seen in our replies is because you started off dismissive, opinionated, and arrogant. Your characterization of all 2D graphics as cheesy is just one example of the attitude you've presented in this thread. Your tone has improved a little, but you do backslide now and then. Just so you know.

Nothing I've said has been remotely arrogant. On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that I am new to this, it's not my field, and I appreciate the support. As for the 2d comments, I already explained that I didn't know that was a touchy subject. I figured since I'd be talking to pros on this forum, you'd all be making things like that playstation madden thing- sorry.

Can you tell us now, 11 days after starting this thread, which books that we've suggested you have ordered or started to read, and what software you have downloaded and started to try out? Because so far all we've seen is 11 days of talk.

At least 3 or 4 of the books. The talk has been building my ideas for the course. It's been helpful to me though you don't think it would be I guess. But it is.

As an educator myself, I can't see how you can begin to prepare the course without first having even tried any of the software.

Because it involves so much more than the mechanics of software.

If it were me, I think I'd want 2 months of actually building the game and creating the documents and presentation material for students to follow along with. That's after familiarizing myself with the software. I don't know you and I'm totally making a guess about your skills with new software here but I suggest that you allow yourself more time to become familiar with the software.

Point taken. Maybe I'll start learning the software in May.

In other words, yes, they have indeed been exposed to these games that are not AAA titles that have 9 figure budgets. They all likely carry several titles on their smart phones.

Good to know and I see your point. They play apps that have primitive graphics and MineCraft, which appears to be the biggest game since Pac Man is all retro graphics- which while I don't understand the appeal, certainly has set a standard. So maybe they don't need 3d.

I am saying that you're going to be screwed if 25% of your class wants to make an RPG, another 25% want to make a platform game, another 25% want to make a puzzle of some kind, 5 % want to make a Yu-Gi-Oh card game clone, and the rest want to make a Call of Duty clone (which GM won't be able to handle at all). I can believe that you'll be prepared for one type of game by September but not all four and any others I haven't thought of. You need constraints on the type of project that everyone will be working on. At the very least until such time you have more than a rudimentary understanding of the software.

No way I'm going to break the course up like that. I'm still confused IS there a program with 3d ready made stuff kids can plug into backgrounds, collage-style???

I don't really care for stock assets either. But I if that's what I have to work with I would certainly try damn hard to take what I'm given and make something awesome.

So where do I get them?

I'm confident GameTeacher has plenty of enthusiasm.

Sorry. Didn't realize that was a touchy subject in your field. Please be patient and remember that I am an art educator, not a computer programmer. If you walked into my world you would be just as clueless.

...

I figured since I'd be talking to pros on this forum, you'd all be making things like that playstation madden thing- sorry.

Ouch.

Well, in my spare time I make things like that playstation madden thing.

Actually, I was thinking of teaching Art next year, but I gots no experience - could help me with that?

Here's what I got so far:

Lesson plan 1:

Do roll call. Think of nicknames.

Introduce myself.

Instruct students to draw/paint/paper-mache something.

Wait for bell/siren to sound for class to be over.

Any advice you could give me to improve my methods would be greatly appreciated.