Bottom line on this is that you guys need to look at student work online created by these programs to see what has actually been made to know what students can actually produce in one course (as do I-lol).

Yeah, because we're all "brand new" to this too. We have no idea. We were never students ourselves, so we can't possibly know.

I always wondered where the fine line between optimism and crazy was.

You want MHO? I think you're only pretending to be a teacher, desperately trying to find out if there is a shortcut into the industry - and you're being disappointed to find out that there is no shortcut.

To do your work for you would deprive someone else of their income for their hard work in preparing a 'curriculum'. So stop being lazy and look at the suggestions provided earlier in this thread. Those are the only free "shortcuts" - it's a long road after that, that goes in different directions.

You want to make a Game-Development Primer course, then you need to know what you're talking about by studying everything yourself (your deluding yourself thinking it can just be picked up by the students themselves in a short time). But then you say you want "cool" graphics, not "cheesy" ones (Oh really? Never seen that request before, "GameTeacher".)

I play along because it amuses me, but I'm too old be that easily tricked.

I still think the chances are good that you are Alex Peake (who owes a lot of people money) - Or perhaps, the NEXT Alex Peake, "Alex Peake 2.0"

Yeah, because we're all "brand new" to this too. We have no idea. We were never students ourselves, so we can't possibly know.

Clearly you have no idea what kids are producing currently with what's available.

You want MHO? I think you're only pretending to be a teacher, desperately trying to find out if there is a shortcut into the industry - and you're being disappointed to find out that there is no shortcut.

A little paranoid are we?

To do your work for you would deprive someone else of their income for their hard work in preparing a 'curriculum'.

Again, you have no clue how educators work. I don't know about your industry. Perhaps most people in it are guarded? Educators are big on sharing.

But then you say you want "cool" graphics, not "cheesy" ones (Oh really? Never seen that request before, "GameTeacher".)

What do you mean you've never seen that request before???

I still think the chances are good that you are Alex Peake (who owes a lot of people money) - Or perhaps, the NEXT Alex Peake, "Alex Peake 2.0"

Is that guy some kind of a hated person in your industry or something?

So here are the steps I'm considering:

1. Collect curricular ideas and lessons from high school teachers already teaching the subject (game design/development).
2. Look at college-level curriculum and syllabi to get an idea of what colleges are doing.
3. Read up on theory and practice of game design to understand the field
4. Determine what software I will be using (kept limited to 1 or 2 modeling programs and 1 or 2 game/animation programs).
5. Learn the software on my own to a rudimentary level
6. Start the course with concepts (board and card games, etc.) with units that explore each concept in depth
7. Gradually introduce software and let students play with it to get a feel for how it works
8. Culminate each semester or the school year with games students have designed with the software

I think again that you are looking at game development generally, not game design.

Your step 8, the final result you hope students to get out of the course, is probably the most telling aspect. You want them to have completed a running game, not design a game.

Far more likely you are looking for an introduction to game development across all disciplines rather than only the single discipline of game design. My suspicion is even stronger that this is what you are looking for, mentioned in the earlier example:

Since you linked to successfully completed games by student, a broad game development across all disciplines, my hunch is that game design is probably the smallest aspect of the course that you will teach that age group. You will probably start with the basics of the tools you will use, then start with the content pipeline for getting art and animation in the game, quickly build up some simple levels. Then off to programming to give them the ability to bind the pieces into something useful. Then will be iteration on all of those, the content pipeline, tool usage, and programming, until they are able to actually construct something that holds their interest. Only after those skills have been developed are you likely to actually get into the barest fundamentals of design, of the psychology of play, of the understanding of emotion and fun, of balance and imbalance, of building precept upon precept, on crafting designs that can be reused, on building a small number of carefully crafted parts that are easily understood and enable depth of play.

If instead you want to focus only on design, I would run a course based on topics like the psychology of fun, the nature of fun versus mechanical tasks of the Skinner box. I would have presentations consisting of specific genres of games. Evaluate clips from the breakthrough games and disect what makes them so good.

Portal is awesome for being a continuous tutorial where you learn something and then apply it, learn something new and apply it, and continuously learn and apply a few basic skills applied in new ways. The Legend of Zelda family similarly introduces game mechanics one at a time. First you wander the world and learn the basics of that; then you get a sword and learn the basics of using it as new aspects of the world open to you; you gain another item, typically a boomerang, which opens new avenues of the world; you gain a new item, perhaps a hookshot, and new avenues are again opened. Each time you gain a simple mechanic and it transforms the world around you.

Evaluate psychology of games, what makes horror games horrifying? What makes toy games as toys? What makes a good card game? What makes a good strategy game? Why?

I would evaluate maps, and levels, what makes them good and what makes them bad, and why. Different genres need different things for different reasons. For games where you progress, how does the system facilitate learning and skill gaining and progression of the player? For competitive games, how can you ensure each player has equally fair positions? How can you ensure the game is continually unbalanced, no matter where you are you have a weakness that can be exploited, but at the same time every aspect has an advantage that can be exploited?

For story telling games, how can you communicate the story through gameplay? How can you tell story through interactive revelations, make the player experience the game through the eyes of a participant? How can you tell the narratives through careful design? What design choices enable story-telling, what limits your ability to tell the tale?

Again, because you have repeatedly mentioned a desire for students to finish the course with a completed game that they have built, I'm fairly sure you are talking about a course focusing a little bit on each aspect of game development. That means touching briefly on art, animation, programming, audio, testing, level design, each with enough depth that a student can create something cohesive as a full game. Once they've got enough building blocks from every discipline they can build their bigger trophy.

3. Read up on theory and practice of game design to understand the field
4. Determine what software I will be using

But you're still using the term "game design" incorrectly.

So here are the steps I'm considering:

1. Collect curricular ideas and lessons from high school teachers already teaching the subject (game design/development).
2. Look at college-level curriculum and syllabi to get an idea of what colleges are doing.
3. Read up on theory and practice of game design to understand the field
4. Determine what software I will be using (kept limited to 1 or 2 modeling programs and 1 or 2 game/animation programs).
5. Learn the software on my own to a rudimentary level
6. Start the course with concepts (board and card games, etc.) with units that explore each concept in depth
7. Gradually introduce software and let students play with it to get a feel for how it works
8. Culminate each semester or the school year with games students have designed with the software

I think again that you are looking at game development generally, not game design.

Your step 8, the final result you hope students to get out of the course, is probably the most telling aspect. You want them to have completed a running game, not design a game.

Far more likely you are looking for an introduction to game development across all disciplines rather than only the single discipline of game design. My suspicion is even stronger that this is what you are looking for, mentioned in the earlier example:

Since you linked to successfully completed games by student, a broad game development across all disciplines, my hunch is that game design is probably the smallest aspect of the course that you will teach that age group. You will probably start with the basics of the tools you will use, then start with the content pipeline for getting art and animation in the game, quickly build up some simple levels. Then off to programming to give them the ability to bind the pieces into something useful. Then will be iteration on all of those, the content pipeline, tool usage, and programming, until they are able to actually construct something that holds their interest. Only after those skills have been developed are you likely to actually get into the barest fundamentals of design, of the psychology of play, of the understanding of emotion and fun, of balance and imbalance, of building precept upon precept, on crafting designs that can be reused, on building a small number of carefully crafted parts that are easily understood and enable depth of play.

If instead you want to focus only on design, I would run a course based on topics like the psychology of fun, the nature of fun versus mechanical tasks of the Skinner box. I would have presentations consisting of specific genres of games. Evaluate clips from the breakthrough games and disect what makes them so good.

Portal is awesome for being a continuous tutorial where you learn something and then apply it, learn something new and apply it, and continuously learn and apply a few basic skills applied in new ways. The Legend of Zelda family similarly introduces game mechanics one at a time. First you wander the world and learn the basics of that; then you get a sword and learn the basics of using it as new aspects of the world open to you; you gain another item, typically a boomerang, which opens new avenues of the world; you gain a new item, perhaps a hookshot, and new avenues are again opened. Each time you gain a simple mechanic and it transforms the world around you.

Evaluate psychology of games, what makes horror games horrifying? What makes toy games as toys? What makes a good card game? What makes a good strategy game? Why?

I would evaluate maps, and levels, what makes them good and what makes them bad, and why. Different genres need different things for different reasons. For games where you progress, how does the system facilitate learning and skill gaining and progression of the player? For competitive games, how can you ensure each player has equally fair positions? How can you ensure the game is continually unbalanced, no matter where you are you have a weakness that can be exploited, but at the same time every aspect has an advantage that can be exploited?

For story telling games, how can you communicate the story through gameplay? How can you tell story through interactive revelations, make the player experience the game through the eyes of a participant? How can you tell the narratives through careful design? What design choices enable story-telling, what limits your ability to tell the tale?

Again, because you have repeatedly mentioned a desire for students to finish the course with a completed game that they have built, I'm fairly sure you are talking about a course focusing a little bit on each aspect of game development. That means touching briefly on art, animation, programming, audio, testing, level design, each with enough depth that a student can create something cohesive as a full game. Once they've got enough building blocks from every discipline they can build their bigger trophy.

It seems what you are describing is a completely different course. I'll put it bluntly: I want to design a course where kids MAKE video games. Because time is limited (it will be a one-year course with no pre-requisite- to start), I will cover general aspects of game design, then teach software, then have the kids make the video games. Again, enough user-friendly programs and high school classes in game DEVELOPMENT (happy? :) ) exist that this is reasonable. It will be a matter of my selecting how in-depth to go, and it will be a matter of how powerful yet simple the software available is to allow kids to create exciting games in a relatively short period of time.

I plan to have students working collaboratively and really focusing on process, with a lot of drawing and diagramming. That's how I have always had students work in my art classes

So how does that work? Do you team up the students who are left handed to work on the left side of the canvas, with the students who are right handed to work on the right side of the canvas?

I give you points for creative inquiry, but I know when you say "students", that you really mean your "other/fellow (inexperienced) team members".

Might as well cut to the chase: So, what's this game you are trying to make?

Might as well cut to the chase: So, what's this game you are trying to make?

Like I said, I have no idea. I just want it to be as cool as it can be within the realm of learnable-do-able.

So here are the steps I'm considering:

1. Collect curricular ideas and lessons from high school teachers already teaching the subject (game design/development).

2. Look at college-level curriculum and syllabi to get an idea of what colleges are doing.

3. Read up on theory and practice of game design to understand the field

4. Determine what software I will be using (kept limited to 1 or 2 modeling programs and 1 or 2 game/animation programs).

5. Learn the software on my own to a rudimentary level

6. Start the course with concepts (board and card games, etc.) with units that explore each concept in depth

7. Gradually introduce software and let students play with it to get a feel for how it works

8. Culminate each semester or the school year with games students have designed with the software

I'm all for there being more game design teachers out there. But what worries me is when you say, "Gain a rudimentary understanding of the software." I've never heard of this for any other subject being taught. A math teacher doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of their math subject, and neither does an english teacher. They have the opposite: a mastery of their subject. If you can't teach the software beyond a rudimentary understanding, then what are you really offerring for your students as far as a teacher?

I actually took a college game design class. We learned to build a 2d space shooter and learned about collision detection, basic AI, game states (start screen, options screen, etc.) and other stuff. Our teacher had a great understanding of the software he was teaching and thus he was able to teach us deeper and deeper throughout the course.

The core of your class will probably be with using the software to learn about game creation. So I'd hope you'd master or at least have a strong understanding of how to use it.

I'm all for there being more game design teachers out there. But what worries me is when you say, "Gain a rudimentary understanding of the software." I've never heard of this for any other subject being taught. A math teacher doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of their math subject, and neither does an english teacher. They have the opposite: a mastery of their subject. If you can't teach the software beyond a rudimentary understanding, then what are you really offerring for your students as far as a teacher?

I actually took a college game design class. We learned to build a 2d space shooter and learned about collision detection, basic AI, game states (start screen, options screen, etc.) and other stuff. Our teacher had a great understanding of the software he was teaching and thus he was able to teach us deeper and deeper throughout the course.

The core of your class will probably be with using the software to learn about game creation. So I'd hope you'd master or at least have a strong understanding of how to use it.

I will answer this in two ways. Firstly, a great teacher doesn't have to have a mastery of the software. As I always tell my students, the tools are just what we use to make the work. Anybody can learn that-its vocational education. What I do as an educator is teach students how to think better and how to learn. The tools (whether a paintbrush or software) are merely a way to put into form the ideas we are working with in class. My rudimentary knowledge of other types of software has never been a problem in the past. Besides, students don't move to much farther than this in the course of a year-long class. Some do, and I and other students learn from them. This is quite basic in pedagogy. As for the argument that if you know the program well you can take things further and solve problems, again in practical application that has never been an issue.

My second response is that with so much stuff to learn to teach such a course, one has to choose what to focus on. Since my background is in art my emphasis will be more on the aesthetics of video games. You can argue about this all you want, but everything in the field of games is a specialty. I will be making choices based on a number of variables, including what I am reasonably capable of learning and teaching.

Some on this thread have complained about their own poor education. If the instructors had been pros at the software, it would not have made much difference. They would have to be good educators first. And unfortunately nobody who is a game designer is going to be teaching full-time in a high school setting. And who wouldn't want, as a student, to have this opportunity!