What you are now describing is called a tutorial. Unity 3D and Unreal Engine 4 provides these on their website, some of which also include the 3D assets for free as well.

A fairly simple suggestion but it might help is the book "Challenges for Game Designers" by Brenda Romero. It teaches a lot of the basic concepts of game design in interesting ways and has a lot of challenges to try out these concepts. These are usually pen and paper/board games but the ideas can be easily applied to video games as well. I did a number of workshops with Brenda where she ran some of these challenges in groups and they were very fun and interesting and could translate well to a classroom environment. Certainly for some of the early weeks in your class anyway.

Here's another way I could describe what I'd like the students to be able to make, as I took a look at some Game Maker student work and it was all quite simplistic (low-res and so forth).

Is there software (or do you guys call them "engines"?) where students are given a library or ready made 3d forms that they can just arrange into spaces and "program" the actions? That way they would have some creative opportunity but wouldn't have to actually design the assets (is that the term?). An earlier poster on this thread described something like this but what software would be best?

Now I could be totally wrong. Maybe the students won't find the low-res 2d stuff bad. Maybe there's enough in the experience of making a game that it will still be exciting. I have no idea how they look at this kind of thing. I just know that video games now look like live action film! And that's what they are getting used to. Will a low-res game with more creative control be better to them than a 3d game with cool graphics that they kind of collage together? I don't know if any of you have used Google Sketchup before, but it has a thing called "3d warehouse" where you can import ready made stuff, in fact things that people around the world have made and put into a library to share. Students have incorporated these types of images into things they've built in 3d in Sketchup and it not only looks good but is a legitimate way of making images (again, basically collage).

I think the reason the student-made games you saw are simplistic is not due to limitations of GameMaker:Studio, but due instead to the fact that making games is hard. The big-budget games people play have their effort counted in centuries of work-years, many taking 700, 800, even 1000 combined work-years to create a beautiful product. A product with around ten to twenty work-years invested tend to be relegated to the bargain bin. Even many of the low-quality free downloads on app stores tend to be on the order of multiple work-years of effort.

My guess is the work you are calling low quality student work came from other courses exactly like yours. The students have one or two semesters taking in as much as they can before producing their first real work.

Students may be used to looking at games that are polished and look like film. They're used to finished game products that have 9-digit development costs. But it is unrealistic, perhaps delusional, to have similar expectations for their first work.

Using an engine does save time, yes, and that is exactly what GameMaker:Studio does for you. Without the tools the process would be completely out of reach of most high school students.

Over the span of about 60 to 100 hours an experienced game developer can leverage a game engine to create a fun but still rudimentary game. The time allotted is barely enough to gain the minimum skills and exercise them. A few students may work outside of class and spend another 20-30 hours on the project, but most will only spend class time. If you've got one semester on GM:S, 20 weeks at 4.5 hours, or 90 hours total, that is barely enough time to both learn the system and craft something worth showing in it. Students will need to be working out their projects outside of class to accomplish something of enough quality to show off to friends.

An attempt to subdivide that further, into both 2D and 3D work, is likely to be a disaster. Most of the students would be looking at about 45 hours of total exposure to the system, that isn't enough time even for an experienced professional who knows a 3D tool to put together anything more than the most rudimentary prototype. Since students don't have any background, the choice would be setting them up for failure.

The students are more likely to discover the truth that developing computer software (like most worthwhile tasks) requires significant hard work. A full year course could wet their toes a little in the subject.

A fairly simple suggestion but it might help is the book "Challenges for Game Designers" by Brenda Romero. It teaches a lot of the basic concepts of game design in interesting ways and has a lot of challenges to try out these concepts. These are usually pen and paper/board games but the ideas can be easily applied to video games as well. I did a number of workshops with Brenda where she ran some of these challenges in groups and they were very fun and interesting and could translate well to a classroom environment. Certainly for some of the early weeks in your class anyway.

Thanks for the tip. I am in the process of getting as many highly recommended books as possible.

Here's another way I could describe what I'd like the students to be able to make, as I took a look at some Game Maker student work and it was all quite simplistic (low-res and so forth).

Is there software (or do you guys call them "engines"?) where students are given a library or ready made 3d forms that they can just arrange into spaces and "program" the actions? That way they would have some creative opportunity but wouldn't have to actually design the assets (is that the term?). An earlier poster on this thread described something like this but what software would be best?

Now I could be totally wrong. Maybe the students won't find the low-res 2d stuff bad. Maybe there's enough in the experience of making a game that it will still be exciting. I have no idea how they look at this kind of thing. I just know that video games now look like live action film! And that's what they are getting used to. Will a low-res game with more creative control be better to them than a 3d game with cool graphics that they kind of collage together? I don't know if any of you have used Google Sketchup before, but it has a thing called "3d warehouse" where you can import ready made stuff, in fact things that people around the world have made and put into a library to share. Students have incorporated these types of images into things they've built in 3d in Sketchup and it not only looks good but is a legitimate way of making images (again, basically collage).

I think the reason the student-made games you saw are simplistic is not due to limitations of GameMaker:Studio, but due instead to the fact that making games is hard. The big-budget games people play have their effort counted in centuries of work-years, many taking 700, 800, even 1000 combined work-years to create a beautiful product. A product with around ten to twenty work-years invested tend to be relegated to the bargain bin. Even many of the low-quality free downloads on app stores tend to be on the order of multiple work-years of effort.

My guess is the work you are calling low quality student work came from other courses exactly like yours. The students have one or two semesters taking in as much as they can before producing their first real work.

Students may be used to looking at games that are polished and look like film. They're used to finished game products that have 9-digit development costs. But it is unrealistic, perhaps delusional, to have similar expectations for their first work.

Using an engine does save time, yes, and that is exactly what GameMaker:Studio does for you. Without the tools the process would be completely out of reach of most high school students.

Over the span of about 60 to 100 hours an experienced game developer can leverage a game engine to create a fun but still rudimentary game. The time allotted is barely enough to gain the minimum skills and exercise them. A few students may work outside of class and spend another 20-30 hours on the project, but most will only spend class time. If you've got one semester on GM:S, 20 weeks at 4.5 hours, or 90 hours total, that is barely enough time to both learn the system and craft something worth showing in it. Students will need to be working out their projects outside of class to accomplish something of enough quality to show off to friends.

An attempt to subdivide that further, into both 2D and 3D work, is likely to be a disaster. Most of the students would be looking at about 45 hours of total exposure to the system, that isn't enough time even for an experienced professional who knows a 3D tool to put together anything more than the most rudimentary prototype. Since students don't have any background, the choice would be setting them up for failure.

The students are more likely to discover the truth that developing computer software (like most worthwhile tasks) requires significant hard work. A full year course could wet their toes a little in the subject.

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).

A fairly simple suggestion but it might help is the book "Challenges for Game Designers" by Brenda Romero. It teaches a lot of the basic concepts of game design in interesting ways and has a lot of challenges to try out these concepts. These are usually pen and paper/board games but the ideas can be easily applied to video games as well. I did a number of workshops with Brenda where she ran some of these challenges in groups and they were very fun and interesting and could translate well to a classroom environment. Certainly for some of the early weeks in your class anyway.

Did you mean Brenda Brathwaite?

Sorry yes, she used her maiden name when it came out.

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.

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

Huh???

You are imagining that.

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.