But then they probably run their course in a vocational style, i.e. sitting in front of a screen everyday and working with a program to build something.

And just what do you think making video games actually involves? Even game artists spend the majority of their time in front of a screen using content-creation software like Photoshop and Maya. ;)

That's why I'm trying to come to this differently. I am trying to unpack aspects of game design that are aesthetic, as opposed to going pure game development.

Several of you keep saying that I am being too ambitious; that there will not be enough time for me to learn Game Maker and teach the students to make a video game with it. And yet, other teachers are doing it all the time. I suppose the main difference is that they are probably sitting their students down on day one and having them start learning software and making things with it. Perhaps they are spending two weeks max on table top games. But then they probably run their course in a vocational style, i.e. sitting in front of a screen everyday and working with a program to build something. That would bore me to tears, and I can tell you most of my students (other than the computer geeks) would also dislike it.

I'm not telling you that you're being too ambitious. I'm telling you that you lack the background to be an effective instructor/mentor in some of the units you want to teach.

If other teachers are successfully teaching game development using some game development tool, they probably have some sort of a background that makes them effective. Maybe they used to write games in QBASIC. Maybe they're mathematicians or naturally gifted logicians and were able to pick up the technical skills intuitively due to that. Maybe they're lifelong gamers and their passion gave them the focus and drive to overcome whatever shortcomings they might have had coming into the task of teaching the material. The key thing here is - from what you've shared, none of that describes you.

I know you think you're an expert teacher. Maybe you are. This isn't a question of your ability to instill knowledge and understanding that you already possess - it is a question of whether or not you have the knowledge and understanding at all. Good coaches are almost always former athletes themselves. Good English teachers are usually bookworms. Good science teachers are usually geeks. Good music teachers are musicians. Your background seems to be art - so teach art. Don't try to teach something you don't really understand yourself.

Right. So I am trying to figure out how to teach art THROUGH game design. I am trying to stretch the digital art I have experience with to the next level, which would be animation, 3d and games (those are the options anyway). I am trying to find that fine line where I can be teaching what amounts to a Digital Arts class with the minimum of game stuff but have it still qualify as a game design class where kids make video games. Again, anyway this can be done will be an amazing opportunity for the kids, despite the fact that some of you think that if they aren't ready to step into an advanced game development class the following year, their time would have been wasted.

So the real question is not whether I can build a course that will be worthwhile and exciting- it will be. The question is how can I increase the art yet still be in the game design arena and have kids able to make 1-2 games by the end of the year to showcase to the community.

Game design typically means mechanics, aesthetics (both visual and audio), creating a setting and general plot, and maybe level design. It's the creative side, not the technical side, and you can probably get yourself ready for these tasks by the end of summer if you invested a real effort.

It looks like the Ploor book only guides students through some basic Blender stuff, not enough to create a character of their own. So how about this:

Unit 1 Game design stays same (easy to teach and fun for students)

Unit 2 Character design stays the same but they don't make their characters digital- only on paper. They can also scan into Photoshop and work digitally that way.

Unit 3 Students get familiar with Unity by doing tutorials and do some basic exercises in Blender

Unit 4 Students learn GM through Ploor lessons and make a couple of basic games

Unit 5 Students use what they have learned to adapt a basic game to a personal theme

(Would unit 5 be difficult to do or require programming?)

That's why I'm trying to come to this differently. I am trying to unpack aspects of game design that are aesthetic, as opposed to going pure game development.

Right. So I am trying to figure out how to teach art THROUGH game design.

I am trying to find that fine line where I can be teaching what amounts to a Digital Arts class with the minimum of game stuff but have it still qualify as a game design class where kids make video games.

It looks like the Ploor book only guides students through some basic Blender stuff, not enough to create a character of their own. So how about this:

Unit 1 Game design stays same (easy to teach and fun for students)

Unit 2 Character design stays the same but they don't make their characters digital- only on paper. They can also scan into Photoshop and work digitally that way.

Unit 3 Students get familiar with Unity by doing tutorials and do some basic exercises in Blender

Unit 4 Students learn GM through Ploor lessons and make a couple of basic games

Unit 5 Students use what they have learned to adapt a basic game to a personal theme

(Would unit 5 be difficult to do or require programming?)

Unit 4 is redundant. Use unity or use game maker. They both serve the same purpose, and you'd waste their time (and require more time to prepare yourself) by teaching both. I'm not familiar with Game Maker, but it's almost definitely the least technical of the two, making it something you could get a handle on easier yourself.

[media]https:

Is there anything inherently wrong with breaking up the course so it is an introduction to various aspects of game development? A unit on game design principles, a unit on character design on paper and then on Photoshop, a unit on creating images in 3d (unity or blender) and then, in the second semester a unit on basic game creation in Game Maker and a final project where students redo an existing game according to a theme?

Is it better to just have kids learning software and making games all year long with no other context? Better final products but no aesthetic study.

Is there anything inherently wrong with breaking up the course so it is an introduction to various aspects of game development?

Yes. And as a teacher, you should have already known this. You have about 180 days in the school year, and if you're lucky you have them for an hour each day. That's 180 hours to cover the 4 units you're planning, or 45 hours for each unit.

That's barely enough time to drill core concepts into their heads and test them on it. This won't leave any time for them to experiment on their own and really learn the material.

Is it better to just have kids learning software and making games all year long with no other context? Better final products but no aesthetic study.

Probably. At least they'll enjoy it more, which might make it more likely that they'll spend time learning more outside of school, and maybe even after the class is finished.

Unit 4 Students learn GM through Ploor lessons and make a couple of basic games

Unit 5 Students use what they have learned to adapt a basic game to a personal theme

(Would unit 5 be difficult to do or require programming?)

It's probably time to test out Units 4 and 5, with yourself as the student, and keeping careful track of time spent.

(And if time permits, complete Unit 5 several times on different themes. It might be the kind of project where the resources provided only allow for a very limited range of solutions that fulfill the judging criteria, but for a final creative assignment you want something that has 30 great solutions. That's hard to determine with only one iteration.)