 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So I gather we have some of these in here somewhere?
Of course "games programming" sounds fun and exciting, and from what I
can gather *everybody* wants to be doing it. But what is it *really*
like, and what kind of thing do developers really look for when hiring?
Mainly I'm just being nosey. ;-)
(As some of you may remember, the careers advice guy said I should
consider games programming. Personally I think it's a pretty absurd
idea. If there's this many people wanting to get in, it must be pretty
competetive. And presumably being hyper-fluent in C and/or C++ is an
absolute mandatory requirement. Both of these things pretty much
instantly rule me out completely...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:48c63073$1@news.povray.org...
> So I gather we have some of these in here somewhere?
>
> Of course "games programming" sounds fun and exciting, and from what I can
> gather *everybody* wants to be doing it. But what is it *really* like, and
> what kind of thing do developers really look for when hiring?
>
They are really pushing games programming here. They've even started a
course in the high school's here. The part that bugs me is that it's called
Information Technology around here. I keep trying to coin a new term
(Entertainment Technology) but it hasn't taken hold. I guess that's the "old
school" in me that see's Information Technology in a more traditional sense.
>
> And presumably being hyper-fluent in C and/or C++ is an absolute mandatory
> requirement. Both of these things pretty much instantly rule me out
> completely...)
You should see the looks I get when I say that I'm fluent in fortran, ada,
and pascal, so I guess you're right about that!
Cheers Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback wrote:
> They are really pushing games programming here. They've even started a
> course in the high school's here. The part that bugs me is that it's called
> Information Technology around here. I keep trying to coin a new term
> (Entertainment Technology) but it hasn't taken hold. I guess that's the "old
> school" in me that see's Information Technology in a more traditional sense.
Hmm. Becuase there's a *really big market* for games programmers, right?
<cynic>Or rather, there's a really big market for students who want to
study games programming.</cynic>
> You should see the looks I get when I say that I'm fluent in fortran, ada,
> and pascal, so I guess you're right about that!
Next time - just for giggles - tell then you're fluent in "Haskell" and
see what kind of a reaction that gets. ;-)
(Alternatively, try "Lisp". People have at least *heard* of that...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:45:07 +0100, Jim Holsenback
<jho### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
> They are really pushing games programming here. They've even started a
> course in the high school's here. The part that bugs me is that it's
> called
> Information Technology around here. I keep trying to coin a new term
> (Entertainment Technology) but it hasn't taken hold. I guess that's the
> "old school" in me that see's Information Technology in a more
> traditional sense.
I think it was in Edge magazine one of the developers lashed into these
'cool' games programming lessons saying they were a waste of time and
you'd be better of with a Mathematics course and plain old Computer
Science. They want people who can produce path-finding algorithms and
other AI routines not have a degree in level design, you can get the
equivalent of that just from playing games a lot.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> I think it was in Edge magazine one of the developers lashed into these
> 'cool' games programming lessons saying they were a waste of time and
> you'd be better of with a Mathematics course and plain old Computer
> Science. They want people who can produce path-finding algorithms and
> other AI routines not have a degree in level design, you can get the
> equivalent of that just from playing games a lot.
Wait - there's a course you can take that just involves playing games a
lot? SIGN ME UP! :-D
(But yeah, I'm sure *real* game design isn't nearly as interesting as it
sounds. Listening to the commentary on HL2:EP2, most of it sounds pretty
mundane.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:44:10 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> I think it was in Edge magazine one of the developers lashed into these
>> 'cool' games programming lessons saying they were a waste of time and
>> you'd be better of with a Mathematics course and plain old Computer
>> Science. They want people who can produce path-finding algorithms and
>> other AI routines not have a degree in level design, you can get the
>> equivalent of that just from playing games a lot.
>
> Wait - there's a course you can take that just involves playing games a
> lot? SIGN ME UP! :-D
>
> (But yeah, I'm sure *real* game design isn't nearly as interesting as it
> sounds. Listening to the commentary on HL2:EP2, most of it sounds pretty
> mundane.)
Apparently it's the same with being a game tester, repeating the same
section over and over again in various minor different ways until it
breaks.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (But yeah, I'm sure *real* game design isn't nearly as interesting as
>> it sounds. Listening to the commentary on HL2:EP2, most of it sounds
>> pretty mundane.)
>
> Apparently it's the same with being a game tester, repeating the same
> section over and over again in various minor different ways until it
> breaks.
Yeah - generally they don't just go "hey, play this game, tell us if
it's fun or not". They want to know something more specific than that.
Again, listening to the commentary from HL2:EP2, they tell you stuff
like "this map used to be like X, but we found that playtesters would
get here and not be able to figure out what they're supposed to do, so
after a few iterations trying various things we made it like Y, and
playtesters responded much better to that".
So yeah. They want to know if the game is fun. But if it isn't, they
want to know specifically *why* so that they can actually *fix* it...
(And I'm sure they also have other people who just play and play and
play the game and see if it crashes or glitches in some way. And still
other people who try it on various hardware. And yet others who try to
climb out of the levels or throw switches in the wrong order to see what
happens. Damn, making games has gotta be real expensive...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Of course "games programming" sounds fun and exciting, and from what I
> can gather *everybody* wants to be doing it. But what is it *really*
> like, and what kind of thing do developers really look for when hiring?
I think we should distinguish between different types of game programming.
The game programming industry can be divided, very roughly, into two
categories:
1) Big game houses, ie. those which develop games like Doom3 and HL2.
2) Small game houses, ie. those which develop small casual games
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_game)
In the first case budgets are often rather humongous, teams relatively
large (at least a dozen programmers and artists, some kind of management
hierarchy between the different departments, etc.), and development times
which are often counted in years. The development language of the core game
engine is most often C++, in a few cases perhaps with some C, and perhaps
in rare cases some other language. Games often have an internal scripting
language for non-core features, and this can be either an existing language
(such as lua) or the company's own language.
In the second case budgets, teams and timelines are much smaller, and
the development language of the core game code much more varied. It can
range all the way from C/C++ to Flash ActionScript. Development teams
typically consist of one programmer (or at most a very few) and 2-3
graphics artists, plus perhaps some project leader (who may be a separate
person or one of the main developers).
I have never worked in a big game company, but from what I have heard
(I have a friend who has worked in several such companies, including
Ubisoft), the development procedures are ofteh much less strict than one
could imagine for such a big software company. I have got the impression
that so-called cowboy coding is much more usual even in very big game
companies than one would think (even to the point of becoming detrimental
and causing problems in some cases).
Naturally cowboy coding is more or less self-evident in the small game
houses, where there's typically one single lead programmer and nothing
else, and projects are relatively small. I suppose that in many cases
it doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as it works. (But
personally I try to avoid this, and try to develop things so that they
are stable, safe, easy to use and reusable.)
Most game companies, when they are hiring, always accentuate the
importance of communication. They always state that the applicant should
be fluent in English (or whichever the local language might be) and have
good communication and teamwork skills. Big game companies probably
accentuate this more than smaller ones. I suppose it depends on the
company (and on the applicants) how strongly they really impose this
requirement. I have heard of cases where it's not imposed at all, and
that people who are very poor at the company's native language are hired
anyways. Other companies may have a stricter policy (which may also
heavily depend on who is the project leader).
If you are applying to a big game company, knowing C++ fluently (as well
as its internal workings) will probably help. It also helps if you have
experience in computer graphics and algorithm programming. Knowing other
popular languages won't hurt either. Extensive programming experience in
general, and game programming experience in particular, is also good.
For the smaller companies I suppose it depends a lot on which programming
language they are using. It's quite clear that if they are developing Flash
games and you don't even know what ActionScript is, that won't look good.
In both cases knowledge and experience of the gaming field in general
is important, as well as an interest in developing games. (Everyone likes
to *play* games, but how many *really* enjoy programming them? Programming
games can be much more tedious than it might sound.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:05:25 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
spake, saying:
>>> (But yeah, I'm sure *real* game design isn't nearly as interesting as
>>> it sounds. Listening to the commentary on HL2:EP2, most of it sounds
>>> pretty mundane.)
>> Apparently it's the same with being a game tester, repeating the same
>> section over and over again in various minor different ways until it
>> breaks.
>
> Yeah - generally they don't just go "hey, play this game, tell us if
> it's fun or not". They want to know something more specific than that.
Damn their oily hides.
> Again, listening to the commentary from HL2:EP2, they tell you stuff
> like "this map used to be like X, but we found that playtesters would
> get here and not be able to figure out what they're supposed to do, so
> after a few iterations trying various things we made it like Y, and
> playtesters responded much better to that".
>
> So yeah. They want to know if the game is fun. But if it isn't, they
> want to know specifically *why* so that they can actually *fix* it...
Heh I like the Simpsons game that pops up the Comic Book Guy with a cliche
"Steep Slope Barrier - You would know this was impossible if you’d ever
actually been outside."
> (And I'm sure they also have other people who just play and play and
> play the game and see if it crashes or glitches in some way. And still
> other people who try it on various hardware. And yet others who try to
> climb out of the levels or throw switches in the wrong order to see what
> happens. Damn, making games has gotta be real expensive...)
Well let me think. I've got trapped in Oblivion unable to climb back over
some (really small) rocks, again in Oblivion I can't deal with a character
because I refused a request of his despite the fact I'm disguised so he
shouldn't know it's me. I've slipped through a seam in the world in
Resistance FOM. Skipped the entire penultimate level in Jak and Daxter by
accident.
I've laughed out loud at the pathetic AI in Killzone that allowed me to
snipe a group of enemies without any of them noticing. In reverse got
annoyed with the AI in Mercenaries that had every enemy pinpoint my
location as soon as I shot someone from a distance of half a mile away,
and I've defeated the big bad in Lego Star Wars in about 10 seconds due to
an AI bug.
Sometimes you can say 'yeah okay I'm not surprised that got missed' but at
other times you've got to wonder who was testing the game. I'm still
wondering how either TimeShift or Haze managed to get released with the
state they're in.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think we should distinguish between different types of game programming.
> The game programming industry can be divided, very roughly, into two
> categories:
>
> 1) Big game houses, ie. those which develop games like Doom3 and HL2.
>
> 2) Small game houses, ie. those which develop small casual games
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_game)
>
> In the first case budgets are often rather humongous, teams relatively
> large (at least a dozen programmers and artists, some kind of management
> hierarchy between the different departments, etc.), and development times
> which are often counted in years. The development language of the core game
> engine is most often C++, in a few cases perhaps with some C, and perhaps
> in rare cases some other language. Games often have an internal scripting
> language for non-core features, and this can be either an existing language
> (such as lua) or the company's own language.
>
> In the second case budgets, teams and timelines are much smaller, and
> the development language of the core game code much more varied. It can
> range all the way from C/C++ to Flash ActionScript. Development teams
> typically consist of one programmer (or at most a very few) and 2-3
> graphics artists, plus perhaps some project leader (who may be a separate
> person or one of the main developers).
Right. Gotcha.
> I have never worked in a big game company, but from what I have heard
> (I have a friend who has worked in several such companies, including
> Ubisoft), the development procedures are often much less strict than one
> could imagine for such a big software company.
That would certainly explain a few things...
> I suppose that in many cases
> it doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as it works. (But
> personally I try to avoid this, and try to develop things so that they
> are stable, safe, easy to use and reusable.)
Always the best way, IMHO. You never know when you'll need to change
something, and if it's a mess you'll have a hard time altering without
breaking...
> If you are applying to a big game company, knowing C++ fluently (as well
> as its internal workings) will probably help. It also helps if you have
> experience in computer graphics and algorithm programming. Knowing other
> popular languages won't hurt either. Extensive programming experience in
> general, and game programming experience in particular, is also good.
>
> For the smaller companies I suppose it depends a lot on which programming
> language they are using. It's quite clear that if they are developing Flash
> games and you don't even know what ActionScript is, that won't look good.
>
> In both cases knowledge and experience of the gaming field in general
> is important, as well as an interest in developing games. (Everyone likes
> to *play* games, but how many *really* enjoy programming them? Programming
> games can be much more tedious than it might sound.)
Thanks for your input.
I'm still fairly sure I don't have what it takes, but casual gaming
isn't something I'd considered. Maybe it's not as impossible as I'd
imagined. Hmm... something to think about anyway.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
