Imaginary Master's Degree in Gaming

Wouldn’t you just love to take these classes?

http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/MastersDegree.shtml

http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/MastersDegree2.shtml

The guy who wrote that stuff has no idea the amount of work that is required for a Master’s Degree from a “real” university. Maybe he went to Stanford or something.

An entire graduate class on Settlers of Catan? Please.

Also anyone who doesn’t realize that “Game Theory” is already a well-established branch of mathematics, taught at universities, thus that name is taken, dude and you don’t call your discussion of the rules of board games “Game Theory”… well that someone probably doesn’t know enough to put together a good guess at what a game studies curriculum might be like. As we have seen.

And why all the emphasis on board/card games? The only reason we are seriously talking about game degrees / universities now, as opposed to say 100 years ago, is that computers are in the process of changing everything.

-J.

I think you take this stuff way too seriously… I read it as a joke.

And why all the emphasis on board/card games? The only reason we are seriously talking about game degrees / universities now, as opposed to say 100 years ago, is that computers are in the process of changing everything.

You seem to be unaware that a significant chunk of AI research is devoted to the theory of chess and a few other classic board/card games.

That shit-eating grin is hilarious.

That statement is highly inaccurate. (I have taken several graduate AI classes, so I am familiar with the work.)

Anyway, maybe I did take the article more seriously than it was intended. But if it was a joke, shouldn’t it have been funny?

The thing is, in some countries not including America, a “graduate degree in games” is already a reality. (I spent a month at such a school in South Korea in December, and may visit another one in Europe later this year). So I guess I almost interpreted the article as “hey we should have one of those here, and here’s what it should be about”.

There sure is a lot more to learn about making computer games than there is about, say, database software.

-J.

Jonathan, you took that article way to seriously. It’s a joke on gaming degrees in general…if the picture on the left doesn’t give it away, the article itself is completely tongue in cheek.

[quote=“Jonathan_Blow”]

That statement is highly inaccurate. (I have taken several graduate AI classes, so I am familiar with the work.)[/quote]

Yawn. So you disagree with the word “significant”… that doesn’t change the fact that chess is a favorite “toy problem” for AI researchers, followed by other traditional games such as checkers and bridge.

The thing is, in some countries not including America, a “graduate degree in games” is already a reality. (I spent a month at such a school in South Korea in December, and may visit another one in Europe later this year). So I guess I almost interpreted the article as “hey we should have one of those here, and here’s what it should be about”.

Well, I think the article was too obviously superficial and tongue-in-cheek to take it as a serious proposal. Also, such dedicated game courses indeed tend to avoid the subject of computerised board games because they’re either already covered by AI research (traditional games, especially chess) or not commercially viable (anything else). No idea why anyone would be so offended by the idea of researching Axis & Allies, though…

So lets hear the best options for combining correlated subquery optimizations with query rewrite optimizations and why don’t we through in left outer joins for good measure. Let’s also say that this needs to run on an architecture that is a set of massively parallel shared nothing computing nodes ranging from 2 to many hundreds.

;-)

Uhm. 5?

Grossman can have his killology, I’ll take my gameology. ;)

  • Alan

You could do the courtesy of 1) creating a question which can produce a real answer and 2) using correct English in your “I can show you I am smart also” challenge. Besides, there is more involved with game design than database work, in particular. One can state this plainly without being able to go into details, just as surely as one can state “I believe that Zurmelo-Franco together with the Axiom of Choice create a complete, self-consistant basis for mathematics” without knowing why.

You could do the courtesy of 1) creating a question which can produce a real answer and 2) using correct English in your “I can show you I am smart also” challenge. Besides, there is more involved with game design than database work, in particular. One can state this plainly without being able to go into details, just as surely as one can state “I believe that Zurmelo-Franco together with the Axiom of Choice create a complete, self-consistant basis for mathematics” without knowing why.[/quote]

Ummm…I think Bill was just joking.

[quote=““Robert Sharp””]

Yes it was meant primarily as a joke, hence the winking smilie.

Regarding the claims that the question was not answerable, I disagree. Now it is the type question that might take a few hundred pages to answer but it can be answered. Although I do agree that there may be many correct answers depending on many different expected workload factors.

The post was in response to what I took as a light hearted statement that game development was more challenging than database development. It was meant to simply be a light hearted counter point to that position.

You’re going to have to accept my apologies. I really should not be posting on any forums right now, lots of bullshit in that crazy IRL game I keep having to play.

Hey, actually it was a serious statement.

Let me put it this way: game development is a superset of database development. A very large superset.

I grew up at Berkeley hanging out with Stonebraker’s distributed database grad students, and Bill’s question was sort of the fundamental design requirement for whatever the hell the system was he was working on in the 90s… not a big deal really.

-J.