Hollie Heraghty from Aardvark Swift discusses the issue of graduate recruitment in the video games industry and how the new competition, Search for a Star, is designed to help.
Recent blogs and news stories have shown that this issue of the standard of 'games graduates' is a hot topic. It seems to produce a lot of conversation, a hefty amount of criticism, but little in the way of solutions.
We currently have a problem in the UK development industry. Every year we have an increasing amount of computer games development graduates looking for entry-level positions, but they are finding it increasingly difficult to find a job. At the same time, UK studios are looking for entry-level programmers, but are struggling to find the graduates they require.
So why are we in this situation? The simple answer is that the majority of the grads being produced do not have the skills/experience that studios desire.
Computer games degree courses have increased in number and therefore the pool of games graduates trying to get into games has grown. Simultaneously, studios have become unwilling to recognise games degree courses as a viable route into games. Recruiting instead computer science or pure science/maths graduates.
But - Finding suitable non-games grads is also difficult. Computer science and maths grads undoubtedly have the intellectual horsepower and natural aptitude for learning that is vital in the games industry. But, studios are becoming increasingly unwilling to flex on the additional skills they need from non games grads (C++ knowledge and must be a hobbyist games programmer).
Very few maths/science grads consider games a viable career option and fewer still have the foresight to learn a programming language (C++) whilst studying that will provide them with the option to get into games. Many studios won’t look at people with a strong science/maths degree but no C++ knowledge, because they can’t afford the time or money to train someone.
So we have Catch 22.
Computer games technology courses were created to directly address the issue of a lack of programming entrants. The hope was that students would be focused towards games, so gain the scientific and technical know-how, whilst creating demos and games on courses. So the skills should be more easily transferred into the industry. However, this has back-fired and now we see studios looking on these courses as second rate, feeling that they are not equipping students with the maths/science that they require. There is also the belief that many games courses are just enhanced 'media studies' courses, and with low entry requirements the grads produced simply aren’t intelligent enough to be a successful games programmer.
There’s certainly no magic solution to the problem. But we need to try to improve things!
We are trying to help with our Search for a Star programming competition. It’s designed to provide individuals with the chance to shine through their programming ability. This competition has been devised along with Relentless software and is based heavily on their actual graduate recruitment process. It’s allowed us to reach and reward the games graduates who have strong academics, fantastic C++ programming and a passion for games.
The first stage was to ask universities for nominations, followed by a second stage of technical maths/science and programming questions - completed in exam conditions. Those who achieved 75 per cent and above progressed to the third stage - a ‘coding task’. The grads were asked to make a small game, based on existing ideas/code and implement new features. This allowed those with talent and flair to really shine. The final stage will be a panel interview. The panel will include recruitment and technical industry professionals. The winner will receive their award at The Develop Awards in July. www.aswift.com/searchforastar
This competition is not the solution, but it provides games grads the chance to shine, based on the criteria that we have been given repeatedly, by studios. Those progressing will have strong academics; a relevant degree, programming ability and passion. We hope that regardless of a student’s course or university, talent will be recognised. As interesting as debates are about the standard of graduates, we are running the risk of tarring all graduates with the same brush. Individuals need a chance to shine – providing opportunities for them to do so is the first step and we hope we’re helping. We also hope that it provides a benchmark for uni’s taking part. Those that don’t have grads progressing can and should question why, and then ask studios/us for guidance on the course content.
No one party is to blame, and people are undoubtedly attempting to solve it. Dare to be Digital is an excellent competition, Skillset are helping, and some studios are undoubtedly working very closely with Uni’s to help them improve courses. But we need more of this and we surely need to educate kids at an earlier age that Science and Maths are cool and can help get you a career in video games? What a great message to drive kids towards these subjects?
I tend to agree with Hollie that there is something of a gap between education and development recruitment, and having worked both as an academic/educator and a developer I can see both sides of the issue. It is probably true to say that the very best raw talent will go into the more generic numerate degree courses – maths, physics and computer science while games courses will tend to attract those with the passion for games but with perhaps a slightly lesser academic ability. As a result I believe games course designers are reluctant to include too much heavy maths in case this frightens away potential candidates – after all they depend heavily on maintaining student numbers. I have also heard it said that since the number of graduate jobs in games is limited (because of developer reluctance) games courses are forced to be more generic so that students will have a broader set of transferable skills which can be used in various careers. Thus in a perverse way the reluctance of developers to recruit graduates is actually diluting their very suitability for the games industry. I also feel that developers are somewhat unrealistic when looking at the graduate market. A graduate in any discipline is not a finished product – if you look for physics or maths graduates you must be prepared to fill in the missing skills. Other industries certainly do not expect graduates to hit the ground running. For example what was ICL and is now part of Fujitsu in Manchester have always had a graduate programme for business applications programmers and analysts, taking up to 2 years of on the job training and formal professional development before the employee is considered ‘complete’. There is of course a ‘cream’ of maths and physics students who also have programming skills along with computer scientists, but the games industry will also be in competition with higher paying financial and business sectors for these individuals. Furthermore to find one of these who also has a pre-existing ‘passion’ for games will be rare indeed – I don’t really believe derivatives trading companies expect their top ranked programmers to also have had a lifelong interest in hedge funds! Surely if we cannot encourage and build passion in an individual with high skill levels but an open career plan, then perhaps we are not as creative was we thought
So what can be done? I think the ‘Search for a Star’ competition will help but it may only really benefit the better students of games courses who may have done well anyway – although it will of course single out those individuals more clearly. I think games courses do need to tighten up, but to fill those courses both academics and developers need to appeal to potential talent much earlier – when they are still at the 13-14 age range. We need to show those with the raw computing, maths and physics potential that games is an exciting, rewarding and technically challenging career and therefore start to draw some of that talent towards our industry at the time their educational path is still to be fully determined. We also need to put in place programmes to bridge the education-employment gap. Yes this will mean investment and a financial overhead, but there should surely be government help for this.
One possible way forward is to create incubator companies as a stepping stone for students leaving University where graduates would work in a full development environment alongside experienced mentors, but with the primary objective being solidifying the skills of the individual rather than the production of AAA product. This means development companies themselves would be relieved of this training load and avoid the risk of green programmers on live projects. Funding could be derived from a number of sources; government, EEC, development companies, professional bodies, income from the incubator company products and outsourcing services.
Well I seem to have gone on for a while, and there is probably more I could say, but I think overall it is clear that the games industry needs new talent, and needs to be prepared to work hard at finding it and bringing it to the point of being a fully contributing developer.
Things like programming and maths are taken out of courses because it reduces applicants. The universities water down their courses to get maximum applicants and care not for their job prospects.
At the NCCA for example there is a massive problem because the university has forced the size of the course from 30 odd grads to over 100. Perhaps double that soon.
The article only talks about programmers. What about game designers, level designers, 2d artists, 3d artists, producers, sound designers? Don't we need those as well in the games industry?
I feel that the simple reason students do not finish with the skills they require is because they do not put the time and effort into getting them. My experiences of University have been that many of the modules and assignments are very independently driven. I saw a large majority of the people on my games degree leave all there work until the last minute, in many cases it was fairly common for students to ask what was the minimum amount of work they had to do.
What I'm getting at is that for years before degrees popped up people would get to industry standard in there own time. On a degree you pay for three years of time to master your art. If you don't get anywhere at the end of it I believe its there own fault.
Don't get me wrong I also feel in terms of what is been paid Universities tutors should be more on the ball with current development processes and possibly allow them to restructure the courses around games development and not teaching it the same way you do any other subject.
So to make the point, I feel University courses should be better for the amount been paid, but at the end of the day the students are not going to get anywhere if they don't put the passion and effort into learning independently.
"grads produced simply aren’t intelligent enough to be a successful games programmer."
Universities disseminate knowledge, not intelligence.
Simply, talented programmers are not seeking entry level positions doing uninspiring grunt work with long hours for little renumeration.
I recognize the sentiments expressed in the article - there IS a widespread feeling amongst those in the industry that these legions of game graduates have no real worth to the industry. The top guys coming out of the games courses do just fine, but then they would have WITHOUT a games degree - these are the guys who buckle down, work hard and learn on their own as well.
It's a multifaceted problem, touched on by some of the other commenters and by the author.
1. The development industry is actually quite small in terms of jobs in the UK. My back-of-a fag-packet calculations would certainly place the total number of front-line developers under 10k. There might only be a few hundred jobs open in the entire UK at any one time. God knows how many graduates are going for those.
2. Renumeration in the games industry, for programmers, is probably below average, but this is a problem for retaining experienced staff rather than recruiting good juniors.
3. I'll reiterate the main point - the graduates from game degrees that are making it into the industry, I suspect, are the same graduates who would make it if game degrees never existed - the motivated, intelligent, and driven top 5%.
4. There's basically two ways to do things as a programmer these days - get a traditional degree (CS/Maths/Physics/SomeKindOfHardScience), and learn game programming on your own time. This can be difficult, but if you're motivated you've got the benefits of credibility on paper (from your serious degree) as well as core skills plus the stuff you've learned on your own. Going with a games degree, you may well have an easier time learning the game specific stuff. BUT you've given yourself a hefty disadvantage should you ever want to leave the industry (which many experienced game programmers do), and many hiring managers will view your degree with intense skepticism (some obvious exceptions aside).
As another, minor point, I've seen degree courses that seem to offer a bit of everything - modelling, level design, even some programming. If you're considering one of these degrees I'd strongly advise against it - everyone in the industry is a specialist, and we look to recruit people who are already fairly far down a specialist path.
I am currently in a Games Development course and about to start my final year and this article has gotten me quite worried.
Every Games Degree will be slightly different and the particular one I am doing has a very strong maths/science component with topics such as graphic algorithms, geometry, calculus, discrete mathematics and physics part of its core modules with options of AI later on.
With this we also have programming and design elements with an option to specialize later on.
So coming from a games degree with both a strong maths and programming element it is worrying to think that just because it has the name "Games Development" attached to it that an actual "Games Development" company will immediately throw it out as a second rate degree.
So games companies should be helping to design these courses. The promise of a job at the end of the course(for the best) should be incentive enough. Perhaps proportional amounts of course funding from the games companies dictate who/how many they can pick. The likes of EA could easily create their own school.
Simple.
Sorry Simon, but if you really believe what you say, rather than just unthinkingly regurgitating the dogma that Hollie is at least trying to overcome in practical terms, then I pity your cynicism. I and dedicated educators across the world have to put up with this shit all the time. Grow up
