Train2Game Reply

I had an interesting phone call this afternoon from Clive Roberts, responsible for Train2Game. I did some work for Clive many years ago so I did half expect this – I was not a random blog author to him.

We had quite an amicable chat. Clive was at pains to point out that the Study Guide is being redeveloped and has asked me to point out that it’s early days for them and that they were just trying to improve course awareness to the public, where as now they plan on touring developers to inform us what the course is all about.

While writing both this and the last blog post, I did read several forums and there’s a lot of spiteful stuff being said. Clive’s take is that particular posters are from a competitor and he says he has given up trying to engage with them as it’s causing more problems than it solves.

My personal take is more complicated. It sounds like at least some MIS (Metropolitan International Schools) staff are possibly being somewhat irresponsible and I believe that TIGA should try to nail any misbehaviour or misrepresentation as a condition of TIGA endorsement. It’s not like those behind MIS hadn’t been in trouble before with SkillsTrain. While a lot of time does seem to have gone into the course content, to partner up with an organisation who have attracted such negative attention does mean that some extra diligence should have taken place over public materials IMHO.

There are also some questions being brought up over who owns and earns from Train2Game. The fact is that someone is probably going to be making money from it, be it Clive Roberts, Jan Telensky, or someone else. I don’t really have an issue with this as long as the course is good and the industry benefits. We live in a capitalist society where people make money, sometimes undeserved, through our education systems. Let’s at least see if Train2Game does what it intends – helps bring forward new talent into the industry.

In addition, however good the distance learning course is and however bad some university game courses are, a diploma based qualification is always going to have to work much harder to prove itself to the professional industry.  It’s with this in mind that it’s such as bad idea to allow the release of materials such as the ones I quoted from.

Clive assures me that the course is good and that those in the industry who have evaluated it have been very positive. He’s offered to visit Tuna to explain it to us and we’ll be taking him up on that offer. In an industry which I find consistently insular and negative, I think it’s only right to give T2G a fair say. I look forward to seeing the course content itself.

I’ve just returned from Develop and I’m in such a stomping rage that I’m actually going to update my blog rather than my Twitter feed.

I better preface the rest of this post by saying that I 100% back the work by the likes of TIGA and Skillset to improve the education of those entering the game industry. However, TIGA’s endorsement of distance learning course Train2Game really bothers me now that I’ve read their “Study Guide” brochure, handed out to us at the Develop conference this week.

I’m going to provide a few tasty quotes for you to get your claws into. They are so jaw-breakingly awful than I almost don’t feel the need to comment on them because others will do a far better job. Before I set on, let me remind you that TIGA’s endorsement is about improving the quality of those entering the industry.

“…, until now, your only way into the business, if you were starting from scratch, would be through academic study on a 2 or 3 year university course, then you have to look for a job as a games tester and then spend the next few years learning the hands-on stuff working your way slowly towards the job you really want.”

That’s funny because the entire point point of all the university game-related courses is to avoid exactly this situation. Some manage it, some don’t, and it still depends on both the graduate and the state of the industry, but the above statement is just absolute rubbish.

“The Train2Game method of learning has been created so that nearly anyone can do it. In fact, this system is so directly geared towards the needs of the games companies that the industry bodies are now recommending to their members that they recruit from Train2Game graduates! They are so keen to have people equipped with just the right skills that we’re confident you’ll go straight from finishing your training to your first job as a developer. You might even find yourself with a choice of opportunities!”

I honestly see this is as straight forward miss-selling of the qualification considering it’s not even a degree equivalent and is a new course. However, I accept that other academic institutions come out with similar trash.

What I particularly object to is the “anyone can do it”. I don’t want “anyone”, I want suitably educated talent. As a developer who wants to see the best graduates, a course which “anyone” can do is not going to inspire confidence. My initial reaction was compounded by something else, which we’ll get to later.

“Why Train2Game? Our courses are aimed at anyone who has a great game idea, but who lacks the opportunity, skills or experience to be able to turn their idea into reality. We are the experts on the ‘inside’ and in unique and interactive ways we will help you pick up everything you’ll need to realise your dream. This is a complete system aimed at ‘ordinary’ people and written by actual game developers!”

Once again, straight forward miss-selling and yet more “anyone” can do it type stuff. Who are these “ordinary” people? Why are they making out that game development is some big secret when more people seem to be doing it than ever?

“Only very basic computing knowledge is needed… some of the concepts can be picked up more rapidly if you do have prior gaming experience, but it is certainly not essential… We have worked hard to demystify this often shrouded topic so that you can achieve the best result possible!”

Ah, I see, it is a big secret! Perhaps Train2Game aren’t aware of t’Internet and the myriad of amazing game development sites and software targeting everything from beginners to experts. That’s not to dis this course, but I object to the blatant and deliberate ignorance of what’s out there. Once again, I take this as a way of targeting people who are probably not going to cut the mustard anyway, and then you have to ask why TIGA are endorsing this course (as Train2Game go on and on and on about).

“Unlike other courses, our courses are written by gamers for gamers. They contain a wealth of invaluable information you are very unlikely to find in an ‘ordinary’ programming and design books.” - Their dodgy grammar, not mine!

At this point I started laughing. Out loud.

By gamers? I thought we were game developers. A quick search on Amazon reveals numerous game development books covering a wide range of content. I believe I’ve already pointed out this t’Internet malarkey but Train2Game seem to conveniently ignore this rather useful resource, except where it suits – they being a distance learning qualification!

“There are no restrictive entry requirements for any of the Train2Game courses… Using the very latest in assessment technologies they will quickly prepare a personalised study plan for you.”

May I suggest, dear reader, that we all submit an application to see what their “latest assessment technology” can do for us?

“In the unlikely event of you failing to pass the examination and provided you have carefully followed the instructions of your tutor, you may retake the course entirely free of charge.”

WOW! Gobsmacked! So basically you can’t fail. If anyone can do the course and anyone can gain a pass, what do I actually learn about my prospective employee/colleague/(tester!)? Ok, yes, I’m aware that universities these days barely fail anyone either although I do at least see lots of grades and can sometimes value the university and course itself.

They will have created some demos on the course which I know is a good thing, but I’m not seeing any suitable confirmation of difficulty or ability in the way the course is being presented.

Perhaps I’m being over harsh but there is an important point here. Regardless of the merits of the course  content, and I want more developers to see it first hand so it can be suitably critiqued, I’m not sure TIGA should be allowing a course they have backed to be promoted in this way. It feels like Train2Game, quite frankly, are taking the piss.

I want good quality graduates to have come from properly approved courses. I want the good people at TIGA and Skillset to ensure that course contents are suitable for our needs and will make a real difference.

TIGA should not allow the Train2Game course to be sold in this way and it should be made clear to the development world at large what this qualification actually means so that we can judge candidates accordingly. The “Study Guide” brochure provided at Develop was not the way to do it.

Train2Game may prove to be a valuable addition to the various game courses in the UK but if it’s industry backed then it should function alongside the existing courses rather than making overblown claims. Meanwhile, I’m sure there are a few university course administrators as unhappy with the Train2Game marketing as I am.

EDIT: So Train2Game, or at least the company administrating it, have just tried to sue Google over Train2Game bad press simply because Google searches show people’s complaints. Thankfully they lost the case but it puts things in a different, darker perspective for me.

I’ve also had feedback already that others in the industry are questioning the merit of both the course itself and all that surrounds it. This is something that needs addressing for the sake of both the students, those who have undoubtedly put some serious time and effort into creating the course, and the development community who must, after all, be on side in order for it to be worthwhile.