[mewpmewp2]

I would've been stoked as a kid to be able to create games and also make money off of it though. Instead I had to spend time on useless education so I could do as an adult what I could've already done as a kid if someone showed me it was possible to make money with coding.

So many years wasted in school not paying attention because no interest in given subjects at the time. But since they didn't pay me, it wasn't technically "exploitation".

[TillE]

Every game programmer needs a strong math background. Every good game designer cribs extensively from history and literature. Having a sense of art is important even if you aren't an artist.

There's very little in school that isn't directly applicable. Like, not even just "it's good to be a well-rounded human", but you can literally directly apply almost everything you learn to your craft.

[hgs3]

Sadly, I'm in agreement with the GP. I started programming freshmen year of high school on my own because my school did not offer courses. I also wrote my own fiction book and self-published it sophomore year. Whenever I showed my homemade video games and physical book to my teachers I received a "good job" and that's it. I did not receive any help, special instruction, or extra credit. Most of the courses, outside of literature and math, were not applicable whatsoever. My takeaway is that our compulsory education system is not optimized for the self-directed student.

[pixl97]

There is a lot of room for debate on this... self direction is fine, as long as it's not coupled with arrogance. If you think you know everything the world tends to teach you lessons you'd rather not have.

[bagful]

World history isn’t applicable to game development? No help at all from biology, physics, chemistry? Don’t even bother with psychology?

[mewpmewp2]

> Every game programmer needs a strong math background.

I disagree even though math was my favourite subject in the school. I think I truly only enjoyed math and physics. They were the only subjects I felt like I could actually problem solve and not have to memorise facts I can't relate to or do not know what to do with. But really the maths taught at school also seemed like not really related to creativity, but more like memorise this formula => rote practice with this formula, on and on from there. While if it was about game dev, or programming, it would've been more about learning to problem solve in a bit more creative ways.

> Every good game designer cribs extensively from history and literature.

This highly depends on the game, the designer and multitude of different factors. I despised history when I was in school, but now that I've got older I've grown natural interest towards it which has allowed me to learn it with magnitudes higher effectiveness compared to when I was a child. Without my own life, and trying my own things, I didn't have interest in history, because I hadn't lived, so I didn't have anything to relate it to. I was clueless about people's motivations in history. It was just a compilation of random facts that I was forced to learn. Understanding people, their motivations, goals is the most important part of history, and without understanding those aspects, I just don't understand how I could be interested in history enough to not think of it as random facts.

[_gabe_]

> I disagree even though math was my favourite subject in the school. I think I truly only enjoyed math and physics. They were the only subjects I felt like I could actually problem solve and not have to memorise facts I can't relate to or do not know what to do with.

Why do you disagree though? Math is helpful in game design for: pathfinding, vector math, several graphics effects, physics, smoothing animations, setting up in game currencies, setting up probabilistic gameplay elements, random number generation, terrain generation, calculating enemy field of views, calculating trajectories, creating player controllers, and many other logic pieces in games.

If you want to be a good game designer, it would behoove you to have a strong math background.

[mewpmewp2]

I disagree with the part where "You need a strong math background". And also usual school doesn't give you that "strong math background".

What you need is motivation, passion and creativity to achieve a certain goal. It's not a prerequisite to have a strong math background to be able to create a game.

All of these things can be Googled - and even easier nowadays ChatGPT can help you out with learning those things without this type of background required.

Especially as a kid.

I wish I had something like Roblox as a kid. What I used to do was I drew on papers like a story game where different decisions led you to different next set of papers, because I didn't have a computer and/or no one taught me actual coding.

[_gabe_]

I see. It’s not a prerequisite, I 100% agree. But by building a game you will most likely, maybe even unintentionally, develop a strong math background :D

The grandparent comment was talking about how all the different subjects in school can help give you very useful prerequisite knowledge that enables you to become a strong game developer. You made it sounds as if the math isn’t necessary, but I think we both agree knowing math will aid you tremendously in game development. You don’t need to know it to start developing games, but somebody that already has that knowledge will be leagues ahead of you in a lot of topics.

Heck, even the simplest data structure in almost every game engine a Transform (aka transformation matrix) is a loaded mathematical term. The guy that understands linear algebra and how you can combine a series of matrices to apply different kinds of transformations to a geometric object will “get it” way quicker than somebody who has no math knowledge. Then, when they want to do fancier stuff, like transform something relative to something else (like a custom 3rd person camera that hovers above and behind the main character), they don’t have to waste time trying to understand how linear algebra and using matrix multiplication can achieve that effect.

[Wowfunhappy]

> But really the maths taught at school also seemed like not really related to creativity, but more like memorise this formula => rote practice with this formula, on and on from there. While if it was about game dev, or programming, it would've been more about learning to problem solve in a bit more creative ways.

When did you go to school? I think we do a lot better nowadays. As much as people dislike e.g. Common Core, this complaint—a focus on rote algorithms instead of the concepts behind them—was a major reason for the changes.

[mewpmewp2]

It's probably a geographical thing as well, but I'm between age of 30-40, and not from US, I don't want to share the exact details of course.

It is unclear to me whether it is better nowadays, but times are changing quickly, it is hard to even predict future, or future jobs presently, so I think I honestly would be more stressed now if I hadn't set my life, career up, as I was able to do when I was younger.

I just remember school strictly as torture, and my real life beginning when I was able to do actual work and career, that developed my confidence because I was able to achieve real world success at something I naturally enjoy doing.

No point in dwelling on the past, but since we are having this topic, I still would like to question about all the wasted years in the youth.

I think when I started out, it probably was much easier to get coding jobs without any experience, compared to now, so if I was in present time, it would have been much more difficult for me, because ultimately due to all the difficulties I had a very non standard route of getting where I am.

[ecnahc515]

Sure; but no kid is going to believe you; or even if they do; they won't care. It needs to be something they can put into action immediately and see results.

[bcrosby95]

I was stoked as a kid making games in "Unlimited Adventures" and exchanging them for free online. I did this in addition to spending time on my useless education (which eventually turned out to be useful to me), not instead of it.

[Eager]

I can't tell if you are joking.

It seems like you are implying the reason we do stuff is to make money, or at least the main motivating factor for you, or you believe it is for most people.

I started working in a factory when I was about 13 casually, and by 14 I was putting in enough hours for my technical apprenticeship.

During those years I did get paid, and I was thankful for it, but I definitely wasn't doing it for the money, and I was still going to school and then to college in parallel.

I'm sure things are different these days. It just makes me sad to think personal progress is somehow conflated with earning money.

With regard to the article. I think given what we know about social networks and young minds, it's already been shown to be a toxic mix. Getting kids on the capitalistic treadmill so young seems extremely cynical and it really does concern me.

[mewpmewp2]

> It seems like you are implying the reason we do stuff is to make money, or at least the main motivating factor for you, or you believe it is for most people.

Being able to make money, especially as a kid would've been ultimate compliment or appreciation to me. Anyone can say kind words, "good job", but if I make money, somehow what I do is actually valuable to other people. Obviously, especially amazing if it is something that I am passionate about, and skilled at. I don't believe this about most people, neither do I disbelieve it, I'm just talking from how I would've felt as a kid. And certainly many of my friends. It would've highly developed my self-confidence.

> With regard to the article. I think given what we know about social networks and young minds, it's already been shown to be a toxic mix. Getting kids on the capitalistic treadmill so young seems extremely cynical and it really does concern me.

I think there are actually much worse things to worry about. If you want to worry about child exploitation, then indeed worry about factory workers who are forced into those conditions, making shoes, but not about kids who are able to use their creativity to provide value because they love doing that.

[itishappy]

How does school factor into this? I don't think anyone has suggested we replace school with Roblox.

[mewpmewp2]

Because I think school is forcing kids to learn something they are not interested in, doesn't make sense to them, while killing their creativity, while also not getting paid for it, having no idea why they have to do it, while Roblox is promoting their creativity, teaching them to problem solve and at the same time paying for it. So my point is that, if Roblox is bad, then School must be the worst thing in the Universe.

[itishappy]

I can see where you're coming from, but I've got some follow-up questions:

What percentage of kids do you think make Roblox mods?

What percentage of those modders do it for money?

Does Roblox provide childcare, lunch, physical education, face-to-face interaction, enforced time structures and social hierarchies, and/or extracurricular activities?

I honestly do not believe they're remotely comparable. They serve such drastically different purposes it feels like comparing baseball to banking. We might be able to call one better, but I believe which one will vary wildly between kids.

[mewpmewp2]

I remember school as a constant source of anxiety and depression. Something like Roblox where my creativity was rewarded would've been amazing for my self confidence.

I haven't actually tried playing Roblox or researching it, so I don't know about the percentages, but I'm mainly speaking about the idea of using creativity, to create fun games you enjoy creating and the end results being:

a) other people are playing what you created

b) you get paid (even if in small amounts) for what you created

Would have been amazing for my otherwise low self esteem childhood.

[itishappy]

Right, and I'm not doubting the value of creative pursuits like Roblox. I made and distributed calculator games during math class. What I'm doubting is that they can function as a useful alternative to school for most kids. (This is what you're suggesting, right?) I can see it as supplementing school for some, but not as a replacement.

[mewpmewp2]

I'm not suggesting it should replace schools. I am responding to what the article tries to imply.

I don't know or have thought enough about what the perfect way to educate kids would be.

I just don't appreciate an article jumping on a company that to me seems to reward creativity, because of some odd understanding of moral truths like Corp = Evil and Children receiving money = Evil.

Which in many cases IT really could be like child factory workers in cases where they are forced to do that due to economical circumstances, having no other options.

But I don't know about the company enough. Maybe they are truly evil. Maybe this article is just wrong about the delivery, but Roblox is evil.

[Kinrany]

Murder also isn't exploitation.