Jump to content

Tabloid games coverage.


Recommended Posts

Does anyone? I'm not sure it's that relevant. Once you leave the safety of school/home life is when you usually start thinking about what you know. It seems strange to feel that the stuff you learned at school was pointless, regardless if whether you find it useless day-to-day.

It's pointless in hindsight yes, but when you're learning stuff you could potentially go into any field of study so they're just covering your bases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
how is learning about games going to help you in life though? unless you make a career as a games historian

well, videogames are very popular with the girls :( ........videogame historian? those guys would definately be spending their University life a virgin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coincidentally, from today it looks like Margaret Robertson, aka Mugla, aka the former editor of Edge is writing columns for the BBC news site about games (see?). I didn't really like what she did with Edge, but she should increase the quality of games reporting on the BBC about a hundredfold, hopefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites
well, videogames are very popular with the girls :( ........videogame historian? those guys would definately be spending their University life a virgin

I think you're talking rubbish. Some people study Economics at Uni, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That BBC article just needed some editing:

Killzone 2 is an archetypal shooter - a futuristic action title that draws on the symbolism of World War II to create a sense of familiarity.

That's really all one needs to say about Killzone 2.

Shame the writer felt compelled to write a poor article around that gem of a line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another example of our BA games history example contained an infamous question that caused a commotion.

'What point of view is GTA played?'

a)First person

b)Third person

c)Isometric view

d)Top down view

The official answer according to them was B but they soon announced d) would also be accepted after it was brought up. Oh dear...

That said, this exam was difficult on some questions. It wasn't a broad history of video games, it was a narrow history of what videogames the lecturer had played. While 90% was as simple as above, a lot of questions were so obscure they were plainly just there to test who had been turning up to the pointless, idiotic, poorly thoughtout lectures.

All first year courses at University should be abolished. It's a waste of time and money.

However, for schools I don't see a problem with making courses on different subjects to the traditional as long as they are being taught something useful. It's just that I don't have enough of an imagination to think of what skills these kids could possibly be getting from the History of Videogames (and yes, the teachers aren't going to know anything about it much like when they all started doing IT). All my course from above taught me was that being a Lecturer is an easy job and something to aim for when I'm tired of real work.

If it's something like comprehension and understanding the text in English then it shouldn't matter if it's Shakespeare or Harry Potter. Shockingly in the real world I have had little need to comprehend ancient text of yesteryear in my day-to-day life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I knew I wasn't going to be a Chemist, Physicist or Mathematitian! Nor a historian or...well...whatever it is English literature sets you up for. I also don't think for one moment that learning these things at GCSE level would help you in a career. You learn your career skills both at university and/or on the job. Most of the essentials will be re-covered when you start a focused course anyway.

I think they should put more focus on subjects that will genuinely help you in life, the creative subjects. Music for one. Subjects that you will keep with you throughout life, rather than just junking at the soonest opportunity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My guess: that was written by a child or relative of someone on the editorial team.

I wouldn't have thought it was written by a child - the reference to the Exocet Missile is at least 20 years out of date!

Reads like a really dull gamer putting on their bestest writing. Or a parody. Or Phil Harrison's mum. Or some other Sony shill - maybe Sony have picked up a PR team with a couple of bloggers employed at the Beeb.

I loved:

The game is Sony's Exocet missile at the heart of Xbox 360 owners; a rocket designed to convince doubters that the PlayStation 3 has the explosive power to blow away its rivals.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they should put more focus on subjects that will genuinely help you in life, the creative subjects. Music for one. Subjects that you will keep with you throughout life, rather than just junking at the soonest opportunity.

Knowing musical theory is more useful than knowing the laws of physics?

Oh man, prepare for a beatdown when the science posse sees this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how being able to write a short song is infinitely more helpful in life than being able to figure out what foundations you need to bear the load of your proposed building, or being able to calculate the height of a cooling tower to help maximise drug production to combat disease or stuff.

In all seriousness, I was all for going to uni to learn about making games and shit. This was about 6 years ago. Now I'm nearly finished a Chemical Engineering degree. But you know, it's useless in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're talking early education here. And music is much more important that physics yes. Playing an instrument has many health benefits, both physical and mental. It would set people up with a skill they could cherish for the rest of their lives. Knowledge of physics would only benefit a chosen few people.

I can see how being able to write a short song is infinitely more helpful in life than being able to figure out what foundations you need to bear the load of your proposed building, or being able to calculate the height of a cooling tower to help maximise drug production to combat disease or stuff.

Yes, I'm sure you'd learn all of that at a GCSE level wouldn't you? GCSEs teach you very little in the way of essential skills. Leave those for when people actually know what they want to do with their lives instead of trying to shoehorn every student out in the exact cookie-cutter way. Pass rates are the only thing education boards care about these days, not the benefit of the students.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We're talking early education here. And music is much more important that physics yes. Playing an instrument has many health benefits, both physical and mental. It would set people up with a skill they could cherish for the rest of their lives. Knowledge of physics would only benefit a chosen few people.

Could someone ridicule this please.

I really don't know where to begin. Seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you try yourself? Seriously. I'm creatively minded and had a rather shite time in education. None of it benefitted me. I've had several in-depth conversations with both of my parents, both teachers, and they agree.

I'm not saying scrap it completely, but the way it is taught today, most of it is irrelavent. The children should be encouraged to progress in subjects they enjoy and are suited to for a start. There's no flexibility.

On second thoughts, don't bother. I hate getting involved in forum 'discussions' like this because they always just deteriate into a slagging match. I doubt I could convince you of the benefits of being creative just as I very much doubt you could convince me that being able to calculate the pull of Earth's gravity, the exact biological anatomy of a cow's insides and the complete works of Shakespeare would truly be more useful to a person in their lifetime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if your creative brain can't handle it, you should damn well learn the history of the modern world we live in, and you should damn well know how it works. Creative kids don't exactly need to be taught to be creative - give them a book (having taught them to read!) and they can figure out any instrument. Music lessons are a middle-class indulgence.

The people who disagree with the first bit fill our council estates and our prisons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On second thoughts, don't bother. I hate getting involved in forum 'discussions' like this because they always just deteriate into a slagging match. I doubt I could convince you of the benefits of being creative just as I very much doubt you could convince me that being able to calculate the pull of Earth's gravity, the exact biological anatomy of a cow's insides and the complete works of Shakespeare would truly be more useful to a person in their lifetime.

I could fairly easily convince anyone that 'being' creative is a hell of a lot more easily achieved than 'teaching' knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And why do they fill our estates and prisons? Because they were bored in schools, taught the wrong bloody stuff (the stuff you want them taught) when they should have been put on a building or engineering apprenticeship. And by the by, my 'creative brain' can handle these things just fine. I'm also smart enough to see that, although I know all this pointless stuff, it's exactly that. Pointless.

And I'm not talking about 'teaching' creativity, you can't do that. But you can 'encourage' it. Which just isn't done in our schools these days, in favour of cramming their heads with useless facts so they can write them down on an exam paper and then forget them when they pass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? Don't change the argument here - you proposed replacing the teaching of actual stuff at an early age with creative fancy. That's quite different to advocating technical colleges for people who couldn't be arsed to listen at school.

Hahahahaha.

You, my dear, are spectacular!

Shut it you mong, you're far worse than he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No no, not replace entirely. Just shift the balance and make it more flexible.

I don't think flexibility is the point of mandatory education. The point is to nurture everyone to a point where they can function at a high level in society and make informed decisions for themselves. Give kids flexibility and they'll do whatever comes most easily to them with as little of the more difficult stuff as possible - which sounds to me like the worst education in the world.

You're teaching future grown-ups to observe, to think, and to challenge. You're not teaching kids to follow their own childish instincts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree you can't just say 'Okay! We're just going to play music today!' School of Rock style, but I think the creative side of growing up does benefit how you will function in later life.

I like this quote I read once:

Have you ever noticed how the cleverest people at school are not those who make it in life?

What you learn at school are facts, known facts.

Your job at school is to accumulate and remember facts. The more you can remember, the better you do. Those who fail at school are not interested in facts; or maybe the facts are not put to them in a way they find interesting.

Some people simply don't have a great faculty for memory.

It doesn't mean they are stupid. It means their imagination hasn't been fired up by academic tuition.

People who are conventionally clever get jobs on their qualifications (the past), not on their desire to succeed (the future).

Very simply, they get overtaken by those who continually strive to be better than they are.

As long as the goal is there, there is no limit to anyone's achievement

I may have come across a little strong earlier, I love art and music very much (which is odd, as my Dad is a scientist and my Mum teaches History/English) and get a bit annoyed when it is seemingly swept away in favour of these more 'fact remembering' excercises.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I may have come across a little strong earlier, I love art and music very much (which is odd, as my Dad is a scientist and my Mum teaches History/English) and get a bit annoyed when it is seemingly swept away in favour of these more 'fact remembering' excercises.

People have bad days, come on here and read something they don't like... it happens.

You have to realise though, your ability to learn facts is what pins down your ability to read music, to know what lead or brush to use in a picture, which two colours will make that colour, and absolutely bloody everything you were taught about art and music. You couldn't be half as good at doing this had you not put up with learning who died in what war, and the reason why ice floats. Education is designed to give a broad but ultimately superficial understanding of everything so that you can find what you like while absobing the skills needed to give anything a go.

I did nothing but piss about in Art and Music lessons, but I can hold a pencil just fine, read and write sheet music, and I'm learning the guitar at the moment. It's not as though it requires that much effort to pick up yourself - the hard part is having 'how to learn' drilled into you, and you'll never manage that by not forcing kids to learn algebra.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.