Games are some of the most complex and challenging kinds of software to write. They are also fun to work on.

_ Do you want to work for people who are too to small-minded to realise the benefits of game programming?

_ Personally I would be honest, and try and find a job with pragmatic people, that I would enjoy and find rewarding.

_ What if you get a job with a 'serious' company only to discover that they are idiots and you quit after a few months?

_ In short, be yourself. You'll be happier.

> Games are some of the most complex and challenging kinds of software to write.

Used to be. For many small devs/hobbyists, it's a matter of clicking in Unity and not actually "writing" anything.

Writing your own game engine (esp. 3D engine) is complex and challenging. Building a game in Unity is like putting Lego pieces together in comparison.

Agree with your other points though.

Unity happens to be my area of expertise. :)

_ You could get lots of pre-made assets from the Unity store and cobble them together into some kind of 'game', but you'd be very limited in what you could do. Also more crucially you'd have diminishing returns as your project snowballs into a spaghettian nightmare, eventually becoming impossible to work on and unplayable for the bugs.

_ The whole writing a rendering engine in C++ and so on, isnt that big of a deal imo, its a solved problem say. The bane of any poorly composed software project is complexity, no matter what framework or engine you use, even Unity, you need clean code and a suitable architecture to make something complex and/or maintainable.

As someone who has done both, you can either spend all your time writing complex PBR shaders, or you can spend all your time writing complex gameplay code.

Unity is only "like putting together Lego blocks" in the sense that one very versatile brick and a few fairly trivial bricks are provided to you out of the box, but you'll still need to vacuum form your own set of specialized bricks for the rest of the game.

I am never one to say "don't reinvent the wheel". I think the phrase is universally used by malcontents to berate newbs. I think there is still a lot of value to be had in people starting new game engine projects. But if you want to make a game, rather than a game engine, you should probably be using Unity or Unreal. Making a game in Unity is absolutely a complex undertaking. Just not in the rendering shader code. Which is only a small part of any project.

You have to know C# (or the other BS languages that don't matter) to do anything worth doing in Unity. It's not as complex as writing an engine from scratch (which almost no one actually does to the point of having an actual game running on it) but it's not "putting Lego pieces together" either.

They dropped other languages recently, so now it's just a very outdated version of C#.

They haven't dropped any language yet.

They're planning to update to a newer version of C# and they will drop the other languages as a part of that update.

I think this is less true today with all the game engines doing 90% of the hard technical work for you, otherwise I would agree. However, the question isn't whether it can show skill (it definitely can), but whether that results in a payoff (i.e. is being recognized).

> Do you want to work for people who are too to small-minded to realise the benefits of game programming?

Some people can't judge the merits of game programming, that doesn't make them small minded. Depending on where you want to work, you may not have much of a choice in those terms anyway.

I think you might share a common misconception on what the hard part of game programming is.

Rendering and shaders and 'technical' stuff are all, as I put it, solved, problems. You can read a book that will show you how to suitably implement them.

Managing the interactions between a dozen different and novel systems, however, is the part and where most seem to fail and what I'd consider the hard part.

> Some people can't judge the merits of game programming, that doesn't make them small minded.

Right, but the problem is those that do judge it in a systematically negative way.

I'm not sure that's really much of a problem, this guy may have just encountered some self-important pricks (and it's good he found that out early).

On the other hand, if the position is about <X> and the applicant has half his experience in <Y> instead, that's going to be a negative (not necessarily a deal breaker) no matter what.

Interviewer was not smart. Games are super positive to have in portfolio, due to them being products with complex architecture and high UX demands.

It might be not great for pay, but generally game devs have no trouble landing jobs in non gaming fields.

Also a lot of enterprise user facing applications run on Unity/Unreal.

>Also a lot of enterprise user facing applications run on Unity/Unreal.

Do you have any examples? (Not that I don't believe you, just curious)

>In my country when I last interview I got treated like an fool every time I mentioned I program games.

Just use it as a filter. If you get that reaction, you most definitely don't want to work at that place. Save yourself the time.

In fact, if the interviewer(s) who have that reaction were to take a permanent marker and scrawl "ignorant, low-caliber trash" across their foreheads, it'd accomplish the exact same thing as their outward disdain for game programming.

In addition to what others have already said here (Games are super hard to do, so any interviewer with even a modicum of technical acumen will value it highly), I would add that there might be some cultural factors at work here. My experience with the italian software scene is virtually non-existent, so take my prejudices with a grain of salt, but my impression is that mainland Europe is much more conservative with regards to credentials. You might have a much difference experience interviewing in some of the tech hotspots. Moving within EU is easy - hop on a plane north and talk to some companies.

One year at GDC (game developer's conference) I saw that SpaceX of all companies had a booth in the same area of the conference reserved for companies looking to hire devs.

At first I thought this was rather curious. What on earth would SpaceX want to do with game devs?

Then I found this article. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-spacex-at-a-video-game...

Turns out it's not uncommon for SpaceX to hire game devs. Apparently if you can make a relatively sophisticated game (especially an online multiplayer game), you can make software for a rocket.

So there you have it, game dev experience is good, and it sounds like that interviewer you talked to is a liability to his company for passing on great talent.

Other commenters pointed out that the interviewer was stupid to hold this against you, and that this signals what kind of people you might expect to work with - both are correct IMO. The interview goes two way -- it's also your chance to interview your potential employer.

However, here's some additional unsolicited advice: a useful rule of thumb for any portfolio, reference or experience info you may want to bring up during the interview is: Include only the information that will support/advance your changes of getting the job you want

As a contrived example, if you've done a tonne of PHP work but have recently switched to Haskell and want to do more of that, your resume should highlight whatever Haskell stuff you did do, even if trivial, and only mention PHP in passing ("I've also done plenty of work in various other languages such as PHP" - this is not to say to not include the projects, just don't bring up the PHP part).

Specific to your situation, if you've got web/app dev references, code, etc, put them up front. But if not (probably the case here), the games/demos will (should!) be a great showcase of your passion and ability to deliver, and are useful as an indication of how clean / well thought out / polished your code is. The smart interviewers will recognize this.

Your interviewer was an idiot.

I'm going to second this, massively. Games are both serious software (take a look at how big of a chunk of the entertainment industry they represent), and often make for difficult problems. Your interviewer was just an ass.

I'd second this. I don't game, and have never had any interest in developing games, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it. I've always seen game development as a positive when hiring. Keep it up.

Another non-gamer agreeing that games are seriously tough software to program correctly. One of the relatively few places in software engineering where you really need to use a lot of applied math.

I also make games. This has never caused problems in interviews because of technical reasons.

It has caused people to ask, "Why would you want a job like this when it's clear you want to make games"

Best Interiview is where I made the Management guy quite nervouse because the conversation with the tech guy was going so well It looked like he was going to quit to go make games also.

Did you frame it in terms of the problems you solved rather than the game part? While the interviewer may have a bias against games, it could be spun as "I learned a complicated technology to build this game" or "in order to build this game I had to keep refreshes under XXms which required an innovative solution to state handling". Or perhaps "yes it is a game, but I use it to keep my skills sharp. I use the game to push my boundaries and practice good coding skills, and bring those improvements to my day job"

Being Italian myself it makes me both angry and sad reading about what you experienced in your interviews.

Beside what many already mentioned (developing games is actually quite complex, so keep doing that and don't hide it!) I'd suggest you to take a look at developer jobs around Europe. I'm working as a developer in Berlin and I can tell you there are a lot of great opportunities here if you are willing to relocate. Feel free to get in touch if you need anything! Buona fortuna!

Games are applications designed to solve a particular problem domain, no different than any other type of software. It just happens that the problem they solve is "having fun" or, more cynically, "monetizing fun."

Most "game developers" don't even ship anything (currently including myself) so what I would be concerned about is not having a game, which itself puts you ahead of a lot of people, but what the quality of the game is, and what it demonstrates about your abilities as a programmer. Games can be incredibly complex and difficult to build and can demonstrate a myriad of useful skills. As someone with a CS degree in, basically, "C# CRUD apps that talk to Access" who dabbles in game development on the side, I definitely respect it. Even using a framework like Unity doesn't make it easy, just easier.

Unfortunately (although somewhat deservedly) Unity development and indie game development so there might be a bit of friction involved if that's all you have in your portfolio.

But no, I wouldn't remove them, certainly not if they're any good.

Having anything in a public GitHub or code portfolio I can look at puts you ahead of a majority of candidates in my experience. An interviewer with the attitude you mention is conflating producing games with playing games. Games present some serious technical and UX/product issues and should be considered serious software, even if playing games isn't a serious pursuit.

You absolutely should not remove them. It depends on the job, and the complexity of the games you create, but worst case if the interviewer is personable (e.g. not your terrible interviewer) it's at least a talking point and can show you're more well rounded, but if the job deals with the same languages that you've programmed the games in it's even better. It's definitely a different part of the industry but I've never heard of games being detrimental to a portfolio, and in fact I've heard some respect/praise for ideas from game development a previous job (doing front end web development).

I absolutely love it when potential hires have developed games in their spare time. Firstly it shows that they program outside of work which suggests they really love programming and aren't just clock punchers. Secondly it shows that they are the kind of person who can complete a non trivial project purely through intrinsic motivation. Finally games can be pretty technically challenging so if you can make something half decent you probably know what you are doing. Any company that looks down on you for writing games is probably not going to be a fun place to work.

Someone in an Architect role here.

IMHO programming is programming.

So in practice: if you can proof to me in any way that you will actually make my job easier instead of harder (which basically means you are able to write easy to understand, thought out code and you are able to deliver in the timeframe we agreed on), and you are a nice addition to my team humanwise (which in practice means that you do not behave like an asshole, and leave politics out of work) then you get a thumbs up from me.

But anyway, this is me. Other people might have other opinions.

Did you showcase the engineering challenges or the 'features' of the game? Meaning, were you talking primarily about code, or how fun it was to play? I'm wondering if it was how you presented yourself.

Unfortunately I don't have any personal experience here. But there are many gamers in the 'serious' business software jobs I have worked here in the US. I'm watching someone play super mario galaxy right now, and it would be much more challenging than making crud apps.

Why would it matter if the discussion is over the design or how fun the game is vs the technology aspect? The former is a "product focused" perspective, while the latter is more engineering focused. Both are desirable ways to look at software problems.

This is a good point, it depends on the job however. Product focus might not be necessary. I've had job interviews where they were concerned that I wouldn't be happy due to not having any control/input over the product.

Nope, keep it up -- they are not! However, I guess it depends on the environment. Europe tends to generally be more conservative.

So when you're talking to a (dry and boring?) ERP company, they might not have much affinity with games. On that same note, a game company might not have much affinity with ERP / MSFT MFC stuff. You should probably focus on the technologies used more than on it being actual games when talking to an interviewer.

So you're going from one extreme, to the other. :)

How many interviewers for software development jobs in Europe do even know what a Github portfolio is (serious question)? The developers will at least know what Github is. But the idea of having a Github portfolio or developing software for fun and for free is definitely a foreign concept for many. I wouldn't mention this at all when interviewing for a position in normal (boring) corporation in Europe.

Whenever I see a game on a candidate's profile, I like to spend at least a few minutes trying to play the game or get it working, review its code, and then ask some pointed questions about it during our interview. I love seeing hobby game dev stuff. So many opportunities for creativity, problem solving, an open endedness

Why would a developer want to work on a Serious Enterprise Business Application (tm) as a side project after doing just that all day? The whole point of a side project is to work on something in a different domain with different challenges and technologies, and that isn’t a big important production system.

I'm an italian dev too and it is not so difficult to find stupid interviewers like that, especially if you are looking for a job in a big corporate. You should filter ahead your potential employers and you should always think at what you really want to do: corporate stuffs or something else?

USA here. As someone who has sat on both sides of the interview table, I've never once thought of game development being a negative thing to have in your portfolio. I don't know what your country is like but that attitude sounds moronic and immature.

Not a bad move at all! Games and their creation are one of the most creative tasks to accomplish in my experience, therefore highly regarded (as i came to know).

Sociological question for anyone willing to answer, why is it seen as a "bad skill" in Italy?

As an employer, I can say that it's nice to have someone who also programs as a hobby. Games require passion for programming and a good deal of know-how. As opposed to someone who just finishes the task and goes home to do whatever else..

Games are hard, and will punish bad code a lot of the time (you only get XXms before the next frame, making poor performance easily visible). It says more about the interviewers that they don't realise that experience is valuable TBH.

Are you kidding? If I see game development on a resume, I get really excited! They showcase creativity, UX skills, and complex programming.

* I've hired over 30 programmers in my career and 2 former game developers are on my current team.

Useless stuff, make a game?

If people was clever enough,they would understand that creativity and curiosity are necessary things in order to make you a better programmer.

We are reaching a world where new ideas and new point views are necessary. att.Daniel

I'd consider game development experience to be a plus for any programmer.

Interviewers aren't developers. Just keep it on GitHub and don't mention it. If it is mentioned, say you are interested in the deep software improvements that games require

If anything, quite the opposite. Don't let those fools put you down. The challenges you've solved, if anything, have a wide range of complexities in my opinion.

It seems you have found a very useful way to filter out terrible employers.

Ask yourself: do you want to work at a company or your coworkers think game programming is bad?

It 100% depends on the company and the hiring process.

It probably helps with some of the "cool" places. I would certainly value it as a plus in "general skill level", but that's because I'm cool.

It will probably not help or even be held against you with the "uncool" places. If it comes down to it, why would they hire you instead of the clown that has experience in <related enterprise crap> instead?