"Game Design" is the creative side of it.

There is no real difference between game programming and any other software engineering, only what problems you solve.
If you are interested in the technical side, my general recommendation is to get a solid technical education, and apply it on your interest, that is, do the game programming on your own time.

You can't become a "top tier programmer" from education alone, it takes lots and lots of practice and self study, and then some more practice.

Indeed, a solid CompSci or Software Engineering degree is usually the better choice for programmers, software is software and those degrees make it far easier to get programming jobs in other industries. DigiPen offers a: "Bachelor of Science in Computer Science in Real-Time Interactive Simulation" and also a "Bachelor of Science in Computer Engineering" which are more suitable for aspiring programmers. (I don't know how well they hold up compared to a similar degree from a traditional tech school like MIT though).

As a Digipen grad myself (now several years ago), I will say that there are both pros and cons to going the Digipen route.

But first, a detour.

Just like there are little-c colleges (e.g. University of Middle-of-Nowhere) and there are big-C Colleges (MIT, et all), so too are there game schools and Game Schools. little-g game schools are places like Devry, as-seen-on-TV schools, and other such degree-mills. Big-G Game Schools are a category occupied by, IMHO, Digipen and games/multimedia-focused programs at Universities such as the Guildhall at SMU. Then there's FullSail, which occupies a weird sort of middle-ground, not poor enough to be called a degree-mill, but not up to the level of a University or Digipen, either.

End detour.

Pros:

• Structured, hands-on environment (4+ game projects of increasing scale/complexity).
  
• Surround yourself with passionate, like-minded individuals.
  
• Focus on C++ (Don't limit your world-view to C++, but many programs offer no hands-on C++ at all)
  
• Deep dive into stuff relevant to game development.
  
• Some really great instructors.
  
• Engaging coursework.
  

Cons:

• The degree is less portable, most hiring managers have no clue what to make of it if they're outside games or entertainment.
  
• Somewhat shallow coverage of some traditional CS coursework (Operating Systems, Compiler theory, etc)
  
• Little exposure to topics well outside of game development methodology (e.g. Functional programming)
  
• Limited interaction with people outside the gamer mentality (If you attend Digipen, I suggest making friends at nearby University of Washington)
  
• Less opportunity to study or pursue other interests (few non-technical courses, no theater, sports, or practical skills courses, for example)
  
• Male-female ratio of about 30:1 (better in the art programs, worse in the technical programs)
  
• Some pretty poor instructors.
  

It's been about 7 years now since I've graduated, so its hard for me to say with 100% authority how much things may or may not have changed, and for better or worse. More-recent grads I know have the grizzled-look of someone who's "survived" Digipen, but the majority are happily employed, and a few of those doing really amazing things. One measure I do have, is that nearly all of the great instructors I had in my time are still around, and most of the poor instructors I had are long-gone. Whether the bad eggs were replaced with better ones I don't know, but to their credit, Digipen has always been very serious about their teaching staff, and pays wages well above what a typical University instructor receives (in general, University work is appealing to most instructors because of reasonable pay, combined with tenure and funding opportunities for research they're interested in).

Overall, I'm satisfied with my degree (though, at the time I got mine it was about 35% less expensive than now) and, despite being only an Associate's Degree, which they used to offer mostly as a means to those who had already graduated from a CS degree (I hadn't, but I had programming experience) it's served me well enough. There's a slight misconception that Digipen is completely devoid of teaching any theoretical underpinnings of computer science, and while its true that some of the more-ancillary aspects are given a shallower treatment than they might be in a good, traditional CS program, they still do introduce a fair breadth of topics and teachings. You're not going to write an operating system (well, the computer engineers probably do, actually), and you're not going to write a compiler (but you will perform optimizations on abstract syntax trees), but you will design logic and breadboard simple designs, study data structures and big-O analysis, learn how computer networks operate at low-levels, and lots of other things that you probably don't get at any of those little-g game schools.

In the end, its really a question of location, expense, the teaching and peer environment you prefer, whether you're the kind of person who would prefer to cobble together games while at University, or to flesh out your CS theory while at Digipen, and whether the added portability and "safety" of a University degree is important to you.

it says I'm required to complete a summer sketchbook thingy. IS that reall something I have to do as someone who is interested in the software engineering aspect of game development?

What did Digipen say when you asked them this question?

[quote name='frob' timestamp='1351097298' post='4993472']
The forum FAQ's entries on game schools still seems very applicable. What about them do you feel is outdated?

1. I just look at the post dates of those articles, and they were written in 1999-2004. Even in the articles themselves, they mention that the industry is rapidly changing, and how instructors constantly have to adapt the curriculum to suit the changing industry.
2. Since these were written right around the very start of the explosion of games into the mainstream market, I assumed many of these points may be have been moot.
[/quote]

1. We would still say that today! We don't know what's going to happen with the coming generation of consoles, how/when the industry is going to go online-only, and so on. The industry is still rapidly changing. A 2012 article would still admit that.
2. By "mainstream market," you mean casual/social games, I take it?

[quote name='RadioactiveMicrobe' timestamp='1351103801' post='4993501']
B) Getting a strong software engineering background, then translating it to game development. (The benefit being that it has a bigger "safety net.")

From what I've read on here, it seems that many agree that it's more effective to take option B. Am I right in thinking this?

Correct.

Programmers who write game code are still programmers. Become a good programmer and you can work anywhere inside or outside the games industry.
[/quote]

To be fair, most people do argue for option B, and I think that mostly comes down to what I mentioned about the degree being less-portable, rightly or wrongly.

But if we focus on "become a good programmer" then you can do that at a place like Digipen or Guildhall too. Sure, a grad from a top CS school like MIT or what-have-you is likely better versed, and is likely in a better place in life by virtue of the name on his degree. But can someone come out of Digipen and be just as competent as the average or even above-average graduate of your typical, good University CS program? Absolutely.

Anecdotally, and I'm sure people have equally anecdotal horror-stories about ex-Digipeners who just squeeked-out a degree, my own interaction with University of Washington students, and interactions I've observed, is that those students and Digipen students were largely on par with each other. We knew some things that they didn't, they knew some things that we didn't, but at the end of the day we could all converse on the same level and solve problems equally well. University of Washington, mind you, is not a run-of-the-mill CS school. They're a top-10 program with an impressive, multi-million-dollar facility, and lots of interesting research going on. I concede this is not a deep analysis or comparison of traits or abilities of these students, but I believe it counts for something.

At the end of the day, I would say that University is, hands-down, the safer route, but that there is no definitive statement one way or the other that its the better route.

The last thing I'm telling the OP is to choose this school or that school. My aim here is merely to share what experience I've had and observations I've made, so that he can make his own choice. However, the tone here is often so seemingly dismissive of Digipen that one could come away with the impression that no Digipen student has ever "stacked up", when in reality, they stack up just as well as University grads, for the most part.

Keep in mind that the typical Digipen grad you see out in the wild looking for work are not always the cream of the crop -- About the top 5 or 10 percent of Digipen's would-be graduates are poached by game companies each year and never officially complete their degrees. Others form their own companies, and others still are so much like their university contemporaries that, once hired into a company, no one ever learns or cares what school they might have gone to. It's really only the poor performers or chronic job-seekers that people notice, and then say "Oh, they went to that school..." when trying to explain it all.

Again, I'm not trying to sell anyone on Digipen or not. It's a school like any other. Which is the point I'm trying to make, really. It shouldn't be put on an altar, nor should it be dismissed out of hand.