What does 'game design' mean?
LShaping
know what design means but how far removed is C++ (or whatever) source
code from normal discussion in this group? I would appreciate an idea
of where the science (or art) typically lies, between computer program
source code and an untested idea for improvement of a game.
Without argument,
LShaping
Tom Sloper
email addr given), you wrote:
>I am curious to know what design means in the context of this group. I
>know what design means but how far removed is C++ (or whatever) source
>code from normal discussion in this group?
Although a lot of people keep posting programming questions on this
newsgroup, that doesn't mean we define game design differently from the way
most folks would define it.
Although programmers often perform design functions in the course of what
they do to make games, design and programming are two different things.
On-topic discussions on this newsgroup would be about the design of games -
user interfaces, fun factor, how story impacts the overall experience, etc.
Discussions of C++ would be off-topic (but they happen all the time anyway).
>I would appreciate an idea
>of where the science (or art) typically lies, between computer program
>source code and an untested idea for improvement of a game.
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Untested ideas? For improving games?
Art vs. science?
Tom
Tom Sloper
http://www.sloperama.com
Peter Cowderoy
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, LShaping wrote:
> I am curious to know what design means in the context of this group. I
> know what design means but how far removed is C++ (or whatever) source
> code from normal discussion in this group?
We don't touch it.
While I've never seen anyone actually do it, I wouldn't be that surprised
if someone defined a deterministic finite automaton or similar for a
player's possible input (such notations are about the only way in hell
you're ever going to be able to describe what's going on in a beat-'em-up
without everyone having played it, for example). Likewise don't be
surprised to see people thinking in highly mathematical terms once in a
while.
I'm supposed to put a quote here?
Günther Gruber
> While I've never seen anyone actually do it, I wouldn't be that surprised
> if someone defined a deterministic finite automaton or similar for a
> player's possible input (such notations are about the only way in hell
> you're ever going to be able to describe what's going on in a beat-'em-up
> without everyone having played it, for example). Likewise don't be
> surprised to see people thinking in highly mathematical terms once in a
> while.
Well, there have been done researches about games. Minesweeper was found to
be NP-complete... *g*
Gerry Quinn
>
>Well, there have been done researches about games. Minesweeper was found to
>be NP-complete... *g*
Who says only simple games are popular!
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzles, Arcade, Strategy, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
Check out our new arcade-puzzler "Bubbler"!
wes chow
> Well, there have been done researches about games. Minesweeper was found to
> be NP-complete... *g*
As well as the "16 puzzle"... that's the game where you slide tiles around
to form either a picture or a sequence of numbers.
Well, maybe the *16* puzzle isn't NP-complete, but the N-puzzle is...
Wes
Peter Cowderoy
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <9ulf5g$eck$07$1...@news.t-online.com>, "Günther Gruber" <g...@mail-me.com> wrote:
> >
> >Well, there have been done researches about games. Minesweeper was found to
> >be NP-complete... *g*
>
> Who says only simple games are popular!
>
NP-complete is the *definition* of simple. Oh, and tedious :-)
Sean Howard
: Well, there have been done researches about games. Minesweeper was found to
: be NP-complete... *g*
Games Theory has little to do with Game Design. Game Theory is the study
of making decisions and games just provide a closed environment which
is perfect for that study.
Game Design revolves around a whole different universe. Sure, games still
involve the (sometimes) heavy use of decision making, but games also share
the passive traits of other media. Some games are nothing but decisions,
like Tetris, while some games are decisions based on abstractions of the
real world (ie problem solving not self contained in the gameplay - not
a closed system), and some games you watch as much or more than you play,
such as Dragon's Lair.
Game Design appears to be artistic ideas about how a game plays, looks,
or feels. I say artistic because in most cases there is never a wrong
answer, though in situation of balance there is often a better answer.
So if I were to tell you guys that I made a DOOM-like game, the design
would be the non-existing idea of the product, while the programming and
art would be the technique of the product. Game design is all about ideas,
but they are very closely tied to the technique of implementing them. Game
design can also include the architecture of the program, something as
important and artistic as the idea, but somewhat better suited for a technical
newsgroup.
Believe it or not, I was once in the process of writing a book on this
subject, but never could get satisfied with how anything was written. TOo
bad because there was some damn brilliant stuff in there. I considered
posting some of it here, but people have a tendency to not read your
posts if they are over 3 paragraphs long (unless they are looking for
a way to insult you - or think you are insulting them).
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
On 6 Dec 2001, Sean Howard wrote:
> Believe it or not, I was once in the process of writing a book on this
> subject, but never could get satisfied with how anything was written. TOo
> bad because there was some damn brilliant stuff in there. I considered
> posting some of it here, but people have a tendency to not read your
> posts if they are over 3 paragraphs long (unless they are looking for
> a way to insult you - or think you are insulting them).
>
Actually, some sizable/meaningful traffic'd do this place a world of
good. We used to get some once in a while :-)
Robert Tweed
news:9umd4l$d2q$1...@news.fsu.edu...
> Günther Gruber (g...@mail-me.com) wrote:
>
> Believe it or not, I was once in the process of writing a book on this
> subject, but never could get satisfied with how anything was written. TOo
> bad because there was some damn brilliant stuff in there. I considered
> posting some of it here, but people have a tendency to not read your
> posts if they are over 3 paragraphs long (unless they are looking for
> a way to insult you - or think you are insulting them).
True, I don't think I could honestly be bothered reading any really long
posts in a newsgroup, unless I have managed to get hooked on the thread and
had a fair bit of spare time available. Why not put them on a webserver and
post a link though? That way they'd be up there permanently for people to
read when they feel like it.
- Robert
Sean Howard
: > Believe it or not, I was once in the process of writing a book on this
: > subject, but never could get satisfied with how anything was written.
: True, I don't think I could honestly be bothered reading any really long
: posts in a newsgroup, unless I have managed to get hooked on the thread and
: had a fair bit of spare time available. Why not put them on a webserver and
: post a link though? That way they'd be up there permanently for people to
: read when they feel like it.
Like I said, I was never happy with the words on the paper (or computer
screen, if you prefer). Stupid machine never does what I want it to do, only
what I tell it to do. Going back an rereading one of the chapters, I realize
that I don't have an ounce of writing ability in my entire body.
Still, the material was, in my opinion, interesting. In one section I compare
the 4 basic personality types (as original dictated by Plato and reinforced
by many philosophers since) and attempted to discover their reason for
playing and enjoying games. My conclusion was that people play games because
it appeals directly to their self-image, of which self-esteem is a huge part.
Rationals like games because it appeals to their smarts, Artisans like
the "fun" of them, Guardians have their sense of duty appealed to, and
Idealists like to do "good" things. Each type also has certain aspects that
will hook them in better. Rationals can live without a story, but Idealists
almost require one. They can also share interests. Guardians like Diablo
because the leveling up allows them to accomplish goals better and Rationals
like leveling up because it presents new skills to be mastered.
Sorry, I went into explain mode. Anyway, my 3 paragraphs are up so I need
to wrap things up. The book that existed in my head was really interesting
and had all sorts of insight into videogames on all sorts of topics. The
book on paper was pretty much crap. One day I may write all that stuff down
in an amazing fashion...but will anyone care?
@@
Sean Howard
Robert Tweed
> Robert Tweed (rob...@killingmoon.com) wrote:
> : > Believe it or not, I was once in the process of writing a book on this
> : > subject, but never could get satisfied with how anything was written.
> : > <blah blah blah blah blah>
>
> : True, I don't think I could honestly be bothered reading any really long
> : posts in a newsgroup, unless I have managed to get hooked on the thread
and
> : had a fair bit of spare time available. Why not put them on a webserver
and
> : post a link though? That way they'd be up there permanently for people
to
> : read when they feel like it.
>
> Like I said, I was never happy with the words on the paper (or computer
> screen, if you prefer). Stupid machine never does what I want it to do,
only
> what I tell it to do. Going back an rereading one of the chapters, I
realize
> that I don't have an ounce of writing ability in my entire body.
Still, you might as well stick it up on a website. If it's interesting, I'm
sure people will excuse your lack of grammatical ability. After all
Shakespeare could write, but I can't be bothered reading any of his stuff.
Writing ability is not what counts, really. Maybe you have some ideas that
others could incorporate into their own works. I'm planning to write some
stuff myself sometime soon, and I'm not the best writer on the planet
either.
- Robert
Gerry Quinn
>Believe it or not, I was once in the process of writing a book on this
>subject, but never could get satisfied with how anything was written. TOo
>bad because there was some damn brilliant stuff in there. I considered
>posting some of it here, but people have a tendency to not read your
>posts if they are over 3 paragraphs long (unless they are looking for
>a way to insult you - or think you are insulting them).
That's usenet: 50% useful discussion, 50% bear baiting!
Gerry Quinn
>> >Well, there have been done researches about games. Minesweeper was found=
> to
>> >be NP-complete... *g*
>>=20
>> Who says only simple games are popular!
>
>NP-complete is the *definition* of simple. Oh, and tedious :-)
I would say it is, rather, irrelevant. The fact of a problem being NP
doesn't say anything about the structure of the problem/search space.
It may have an interesting fractal structure, or a fairly homogenous
random structure (as a comparison, consider the output of different
classes of cellular automaton).
I would say an interesting puzzle is one with a tendency to create a
treelike search space in which classes of solutions that are
recognisable to the player can be ruled in or out by fairly simple
deductions. As the player progresses his local environment, at least,
takes on the form of part of a tree, with a small number of branches
that can be eliminated at any stage. Eventually he reaches an end-node
corresponding to the correct solution.
Certain types of problem, at least in certain ranges of parameters,
create such a search space. They are the ones that are fun, like
Minesweeper.
[BTW, Minesweeper fans may like to try Crazy Minsweeper, at your local
shareware library. It's quite a nice enhancement - adding multiple mine
types works well. I have no affiliation with the author.]
Robert Tweed
news:Q4KP7.15982$8s4....@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <9umd4l$d2q$1...@news.fsu.edu>, how...@mailer.fsu.edu (Sean
Howard) wrote:
>
> That's usenet: 50% useful discussion, 50% bear baiting!
I thought it was 10%/80% ????
(plus 10% spam of course)
- Robert
Sean Howard
: I would say an interesting puzzle is one with a tendency to create a
: treelike search space in which classes of solutions that are
: recognisable to the player can be ruled in or out by fairly simple
: deductions. As the player progresses his local environment, at least,
: takes on the form of part of a tree, with a small number of branches
: that can be eliminated at any stage. Eventually he reaches an end-node
: corresponding to the correct solution.
Can't the same thing be said for the Sliding Puzzle? Personally, I would
say that such a puzzle isn't very interesting. Once you understand the
system, you have no choice but to go forward. It is like coming to a
hole in the ground and the only viable option is to jump over it. That's
not decision making, thats option removal.
I think interesting puzzles are ones that don't have a single correct
solution or have some unknown piece of info to deal with. For example,
in Tetris, you deal not only with the blocks that come (and there are
better and worse solutions based on known knowledge), but you need to
also concern yourself with what is about to come. In such situations,
worse solutions could be turned into best solutions. For instance, leaving
a 4 block deep hole for a Tetris. That is a risky thing to do.
Then you've got games like Commandos in which the solution is the same
(ie removing an enemy obstacle), but not only is the solution variable,
so is the answer. For instance, you could kill the guy and hide his body,
make a noise which causes him to abandon post briefly, or just plain alerting
all the guards on the level (which can be a good thing if you know what you
are doing). It may seem like a tree-like structure of possibilities, but
it would be one MASSIVE tree, including sub-branches for the thousands of
possibilities when attempting one idea.
: Certain types of problem, at least in certain ranges of parameters,
: create such a search space. They are the ones that are fun, like
: Minesweeper.
Sliding Puzzle is a fun game (to some people), but the trick is that it
stops being fun once you've learned the 3 or four patterns that can solve
the puzzle. Likewise, Minesweeper can be reduced to a series of mechanical
responses to environmental stimulae. But they are still fun. I mean, some
people never figure out what a flawed and unbalanced game Tic Tac Toe is,
and will play it for fun all the time.
@@
Sean Howard
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn (ger...@indigo.ie) wrote:
>
>: I would say an interesting puzzle is one with a tendency to create a
>: treelike search space in which classes of solutions that are
>: recognisable to the player can be ruled in or out by fairly simple
>: deductions. As the player progresses his local environment, at least,
>: takes on the form of part of a tree, with a small number of branches
>: that can be eliminated at any stage. Eventually he reaches an end-node
>: corresponding to the correct solution.
>
>Can't the same thing be said for the Sliding Puzzle? Personally, I would
>say that such a puzzle isn't very interesting. Once you understand the
>system, you have no choice but to go forward. It is like coming to a
>hole in the ground and the only viable option is to jump over it. That's
>not decision making, thats option removal.
No, because the structure of the search space is not interesting.
Either you don't know the answer and it's a homogeneous mass of
seemingly equivalent positions, or you do understand it and it's too
trivial to be interesting.
Contrast this with Minesweeper. Minesweeper is compelling because (i)
the structure of the search space is transparent - you can see at a
glance which areas are completed and which are still to be done, and
(ii) there are usually one or more 'passageways' that you can explore,
in other words there are squares that you can locate and click on
safely, which bring you a bit closer to the solution.
>I think interesting puzzles are ones that don't have a single correct
>solution or have some unknown piece of info to deal with. For example,
>in Tetris, you deal not only with the blocks that come (and there are
>better and worse solutions based on known knowledge), but you need to
>also concern yourself with what is about to come. In such situations,
>worse solutions could be turned into best solutions. For instance, leaving
>a 4 block deep hole for a Tetris. That is a risky thing to do.
Minesweeper is at least as popular as Tetris. In any case, Tetris is a
different class of game - you might call it a puzzle but it doesn't fall
into the category I am considering (puzzles that do include logic
puzzles and jigsaws). Tetris doesn't have a significant search space.
>Then you've got games like Commandos in which the solution is the same
>(ie removing an enemy obstacle), but not only is the solution variable,
>so is the answer. For instance, you could kill the guy and hide his body,
>make a noise which causes him to abandon post briefly, or just plain alerting
>all the guards on the level (which can be a good thing if you know what you
>are doing). It may seem like a tree-like structure of possibilities, but
>it would be one MASSIVE tree, including sub-branches for the thousands of
>possibilities when attempting one idea.
Again, that's not the sort of puzzle I'm talking about.
>: Certain types of problem, at least in certain ranges of parameters,
>: create such a search space. They are the ones that are fun, like
>: Minesweeper.
>
>Sliding Puzzle is a fun game (to some people), but the trick is that it
>stops being fun once you've learned the 3 or four patterns that can solve
>the puzzle. Likewise, Minesweeper can be reduced to a series of mechanical
>responses to environmental stimulae. But they are still fun. I mean, some
>people never figure out what a flawed and unbalanced game Tic Tac Toe is,
>and will play it for fun all the time.
Minesweeper is the only one of those I find fun. (Or maybe I mean
addictive.)
The point I am making is really a mathematical one, pertaining to a
certain class of abstract games and puzzles. Games that are in a very
loose sense 'simulation oriented' such as Tetris or Commandos, don't
usually fall in this category.
With abstract games, if the logic of the game causes the search space to
take on a fractal structure, the larger repeating elements in the
structure become what we call strategic elements, and the game becomes
interesting. If it doesn't have such a structure, there's no strategy
to learn and it's purely a matter of calculation. (I suppose some
people may enjoy games of pure calculation well enough, but they do not
interest me.)
Minesweeper is a bit of a con in this sense, because the searching is
indeed mechanical (the only strategy involved comes when you have to
choose a cell for a pure guess, which happens rarely). I think perhaps
the search for a clickable cell among a lot of possibilities, in a
similar way to the search for a jigsaw piece, satisfies the same
pattern-recognition circuits of the brain that the attempt to recognise
a heuristic / strategic factor does.
Peter Cowderoy
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> Minesweeper is a bit of a con in this sense
>
I reiterate my original comment ;-)
Taren Durbank
> interesting and had all sorts of insight into
> videogames on all sorts of topics. The
> book on paper was pretty much crap. One day
> I may write all that stuff down
> in an amazing fashion...but will anyone care?
You sound so jaded Sean. Here's a perk (i hope):
"We computer game designers must put our shoulders together so that our
successors may stand on top of them. This book is my contribution to that
enterprise."
- from Chris Crawford, The Art of Computer Game Design
I say write it (or get a writer to write it for you), who knows what'll
happen...
David J Bailey
(Taren Durbank) wrote:
> > The book that existed in my head was really
> > interesting and had all sorts of insight into
> > videogames on all sorts of topics. The
> > book on paper was pretty much crap. One day
> > I may write all that stuff down
> > in an amazing fashion...but will anyone care?
>
> You sound so jaded Sean. Here's a perk (i hope):
>
Computer Games Architecture and Design (Morris and Rollings) has a lot to
say about design as a process and product (as opposed to
theoretical-too-many-beers-pseudo-science)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576104257/qid=1008609277/sr=1-1/re
f=sr_1_10_1/002-3811901-5762417
--------------------------------------------------
David Applegate
rather than down to earth real how-it-is done books. Most of the books out
are crap, 99% mumbo jumbo. Take a recent release on visual basic. 6
chapters, 200+ pages and only 6 items covered. Total pages in book needed -
12.
"David J Bailey" <djwb...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2001121...@djwbailey.compulink.co.uk...
Sean Howard
: Computer Games Architecture and Design (Morris and Rollings) has a lot to
: say about design as a process and product (as opposed to
: theoretical-too-many-beers-pseudo-science)
I've read that book. Good book. I liked it a lot, and it was every bit as
bitter as I am. They want to be astronomers in an industry of astronauts.
However, their approach was on the development of the game. As soon as they
started getting interesting, they'd shift subject. The authors cared about
games, but they didn't try to understand them. The book never said, videogames
are an art form worthy of study and awe. It said videogames are a product,
whose production is an artform worthy of study and awe. Big important
difference.
As for the pseudo science crack...
Do you think the material in Chris Crawford's book, interview, and papers
were more real than anything I've come up with? The only difference is
how accomplished he was before he said those things. You can bet that if I
created "Amazing Product 2001", you fuckers would hang on every word like
I was some sort of pagan god...whether I deserved it or not.
When Warren Spector speaks, you listen. Forget the fact that his
"understanding" is limited to a single approach, a single genre. He recreates
the same game over and over, everyone loves it. When John Carmack speaks,
you listen. Forget the fact that you are in awe because of his technology,
not game (a plague that haunts the industry today). He also creates the
same game over and over again. Peter Molyneux does also. And Sid Meier.
And Chris Taylor. And Chris Crawford.
No disrespect to the great works these men have achieved, but they don't
know jack about videogames. They have glimpses of truth, but they attribute
them to something else, and that something else becomes their "truth".
Be careful who your heros are...
If anything, the tone and approach to my book was going to be similar to
Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" - a too-many-beers book if ever
there was one...yet an amazing work that provides much insight into the
nature of comics if for no other reason than nobody bothered to think
about it yet. The comic often rambles on, or makes little sense, but the
product is unparralleled in the comic medium. He invented half of the
material in the book. It wasn't based on much outside source material, yet
it was thoughtful and interesting, and appreciated everything that every
comic ever was or will be. That sense of respect and awe permiates every
page, and you can't help but walk away from it feeling like if he isn't
right, then he's a hell of a lot closer than anyone before him.
Sometimes its enough to just get everyone else started...
@@
Sean Howard
MNT
> David J Bailey (djwb...@cix.co.uk) wrote:
>...
>
> Do you think the material in Chris Crawford's book, interview, and papers
> were more real than anything I've come up with?
What have you come up with?
> The only difference is
> how accomplished he was before he said those things. You can bet that if I
> created "Amazing Product 2001", you fuckers would hang on every word like
> I was some sort of pagan god...whether I deserved it or not.
Well, if you've come up w/ a way to predict future successes, we fuckers
would really like to hear it.
> When Warren Spector speaks, you listen. Forget the fact that his
> "understanding" is limited to a single approach, a single genre. He
recreates
> the same game over and over, everyone loves it. When John Carmack speaks,
> you listen. Forget the fact that you are in awe because of his technology,
> not game (a plague that haunts the industry today). He also creates the
> same game over and over again. Peter Molyneux does also. And Sid Meier.
> And Chris Taylor. And Chris Crawford.
When is YOUR game coming out?
Sounds like a case of sour-grapes-syndrome.
> No disrespect to the great works these men have achieved, but they don't
> know jack about videogames. They have glimpses of truth, but they
attribute
> them to something else, and that something else becomes their "truth".
Who did you say don't know jack about video games?
I suppose you hold the key to truth, otherwise, you wouldn't recognize
others not possessing total truth. What a head case.
> Be careful who your heros are...
Can you be my hero?
> If anything, the tone and approach to my book was going to be similar to
> Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" - a too-many-beers book if ever
> there was one...yet an amazing work that provides much insight into the
> nature of comics if for no other reason than nobody bothered to think
> about it yet. The comic often rambles on, or makes little sense, but the
> product is unparralleled in the comic medium. He invented half of the
> material in the book. It wasn't based on much outside source material, yet
> it was thoughtful and interesting, and appreciated everything that every
> comic ever was or will be. That sense of respect and awe permiates every
> page, and you can't help but walk away from it feeling like if he isn't
> right, then he's a hell of a lot closer than anyone before him.
Your book was going to be like that eh? Really...
Some how _I_ can't a the parallel between a successful software project and
some too-many-beers book.
> Sometimes its enough to just get everyone else started...
When should we be expecting this awe-inspiring publication?
Peter Cowderoy
> As for the pseudo science crack...
>
<snip>
> Sometimes its enough to just get everyone else started...
>
This rant needs to be hung up for all to see. You're spot on.
Many times I've wanted to sit down and put pen to paper on a bunch of
ideas, however handwavey, and failed to do so - if you've got them, then
one way or another go ahead and show us! Give this art of ours the kick in
the balls it needs to get itself under way.
'In Ankh-Morpork even the shit have a street to itself...
Truly this is a land of opportunity.' - Detritus, Men at Arms
Peter Cowderoy
> Your book was going to be like that eh? Really...
> Some how _I_ can't a the parallel between a successful software project and
> some too-many-beers book.
>
Congratulations, you're part of the problem. You're talking about
succesful software projects. You're not talking about great games.
MNT
"Peter Cowderoy" <psy...@cowderoy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.011218...@eagle.cowderoy.co.uk...
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, MNT wrote:
>
> > Your book was going to be like that eh? Really...
> > Some how _I_ can't a the parallel between a successful software project
and
> > some too-many-beers book.
> >
>
> Congratulations, you're part of the problem. You're talking about
> succesful software projects. You're not talking about great games.
They are not exclusive domains. I'm willing to bet there are more
successful games that are also successful software projects than otherwise.
MNT
"Peter Cowderoy" <psy...@cowderoy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.011218...@eagle.cowderoy.co.uk...
>
> > As for the pseudo science crack...
> >
> <snip>
> > Sometimes its enough to just get everyone else started...
> >
>
> This rant needs to be hung up for all to see. You're spot on.
>
> Many times I've wanted to sit down and put pen to paper on a bunch of
> ideas, however handwavey, and failed to do so - if you've got them, then
> one way or another go ahead and show us! Give this art of ours the kick in
> the balls it needs to get itself under way.
Sounds like a one-beer-too-many rant. The sooner people realize game making
isn't some mystical undertakings and part of the software engineering
proccess, the better it will be.
Sean Howard
: Sounds like a one-beer-too-many rant. The sooner people realize game making
: isn't some mystical undertakings and part of the software engineering
: proccess, the better it will be.
The sooner people realize game making isn't COMPLETELY a software
engineering process, the better it will be.
There are two problems with the game industry. One of them was covered
quite well in the "Architecture and Design" book. Programmers are lazy and
immature, and a good swift kick to the hackey-sack should get them in line.
The software development process has been improved steadily over the past
10 years, but most game programmers are stuck somewhere in the DOS days.
The other problem is a severe lack of idealism that goes into games.
Those few designers I mentioned in the previous post are working towards
a single truth, which is better than the other 99% which aren't working
for much of anything.
The game industry is perfectly fine the way it is. I buy a dozen games a
month. I own over 500 games that I dearly love and cherish. However, it
could be improved. Games could come out on time, or not get cancelled so
often. Designers can also start creating more original concepts that bask
in the strengths of games, rather than revel in their weaknesses.
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: > Do you think the material in Chris Crawford's book, interview, and papers
: > were more real than anything I've come up with?
: What have you come up with?
A hell of a lot more than his book has.
: Well, if you've come up w/ a way to predict future successes, we fuckers
: would really like to hear it.
Actually, that's easy. Take current best selling game, add features, release.
Of course, to predict those best sellers that aren't genre pieces, like
Tetris or Donkey Kong or Beatmania...well, that's impossible.
: When is YOUR game coming out?
So far, I apparently have appeared too controversial for the unusually
conservative game industry. I'm working on something right now that
is beyond anything you've ever seen before. No seriously, there isn't
a game like this. Of course, I have to pretty much invent the game as
it happens. And no, I won't let you see it.
: Sounds like a case of sour-grapes-syndrome.
I hate most of the game programmers I've spoken to, but I am constantly
in awe of the game designers I'm met, spoken to, or read. I don't agree
with them (for the most part), but I can't help be a big fanboy.
: Who did you say don't know jack about video games?
That would be the game designers I mentioned, which included most known
names except for Miyamoto.
: I suppose you hold the key to truth, otherwise, you wouldn't recognize
: others not possessing total truth. What a head case.
The work that I wanted to create would've been useful to those with an
open mind to consider it. Could it change the industry? Oh yes. Would
it? Not likely. It only works if people are willing to listen to what I
have to say without attacking it instantly. I mean, you've not read a single
sentence from my abandoned project, yet you insist on attacking.
What are you attacking? My book? Me? Or just the fact that the idea of the
book makes you feel insignificant?
: Can you be my hero?
Sorry, in my cult, only I'm allowed to be sarcastic.
: Some how _I_ can't a the parallel between a successful software project and
: some too-many-beers book.
Well, I'm not surprised.
: When should we be expecting this awe-inspiring publication?
Read back a few messages. You know there isn't going to be a book by the
words I use, like "My book _WAS_ going to be like..."
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
> They are not exclusive domains. I'm willing to bet there are more
> successful games that are also successful software projects than otherwise.
>
They're orthogonal. A screwed implementation can kill a game on its own. A
screwed design can only ever become so good.
Peter Cowderoy
> Sounds like a one-beer-too-many rant. The sooner people realize game making
> isn't some mystical undertakings and part of the software engineering
> proccess, the better it will be.
>
You're almost exactly wrong. Game making isn't part of the software
engineering process. Software engineering is part, and I repeat *part* of
the game making process.
Taren Durbank
> were more real than anything I've come up with? The only difference is
> how accomplished he was before he said those things. You can bet that if I
> created "Amazing Product 2001", you fuckers would hang on every word like
> I was some sort of pagan god...whether I deserved it or not.
>
> When Warren Spector speaks, you listen. Forget the fact that his
> "understanding" is limited to a single approach, a single genre. He
recreates
> the same game over and over, everyone loves it. When John Carmack speaks,
> you listen. Forget the fact that you are in awe because of his technology,
> not game (a plague that haunts the industry today). He also creates the
> same game over and over again. Peter Molyneux does also. And Sid Meier.
> And Chris Taylor. And Chris Crawford.
>
> No disrespect to the great works these men have achieved, but they don't
> know jack about videogames. They have glimpses of truth, but they
attribute
> them to something else, and that something else becomes their "truth".
>
> Be careful who your heros are...
Did you just call me a fucker? Anyway, you're generalising way out of
proportion. I don't agree with everything Crawford says, in fact a lot of
his _old_ stuff on Erazza is pretty dull to me, though there are some gems
in there. The Art of Game Design, however, is an excellent paper IMO.
Similarly, many people praise Costikyan, but i reckon he's pretty
blindsighted and narrow-minded on many topics (just look at the games he's
done).
OTOH, Spector and Molyneux i like. "They don't know jack about videgames."
Are you saying that System Shock 2 is a crap game? How about Deus Ex? Black
& White? Ultima Underworld (back in its heyday)? They keep doing games in
the same genre. So what? They're specialists. They innovate and improve on
their previous works. Great writers generally write books in the same genre;
similarly, great artists generally deal with the same subject matter. "A
jack of all trades is a master of none." Ever played Imperium Galactica II
or Omikron?
You think you're better than them? Fine, prove it and show me the proof. And
you don't need a AAA title to prove it, so don't start up your Getting into
the Industry Rant again.
> If anything, the tone and approach to my book was going to be similar to
> Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" - a too-many-beers book if ever
> there was one...yet an amazing work that provides much insight into the
> nature of comics if for no other reason than nobody bothered to think
> about it yet. The comic often rambles on, or makes little sense, but the
> product is unparralleled in the comic medium. He invented half of the
> material in the book. It wasn't based on much outside source material, yet
> it was thoughtful and interesting, and appreciated everything that every
> comic ever was or will be. That sense of respect and awe permiates every
> page, and you can't help but walk away from it feeling like if he isn't
> right, then he's a hell of a lot closer than anyone before him.
>
> Sometimes its enough to just get everyone else started...
So why don't you do it then. No offense, but if you're unemployed, then what
else better have you got to do.
someone
Peter Cowderoy wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2001, Sean Howard wrote:
>
>
>>As for the pseudo science crack...
>>
>>
> <snip>
>
>>Sometimes its enough to just get everyone else started...
>>
>>
>
> This rant needs to be hung up for all to see. You're spot on.
>
> Many times I've wanted to sit down and put pen to paper on a bunch of
> ideas, however handwavey, and failed to do so - if you've got them, then
> one way or another go ahead and show us! Give this art of ours the kick in
> the balls it needs to get itself under way.
>
>
Yeah, but you got to actually do it. You and Sean seem keen on
talking about it, but what have you actually done?
Sean Howard
: The Art of Game Design, however, is an excellent paper IMO.
Are you saying you wouldn't like to see another book like that? I mean, that
book is, what, 10 years old, and it is still the only work written on that
subject!
: OTOH, Spector and Molyneux i like. "They don't know jack about videgames."
: Are you saying that System Shock 2 is a crap game? How about Deus Ex? Black
: & White? Ultima Underworld (back in its heyday)? They keep doing games in
: the same genre. So what? They're specialists. They innovate and improve on
: their previous works. Great writers generally write books in the same genre;
: similarly, great artists generally deal with the same subject matter. "A
: jack of all trades is a master of none." Ever played Imperium Galactica II
: or Omikron?
Spector didn't do System Shock 2. Anyway, the quality (or lack thereof) of
their games doesn't really mean anything. They've been built up to these
godlike figures that can do no wrong. I'm saying they aren't gods. They've
lucked into a few good similar games. They don't know anymore about videogames
than anyone else. They may be great project leaders, well read intelligent
people, but they don't _understand_ videogames.
: You think you're better than them? Fine, prove it and show me the proof. And
: you don't need a AAA title to prove it, so don't start up your Getting into
: the Industry Rant again.
You remember my rant!
I am better than them. I have no proof, but if any of them ever want to
challenge me, I'm right here. Tell them to send me an email. You hear that
Spector?! I'm calling you out!
: So why don't you do it then. No offense, but if you're unemployed, then what
: else better have you got to do.
The ideas aren't ready yet. They're there, but they aren't fully formed yet.
One day, possibly in many years, they will be formed, and they will be
written down. They may be too-much-beer ideas, but by golly if they are more
than anyone else brings to the table.
@@
Sean Howard
Robert Tweed
> you listen. Forget the fact that you are in awe because of his technology,
> not game (a plague that haunts the industry today). He also creates the
> same game over and over again.
In fairness to John Carmack, I did like the Commander Keen series. Also,
unlike the stereotypical "sellout" [churning them out for the money, instead
of trying to be innovative], he has made a big contribution to indie gaming
and helping out beginning programmers/game designers by releasing so much
source code for free. Also, whether his games are original or not, at least
they are well polished and the gamers like them, so you can't really
complain about what he is doing.
Personally, I'd like to see him spend some time coming up with some original
ideas, because he's clearly capable of it, but what do I know? Either way,
I've got too much respect for what he's doing to bitch about him or his
company.
> Peter Molyneux does also.
Not really, he does seem to be responsible for quite a lot of innovation. I
think that lately that's tapered off a bit simply because the size of
projects has increased. I stll expect him to come out with a few surprises
in the future.
> And Sid Meier.
Well, he just sticks to what he's good at, and you can't fault him for that.
There is no outright lack of originality there because he does branch out in
terms of storylines quite a lot. No one complains because Steven King only
writes horror stories do they? (actually lots of people probably do, but
that's besides the point).
- Robert
MNT
"Peter Cowderoy" <psy...@cowderoy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.011218...@eagle.cowderoy.co.uk...
>
> > Sounds like a one-beer-too-many rant. The sooner people realize game
making
> > isn't some mystical undertakings and part of the software engineering
> > proccess, the better it will be.
> >
>
> You're almost exactly wrong. Game making isn't part of the software
> engineering process. Software engineering is part, and I repeat *part* of
> the game making process.
I also said part of. The previous posts made it sound like software
engineering has NO parts in games.
MNT
> MNT (minh@n0$pam.one.net) wrote:
>
> : > Do you think the material in Chris Crawford's book, interview, and
papers
> : > were more real than anything I've come up with?
>
> : What have you come up with?
>
> A hell of a lot more than his book has.
If Shakespear wrote his stuff on a deserted island, would 6th graders be
talking about him? I'm not saying I'm better than any body, but YOU have
put down established people, so I'd have to ask "What have YOU done?"
>
>
> : Well, if you've come up w/ a way to predict future successes, we fuckers
> : would really like to hear it.
>
> Actually, that's easy. Take current best selling game, add features,
release.
> Of course, to predict those best sellers that aren't genre pieces, like
> Tetris or Donkey Kong or Beatmania...well, that's impossible.
So what's wrong with listening more intently to what people who had
successes have to say?
> : When is YOUR game coming out?
>
> So far, I apparently have appeared too controversial for the unusually
> conservative game industry. I'm working on something right now that
> is beyond anything you've ever seen before. No seriously, there isn't
> a game like this. Of course, I have to pretty much invent the game as
> it happens. And no, I won't let you see it.
OK, I'm surprised you found time to do a game -- with the FBI watching your
every move, random UFO pickups, and the anal probes --
> : Sounds like a case of sour-grapes-syndrome.
>
> I hate most of the game programmers I've spoken to, but I am constantly
> in awe of the game designers I'm met, spoken to, or read. I don't agree
> with them (for the most part), but I can't help be a big fanboy.
>
>
> : Who did you say don't know jack about video games?
>
> That would be the game designers I mentioned, which included most known
> names except for Miyamoto.
This wouldn't be the ones you met, spoken to, or read about -- whom you are
constantly in awe of?
> : I suppose you hold the key to truth, otherwise, you wouldn't recognize
> : others not possessing total truth. What a head case.
>
> The work that I wanted to create would've been useful to those with an
> open mind to consider it. Could it change the industry? Oh yes. Would
> it? Not likely. It only works if people are willing to listen to what I
> have to say without attacking it instantly. I mean, you've not read a
single
> sentence from my abandoned project, yet you insist on attacking.
Please point a URL to it - after reading it, then I will attack it. So
seriously, I didn't attack your project. Your attack on established
designers rubbed me the wrong way.
> What are you attacking? My book? Me? Or just the fact that the idea of the
> book makes you feel insignificant?
I'm attacking the fact that you attacking other people while having nothing
in your portfolio. (Gee what does that say about me?)
> : Can you be my hero?
>
> Sorry, in my cult, only I'm allowed to be sarcastic.
Oh darn, I so much wanted to be in it.
> : Some how _I_ can't a the parallel between a successful software project
and
> : some too-many-beers book.
>
> Well, I'm not surprised.
<snappy comeback goes here>
> : When should we be expecting this awe-inspiring publication?
>
> Read back a few messages. You know there isn't going to be a book by the
> words I use, like "My book _WAS_ going to be like..."
I did read that.
Peter Cowderoy
> OTOH, Spector and Molyneux i like. "They don't know jack about videgames."
> Are you saying that System Shock 2 is a crap game? How about Deus Ex? Black
> & White? Ultima Underworld (back in its heyday)?
They're not video games. Whether or not this is what Sean had in mind is
another matter :-)
Peter Cowderoy
> I also said part of. The previous posts made it sound like software
> engineering has NO parts in games.
>
Give or take some potential shared notation (no big surprise, OOP was
invented for simulations), it has no part in game design. It's part of the
implementation.
Sean Howard
: In fairness to John Carmack, ...
: ... so you can't really complain about what he is doing.
I'm not. I just said he didn't know jack about videogames.
: Personally, I'd like to see him spend some time coming up with some original
: ideas, because he's clearly capable of it, but what do I know? Either way,
: I've got too much respect for what he's doing to bitch about him or his
: company.
I don't think he is capable of original ideas. Maybe implementing them, but
certainly not creating them. Carmack is a man of considerable talents, but
game design is not one of them. But that code cowboy can sling bits with
the best of them.
: > Peter Molyneux does also.
: Not really, he does seem to be responsible for quite a lot of innovation. I
: think that lately that's tapered off a bit simply because the size of
: projects has increased. I stll expect him to come out with a few surprises
: in the future.
You could say that Black and White was a very innovative game, but not
really for him. If you look at the games that he's done in the past, like
Populus and Dungeon Keeper, B&W is almost obvious. Molyneus is obviously
very interested in morality, and each of these games deal with it similarly.
Still, he has an interesting approach to game design that is rarely copied
with any success. I just don't think he is very close to understanding
videogames. In fact, I'll bet there are people out there who could tell him
more about his games than he could.
: > And Sid Meier.
: Well, he just sticks to what he's good at, and you can't fault him for that.
: There is no outright lack of originality there because he does branch out in
: terms of storylines quite a lot. No one complains because Steven King only
: writes horror stories do they? (actually lots of people probably do, but
: that's besides the point).
Meier likes complex systems with lots of interacting parts. His games are
similar in scope and purpose. He likes to work a few levels up on the
abstraction bar. I think he is a tad bit overrated, even by other people's
standards, but the guy can make a decent strategy game if need be. But
still, he has one type of game that he likes to play/create. Apparently,
that is now Golf....
And no, there isn't anything wrong with being a one trick pony. The problem
occurs when a cook book author listens to Stephen King's advice on writing
horror. Just because of his "famous" label, he is automatically given a
status that make people believe him over themselves. I'm just saying that
all of these "great game designers" aren't really qualified to tell us anything
insightful about videogames.
@@
Sean Howard
MNT
"Peter Cowderoy" <psy...@cowderoy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.011218...@eagle.cowderoy.co.uk...
>
> > I also said part of. The previous posts made it sound like software
> > engineering has NO parts in games.
> >
>
> Give or take some potential shared notation (no big surprise, OOP was
> invented for simulations), it has no part in game design. It's part of the
> implementation.
Software Engineering != OOP
MNT
<snip>
Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?
Sean Howard
: Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?
Yup. I got off subject a while ago, and explained a few things in a way
that weren't quite the best way. All I can do is defend my oh-so-fragile
ego and crush you all with my biting wit.
@@
Sean Howard
Nathan Mates
Sean Howard <how...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>I hate most of the game programmers I've spoken to, but I am constantly
>in awe of the game designers I'm met, spoken to, or read. I don't agree
>with them (for the most part), but I can't help be a big fanboy.
It's fascinating how you can say this, and yet not apologize for
your whining thread of months ago complaining how you can't seem to
get a job in the industry. Do you honestly think that people you
interview with don't pick up on this?
Do you honestly think that with this attitude, you will get noticed
(in a positive way) and job offers will fly your way?
Do you honestly think that the games industry is such that you'd be
paired with a designer you're a fanboy to, and no other programmers
(which you despise), and a great game would come from it?
You have set yourself in opposition to the games industry as it
currently stands. It's a free world, and you're entitled to that
opinion. However, you're not entitled to a job with something you
hate-- odds are, you wouldn't last long anyhow working with a team
of people.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
# think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein
Peter Cowderoy
>
> "Peter Cowderoy" <psy...@cowderoy.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.33.011218...@eagle.cowderoy.co.uk...
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, MNT wrote:
> >
> > > I also said part of. The previous posts made it sound like software
> > > engineering has NO parts in games.
> > >
> >
> > Give or take some potential shared notation (no big surprise, OOP was
> > invented for simulations), it has no part in game design. It's part of the
> > implementation.
>
> Software Engineering != OOP
>
Indeed, OOP is a tool used in software engineering and the likes of UML
take a fair amount of inspiration from it. Now could you kindly quit
assuming the most moronic possible interpretation of everything I say?
Erik Max Francis
> You remember my rant!
>
> I am better than them. I have no proof, but if any of them ever want
> to
> challenge me, I'm right here. Tell them to send me an email. You hear
> that
> Spector?! I'm calling you out!
Put it back in and move on, please.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Laws are silent in time of war.
\__/ Cicero
Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
An Esperanto reference for English speakers.
MNT
"Peter Cowderoy" <psy...@cowderoy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.011218...@eagle.cowderoy.co.uk...
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, MNT wrote:
>
> Indeed, OOP is a tool used in software engineering and the likes of UML
> take a fair amount of inspiration from it. Now could you kindly quit
> assuming the most moronic possible interpretation of everything I say?
Sorry -- I blame usenet's signal-to-noise ratio.
Andrew Rollings
to
> : say about design as a process and product (as opposed to
> : theoretical-too-many-beers-pseudo-science)
>
> I've read that book. Good book. I liked it a lot, and it was every bit as
> bitter as I am. They want to be astronomers in an industry of astronauts.
> However, their approach was on the development of the game. As soon as
they
> started getting interesting, they'd shift subject. The authors cared about
> games, but they didn't try to understand them. The book never said,
videogames
> are an art form worthy of study and awe. It said videogames are a product,
> whose production is an artform worthy of study and awe. Big important
> difference.
>
I agree with you. When you're doing your first book, then you often have to
tailor to what the publisher thinks will sell - at least to some extent.
Fortunately we weren't plagued by this too badly, but we did have to make
allowances in order to even get a foot in the door. Then, if the book sells
well, you get a lot more leeway to write what you want to write about. GAD
sold very well, and hence, my second book (with Ernest Adams), which should
be out early next year contains much more about what I want to be writing
about. It's still not perfect - but it's a closer to the concept mentioned
above than GAD was.
The book you're on about is yet to be written. Nailing down nebulous ideas
is an extremely difficult task. Nailing down nebulous ideas, and then
attempting to explain them to other people requires genius.
I'm not quite there yet :)
Andrew
PS. "Astronomers in an industry of Astronauts." - I love it :)
Sean Howard
: I agree with you. When you're doing your first book, then you often have to
: tailor to what the publisher thinks will sell - at least to some extent.
I really don't have room to criticize the book. It really was one of the
best programming/design books with the word "game" in the title. In fact,
it sits on my "reserved" shelf right next to my Design Patterns bible. Still,
that book gave me a glimpse into the very nature of videogames, but just
a tiny glimpse. After that book, I was hungry for that knowledge like never
before. I don't think that was the purpose of your book, but it impressed
me far more than the software engineering. (Game Design is no different
that soft.engineering. They are both complex systems that can be improved
through study and ideas like design patterns and game theory).
After GA&D, I did some study on all sorts of subjects, like Game Theory,
psychology, programming, art, media studies, and finally comic books. Somewhere
in there, I got myself stuck in Japan for six months, and got to fill in a
few holes in my consumer understandings. It may be very much too-much-beer
pseudo science, but sometimes it takes a layman to point out these things.
Plato originally described four different types of people, and that has
echoed through the ages with other philosophers. For instance, the four humours
are based on Plato's concept, but look at the differences from their negative
aspects. Much later, Jung described that personalities are defined by four
binary elements. A layman housewife took Jung's writings, during a time when
Freud and Pavlov were most popular, and created the Meyers-Briggs test, which
among other things, revolutionized psychology and philosophy and introduced
Jung to the world. Her test had its share of problems, but it was enough.
: sold very well, and hence, my second book (with Ernest Adams), which should
Must admit, I'm not too big a fan of Ernest Adams. His articles on GamaSutra
tend to focus on games from the perspective of other media, especially
books. There was one article in which he criticized RPGs for their
cliches (cliches or design patterns, hmm?). What he didn't seem to understand
is that videogames aren't like other media, any of them. Games, like
boardgames, puzzles, or word games, are not about communication. They aren't
a media. Movies, books, and whatever, are media, used solely for the
communication of ideas and actions. Videogames exist in the range between
these two extremes, but never at the ends.
Some games exist towards one end, like Tetris, and others exist towards the
other end, like Grim Fandango. They are both very much videogames, something
that cannot exist without the aid of a computer. And neither one is better
or worse than the other (I believe you mentioned that Grim Fandango wasn't
a good game in GA&D). I believe most games exist somewhere in the middle
using an equal combination of concrete gameplay and abstract metaphor
to explain it (ie Tony Hawk's Pro Skater).
Earnest Adams believes (believed?) that RPGs need to make sense in the world
we live in, which of course doesn't really make sense what-so-ever. He
attacks all these cliches (or rpg design patterns) which aren't realistic.
Forget the fact that they each serve their purpose from a gameplay standpoint.
I can't remember any specifics right now, but I think he attacked the fact
that resting at an inn healed you completely. Sure, unrealistic, but absolutely
necessary for harmonious gameplay.
Ultimately, I believe the point of his article is that we need to get out of
these old unrealistic cliches for the purpose of bringing something new to the
table. The goal is admirably, if a bit misguided, and I can't really fault
him for that. Still, it just seems that he misses the point every time,
even after he comes so close to it. It's like he is going around telling
everyone where to find his glasses when they are sitting on his head the
entire time.
Still, I do look forward to you book. At the very least, it will force
me to consider the ideas I don't agree with, and possibly provide
insight into the ideas I do agree with.
: The book you're on about is yet to be written. Nailing down nebulous ideas
: is an extremely difficult task. Nailing down nebulous ideas, and then
: attempting to explain them to other people requires genius.
I have "genius" tattooed on my underwear. Actually, the i is a bit wonky
and hard to read. Maybe it says "genus" instead? Wait a sec, that may not
be a 'g'....ooohhhh...nevermind.
: I'm not quite there yet :)
No reason not to to go for it anyway.
: PS. "Astronomers in an industry of Astronauts." - I love it :)
Actually, I got the idea from Jurassic Park 3, though it definitely has
roots in Plato's four personality types and the age old concrete vs
abstract debate.
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: Sean Howard <how...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
: >I hate most of the game programmers I've spoken to...
: It's fascinating how you can say this, and yet not apologize for
: your whining thread of months ago complaining how you can't seem to
: get a job in the industry. Do you honestly think that people you
: interview with don't pick up on this?
I do so love that thread. A great excuse to blow off some steam. Let me
explain something.
There are two types of programmers, according to David X Cringley, those
that do great things badly and those that do bad things greatly. The
difference comes down to the focus of interest.
For the abstract (great things badly) programmer, they are interested in
the understanding of complex systems. They want to improve the working
of these systems through the relationships between each and every idea
and concept. They will completely overlook such problems as stuttering
framerates, imperfect collision detection, and slightly slower algorithms.
They don't don't just ignore them, they don't see them becuase their
heads are in the "clouds" looking at a whole abstraction layer or two
higher.
For the concrete (bad things greatly) programmer, they are able to program
by following rules. They become quite excellent programmers by applying
these concrete examples in their every line. The Effective series from
Addison Wesley, which breaks the books down into 50-some-odd rules, are
a the perfect example of this. These programmers live and die by the rules.
They have a shrine, complete with candles, to the Big O. The obsess over
optimization because that is something concrete that they can be successful
at. These programmers can create the fastest engines around, but they
will likely be structured in minimalist way. These types of programmers
are the types who think Java is slow, OOP is overrated, and BubbleSort is
a sin punishable by death.
These two types of programmers are both necessary. Logic dictates that
a lead programmer would be better off as an abstract programmer, but this
is rarely the case. The lead programmers I've all talked to have been
almost obsessive in their attention to details. In one interview, I was
asked to compare the difference in operating speed between compiled
function jumps and virtual function jumps. Thinking back on my Pentium 800,
I said the speed difference was unimportant, especially in light of the
benefits that virtual jumps give us. Wrong answer. You'd think I had shot
the poor man's cat or something.
This divide between the concrete and abstract programmer is what has kept
me out of the industry. And unless the industry changes in a big way,
as detailed in Game Architecture and Design, it likely will always keep
me out. Not that I won't continue to try. Someone out there can and will
appreciate my decidedly non-game programmer attitude, as well as my
intense love and understanding of all videogames.
: Do you honestly think that with this attitude, you will get noticed
: (in a positive way) and job offers will fly your way?
Actually, I was offered a job offer. My wife flew to Treyarch studios
(not too far from your Pandemic, I believe), and I tagged along and they
decided to interview me too. After some particularly uninteresting programming
examples, their Lord (Don, I believe) took me and my wife into his office.
He flat out said that she wasn't experienced enough to work there. But I,
he said, had exactly the perfect skills to be a junior programmer there.
He said that I was "in the pipeline".
Weeks and months pass, and he never calls me again. Frankly, after some of
the crap that they did to us (screwed up our hotel reservations and made
us pay for them), I wasn't disappointed too badly...I wasn't going to take it
anyway. I only use this example to show that it isn't just me that is at
fault here. The industry has a far higher barrier of entry than my
supposed attitude problem.
: Do you honestly think that the games industry is such that you'd be
: paired with a designer you're a fanboy to, and no other programmers
: (which you despise), and a great game would come from it?
I don't think I understand this statement. I understand the need for
concrete programmers, and I appreciate what they do. Unfortunately, that
cannot be said the same in reverse. Most of these guys are made into
lead programmers, which is a bad idea in my opinion, and putting them in
charge of hiring new blood promises that their company will never get
the abstract programmers that it needs to be truely successful. And yes,
being an abstract programmer, I'm a bit bitter about it.
: You have set yourself in opposition to the games industry as it
: currently stands. It's a free world, and you're entitled to that
: opinion. However, you're not entitled to a job with something you
: hate-- odds are, you wouldn't last long anyhow working with a team
: of people.
I didn't set myself in opposition to the game industry, the game industry
did. I really like how you assume I wouldn't last long. That's a really
good example of everything I've been saying.
The industry is corrupt egotistical place plagues by inbreeding and
immaturity. It is a boys-only club where the few girls in it are
given the illustrious duty of den mother. They believe that because you
are in the industry, you deserved to be there, and if you aren't, then
you didn't.
You are exactly what I hate about the industry. You represent all the petty
ideas that I detest, and you attack unhindered by rational reasoning or
compassion. You sit on your throne, throwing down bread crumbs that
we are expected to be thankful for because, well, you are in the industry
and your opinion is worth more. I'm sure you are a very nice person, and
in a different circumstance we could be good friends, but the fact of
the matter is, you think that your position in the industry entitles
you to something you didn't earn. Just being in the industry is being
related by association to Civ2 or the Sims or Diablo II. If you can
make it in the industry, then I certainly can.
What I've been saying, what I've always been saying, I will work as hard
a necessary to enter the industry and make great games, but if I get
bitten, I will bite back. The worst sin you can make in my eyes is to
be in the industry and not push yourself to make the greatest games. As
far as the US industry is concerned, not only is that true, but it fights
tooth and nail preventing any advancement that will ruin their boys club in
favor of creating better games. That is a crime. It is about the games
and anyone who thinks differently certainly doesn't deserve to be in
game industry above the thousands of people out there that fail to get in.
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
> Nathan Mates (nat...@visi.com) wrote:
> : Sean Howard <how...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
> : >I hate most of the game programmers I've spoken to...
>
> : It's fascinating how you can say this, and yet not apologize for
> : your whining thread of months ago complaining how you can't seem to
> : get a job in the industry. Do you honestly think that people you
> : interview with don't pick up on this?
>
> I do so love that thread. A great excuse to blow off some steam. Let me
> explain something.
>
> There are two types of programmers, according to David X Cringley, those
> that do great things badly and those that do bad things greatly. The
> difference comes down to the focus of interest.
>
Congratulations, you've found yet another dichotomy I sit smack in the
middle of :-) Actually I lean towards the abstract, but that has a certain
amount to do with the comparatively small volume of actual code I write...
> For the abstract (great things badly) programmer, they are interested in
> the understanding of complex systems. They want to improve the working
> of these systems through the relationships between each and every idea
> and concept. They will completely overlook such problems as stuttering
> framerates, imperfect collision detection, and slightly slower algorithms.
> They don't don't just ignore them, they don't see them becuase their
> heads are in the "clouds" looking at a whole abstraction layer or two
> higher.
>
This would be a second rate abstract programmer. Sooner or later it turns
out that it's all the same stuff going on whatever level you look at it.
It's all about not shooting yourself in the foot somewhere down the line.
> For the concrete (bad things greatly) programmer, they are able to program
> by following rules. They become quite excellent programmers by applying
> these concrete examples in their every line. The Effective series from
> Addison Wesley, which breaks the books down into 50-some-odd rules, are
> a the perfect example of this. These programmers live and die by the rules.
> They have a shrine, complete with candles, to the Big O. The obsess over
> optimization because that is something concrete that they can be successful
> at. These programmers can create the fastest engines around, but they
> will likely be structured in minimalist way. These types of programmers
> are the types who think Java is slow, OOP is overrated, and BubbleSort is
> a sin punishable by death.
>
Java isn't so much slow as a crappy language (IMO), *pure* OOP *is*
overrated (but I'll take C++ over C any day), and a bubble sort on any
sufficiently large data set is a sin punishable by being forced to sit in
front of the computer with nothing else to do while it runs :-)
> These two types of programmers are both necessary. Logic dictates that
> a lead programmer would be better off as an abstract programmer, but this
> is rarely the case.
Logic dictates that neither is a good lead programmer because they both
miss stuff.
> The lead programmers I've all talked to have been
> almost obsessive in their attention to details. In one interview, I was
> asked to compare the difference in operating speed between compiled
> function jumps and virtual function jumps. Thinking back on my Pentium 800,
> I said the speed difference was unimportant, especially in light of the
> benefits that virtual jumps give us. Wrong answer. You'd think I had shot
> the poor man's cat or something.
>
I'm afraid I'd have seen that as a wrong answer too. You weren't given a
context :-) Indirect jumps do bad things to the pipeline, so you really
don't want them anywhere near an inner loop - most of the rest of the time
they're worth it for the benefits not least because you were going to
stall the pipeline anyway.
Gerry Quinn
>I don't think I understand this statement. I understand the need for
>concrete programmers, and I appreciate what they do. Unfortunately, that
>cannot be said the same in reverse. Most of these guys are made into
>lead programmers, which is a bad idea in my opinion, and putting them in
>charge of hiring new blood promises that their company will never get
>the abstract programmers that it needs to be truely successful. And yes,
>being an abstract programmer, I'm a bit bitter about it.
I think you've built your own categorisation of the world of the mind
(one which doesn't appear particularly persuasive to me, anyway,
whatever others feel about it). Whilst you profess to appreciate the
'concrete' programmer, it's clear that you feel a member of the True
Elite that companies aren't hiring, due to their ignorance and
perversity.
"Doing great things badly" - what does this mean except that the
fanciful vision fails on implementation? Physics engine the size of a
planet, and the pathfinding doesn't work - you know the story. It's the
fault of the 'concrete' footsoldiers, obviously - why won't they pull
along with the Great Vision?
If we're doing games, the vision generally comes from the games design,
and the form of the programming is irrelevant to the end product.
Sometimes the game is a technology demo to some extent, doing something
dazzling that will knock the audience for six [think of DOOM, for
example, though I'm not saying that gameplay had no part in DOOM's
industry-moulding success] but again there seems no particular place for
your 'abstract programmer'.
Remember, the audience doesn't see the code. The game is not about the
code. The code is a tool to do the game.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzles, Arcade, Strategy, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
Check out our new arcade-puzzler "Bubbler"!
Sean Howard
: > There are two types of programmers, according to David X Cringley, those
: > that do great things badly and those that do bad things greatly. The
: > difference comes down to the focus of interest.
: Congratulations, you've found yet another dichotomy I sit smack in the
: middle of :-) Actually I lean towards the abstract, but that has a certain
: amount to do with the comparatively small volume of actual code I write...
So, you do what? Mediocre things comparatively well?
You say that, but based on the very things you say in this message, I'm
going to have to say you lean very much towards the concrete side. I'm
not saying people can't be good at both, just that they are inversely
related. The better you get a A, the worse you are at B.
: > heads are in the "clouds" looking at a whole abstraction layer or two
: > higher.
: This would be a second rate abstract programmer. Sooner or later it turns
: out that it's all the same stuff going on whatever level you look at it.
No, he would be a great abstract programmer, but an exceptionally poor
concrete programmer. If you were a concrete programmer (and I believe you
are), then you would see that lack of sensibility as a problem.
: Java isn't so much slow as a crappy language (IMO), *pure* OOP *is*
: overrated (but I'll take C++ over C any day), and a bubble sort on any
: sufficiently large data set is a sin punishable by being forced to sit in
: front of the computer with nothing else to do while it runs :-)
*pure* OOP overrated? Now you've committed the cardinal sin of the concrete
programmer. Pshaw...
: Logic dictates that neither is a good lead programmer because they both
: miss stuff.
Aha! But it is in what they miss that becomes important at that level. The
abstract programmer will be much more intune with the entire system,
anticipating problems and solutions long before they show up.
: > I said the speed difference was unimportant, especially in light of the
: > benefits that virtual jumps give us. Wrong answer. You'd think I had shot
: > the poor man's cat or something.
: I'm afraid I'd have seen that as a wrong answer too. You weren't given a
: context :-) Indirect jumps do bad things to the pipeline, so you really
: don't want them anywhere near an inner loop - most of the rest of the time
: they're worth it for the benefits not least because you were going to
: stall the pipeline anyway.
Pipeline? Now that is a detail if I've ever heard one. I won't argue
the issue with you, because obviously you are more learned concerning it,
but I will argue the usefulness of the issue. At what point do details
like that stop being an issue? Granted, you will always be able to
point and say, doing this will make these improvements, but when does that
become insignificant?
Another true story....
I was interviewing with the kind folks at Helixe in Boston. I really liked
the people I talked to there. They were very nice and courteous. Ultimately,
they decided to go with someone they had worked with before over me, though
I did make a "strong impression on the phone". Always a bridesmaid...
Anyway, they did Rocket Power and Wild Thornberries for the GBA. Before
I was called the first time, they gave me a problem to think about. They
had the entire level stored as one giant bitmap, and the collision information
was also one. White meant floor, yellow meant ladder, blue meant water,
green was ladder and water, etc. The levels were like 4,000 pixels by
1,000 pixels, they wanted me to figure out a way to find a way to compress
that into a usable format on the GBA. I think it took several megabytes
of storage space as it was, and they wanted me to compress it to a
couple hundred k. Oh, and it had to be pixel perfect for collision reasons.
When I finally talked to them, they explained that their way involved
compressing the data using one algorithm, then compressing that data with
another algorithm, and compressing that, for so many levels deep. Then
they would stream that information in as you travelled around the level.
My first thought was, why the hell would I want to do that? So I play the
games and discover that the levels were about 100x larger than they should've
been. Because of the streaming necessary with the way they solved the
problem, the levels were extremely empty. There were no puzzles to solve,
and it was basically a find the xxx in a gigantic level that was impossible
to nagivate around because of the limited view and repetitive graphics. The
game would've been considerably improved by smaller, smarter levels. And
I really couldn't believe that when I mentioned using tiles, they actually
said that they hadn't thought of that!
Then I realized that there was no reason for them to use pixel perfect
collision detection. Outside of a few odd shapes, most collisions could've
easily been accomplished using tiles. They weren't really working with
particularly organic shapes (in Rocket Power). Ladders and water could
easily have been represented by polygons (probably even rectangles). In
Thornberrys, they did have somewhat organic ladders (trees that branched
off), yet still could've been done with tiles. Even with their pixel
perfect collision, the game's collision was painful and horribly done. To
get the same effect, they could've used a lower resolution for the pixels
(ie 1 pixel == 4 pixels), especially for blobs that you only had to
be in their area rather than land on their surface (ladders and
water).
As far as the collision problem was done, pixel-by-pixel collision has
always been a waste of time. I came up with this somewhat strange scanline
skiplist idea that was convoluted and difficult to use, and pretty similar
to exactly what they did. You could just look at Rocket Power and notice
that the characters were practically squares in the first place. A simple
collision rect test would've worked in just about every case.
I was wracking my brain trying to come up with a solution to the problem
I was given, but I was given the wrong problem. They gave me a concrete
problem. I couldn't answer the problem they gave me because I kept
looking outside the problem to solve it. To paraphrase Jurassic Park, they
were so busy trying to figure if they could do it, and never stopped to
think if they should do it.
And that is the fundamental difference between the abstract and concrete
programmer. The concrete programmer will solve the problem by answering
the question. The abstract programmer solve the same problem by going to
the source and seeing where the problem comes from and fixes that.
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: I think you've built your own categorisation of the world of the mind
: (one which doesn't appear particularly persuasive to me, anyway,
: whatever others feel about it). Whilst you profess to appreciate the
Actually, this division is based on something I read in a particularly
brilliant and sarcastic history of the computer. It also fits in perfectly
with the four temperment types. The big divide is concrete and abstract
thought. The four temperments are split into two groups based on that,
and split again based on different criteria. The abstract concrete
thing is also something that permiates all thought. Understanding Comics
creates a pyramid that has one corner being concrete realistic art, and
the other two corners being abstract art and cartoon art (both abstract,
but the word, when used to describe art has a different context).
Anyway, my categorization isn't really mine. I got it from the book
"Please Understand Me II" by David Keirsey. It answered FAR more questions
than it raised, so until a new theory pops up, I'm sticking to it. Seeing
as the entire thing is based on the writings of Jung, the current posterboy
for psychology, it may not be anytime soon.
: 'concrete' programmer, it's clear that you feel a member of the True
: Elite that companies aren't hiring, due to their ignorance and
: perversity.
Ha ha. True. You've got me there. But of course, I would feel that way.
I believe my way is right, and you believe your way is right. If your
way prevented me from success, and I didn't consider it right (or at
least more right), then you can understand my feelings.
Besides, my grievences against the game industry go far deeper than that.
There are some personal issues with a few people in the industry dealing with
the maturity and general level of quality in their hiring practices and
the barrier of entry into the industry.
: "Doing great things badly" - what does this mean except that the
: fanciful vision fails on implementation?
As a programmer, they will create complex systems, and it will run, but
it could be better. By not concerning themselves with details, they've not
only allowed themselves to move to a higher level or thought, they've
also damned themselves from being able to effeciently implementing their
systems.
: If we're doing games, the vision generally comes from the games design,
: and the form of the programming is irrelevant to the end product.
yes and no. The form of programming is important to the software product
end, but you are right, the player doesn't care...well, except for bugs
and crashes and stuff...and the now popular practice of delaying games for
multiple years.
: but again there seems no particular place for your 'abstract programmer'.
Maybe. There is a very important place for them in software development.
All the books that are worshipped and read and reread were written by
the abstract programmer, like design patterns or code complete. Non
Microsoft APIs are generally the result of abstract programmers, especially
the original MacOS and Java's libraries. Giant software projects have
benefitted time and again from these rare, but necessary individuals.
You say there isn't a place for these people, but they've taught you
everything you know. If there isn't a place for them in the game industry,
then that proves Rollings and Morris's "Game Architecture and Design"
book completely and totally right. The game industry is a fat immature
slob that refuses to take advantages of the advances made in software
development. This is not my idea, it is theirs, and it is completely
spot on.
: Remember, the audience doesn't see the code. The game is not about the
: code. The code is a tool to do the game.
You are completely right. But what if you selected better tools that enabled
you to create that vision quicker, more effeciently, on time, under budget,
and closer to the original ideal vision? The audience sees that.
@@
Sean Howard
Taren Durbank
>
> Are you saying you wouldn't like to see another book like that? I mean,
that
> book is, what, 10 years old, and it is still the only work written on that
> subject!
I said what i meant plainly and clearly. What do you mean?
> Spector didn't do System Shock 2.
Yeah sorry, SS1. Much scarier than SS2 BTW. :-o
> Anyway, the quality (or lack thereof) of
> their games doesn't really mean anything. They've been built up to these
> godlike figures that can do no wrong.
Crap on. Romero got a big backlash after Daikatana. So did Garriot after
Ultima 9.
> : You think you're better than them? Fine, prove it and show me the proof.
And
> : you don't need a AAA title to prove it, so don't start up your Getting
into
> : the Industry Rant again.
>
> You remember my rant!
>
> I am better than them. I have no proof, but if any of them ever want to
> challenge me, I'm right here. Tell them to send me an email. You hear that
> Spector?! I'm calling you out!
No proof? Fine. Then I compare you to Derek Smart in his infamous
BattleCruiser 3000 A.D. days, and to the whiny "Here's how to do it"
ramblings of Eep, and wipe my hands clean. Good luck in your endeavour.
Taren Durbank
> that do great things badly and those that do bad things greatly. The
> difference comes down to the focus of interest.
That is a grossly simplistic view; a very bad case of pigeonholeing. It's
also quite obvious your opinion of programmers is biased by your dislike for
them.
> Weeks and months pass, and he never calls me again. Frankly, after some of
> the crap that they did to us (screwed up our hotel reservations and made
> us pay for them), I wasn't disappointed too badly...I wasn't going to take
it
> anyway. I only use this example to show that it isn't just me that is at
> fault here. The industry has a far higher barrier of entry than my
> supposed attitude problem.
And from one personal experience you can pigeonhole the rest of the
industry? I don't think so. The rest of your post is egotistical and
elitist.
From the design stuff I read off your old site, I gathered that you are not
as visionary as you claim to be. Furthermore, i find you're elitist attitude
to gaming as an artform disgusting. Sure, games can be made as works of art,
but they can also be made as pure entertainment. Either one is valid. Giving
crap to some whose intention is to make an entertainment-driven game is
snobbish and unfair.
So let's see:
You claim to be the greatest thing ever to come to the game industry, yet
you haven't been able to land a job OR produce anything worthy of greatness
after many years. But you still want it so badly.
Conclusion:
You're a goose. Because if you weren't, you'd at least be able hold your
tongue so as not to piss off potential employers in interviews and industry
correspondents on public NGs.
BTW, I've changed my mind on something. Now that I know more about your
character and attitude, I wouldn't hire you if I had the choice. If this is
how you'd act in the workplace--arrogant and condescending--I wouldn't be
able to stand it and neither would most people I've worked with in the past.
If you plan to make the greatest AAA game of all time on your own, good
luck.
Taren Durbank
your fantastic ideas is that computer games are neither solitary puzzles,
nor a medium of communication through which the artist "speaks" to the
viewer or reader. You propose that gaming lies inbetween, perhaps an art
form that allows the player to find some inner truth for him/herself, not
from some "condescending artist" (as I believe you would put it).
If this is true, then your vision of the "new wave" of gaming would
eliminate any metaphor that a "condescending artist" would put into it. All
that would be left to do would be to make a game that was totally realistic.
(1) This would not require an artist, but an artisan.
(2) Answer me this: What more _insight_ or _beauty_ (two of the greatest
ideals of a work of art) would this offer over the experience of real life
itself (switching off the computer)?
Sean Howard
: I have thought about what you've said here, and from what i gather, one of
: your fantastic ideas is that computer games are neither solitary puzzles,
: nor a medium of communication through which the artist "speaks" to the
: viewer or reader. You propose that gaming lies inbetween, perhaps an art
: form that allows the player to find some inner truth for him/herself, not
: from some "condescending artist" (as I believe you would put it).
Now, you're putting words in my mouth. What I said is that games exist
between interaction and passive media. I put no value judgements on
either end. I love artists, and I love condescending, so I won't
say that either of those two aspects ruin art.
No, instead my main point is that gaming isn't just games. That is, it
isn't just a ruleset that you make decisions in. Some games are close to
that, like Tetris or emulations of boardgames. Videogames also aren't
passive media. You cannot expect to tell the player something and have
it be a good game. The best videogames incorporate and involve both
spectrums, and this is what makes them so damn important. They provide
the artist with new ways to deliver messages and symbolism, that will
likely hit harder because of the direct interaction.
For instance, I've come up with a somewhat original game around the concept
of negative space - that is the element that is created by the space an
image doesn't take up. In a way, it is like playing a Roschach test, or
an optical illusion. The game was created from a metaphor, yet that metaphor
provides gameplay that is fun and original. The entire game is played in
1-bit black and white and in silhouette. Small splashes of color are much
more effective in a void than in a rainbow, so certain symbols will indeed
have color, those such elements would be rare and infrequent - similar to
the red coat in Schindler's List.
There is plenty of room in my interpretation of videogames for art, and in
fact, it revolves around that idea.
: If this is true, then your vision of the "new wave" of gaming would
: eliminate any metaphor that a "condescending artist" would put into it. All
: that would be left to do would be to make a game that was totally realistic.
I don't think I ever used "new wave" or "condescending artist". You are
completely misquoting and misinterpretting me.
The idea that dominates games (of the non-video variety) is that gameplay
is the truth. If the gameplay present sufficiently interesting dilemma,
the the game is good. In media, the idea is communication. If your book,
movie, or tv show doesn't communicate an idea or emotion, it is shallow.
Videogames exist in this void between the two. It has the ability for
both gameplay and communication, and not surprisingly, needs only a little
bit from either one. Most games do exist somewhere in the center, but
some of the games at the two ends are classics (Tetris/Grim Fandango).
: (1) This would not require an artist, but an artisan.
Art very much requires artisans, in fact, most art is created by this
group of people. Art is about communication of ideas, and if the tools
are incapable of doing this well, art suffers. Therefore, the better
artists are the ones that control their brush with some efficiency.
: (2) Answer me this: What more _insight_ or _beauty_ (two of the greatest
: ideals of a work of art) would this offer over the experience of real life
: itself (switching off the computer)?
See, this statement is under the assumption that what I want is a realistic
depiction of the real world, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I
have no doubt that concept will come in due time, but belong to the gameplay
first crowd, if for no other reason than similar media, like movies, are
more likely to provide better passive experiences.
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: That is a grossly simplistic view; a very bad case of pigeonholeing. It's
: also quite obvious your opinion of programmers is biased by your dislike for
: them.
I may have gone a bit overboard on my display of distaste for programmers.
I don't hate programmers, but I don't agree with them either. I belong to
realm of thought that is very much against everything they hold dear, and
understandably, we don't get along very well. Still, when have we ever
made an honest attempt either? Well, you are right, I will stop harping
on programmers...
But I won't back down on my assesment of the two types. That isn't my
idea, but I agree with it. I did pepper my speech with a few too many
qualifiers making it seem that it was "my way or the highway", when
quite obviously, it isn't. But the divide does exist.
: And from one personal experience you can pigeonhole the rest of the
: industry? I don't think so. The rest of your post is egotistical and
: elitist.
Ha ha. I wish it was just one personal experience. You don't know
how bad it is out there...
: From the design stuff I read off your old site, I gathered that you are not
: as visionary as you claim to be. Furthermore, i find you're elitist attitude
: to gaming as an artform disgusting. Sure, games can be made as works of art,
: but they can also be made as pure entertainment. Either one is valid. Giving
: crap to some whose intention is to make an entertainment-driven game is
: snobbish and unfair.
I'll tell you what, don't attack my person, and I won't feel the need to
defend myself.
Let me clarify this whole art thing. I do not think that art exists in
a void. Art _IS_ entertainment. There are not two seperate things here.
Games already are art. My stance is that we need a vocabulary to study them
more indepthly. We know so little about them because nobody has bothered
to care enough to look.
We know how low camera angles can develop a sense of strength and awe in
movies. We know that certain words evoke different emotions in books. We
understand how images can be used to sell products in commercials. We
see how colors can be effective in paintings. We acknowledge the harmonic
scale in music.
But what do we know about videogames? Next to nothing. Everybody has this
idea that videogames are entertainment without value, and I'm saying,
no, it has value. It is a unique form that is neither game nor media, and
it deserves as much study as anything else that has come before it. This
study will come one day, and I want it to be sooner rather than later.
: You claim to be the greatest thing ever to come to the game industry, yet
: you haven't been able to land a job OR produce anything worthy of greatness
: after many years. But you still want it so badly.
I have no defense for that. You've pegged me exactly. Why am I trying
so hard to be part of an industry that doesn't want me, especially
given my somewhat recent disliking of it? Because I love videogames.
: You're a goose. Because if you weren't, you'd at least be able hold your
: tongue so as not to piss off potential employers in interviews and industry
: correspondents on public NGs.
On this, you are correct. If I had kept the subject about the ideas and
not about the messenger, we would be much better off. But I want to
point this out: I didn't start it. All of this began as a side comment that
I wanted to write a book about videogames, which was unfairly attacked,
in my opinion. Despite this constant bickering, I've still tried to introduce
some of my ideas into the conversation...which also get instantly attacked.
I should've shown a little more maturity than I did, and in the future
I will attempt to do so.
: BTW, I've changed my mind on something. Now that I know more about your
: character and attitude, I wouldn't hire you if I had the choice. If this is
: how you'd act in the workplace--arrogant and condescending--I wouldn't be
: able to stand it and neither would most people I've worked with in the past.
That "I wouldn't hire you" has nothing to do with the conversation. I never
asked you to. You've decided to bring up a thread from 6 months ago for
the sole purpose of attacking me. I find that to be particularly petty and
superficial.
@@
Sean Howard
Taren Durbank
entity that gaming needs to evolve into? That is, there are already many
interactive games that lie between puzzles and media, where you say they
should--this is not a new concept.
> Art very much requires artisans, in fact, most art is created by this
> group of people. Art is about communication of ideas, and if the tools
> are incapable of doing this well, art suffers. Therefore, the better
> artists are the ones that control their brush with some efficiency.
No, art is created by artists, those with vision and insight. Artisans
generally build things from patterns or blueprints. They do it with a great
deal of skill and accuracy, but are generally not as creative or
groundbreaking as artists.
Sean Howard
: Ok then, apologies, i misinterpreted. So then, what is the great _new_
: entity that gaming needs to evolve into?
Gaming will not change, but how we perceive will. Right now, games are
on the bottom rung, lower than porn in most circles. If we study and
understand the subject matter, we will be able to create a vocabulary of
what makes games different, and what measurably distinctions we can
make between games.
We can say that Akira Kurosawa is a good director, but it wasn't until
the vocabulary was created that we could say why. This lead way to film
schools, and eventually those that came from film school like Coppla and
Lucas. They both did something different for their medium by understanding
it better.
Games are currently stuck like television of the 1940's. The tv tried
to emulate similar media, most notably vaudaville and radio. It wasn't
until much later that the power of television was discovered. Now we've
got movies, news, shopping, infomercials, soap operas, sitcoms, game shows,
and most recently, interactive shows. TV is no longer a camera on a closed
set.
As we learn about something, we will understand it better, which means we
can use it more efficiently. There will always be visionary artists that
bring something new to the table, but there will be a lot more artisans who
can greatly benefit by the increased understanding.
@@
Sean Howard
Rainer Deyke
> There are two types of programmers, according to David X Cringley, those
> that do great things badly and those that do bad things greatly. The
> difference comes down to the focus of interest.
There are two types of programmers: those that do great thing greatly, and
those that suck.
> For the abstract (great things badly) programmer, they are interested in
> the understanding of complex systems. They want to improve the working
> of these systems through the relationships between each and every idea
> and concept. They will completely overlook such problems as stuttering
> framerates, imperfect collision detection, and slightly slower algorithms.
> They don't don't just ignore them, they don't see them becuase their
> heads are in the "clouds" looking at a whole abstraction layer or two
> higher.
If the complex system forces stuttering framerates, it is badly designed.
If it merely produces stuttering framerates initially, it is irrelevant.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil" - Knuth.
> For the concrete (bad things greatly) programmer, they are able to program
> by following rules. They become quite excellent programmers by applying
> these concrete examples in their every line. The Effective series from
> Addison Wesley, which breaks the books down into 50-some-odd rules, are
> a the perfect example of this. These programmers live and die by the
rules.
> They have a shrine, complete with candles, to the Big O. The obsess over
> optimization because that is something concrete that they can be
successful
> at. These programmers can create the fastest engines around, but they
> will likely be structured in minimalist way. These types of programmers
> are the types who think Java is slow, OOP is overrated, and BubbleSort is
> a sin punishable by death.
Minimalism is a sign of great design. "A program reaches greatness not when
there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove" (not
sure about the source, and probably misquoted). All of the qualities of
great design (flexibility, maintainability, robustness, etc.) are more
likely to be present in a minimalist system than in a complex system.
> These two types of programmers are both necessary. Logic dictates that
> a lead programmer would be better off as an abstract programmer, but this
> is rarely the case. The lead programmers I've all talked to have been
> almost obsessive in their attention to details. In one interview, I was
> asked to compare the difference in operating speed between compiled
> function jumps and virtual function jumps. Thinking back on my Pentium
800,
> I said the speed difference was unimportant, especially in light of the
> benefits that virtual jumps give us. Wrong answer. You'd think I had shot
> the poor man's cat or something.
Wrong answer indeed. There is a reason why state-of-the-art C++ designers
prefer compile-time polymorphism over runtime polymorphism.
--
Rainer Deyke (ro...@rainerdeyke.com)
Shareware computer games - http://rainerdeyke.com
"In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor
Rainer Deyke
> *pure* OOP overrated? Now you've committed the cardinal sin of the
concrete
> programmer. Pshaw...
OOP is an implementation tool. No less, no more. At the level where I
usually work, it is completely irrelevant.
Sean Howard
: OOP is an implementation tool. No less, no more. At the level where I
: usually work, it is completely irrelevant.
To say that OOP is overrated is to deny all the amazing advances in how
we think about programming. You can say, "I choose not to use OOP", but
you can't say, "I choose not to be affected by OOP".
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
> Peter Cowderoy (psy...@cowderoy.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : > There are two types of programmers, according to David X Cringley, those
> : > that do great things badly and those that do bad things greatly. The
> : > difference comes down to the focus of interest.
>
> : Congratulations, you've found yet another dichotomy I sit smack in the
> : middle of :-) Actually I lean towards the abstract, but that has a certain
> : amount to do with the comparatively small volume of actual code I write...
>
> So, you do what? Mediocre things comparatively well?
>
> You say that, but based on the very things you say in this message, I'm
> going to have to say you lean very much towards the concrete side. I'm
> not saying people can't be good at both, just that they are inversely
> related. The better you get a A, the worse you are at B.
>
There's been far more chance to show the concrete side so far though,
especially the whole pipelining thing. The abstract side's harder to
discuss because it's... abstract.
> : > heads are in the "clouds" looking at a whole abstraction layer or two
> : > higher.
>
> : This would be a second rate abstract programmer. Sooner or later it turns
> : out that it's all the same stuff going on whatever level you look at it.
>
> No, he would be a great abstract programmer, but an exceptionally poor
> concrete programmer. If you were a concrete programmer (and I believe you
> are), then you would see that lack of sensibility as a problem.
>
And thus we conflict - an abstract programmer who can't usefully abstract
the relevant low level details just ain't that hot. All he actually needs
to take from pipelining, for example, is the knowledge that dereferences
in inner loops are less than hot (yes, this would appear to be a concrete
rule - abstractions are still built out of them). Then you design your
interfaces etc such that you don't have cause to mass dereference - which
is all about how your data's layed out.
> : Logic dictates that neither is a good lead programmer because they both
> : miss stuff.
>
> Aha! But it is in what they miss that becomes important at that level. The
> abstract programmer will be much more intune with the entire system,
> anticipating problems and solutions long before they show up.
>
Not if he's not aware of low-level causes of problems.
>
> : > I said the speed difference was unimportant, especially in light of the
> : > benefits that virtual jumps give us. Wrong answer. You'd think I had shot
> : > the poor man's cat or something.
>
> : I'm afraid I'd have seen that as a wrong answer too. You weren't given a
> : context :-) Indirect jumps do bad things to the pipeline, so you really
> : don't want them anywhere near an inner loop - most of the rest of the time
> : they're worth it for the benefits not least because you were going to
> : stall the pipeline anyway.
>
> Pipeline? Now that is a detail if I've ever heard one.
It's also a bloody important one while you're concerned with any
significant volume of processing, even if all it does is make you stop for
a moment and think "actually we're IO-bound anyway".
> At what point do details
> like that stop being an issue? Granted, you will always be able to
> point and say, doing this will make these improvements, but when does that
> become insignificant?
>
When the game runs fast enough :-) Also, when you get to stuff like entity
behaviours in your game simulation, which is a far more natural domain for
the abstract programmer. Assuming the lead programmer actually does much
programming it's going to be a while before he can cease caring about this
particular issue though because it affects how things are put together.
> Anyway, they did Rocket Power and Wild Thornberries for the GBA. Before
> I was called the first time, they gave me a problem to think about. They
> had the entire level stored as one giant bitmap, and the collision information
> was also one. White meant floor, yellow meant ladder, blue meant water,
> green was ladder and water, etc. The levels were like 4,000 pixels by
> 1,000 pixels, they wanted me to figure out a way to find a way to compress
> that into a usable format on the GBA. I think it took several megabytes
> of storage space as it was, and they wanted me to compress it to a
> couple hundred k. Oh, and it had to be pixel perfect for collision reasons.
>
> When I finally talked to them, they explained that their way involved
> compressing the data using one algorithm, then compressing that data with
> another algorithm, and compressing that, for so many levels deep. Then
> they would stream that information in as you travelled around the level.
>
A quickie solution: RLE compressed tiles of similar size to the player
sprite. Quick to decode, speeds up the collision detection algorithm, and you
only need four of them to test a player collision so you can do all your
decompression as needed each frame.
My first version probably wouldn't bother with an explicit tileset though
- that's extra work :-)
> And
> I really couldn't believe that when I mentioned using tiles, they actually
> said that they hadn't thought of that!
>
I could believe it - although I may well have had to go poker-faced for a
moment in your position, given that you didn't have the job yet...
> Then I realized that there was no reason for them to use pixel perfect
> collision detection.
Well, there's always the classic fire-and-forget peace of mind, I guess -
sometimes overkill solutions have a certain elegance to them so long as
they're not cripplingly slow. That being the problem, of course :-)
> I was wracking my brain trying to come up with a solution to the problem
> I was given, but I was given the wrong problem. They gave me a concrete
> problem. I couldn't answer the problem they gave me because I kept
> looking outside the problem to solve it.
I hope for your sake you at least considered the tiled RLE solution then!
> And that is the fundamental difference between the abstract and concrete
> programmer. The concrete programmer will solve the problem by answering
> the question. The abstract programmer solve the same problem by going to
> the source and seeing where the problem comes from and fixes that.
>
And if anyone has a few #flipcode logs handy you'll quickly see why I
consider myself to be neither :-)
Peter Cowderoy
> Ok then, apologies, i misinterpreted. So then, what is the great _new_
> entity that gaming needs to evolve into? That is, there are already many
> interactive games that lie between puzzles and media, where you say they
> should--this is not a new concept.
>
There isn't a great new entity, there's just a better version of the
current one where everyone understands the extent of the differences
caused by, say, UT's air control vs Q3A's, or Street Fighter's emergent
combos vs Namco's preprogrammed ones.
Sean Howard
: There are two types of programmers: those that do great thing greatly, and
: those that suck.
That's like saying everything has a 50% chance of happening...either it
happens or it doesn't. And they said I over simplify...
: If the complex system forces stuttering framerates, it is badly designed.
: If it merely produces stuttering framerates initially, it is irrelevant.
I meant the latter, though I'm not sure it was completely obvious.
: "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" - Knuth.
That is a great quote. That Knuth, smart guy he is.
: Minimalism is a sign of great design. "A program reaches greatness not when
: there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove" (not
: sure about the source, and probably misquoted). All of the qualities of
: great design (flexibility, maintainability, robustness, etc.) are more
: likely to be present in a minimalist system than in a complex system.
Ah, but where do you apply the minimalism? Design patterns are the perfect
example of design minimalism, but not necessarily physically minimalist.
There may be hundreds of objects with hundreds of functions, but if you
follow the guidelines set forth by some particularly brilliant people,
your program will seem tighter.
: > I said the speed difference was unimportant, especially in light of the
: > benefits that virtual jumps give us. Wrong answer. You'd think I had shot
: > the poor man's cat or something.
: Wrong answer indeed. There is a reason why state-of-the-art C++ designers
: prefer compile-time polymorphism over runtime polymorphism.
Would you care to elaborate some? You're the second person that has indicated
that it is a wrong answer. What kind of differences are we looking at here?
Still, I can't help but think that it can't be that important because it
has never been touched in 70 programming books I've got on my shelf. If
it really made a difference, someone, somewhere, would've said something
about it. But I'll refrain from final judgement until I have more information.
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
> Ah, but where do you apply the minimalism? Design patterns are the
> perfect example of design minimalism, but not necessarily physically
> minimalist. There may be hundreds of objects with hundreds of functions,
> but if you follow the guidelines set forth by some particularly
> brilliant people, your program will seem tighter.
Or alternatively if you understand the difference between size and
complexity :-)
> Still, I can't help but think that it can't be that important because it
> has never been touched in 70 programming books I've got on my shelf. If
> it really made a difference, someone, somewhere, would've said something
> about it. But I'll refrain from final judgement until I have more information.
>
Go read up on CPU architecture - a couple of hours should do the trick. To
put it in perspective, the Pentium 4 has (IIRC) a 20-stage pipeline, which
means that stalling it costs you 20 cycles. Using polymorphic functions
for collision detection on simple objects (for example), is going to hurt.
One way out of that particular mess would be to group your object-object
pairs by the types of their shapes and then iterate along each group with
the correct function. Such an approach is becoming common in 3D pipelines.
Nathan Mates
Sean Howard <how...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>> Wrong answer indeed. There is a reason why state-of-the-art C++
>> designers prefer compile-time polymorphism over runtime
>> polymorphism.
>Still, I can't help but think that it can't be that important
>because it has never been touched in 70 programming books I've got
>on my shelf. If it really made a difference, someone, somewhere,
>would've said something about it. But I'll refrain from final
>judgement until I have more information.
Depends on which 70 books you've got there. If they're stuff from
college studies, please be well aware that there's a whole bunch of
Computer Science profs out there more familiar with sketching out
algorithms or Turing machines on paper than actually implementing
code. There's also profs who actually have a few million lines of
code written, and have a *clue* about how things work in the real
world. Hopefully you got a balanced education.
This sort of revelation shouldn't have to come as a surprise to
you, but as you've already bashed Big-O notation earlier in this
thread, it does not seem like you've been taught or cared much about
optimization at all over the years. Big-O is only the beginning for
performance-- it's for a perfectly theoretical computer where memory
accesses are all the same cost, and essentially free. Big-O doesn't
take into account all the performance quirks on modern processors--
and it's doubtful you'll learn much of that from books.
Do you have at least one book on assembly? You should. Learn
it. Learn it well. Until you start to understand what a compiler is
actually doing, and your code is doing at runtime, you'll only have
your head in the clouds about performance.
Call the above patronizing if you want, but it's advice for the
business. The games you may love, if written for 8/16 bit consoles,
had plenty of programmers on them who were counting every cycle, and
squeezing performance out of them. This allows the people who like to
think abstractly-- we normally call them artists and designers-- to do
what they want. As long as games are used as a *benchmark* of
performance, it's not just the programmers who care about
performance. It's consumers, the media, and more.
You said earlier that the industry has set itself up against
you. Ignoring how incredibly arrogant that sounds, here's a bit of
advice. What's easier to change: Sean Howard, or the industry? Use
Occam's Razor, no matter how much you may whine about not being the
"right" personality type. As your whines have gotten to the point
where most would stop trying to coddle you and just hand you a job,
this is tough love time. You'll be a better programmer overall when
you learn what performance is, and how to achieve it-- don't cheat
yourself out of useful skills.
Rainer Deyke
Neither would be accurate. I use OOP where appropriate. As an
implementation detail.
I don't think how I personally think about programming was affected all that
much by OOP, although it obviously had a huge impact on the industry.
Rainer Deyke
> Rainer Deyke (ro...@rainerdeyke.com) wrote:
>
> : There are two types of programmers: those that do great thing greatly,
and
> : those that suck.
>
> That's like saying everything has a 50% chance of happening...either it
> happens or it doesn't.
It is like saying that everything either happens or it doesn't. It's not
like assigning a 50% chance to either, because that would be wrong. (Far
more things don't happen than happen.)
> And they said I over simplify...
I oversimplified to make a point about your own oversimplification.
> : If the complex system forces stuttering framerates, it is badly
designed.
> : If it merely produces stuttering framerates initially, it is irrelevant.
>
> I meant the latter, though I'm not sure it was completely obvious.
>
> : "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" - Knuth.
>
> That is a great quote. That Knuth, smart guy he is.
The irony here is that I don't fully agree with the statement. I consider
performance optimization to be only one form of optimization.
Readability/maintainability optimaztion is another. The former should
usually be not be done until proven necessary, but the latter is always
useful. Another name for readability/maintainability optimization is
"refactoring", but it's just another form of optimization to me.
> : Minimalism is a sign of great design. "A program reaches greatness not
when
> : there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove"
(not
> : sure about the source, and probably misquoted). All of the qualities of
> : great design (flexibility, maintainability, robustness, etc.) are more
> : likely to be present in a minimalist system than in a complex system.
>
> Ah, but where do you apply the minimalism? Design patterns are the perfect
> example of design minimalism, but not necessarily physically minimalist.
> There may be hundreds of objects with hundreds of functions, but if you
> follow the guidelines set forth by some particularly brilliant people,
> your program will seem tighter.
Maybe. I have a strong tendency to overdesign, so I also tend to
overcompensate by rejecting design entirely. The latter has gotten me some
spectacularily ugly results, while the former has yet to produce any results
for me at all.
> : Wrong answer indeed. There is a reason why state-of-the-art C++
designers
> : prefer compile-time polymorphism over runtime polymorphism.
>
> Would you care to elaborate some? You're the second person that has
indicated
> that it is a wrong answer. What kind of differences are we looking at
here?
Actually the difference between lookup jumps and fixed jumps isn't all that
big (50%-100% slower would be my guess, although it could be significantly
worse in some cases). However, inline functions let you
avoid jumps altogether. That means the high-level abstract code you wrote
won't have to be rewritten completely before it can be used in an inner
loop. A typical game has more speed bottlenecks than you might think.
Sean Howard
: Depends on which 70 books you've got there. If they're stuff from
: college studies, please be well aware that there's a whole bunch of
: Computer Science profs out there more familiar with sketching out
: algorithms or Turing machines on paper than actually implementing
: code. There's also profs who actually have a few million lines of
: code written, and have a *clue* about how things work in the real
: world. Hopefully you got a balanced education.
I'd say I didn't. That's why I left. It is interesting, I am arguing for
the need and purposes of "college" studies at the lost of minute, but
arguably important, implementation details. You are, and just about everyone
else here, is arguing exactly the opposite. Those minute implementation
details are very important, while all this abstract mamby pamby crap
is for people who don't program. This is exactly what I've been saying
about the differences between the two programmers, and why the game industry
needs a swift kick to the hackey-sack.
You can disagree with what I am saying, but in doing so, you are only
convincing me that I, and the ideas that I've borrowed from others, are
more correct that I originally thought.
: This sort of revelation shouldn't have to come as a surprise to
: you, but as you've already bashed Big-O notation earlier in this
: thread, it does not seem like you've been taught or cared much about
: optimization at all over the years. Big-O is only the beginning for
: performance-- it's for a perfectly theoretical computer where memory
: accesses are all the same cost, and essentially free. Big-O doesn't
: take into account all the performance quirks on modern processors--
: and it's doubtful you'll learn much of that from books.
I mentioned that most game programmers I've met had shrines to the Big-O,
complete with candles, and it seem that you fit that description perfectly.
For you to take it past the Big-O, saying the Big-O is just the beginning
makes me even more nervous.
I won't deny the importance of the Big-O (thus saving myself from eventually
sacrifice to the optimization gods). It is important. We only disagree about
when and where it becomes important.
: Do you have at least one book on assembly? You should. Learn
: it. Learn it well. Until you start to understand what a compiler is
: actually doing, and your code is doing at runtime, you'll only have
: your head in the clouds about performance.
Yeah, I got an asm book. Some RISC processor. Also have (had?) one on
computer organization, pipelining and stuff. I must admit, I found the
subject matters very intoxicating, though I doubt we found the same
enlightenment from them.
: Call the above patronizing if you want, but it's advice for the
Alright, it was patronizing, and not entirely correct or intelligent.
: business. The games you may love, if written for 8/16 bit consoles,
: had plenty of programmers on them who were counting every cycle, and
Are games written for 8/16 bit consoles anymore? I'm not saying I'm not
appreciative or anything, but I can't help but think that we should
be at least using the extra advancements time and progress has brought
us to make better games. You go ahead and think in the past, if you'd
like.
: As long as games are used as a *benchmark* of
: performance, it's not just the programmers who care about
: performance. It's consumers, the media, and more.
You know what, that's exactly what I'm fighting for. I want more people
to understand games, not from a techie "look at those mip maps!"
approach, but from a consumer/critic standpoint. That has already happened
with movies. Sure, big special effects are successful, but so are more
mundane situations. Look at Good Will Hunting. There are hundreds of
different experiences at the movies, all equally valid. A Jackie Chan movie
will be markedly different than a James Bond movie, yet only recently
have games escaped the generic FPS/generic platform game cycle.
The reason consumers and the media think implementation details are so
important is because the programmers make it important. They put the
little bullet-point list on the back of their games. The reason the game
audience is primarily male is because the game appeal primarily to the
techies. It is like the difference between "Final Fantasy the Movie" with
"Toy Story". One uses the technology as the finished product, the other
uses the tech to tell an interesting story that couldn't be told otherwise.
: You said earlier that the industry has set itself up against
: you. Ignoring how incredibly arrogant that sounds, here's a bit of
: advice.
Arrogant advice about not being arrogant! I love it. Not quite irony, but
just as tastey.
: What's easier to change: Sean Howard, or the industry?
The industry is worth changing. That's been the point of every single
message I've ever written. It's not about doing the easy thing, it's about
doing the right thing.
: You'll be a better programmer overall when you learn what performance is
And you'll be a better programmer overall when you learn what performance
ISN'T. Don't cheat yourself.
: # Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
Just out of curiosity, does Pandemic have some sort of inside track at
GameSutra? I swear, the same job postings must be placed every 2 days.
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: ....... Another name for readability/maintainability optimization is
: "refactoring", but it's just another form of optimization to me.
But the focus is different. That's why there is a differen title for it.
One focuses on (you must be getting tired of me using these words) concrete
operations while the other concentrates on abstract operations. In some
cases, these overlap, in others, they certainly don't.
: Maybe. I have a strong tendency to overdesign, so I also tend to
: overcompensate by rejecting design entirely. The latter has gotten me some
: spectacularily ugly results, while the former has yet to produce any results
: for me at all.
What can I say, practice practice practice. There must be something to this
whole design thing if so many people are doing it. So you aren't so great
at it, does that imbue you with the power to condemn it?
: Actually the difference between lookup jumps and fixed jumps isn't all that
: big (50%-100% slower would be my guess, although it could be significantly
: worse in some cases). However, inline functions let you
: avoid jumps altogether. That means the high-level abstract code you wrote
: won't have to be rewritten completely before it can be used in an inner
: loop. A typical game has more speed bottlenecks than you might think.
Help me understand better. Let's say I have a... um... 2D RTS game. Where
would these bottlenecks be most important? That is, which optimizations
would result in the most significant and obvious speed improvements?
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
> Nathan Mates (nat...@visi.com) wrote:
>
> : Depends on which 70 books you've got there. If they're stuff from
> : college studies, please be well aware that there's a whole bunch of
> : Computer Science profs out there more familiar with sketching out
> : algorithms or Turing machines on paper than actually implementing
> : code. There's also profs who actually have a few million lines of
> : code written, and have a *clue* about how things work in the real
> : world. Hopefully you got a balanced education.
>
> I'd say I didn't. That's why I left. It is interesting, I am arguing for
> the need and purposes of "college" studies at the lost of minute, but
> arguably important, implementation details.
Really? You've barely got started at that end. All you seem to have been
arguing is why the implementation details are worthless.
> : This sort of revelation shouldn't have to come as a surprise to
> : you, but as you've already bashed Big-O notation earlier in this
> : thread, it does not seem like you've been taught or cared much about
> : optimization at all over the years. Big-O is only the beginning for
> : performance-- it's for a perfectly theoretical computer where memory
> : accesses are all the same cost, and essentially free. Big-O doesn't
> : take into account all the performance quirks on modern processors--
> : and it's doubtful you'll learn much of that from books.
>
> I mentioned that most game programmers I've met had shrines to the Big-O,
> complete with candles, and it seem that you fit that description perfectly.
> For you to take it past the Big-O, saying the Big-O is just the beginning
> makes me even more nervous.
>
Hahahaha! God forbid any of us actually care whether or not we can get our
game running acceptably on current hardware! Taking it past the Big O
should be an obvious step for an abstract programmer because *the Big O
tells you bugger all about what you need to take into consideration at the
design level*. Don't like that sort algorithm? Swap it for another. Don't
like the fact you're stalling the CPU each time round that loop? Oops,
gotta redesign all your data structures...
Forewarned is forearmed. Having to rewrite your entire 3d pipeline is
painful.
> Yeah, I got an asm book. Some RISC processor. Also have (had?) one on
> computer organization, pipelining and stuff. I must admit, I found the
> subject matters very intoxicating, though I doubt we found the same
> enlightenment from them.
>
Look at the CPU's I/O for a bit - most of the real shit comes from not
having data to hand when you want it, because RAM's still comparatively
slow.
> Are games written for 8/16 bit consoles anymore? I'm not saying I'm not
> appreciative or anything, but I can't help but think that we should
> be at least using the extra advancements time and progress has brought
> us to make better games.
In case you haven't noticed, we are. You may have noticed that none of us
completely threw out indirect/virtual jumps, for example.
> You know what, that's exactly what I'm fighting for. I want more people
> to understand games, not from a techie "look at those mip maps!"
> approach, but from a consumer/critic standpoint.
Good. In the meantime, I'm not about to throw away an entire game design
because I can't get the thing running smoothly. If you want to debate the
worth of this you're welcome to do so over a game of, say, Street Fighter
III.
> : You'll be a better programmer overall when you learn what performance is
>
> And you'll be a better programmer overall when you learn what performance
> ISN'T. Don't cheat yourself.
>
From what? You may not believe this, but the art of good design is
learning to have your cake and eat it - systems that impress both concrete
and abstract programmers.
Rainer Deyke
> Rainer Deyke (ro...@rainerdeyke.com) wrote:
>
> : ....... Another name for readability/maintainability optimization is
> : "refactoring", but it's just another form of optimization to me.
>
> But the focus is different. That's why there is a differen title for it.
> One focuses on (you must be getting tired of me using these words)
concrete
> operations while the other concentrates on abstract operations. In some
> cases, these overlap, in others, they certainly don't.
_Refactoring_ was perhaps the most concrete computer book I ever read. By
comparison, _Zen_of_Code_Optimization_ was fairly abstract.
> : Maybe. I have a strong tendency to overdesign, so I also tend to
> : overcompensate by rejecting design entirely. The latter has gotten me
some
> : spectacularily ugly results, while the former has yet to produce any
results
> : for me at all.
>
> What can I say, practice practice practice. There must be something to
this
> whole design thing if so many people are doing it. So you aren't so great
> at it, does that imbue you with the power to condemn it?
You don't understand. When I just code, I automatically think on a very
abstract level. Sometimes things get ugly, but it's nothing a little
refactoring can't solve. In the end I end up with a very workable design.
If I allow myself to, I detach myself completely from reality. I start
thinking about the nature of abstraction, ways to eliminate tradeoffs,
infinite reusability, and such.
It's not that I am bad at design. Design comes naturally to me. It's that
it takes a lot of effort for me to actually implement any of my ideas.
Sometimes I implement a quick and dirty hack just so that I have something
concrete to build on. Sometimes I never get around to replacing the hack
because I can't think of the optimal replacement. And somehow, the end
product doesn't really suffer from my hack. Because even when I hack, I use
fairly good design principles instinctively.
> : Actually the difference between lookup jumps and fixed jumps isn't all
that
> : big (50%-100% slower would be my guess, although it could be
significantly
> : worse in some cases). However, inline functions let you
> : avoid jumps altogether. That means the high-level abstract code you
wrote
> : won't have to be rewritten completely before it can be used in an inner
> : loop. A typical game has more speed bottlenecks than you might think.
>
> Help me understand better. Let's say I have a... um... 2D RTS game. Where
> would these bottlenecks be most important? That is, which optimizations
> would result in the most significant and obvious speed improvements?
Slow randering, unit update (collision detection, pathfinding, AI), and
opponent AI can all slow the game down to an unplayable level. In
particular, if you want to implement the unit AI in a scripting language,
you're in for a lot of pain. Game save/load speed is unlikely to be all
that significant, but can still be unpleasantly slow.
Taren Durbank
While these may be interpreted as similar words, they are not the same in
practice. A dedicated artist would not sacrifice his work (metaphors,
meanings, symbolism) for the sake of mass market entertainment. The goal is
to be entertaining, but not degrading or gimmicky.
> I'll tell you what, don't attack my person, and I won't feel the need to
> defend myself.
So defend yourself, big deal. You are making personal attacks on people
yourself, AND open attacks on people you don't even know.
Taren Durbank
> on the bottom rung, lower than porn in most circles. If we study and
> understand the subject matter, we will be able to create a vocabulary of
> what makes games different, and what measurably distinctions we can
> make between games.
Yes i agree with you somewhat, but i still don't see how this makes you the
most unique or groundbreaking visionary to ever come to gaming.
People out there are already researching, preaching, and advancing these
studies--even those as unknown as you. Perhaps you should try to match them
by writing up some open papers or proposals, rather than just issuing
mud-slinging fights to Spector and the like.
Tom Sloper
> Art _IS_ entertainment. There are not two seperate [sic] things here.
That is a ridiculous statement. They are completely different things.
The NBC TV show "Extra" is NOT art.
The Bayeux Tapestry is NOT entertainment.
Merriam-Webster's 4th definition of "art" (there are many ways that the term
can be used) is:
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the
production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
Merriam-Webster's 1st definition of "entertainment" is:
1 : the act of entertaining
Merriam-Webster's 3rd definition of "entertainment" is:
3 : something diverting or engaging: as a : a public performance b : a
usually light comic or adventure novel
Clearly, by the examples I gave above and by these definitions of the terms,
art and entertainment are NOT the same thing.
Last point: by ridiculing the statement, it is not my intent to ridicule the
person who made the statement.
There IS /an art/ to making games. Some games are more /artful/ than others.
The term "art" therefore can be properly used in the context of electronic
games. But there is no way anyone can justify equating "art" with
"entertainment."
Tom
Sean Howard
: > Art _IS_ entertainment.
: That is a ridiculous statement. They are completely different things.
There is a discussion of games not being art in the sony newsgroup, and
I sit there thinking, "Man, how shallow is the definition of art that
a game like Tetris can't be considered art". If our current definition of
art doesn't include such leeway, then it is deficient. Then I realized that
'art' is one of those words that means exactly what you want it to mean,
and never what you don't want it to - which is different for everybody.
The best description of art that I've ever read was in "Understanding
Comics" (back to the too-many-beers-pseudo-science). McCloud says that
anything a person does that doesn't extend out of mankinds two basic
needs (survival and reproduction) is art. The act of being creative is
art. I believe our current definition is more a measure of either the
effective tool usage of an artist and/or the unique style or interpretation
of the world.
One can also argue that the viewing of art doesn't extend out of our
needs for survival, but isn't a product. If we want to do something, that
is effectively entertainment.
The best art in the world is entertainment. You look because you want to
look. The most famous art is typically the ones that the most people
'get' (or pretend they get so people don't make fun of them). In this
way, is the act of art any different from mainstream products? The actual
creation of a product to be liked is an art, and and the product is art.
: The NBC TV show "Extra" is NOT art.
You are arguing the quality, not makeup. 'art' is normally a word that
means 'good art', but art doesn't need to be good to be art. I could
make a coffee table book that consists of pictures of my feet (and don't
think I haven't considered it, either). The concept is mundane, so that
is no 'good art', but the implementation may be interesting enough to
qualify as 'good art'. If people find entertainment from "Feet, a journey",
then the book is also entertainment...if people don't find entertainment
from it, it is still entertainment, it just isn't very good entertainment.
: 4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the
: production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
That goes along with what I said above. Basically, anything that uses
conscious use of skill and creative imagination. At least games fit the
bill of art in this definition. I know you're not really arguing that, but
I thought I'd kill two responses with one post.
: Merriam-Webster's 1st definition of "entertainment" is:
: 1 : the act of entertaining
Man, now there's a useful definition!
: 3 : something diverting or engaging: as a : a public performance b : a
: usually light comic or adventure novel
: Clearly, by the examples I gave above and by these definitions of the terms,
: art and entertainment are NOT the same thing.
How could you not describe art as "diverting or engaging"? Isn't that
like the fundamental intention of good art?
: There IS /an art/ to making games. Some games are more /artful/ than others.
: The term "art" therefore can be properly used in the context of electronic
: games. But there is no way anyone can justify equating "art" with
: "entertainment."
If movies are art, paintings are art, sculptures are art, music is art, and
poetry is art, why is not the media that contains all of those not also
art? Can it only be reduced to being artistic on the merits of other
arts, and never stand on its own unique feet and say to the world, "I
do things like no other creature can, I am art! Feel me roar!"...if it
wanted to be melodramatic, of course.
I'll need to look it up, but some Greek philosopher (Plato/Aristotle?)
desided that there were seven arts: music, prose, sculpture, painting,
architecture, and 2 others I forgot. Sometime much much much later, a French
philosopher decided to add 4 contemporary arts to the mix: Movies,
Graphics Novels, something else, and videogames. They decided that
videogames were the 10th Art. That, to me, is pretty impressive company.
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: > Gaming will not change, but how we perceive will. Right now, games are
: > on the bottom rung, lower than porn in most circles. If we study and
: > understand the subject matter, we will be able to create a vocabulary of
: > what makes games different, and what measurably distinctions we can
: > make between games.
: Yes i agree with you somewhat, but i still don't see how this makes you the
: most unique or groundbreaking visionary to ever come to gaming.
Maybe I'm not. I'm at least the shortest. I realize my attitude may seem
arrogant, but I assure you it is more confidence than a superiority
complex. I don't think I'm better than anyone else, but I am confident in
my ideas and skills. While I may not be the "most" unique or groundbreaking
visionary, I have confidence that I am at least partially one.
: People out there are already researching, preaching, and advancing these
: studies--even those as unknown as you. Perhaps you should try to match them
: by writing up some open papers or proposals, rather than just issuing
: mud-slinging fights to Spector and the like.
You are right. I got off on a tangent that I couldn't come back from, and
the good name of a few undeserving people got attacked. I loved Deus Ex.
It was my favorite game of that year. But I realize that it wasn't created
by Spector by himself. There was a team of people working every bit
as hard as he was to create that amazing product that eventually made it
onto the shelf. In fact, I'd say the product was less a work of Spector
alone, and more a product of their excellent design team.
And I stand by what I say. Spector, and the others, make great games, but they
are unfairly singled out and given god-like status. They are given such
obviously wrong titles the owners of a particular genre, or even the
creators of it. Spector, for example, is credited with several games that
he had no input on just because he was sort of distantly related to the
product, and they were in "his" genre. Thief/System Shock 2, and probably
several others. And those Spector might be able to recreate the same game
over and over again with extreme success (go him, I say), I severely doubt
we'll be seeing System Kart Shock, or Deus Tennis, from him or his team.
I appreciate all the hard work that those designers have done for the
realm of videogames, but I do very much maintain that they are unfairly
singled out and given credit. But this mostly applies to those game
gods (as PC Gamer once put it) that did their most influential work during
the heyday of DOS (the time most programmers tend to be stuck in). There
aren't too many recent designers who are famous. Who do we thank for
Goldeneye or Grand Theft Auto 3 or Warcraft 2? The teams that made them.
@@
Sean Howard
Gerry Quinn
>> Art _IS_ entertainment. There are not two seperate things here.
>
>While these may be interpreted as similar words, they are not the same in
>practice. A dedicated artist would not sacrifice his work (metaphors,
>meanings, symbolism) for the sake of mass market entertainment. The goal is
>to be entertaining, but not degrading or gimmicky.
Art may not be entertainment, but entertainment is art!
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzles, Arcade, Strategy, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
Check out our new arcade-puzzler "Bubbler"!
Nathan Mates
Sean Howard <how...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>Maybe I'm not. I'm at least the shortest. I realize my attitude may
>seem arrogant, but I assure you it is more confidence than a
>superiority complex. I don't think I'm better than anyone else, but
>I am confident in my ideas and skills. While I may not be the "most"
>unique or groundbreaking visionary, I have confidence that I am at
>least partially one.
Prove. Don't claim.
Write this off as being too "concrete" for your abstract universe,
but it's the best advice for someone as deliberately controversial as
you.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
Sean Howard
: Prove. Don't claim.
Unfortunately, at of yet, I cannot. I, as well as the rest of you, will have
to endure patience. Even then, any accomplishment I create for myself, no
matter how grand, will be easily be written off by those who have an interest
to do so. I will never 'prove' myself to you, precisely because you never
want me to.
: Write this off as being too "concrete" for your abstract universe,
: but it's the best advice for someone as deliberately controversial as
: you.
Controversial, sure, but I'm afraid I've reached levels of controversy that
I hadn't originally intended, and I just realized what it was. I used the
word 'concrete' and 'abstract', and these come with a certain predisposition
with most people. Being 'abstract' is generally considered smart, regardless
of the technical meaning behind the word, and 'concrete' means dumb. In the
programmer industry, your intelligence is your livelyhood...and your self
esteem.
Effectively, I've been calling everyone stupid. That is certainly NOT
what I intended. The differences between 'concrete' and 'abstract' are
profound, but they are not qualified as dumb and stupid. In fact, some, if
not most, of our famous brilliant men have been exceedingly good at
concrete thought. I'll admit, I have a preference for one, but as I've
mentioned in another thread, people have a tendency to believe them to
be average, and correct. Anyone who drives slower than me, even if I'm going
190 mph, is driving like a grandma, and anyone going faster, even at 10 mph,
is a maniac. My porridge is just right. It's an inherant flaw in everyone,
probably leading to more wars and problems than anything else. I certainly
could use less of it, I'm sure you'll agree.
@@
Sean Howard
Tom Sloper
I admired your defense of the statement "art is entertainment," but the fact
remains that the two words are not equivalent.
There's nothing wrong with taking the purist view in drawing a line between
what is art and what is not art. Or what is entertainment and what is not.
Especially when defining terms.
I understand the notion of "let's take the INclusive rather than the
EXclusive view of things," but when defining words, it's necessary to
exclude.
We must allow different definitions of the word "art" and "entertainment" --
otherwise we can't draw distinctions, and language becomes difficult.
Example. The color purple is achieved by combining (additively, as in
pigment) red and blue. Someone who uses a very liberal interpretation of
the word "red" would have to include purple as being red, because there is
some red in it. That same person might also have to call purple "blue"
because there is some blue in it. A purist of course will say "that's not
blue, that's purple." The liberal then says "that's too narrow a view -
there is blue in it. And there's red in it. So it's blue. And it's red. I'm
not saying it's not purple, I'm saying why take such a narrow view that you
can't call it blue and red also!"
There is art in entertainment, and there is entertainment value in art. But
the two words are very different things. Games do entail both.
Let's go point-for-point.
>There is a discussion of games not being art in the sony newsgroup,
I'm not interested in that discussion. It is silly and narrow-minded to draw
such an EXclusive definition of art.
>and
>I sit there thinking, "Man, how shallow is the definition of art that
>a game like Tetris can't be considered art".
I do not disagree with you on this.
>The best description of art that I've ever read was in "Understanding
>Comics" (back to the too-many-beers-pseudo-science). McCloud says that
>anything a person does that doesn't extend out of mankinds two basic
>needs (survival and reproduction) is art. The act of being creative is
>art.
I admire that book, and I recommend it to anyone interested in working in
games (see the books FAQ on my website). It was never McCloud's intention to
expand the definition of art to mean "the same thing as entertainment."
>One can also argue that the viewing of art doesn't extend out of our
>needs for survival, but isn't a product. If we want to do something, that
>is effectively entertainment.
Watching grass grow can be entertainment. But the act of watching grass
grow is not art. That doesn't mean that a conceptual artist couldn't push
the boundaries of art and come up with something that involves the growing
of grass.
Look at the incredibly self-indulgent and stupefyingly boring Lennon/Ono
film, "Fly." It might be called "art" but hardly anybody would call it
"entertainment."
>The best art in the world is entertainment.
No. It might be "entertaining." An entirely different form of the same root
word.
>[snip] I could
>make a coffee table book that consists of pictures of my feet (and don't
>think I haven't considered it, either). [snip]
I grant you that your book about your feet is art, no matter how dumb and
stupid it is. The dumber it is, the more entertainING it is. But the book
can never be "entertainment" because it is not an act, it is an object. See
how "entertaining" and "entertainment" are different words? More to come...
>: 4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in
the
>: production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
>
>That goes along with what I said above. Basically, anything that uses
>conscious use of skill and creative imagination. At least games fit the
>bill of art in this definition. I know you're not really arguing that,
Definitely not.
>but
>I thought I'd kill two responses with one post.
>
>: Merriam-Webster's 1st definition of "entertainment" is:
>: 1 : the act of entertaining
>
>Man, now there's a useful definition!
It is. I sense sarcasm in your sentence. But it's misplaced. "Entertainment"
is a noun (entertainment is an act, something that exists only while an act
is going on). "Entertaining" is an adjective. A distinction that is
important.
When a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to see or hear it, there
is a sound but nobody to hear it. There is definitely no entertainment,
though, precisely BECAUSE there is nobody to see or hear it.
Before I get too far from the topic of word forms, "art" is a noun, whose
adjectival form is "arty" or "artsy" or "artistic."
>: 3 : something diverting or engaging: as a : a public performance b : a
>: usually light comic or adventure novel
>
>: Clearly, by the examples I gave above and by these definitions of the
terms,
>: art and entertainment are NOT the same thing.
>
>How could you not describe art as "diverting or engaging"?
I'm not saying that art is NOT diverting or engaging. Certainly it can be.
>Isn't that
>like the fundamental intention of good art?
Who's talking about "good" art?
>If movies are art,
They are. They are also entertainment.
>paintings are art, sculptures are art,
They are. But they are not entertainment. They can be entertaining to view
under some circumstances, but they are not, in and of themselves, "the act
of entertaining."
>music is art, and
>poetry is art,
They are. And they are also entertainment. Because they are performances or
acts.
>why is not the media that contains all of those not also
>art?
Never said it couldn't be. But you didn't say that when the media displays
those various forms of art, that it's entertainment. Which it can be.
>Can it only be reduced to being artistic on the merits of other
>arts, and never stand on its own unique feet and say to the world, "I
>do things like no other creature can, I am art! Feel me roar!"...if it
>wanted to be melodramatic, of course.
Fine by me.
>I'll need to look it up, but some Greek philosopher (Plato/Aristotle?)
>desided that there were seven arts: music, prose, sculpture, painting,
>architecture, and 2 others I forgot.
Speaking of Aristotle, check this out.
First take a glance at this web page:
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/aris.htm
then this (with apologies to Elmer Fudd)
http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectp.cgi?dialect=fudd&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
philosophypages.com%2Fph%2Faris.htm (click "Dialectize")
THAT's entertainment! (Actually, if we have to figure out where exactly to
draw the line, where the entertainment is, it's in the act of viewing the
modified web page, not in the act of the program changing the words of the
web page.)
>Sometime much much much later, a French
>philosopher decided to add 4 contemporary arts to the mix: Movies,
>Graphics Novels, something else, and videogames. They decided that
>videogames were the 10th Art. That, to me, is pretty impressive company.
No argument. My argument is with equating "art" with "entertainment." You
can make an entertainment by the displaying of art, and you can make an art
of entertainment. But the nuances where one can find overlap between the two
words does not mean that the two words are interchangeable.
You see a man arrive at a street location where there is a large plain wall.
With great flourishes and speechmaking, he pulls out buckets of paint and a
number of tools for applying same to the wall. He makes jokes and sings
songs while painting a picture.
That is entertainment. It can be argued that it is also "performance art."
Even if he does it all without any jokes and singing.
He puts it all back in his vehicle and drives away, leaving behind the image
he has now created on the wall.
The entertainment is over.
That thing on the wall is not entertainment. It is art.
Tom
Tom Sloper
http://www.sloperama.com
Sean Howard
: I admired your defense of the statement "art is entertainment," but the fact
: remains that the two words are not equivalent.
I agree. They are not the same thing. Art isn't always entertaining. And
the act of being entertained is not artistic.
BUT! The act of creating something with the purpose of entertaining other
IS art.
You are arguing something completely different. You say art isn't
entertainment, and I agree. It isn't. But entertainment, created by man for
man, out of an act of pure creativity, is art.
: We must allow different definitions of the word "art" and "entertainment" --
: otherwise we can't draw distinctions, and language becomes difficult.
The Eskimos apparently have 40 words for snow... I wonder if they ever
sit there arguing what to call a lump of white stuff. They have words
for snow with this type of texture and that type of color. They've got
words for snow formed here or shaped there. But ultimately, there is that
all INclusive word that covers it all: Snow.
Art is too broad a word to be so exclusive. It covers all media, all
artforms, all people, and all places. Saying that something isn't art
may be unfair damnation in the wrong eyes. There are different kinds of
art, and very few games would be lumped in with the Mona Lisa, but videogames
are as much art as painting are.
: Example. The color purple is achieved by combining (additively, as in
: pigment) red and blue. <decent metaphor snipped>
That was a good metaphor, but I don't know how if it defends your point
as much as mine. I'm not arguing that Purple is blue, red, or purple. I'm
arguing if it is a COLOR. Go ahead and argue the values of purple all
you want.
: >The best description of art that I've ever read was in "Understanding
: >Comics" (back to the too-many-beers-pseudo-science).
: I admire that book, and I recommend it to anyone interested in working in
: games (see the books FAQ on my website). It was never McCloud's intention to
: expand the definition of art to mean "the same thing as entertainment."
Well, it was and it wasn't. See, he argued that art was any act of
creativity that didn't extend out of mankinds basic needs of reproduction
or survival. In that way, the creation of entertainment, the creative
process that MUST be gone through, is art. Therefore, the product that
is created is born from art into art.
: Watching grass grow can be entertainment. But the act of watching grass
: grow is not art. That doesn't mean that a conceptual artist couldn't push
: the boundaries of art and come up with something that involves the growing
: of grass.
I was never arguing that the act of being entertained was art. I was arguing
that entertaining itself is art. It may be a one way road (art may not
be entertaining), but the act of creation, in any form, is art.
: I grant you that your book about your feet is art, no matter how dumb and
: stupid it is. The dumber it is, the more entertainING it is. But the book
: can never be "entertainment" because it is not an act, it is an object. See
: how "entertaining" and "entertainment" are different words? More to come...
So, are you saying that only through the act of watching a movie, does it
become art? Or viewing a sculpture? Or listening to the music? So, Tesla
wasn't brilliant because his inventions weren't properly appreciated until
the past 10 years? Or the giant squids of the deep didn't exist until
we discovered them?
: When a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to see or hear it, there
: is a sound but nobody to hear it. There is definitely no entertainment,
: though, precisely BECAUSE there is nobody to see or hear it.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one sees it, is it art?
All I'm arguing is that if paintings are art, movies are art, sculptures
are art, music is art, and prose is art, then by golly, so are videogames
for exactly the same reasons. What those reasons are, I'm not 100% positive
on, but they involve the act of creation...not experience.
: >paintings are art, sculptures are art,
: They are. But they are not entertainment. They can be entertaining to view
: under some circumstances, but they are not, in and of themselves, "the act
: of entertaining."
If I create a painting of a clown getting smacked in the face with a
cream pie, I have created out of the desire to entertain. My creation
is entertainment because I made it to entertain. It is art because I
made it.
I'll say it one last time: Being art is not always entertaining. Being
entertained is not always a result of art. But the creation of anything,
whether it be a prat fall or a picture, is artistic expression, and the
product is art. Products born from creativity for the purposes of
entertaining ARE art. Entertainment, in the decided man created fashion,
is art.
Maybe I should be using a word other than "entertainment" because it
has enough definitions already....
: THAT's entertainment!
It's also art.
: That thing on the wall is not entertainment. It is art.
We are arguing over symantics. It is art, and if it was created with
the purpose of entertaining, it is entertainment...regardless of whether
anyone is entertained or not at that very moment.
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
> BUT! The act of creating something with the purpose of entertaining other
> IS art.
>
> You are arguing something completely different. You say art isn't
> entertainment, and I agree. It isn't. But entertainment, created by man for
> man, out of an act of pure creativity, is art.
>
These two statements are subtly different :-)
Tom Sloper
>I agree. They are not the same thing. Art isn't always entertaining. And
>the act of being entertained is not artistic.
>
>BUT! The act of creating something with the purpose of entertaining other
>IS art.
>
>You are arguing something completely different.
I was arguing against a statement you made. You said:
>>> Art _IS_ entertainment. There are not two seperate things here.
>You say art isn't
>entertainment, and I agree. It isn't. But entertainment, created by man for
>man, out of an act of pure creativity, is art.
Yes, the one can be regarded as a subset of the other, but not vice versa.
There ARE two separate things here.
>The Eskimos apparently have 40 words for snow... I wonder if they ever
>sit there arguing what to call a lump of white stuff. They have words
>for snow with this type of texture and that type of color. They've got
>words for snow formed here or shaped there. But ultimately, there is that
>all INclusive word that covers it all: Snow.
I can't think of one that encompasses both art and entertainment. Standing
by for enlightenment...
>: Example. The color purple is achieved by combining (additively, as in
>: pigment) red and blue. <decent metaphor snipped>
>
>That was a good metaphor, but I don't know how if it defends your point
>as much as mine.
It wasn't to defend my argument so much as to show a parallel to our
conversation. The color blue is a subset of the color purple (in the sense
that purple can be made by mixing red and blue pigments). Just as
entertainment can be regarded as a form of art (even though "art is not
entertainment").
>So, are you saying that only through the act of watching a movie, does it
>become art?
No, not at all. I am saying that only through the act of watching a movie
does it become entertainment. A reel of film in a can is certainly not
entertaining.
>So, Tesla
>wasn't brilliant because his inventions weren't properly appreciated until
>the past 10 years? Or the giant squids of the deep didn't exist until
>we discovered them?
Quite a tangent there. You said that, not me. I never implied any such
thing.
>If I create a painting of a clown getting smacked in the face with a
>cream pie, I have created out of the desire to entertain. My creation
>is entertainment because I made it to entertain. It is art because I
>made it.
Watching you create the painting might be entertaining, but once you have
created the painting, it is art. Even a cartoon (a simple line drawing) of
a clown getting smacked with the pie is not entertainment. It is art. Add
the word "smack!" to the cartoon, and it is still not entertainment. It is
art.
>We are arguing over symantics.
You are the one who made the statement "Art _IS_ entertainment. There are
not two seperate things here." You're the one who opened the door to
semantic-land. I only followed you there.
>It is art, and if it was created with
>the purpose of entertaining, it is entertainment...regardless of whether
>anyone is entertained or not at that very moment.
It is only "entertainment" during the moment that someone is being
entertained by it. Then it instantly and automatically reverts to being
"art" instead. Nobody there to see it -- there is no entertainment taking
place.
Well, I guess that horse has been beaten sufficiently... And it was fun!
Taren Durbank
> Art _IS_ entertainment.
> You say art isn't
> entertainment, and I agree. It isn't.
> I'll say it one last time: <snip> Entertainment,
Taren Durbank
> anything a person does that doesn't extend out of mankinds two basic
> needs (survival and reproduction) is art. The act of being creative is
> art.
That's too simple. An extended vocabulary uses better words to describe
those things, e.g. Engineering, Biology, Psychology, Politics. The word art
is--by definition--reserved for other things. In the correct use of the
term, it cannot be _equated_ to any of the above, neither can it be equated
to entertainment.
Similarly, creativity does not equate to art _in all cases_. Neither do
movies or books equate to art OR creativity in all cases. You are using
these terms in too broad a sense, which is why your Eskimo analogy is
incorrect.
> : The NBC TV show "Extra" is NOT art.
>
> You are arguing the quality, not makeup. 'art' is normally a word that
> means 'good art', but art doesn't need to be good to be art. I could
> make a coffee table book that consists of pictures of my feet (and don't
> think I haven't considered it, either). The concept is mundane, so that
> is no 'good art', but the implementation may be interesting enough to
> qualify as 'good art'. If people find entertainment from "Feet, a
journey",
> then the book is also entertainment...if people don't find entertainment
> from it, it is still entertainment, it just isn't very good entertainment.
Again, extend the vocab. There are more _accurate_ words to describe these
things, the word "art" is not sufficient.
Tom made excellent points, and summed it up well when he said "There is art
Peter Cowderoy
> > McCloud says that
> > anything a person does that doesn't extend out of mankinds two basic
> > needs (survival and reproduction) is art. The act of being creative is
> > art.
>
> That's too simple. An extended vocabulary uses better words to describe
> those things, e.g. Engineering, Biology, Psychology, Politics.
The majority of both engineering and politics is quite clearly motivated
by factors that come down to survival. So's a lot of psychology for that
matter.
Iphigenie
comp.games.development.design when one foggy november evening
how...@mailer.fsu.edu (Sean Howard) came into my office and told
me:
> Tom Sloper (tom...@sloperama.com) wrote:
>
>: > Art _IS_ entertainment.
>
>: That is a ridiculous statement. They are completely different
>: things.
>
> There is a discussion of games not being art in the sony
> newsgroup, and I sit there thinking, "Man, how shallow is the
> definition of art that a game like Tetris can't be considered
> art".
I cringe whenever i read about people who want games to be recognized
as art and want reviews in the art section... It would backfire badly
i fear.
Although there is art and art.
Not going as far back as the greeks the classical arts are:
- music
- theatre
- dance
- painting
- sculpture
- architecture
Note that poetry and litterature are absent of that list (the greeks
had 3 different arts around poetry!) but nobody contests their status
as art nowadays.
Now the new "french" ones:
7th: cinema
8th: photography
9th: bandes dessinees (graphic novel - a much wider medium than US/UK
comic books)
10th: n/a
video games as the 10th art? why not?
But note that the 10 arts list (which is not really an academic list,
just something convenient the media made up) still does not include
literature or poetry, and neither does it list applied arts like
jewelry, pottery, glass- and metalwork etc.
Games are as art-as-a-form-of-expression-and-experience - like
theatre plays and cinema... Or maybe useful, decorative art like the
pots, jewelry, clothing seen in applied arts museums. Note that all
those have had ambiguous status as art
Games require ideas and creativity - more than people realise, even
in games that aren't new or different. Players interact with
a game in a way they rarely interact with any other creative object,
investing time and something of themselves in a game they play.
For those two reasons alone (and there are more) games deserve more
credit than they get... and a status as art
I want a separate section for games as another realm of experience...
newspapers have a section for book reviews, a section for CD reviews,
a section for film reviews... they will add games to that list one
day... I want people to stop thinking that I am somehow less of a
human being because when i go home often I don't watch soaps on TV I
play games...
--
Iphigenie
--
Iphigenie
Iphigenie
comp.games.development.design when one foggy november evening
me:
> "Sean Howard" <how...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:9vp9ts$pet$1...@news.fsu.edu...
>> There are two types of programmers, according to David X
>> Cringley, those that do great things badly and those that do bad
>> things greatly. The difference comes down to the focus of
>> interest.
>
> There are two types of programmers: those that do great thing
> greatly, and those that suck.
Oh come on. what kind of a statement is that?
There are of course bad programmers, like in any profession there are
people who just should have chosen another career.
But most programmers do good things well, and even bad things well...
Not all projects are great but most projects are good enough. And
that has nothing to do with the ability of the developer.
I mean let's face it, most of our job consists in doing things "well
enough" and moving on. Because there are always more tasks and
projects than there is time and you just cannot do everything
greatly.
Now it is the well known fact in the business that there is a small
group of programmers, the 10% top ones, which are just 20 times more
productive and creative than the average developer in certain areas.
An even smaller minority is really really good at many things...
That does not mean that the average developer is crap, it just means
that some people are outright brilliant at some things. And even
those brilliant people cannot really be brilliant without some "just
good" people around them...
People don't think that all artists or all milkmen are the same, why
the heck do they think they can pigeonhole developers...
I'm a developer. I'm also a theoretical physicist. In some people's
thinking that must mean that i am fat and ugly, have no social
skills, no cultural bagage and no life...
But when i picked my major I also could have gotten a scholarship in
arts or music, or literature so obviously I'm not crap there either.
I'm also a social animal and could have gone into areas where high
social, organisational (and entertainment) skills are needed... I can
sell, too, although I at least obey the cliche in that administrative
tasks bore me to death...
--
Iphigenie
Iphigenie
comp.games.development.design when one foggy november evening
"Rainer Deyke" <ro...@rainerdeyke.com> came into my office and told
me:
> Wrong answer indeed. There is a reason why state-of-the-art C++
> designers prefer compile-time polymorphism over runtime
> polymorphism.
Well I would say it is a general principle that it is always better
performance-wise (and stability-wise too) to have things happen at
compile time rather than at runtime.
If you develop for consoles where you need to squeeze every bit out
of the available resources, then you must think of things like that.
If you develop for machines like PCs, nobody cares all that much
about resources anymore. I think it's a shame, but it's true that
with the power of machines today... It really does not make all that
much of a difference performance-wise.
But if you are interviewing with a company working on consoles they
will be way more interested in those small differences than a PC-only
developer...
--
Iphigenie
Gerry Quinn
>9th: bandes dessinees (graphic novel - a much wider medium than US/UK
>comic books)
>10th: n/a
>
>video games as the 10th art? why not?
>But note that the 10 arts list (which is not really an academic list,
>just something convenient the media made up) still does not include
>literature or poetry, and neither does it list applied arts like
>jewelry, pottery, glass- and metalwork etc.
Games are similar to graphic novels - they look completely naff in 'fine
art' terms to anyone who is not a fan. The plots in particular are
embarassingly repetitive and juvenile, particularly the ones that claim
to be otherwise.
But I suppose the same could be said of opera...
Iphigenie
comp.games.development.design when one foggy november evening
> In article <Xns91837DD...@212.104.129.36>, Iphigenie
> <ip...@imagis.ch> wrote:
>
>>9th: bandes dessinees (graphic novel - a much wider medium than
>>US/UK comic books)
>>10th: n/a
>>
>>video games as the 10th art? why not?
>>But note that the 10 arts list (which is not really an academic
>>list, just something convenient the media made up) still does not
>>include literature or poetry, and neither does it list applied
>>arts like jewelry, pottery, glass- and metalwork etc.
>
> Games are similar to graphic novels - they look completely naff
> in 'fine art' terms to anyone who is not a fan. The plots in
> particular are embarassingly repetitive and juvenile,
> particularly the ones that claim to be otherwise.
Well this is why I took some pains to outline that francophone "bande
dessinee" is a much wider medium than the anglo-saxon comics.
There is a much wider spectrum of styles and themes and a much wider
public. It is a respected part of culture and a huge thing.
I studied it at school. Kids read "BD". Parents read BD. Adults of
all ages and shapes read BD. It's not all superheros and ultra
violent science fantasy.
There is more variety in BD than there is on television, and more
quality. Although like in any medium there is a lot of mediocre
stuff.
--
Iphigenie
Sean Howard
: Note that poetry and litterature are absent of that list (the greeks
: had 3 different arts around poetry!) but nobody contests their status
: as art nowadays.
I thought the all encompassing "prose" was one of the classic arts?
I guess I could be wrong.
: But note that the 10 arts list (which is not really an academic list,
: just something convenient the media made up) still does not include
: literature or poetry, and neither does it list applied arts like
: jewelry, pottery, glass- and metalwork etc.
Those last few could be, with some effort, squeezed into sculpture. The
effect is the same, but the process of achieving it may vary drastically.
: For those two reasons alone (and there are more) games deserve more
: credit than they get... and a status as art
: I want a separate section for games as another realm of experience...
: newspapers have a section for book reviews, a section for CD reviews,
: a section for film reviews... they will add games to that list one
: day... I want people to stop thinking that I am somehow less of a
: human being because when i go home often I don't watch soaps on TV I
: play games...
That is exactly what I meant. I wouldn't mind a few museums dedicated
to videogames (there are already a few, but they pretend they are history
museums rather than art museums), but ultimately, I just want videogames
to get the respect they deserve. They are art, and are worthy of the
effort and time needed to study and understand them. ... and people who
enjoy the games are not addicts, childish, or wasting their time.
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: Games are similar to graphic novels - they look completely naff in 'fine
: art' terms to anyone who is not a fan. The plots in particular are
: embarassingly repetitive and juvenile, particularly the ones that claim
: to be otherwise.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Most comic books are an embarrassment to
those who are really trying to achieve something with the medium. But, even
the most degenerate of them have the ability to create cultural icons more
powerful than any other media. The Greeks had their gods, and we've got
Batman.
And videogames aren't about plot. I can name the number of games in which the
plot really made a difference on one...maybe two...fingers. Planescape
Torment and ...uh... Anyway, most game plots are just there to provide a
setting for this underfined "gameplay" thing that has a million different
definitions to a million different folks. Some magazines even give a
rating for it...Final Fantasy 7 has an 8 in gameplay?
@@
Sean Howard
Tom Sloper
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote
>
> Games are similar to graphic novels - they look completely naff in 'fine
> art' terms to anyone who is not a fan.
What does "naff" mean? I couldn't figure it out in context.
Tom
Peter Cowderoy
Somewhere between "cheesy" and "crap".
Andrew Rollings
> Must admit, I'm not too big a fan of Ernest Adams. His articles on GamaSutra
> tend to focus on games from the perspective of other media, especially
> books. There was one article in which he criticized RPGs for their
> cliches (cliches or design patterns, hmm?). What he didn't seem to understand
> is that videogames aren't like other media, any of them. Games, like
> boardgames, puzzles, or word games, are not about communication. They aren't
> a media. Movies, books, and whatever, are media, used solely for the
> communication of ideas and actions. Videogames exist in the range between
> these two extremes, but never at the ends.
>
Well, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says either, but of
all the people I approached to assist, he seemed to have ideas that
are the most similar to mine. I must admit, I disagree with him on the
RPG's must be completely realistic thing. THey just have to be
self-consistent.
> Earnest Adams believes (believed?) that RPGs need to make sense in the world
> we live in, which of course doesn't really make sense what-so-ever. He
> attacks all these cliches (or rpg design patterns) which aren't realistic.
> Forget the fact that they each serve their purpose from a gameplay standpoint.
> I can't remember any specifics right now, but I think he attacked the fact
> that resting at an inn healed you completely. Sure, unrealistic, but absolutely
> necessary for harmonious gameplay.
It's worthwhile to attack the cliches - even if it's just to shake up
the status quo - too many people use the cliches without even thinking
about the reasoning behind them.
> Still, I do look forward to you book. At the very least, it will force
> me to consider the ideas I don't agree with, and possibly provide
> insight into the ideas I do agree with.
>
Well, I hope so. I've been looking over what I've written so far, and
it's a bit eclectic to say the least. Of course, downright bizzare is
another term I could use :)
> I have "genius" tattooed on my underwear. Actually, the i is a bit wonky
> and hard to read. Maybe it says "genus" instead? Wait a sec, that may not
> be a 'g'....ooohhhh...nevermind.
>
erm.... okay :)
Andrew