| |
|
I realise I'm not a programmer. I'm not a surgeon either, but it's still perfectly acceptable for me to discuss how plastic surgery can affect self-image.
Yes. It's entirely acceptable and valid for you to discuss how plastic surgery affects self-image; I'm 100% with you on that. But it's not very valid for you to assume how a rhinoplasty or facelift is performed, unless you have some specific knowledge.
I used the word 'code' as in programming code and I think that's an acceptable term for referring to game programming in a very generic thread such as this
Well, to an extent, yes. But you went on to say that "the code is the thing you have created" and I was trying to explain that so much of it isn't; that the majority of work, of lines of code, has nothing to do with the creative endeavour.
I still think the fact that it's possible to define the way a ghost behaves and the rules of it's interactions by telling a machine to do certain things, and end up years down the line with a design classic
Yes, I agree entirely.
What I disagree with, entirely, are these two statements: the code is the thing itself and how you arrange the code in a game is the art of games. There is more to the skill of creating a game than arranging code; there is a whole conceptual level - otherwise the people who made games before computers (or even contributed to their organic development, as with many games such as chess) can have no stake in that craftsmanship you describe.
Alternatively, code is analogous to paint insofar as it is the medium used to create the thing, but it is not the thing itself.
Yes, I do; I was hoping to make that clear at the end (when I was clarifying the clay-tools/not clay thing you mentioned) but you're right, I didn't explicitly say so and I should have. More than code-is-paint, maybe: everything that's compiled, the art, the language, the audio, that's the paint. I agree a lot.
I certainly hope this forum doesn't become one in which every thread insists on a detailed knowledge of algorithms.
I am not. At the same time, as I said above in my plastic surgery comment, there's only so much you can criticise, and only certain aspects one can criticise, before a lack of knowledge becomes a hindrance. And one single sentence of yours - which, to be fair, was what most of my post was responding to - required the response (to my mind) "no, it's not as simple as that, and to suggest it is will make this discussion difficult". Similarly, the first of your arguments (which I disagreed with) I called more because it was false logic than because it was i any way technically incorrect.
That does seem to clarify matters. I won't derail this thread further on these lines, don't worry; I've got a more interesting (and more relevant to "art") direction that I'll bring in later. |
|
|
