13 thoughts on “Games: Art of Science?

  1. @Ben: not to forget that science in itself is much about art… and art is much about science.

    Yet, we all (including myself) seem to have clear opinions on the ratio :D

  2. Making games is the art of inventing game play ideas which are fun to play. So in first place it’s thinkings, then coding. Often games need also graphics and/or sounds, but not always. And also then there are completely different needs and styles for arts, which also needs thinking first.

  3. But I should add, not just games, you could argue programming in general is both art and science.

  4. Right underneath my computer screen (it’s too low otherwise) is a thick book with the title “Pascal: An Introduction to the Art and Science of Programming”. Sure I don’t use pascal any more but the title always inspires me.

    It can depend on the type of game, but as an example, I’ve just started working on a terrain generator (screenshots here if you’re interested http://socoder.net/?blogs=22947 ) that I’m trying to make as accurate as possible by simulating wind, rain, water flow, rivers, lakes, etc. I’m very much reading up on geology and weather patterns (rain shadows, how much rainfall you need for specific biomes, etc), so definitely a big science aspect there and additionally scientific in the optimisations I’ll need to do to reduce the world generation time! But also I’m not a “graphical” artist at all and I’d consider games programming my artistic/creative outlet.

    /ramble!

  5. I can’t pick because they can be both, just like modern (although sometimes dodgy) art can be art or science or both, if that makes sense?

    Tobias is also right, they are / can be entertainment too. Different games can be different things including a combination of many. Hard Rain’s a modern example as I consider they’re games as interactive storytelling rather then pure traditional entertainment / game.

  6. What about “entertainment”?

  7. Only 25 votes (compared to 100+ votes for earlier “bought pixel art?” poll). I think most people really find it difficult/bad to vote for either one… there’s something in preventing.

    I ended up pressing “science” there, since me thinks that “purely artistic game” has no “game” in it. As a pure “science” (whichever way that’s understood…) there’s still chances to actually have a game, although not artistically satisfying.

    But that’s a lousy statement… I’d vote both if I would have put that option there. Much what MC said there: “good games will have art or scienceā€¦. GREAT games will have both”

  8. I voted art because I think games naturally fall in the artistic domain, however I believe they are both. To me, games are the perfect fusion of the arts and sciences.

  9. IMHO science forms the base for the art. E.g. 3D render pipelines are pure science. Creating entertainment is art.

    Assembling the scientific parts to make a good game is art, at least for me. Vote: Art.

  10. good games will have art or science…. GREAT games will have both

  11. You can not define games, because each game defines its self.

  12. The right answer is “both”. There’s definitely a science aspect (the programming) and an art aspect (the, uh, art and also the design). If I had to choose one, I’d say it’s more art, though. But, you don’t really have much of a game without the science part backing it up.

  13. This one is so tricky, that I have to think a bit more before I’ll put my finger on that button.