Games: Art/Science Ratio?

Continuing the yesterday’s theme, but let’s put more fine grained options to answer.

Games: Art/Science ratio

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Pick one that feels closest to your liking. I deliberately did not put 60/40 answers (just choose 50/50 instead then, since that’s closest).

I want to see “how much ‘both’” there is in games.

And of course all answers are correct answers, different games just have different amount of art/science in them.

12 thoughts on “Games: Art/Science Ratio?

  1. rodnonymous

    I don’t dig on the ratios as they imply art and science are discrete things. And when I think science in games I am definitely thinking more about behavioral science than the technology the game is built on. All I see is reward systems unless I force myself to stop looking for them.

    Reply
  2. Sargon

    For me art is not just the artwork, is creating an experience exploiting the tools available. Whether you create sprites, or models, or a new gameplay mechanic, or a certain story or a certain AI. You are using technology to create an experience. It has no functional purpose per se.
    You are not trying to reach the moon. You are not building a bridge to get to the other side.
    The reason I said it is mostly art, is because the technology is not used to solve a problem, it has no obvious goal. You can create whatever you like and the result will still be a game, whether it serves a purpose or not, or whether others like it or not.

    Science has a goal. Science is trying to achieve something clear. A game don’t have to achieve anything. You can create a game that has 10 levels in it. You can add another level to have 11 levels instead, or reduce it to 9 levels. It will change the experience, but it won’t make the game any more gamey if you add a level or reduce levels.
    The creator invents the problems he wants to solve with his game, he is not trying to solve a real problem.

    Sort of.
    Oh well, I wasn’t able to say exactly what I think, but I said something. :)

    Reply
  3. Warhammer Imperial guard

    For me, i’d say 50-gamers, 50-art, 50-science. Why? You see games started because of science, people whom evolve their lives in reading how technology works and how can they invent such products that will help people get into and be attached or have some relaxation. Art, seldom do we realize that just by the work of the game it is undeniably a piece of art. How they come up with the kind of games that forms a very remarkable visualization. For instance the comics that goes in the games, background or even the design. Gamers, they are the one who compliments and helps these games comes to life.

    Reply
  4. Sargon

    I think games are mostly art. Because in games technology is only ment to serve the gameplay\experience and etc.
    When you make a game, what is the first thing you think about? “Oooh! Let’s make this super advanced phsycis engine!” “Oooh! Let’s make this super cool shader with CUDA!”
    Or do you think: “Ok, I want a fun gameplay, what tools do I have in my disposal to achieve that?”. “I want great visuals, how does technology serve my asthetic vision”

    You can have tons of games that use the exact same technology, but they will all be different.

    Of course, sometimes new technology allows to bring new gameplay or a new edge. So it is also about technology. And obviously, a lot of engineering is required to create a game. So I wouldn’t say games are 100% art. My choise was 75% art 25% science.

    Reply
  5. Tobias Scheuer

    Again, what about entertainment?

    Then, different genres have different answers I guess. Simulations (economic) are mostly science, shooters may be entertaining or tell a good story, which might turn them into art.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Pro-Human Quiz: