Re: [dev] Suckless design in Games

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:16:07 +0200
lordkrandel <lordkrandel_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

> > I will, however, point out one consequence of that idea: the most
> > noticeable difference between abstract art and abstract mathematics is
> > that abstract mathematics has some aesthetic value. Abstract art can
> > now consist of a canvas painted one color, or mere splatters of paint
> > (or other substances) on a surface; contrast that with the Mandelbrot
> > and Julia sets, or the Hilbert and Peano space-filling curves and von
> > Koch snowflake, or the elegant complexity which arises from the simple
> > axioms of group theory. A pure mathematician does his work to satisfy
> > his curiosity; an abstract artist does his work merely to see what he
> > can get away with.
>
> An artist is moved by curiosity about the world and himself just
> as scientists do in a rational way. The author satisfies this need
> through his work. You can find beauty in both a paint and a formal
> description of a theory. One can write songs to have a better and
> full understanding of what he is feeling and to try to convey his
> emotions to others, just like mathematicians convey their knowledge
> about the world through axioms, rules, laws, models.

They are not abstract artists. Their works of art have functions. (A
work's function includes ‘feeding its creator(s)’ surprisingly often.)

> > I will also point out that a game does have a function -- to be fun.
> Define in an objective way: to be fun. :P

Oh goody. A philosopher.

A computer game is a computer program whose creator intended primarily
that human beings enjoy interacting with it.

If you want an objective definition of ‘to enjoy’, ask a neurologist;
they are finally starting to understand this sort of simple emotion.
As I understand it, a human being (or other animal) enjoys an activity
if the activity causes certain cells in his/her/its brain to produce
and/or release dopamine.

If you want an objective definition of ‘intended’, ‘interacting’,
‘computer program’, ‘human being’, ‘animal’, ‘cell’, ‘brain’,
‘dopamine’, ‘produce’, ‘release’, or ‘neurologist’, **** *** *** ***
******* *****. Uriel can elaborate on that if you want (or if you
don't want).

To the extent that this list has a topic, it seems to be ‘the philosophy
of computer programming’. That does not mean that any of us want to
read the kind of crap [that *is* a noun, right?] that university
departments of Philosophy emit.

> It is not a tool like hammers, "cat" command or applied maths.
> I'm thinking about applied coding, pure coding, and applied pure coding.
> Sounds almost like Kant xD

*** ******* *****!

> >> I like Mozart and Minimalism just as much as I like Dadaism or free
> >> Jazz, even if they have different forms and subjective functions.
> > I hope you aren't suggesting that Mozart *is* minimalist.
>
> It was an example of "elegance", to pinpoint the delta with Dadaism.

Well, at least you have a glimmer of sanity.

Robert Ransom