Notgames Forum
July 18, 2024, 01:35:09 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Unity is driving us apart  (Read 54295 times)

Posts: 384

View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2011, 01:11:18 PM »

oh, good stuff!

Posts: 314

View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2011, 09:44:49 AM »

I like the conversation here.

It often feels to me as if a neat graph will also run better in the engine. Even if that is untrue, the kind of magic and superstition involved with such intuitions ensures that my mind remains in the artistic zone. You're constantly dealing with aesthetics, in the game that you're making as well as in the programming logic behind it.

I find myself doing this often while programming - focusing on aesthetics - but with the code itself, both the writing of it and the overall structure. I always assumed I was just overly perfectionistic, but maybe now I have an excuse. Wink I think it would be more fun to do it visually though. Smiley
Michaël Samyn

Posts: 2042

View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2011, 11:05:16 AM »

I think that the kind of mental state that you put yourself into when programming leads to a de-humanization of the self (and the computer, obviously) which is very problematic for a person who wishes to explore the human condition ("create art").

I think this is at the crux of things.

Engineering is about dealing with machines while art is about dealing with people. As such, the fact that authoring for a computer requires engineering seriously damages the potential artistic impact. One solution is for engineers and artists to work together more closely. And this happens when the engineers create tools that artists can use. This is not easy since engineers and artists speak a different language. I know from experience that engineers don't really understand how artists create.

And since they tend to be very intelligent people, they have a hard time accepting that they do not understand. To the point where they might accuse us about lying about our process and acting needlessly mysteriously. I've had more than one programmer tell me that, with the understanding of programming that speaks from my work, I might as well be coding directly in C++. I know for a fact that this is not true. Even the small distinction between programming graphically in Quest3D and programming through scripting in Unity shows the difference: our Unity projects are very small and modest in comparison.

It's a lot like thinking too much about the game mechanics when designing a game.

Indeed. The main reason why competitive and puzzle games dominate in videogames is probably simply because programmers dominate their development.

This of course makes it even harder to for artists and engineers to come to terms. The artists are basically asking the engineers to step down from their dominant position and give up their role as authors to the artists. In a commercially successful studio this problem is even more difficult. But it's a necessary step to take towards the maturity of any expressive medium.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 11:08:31 AM by Michaël Samyn » Logged

Posts: 129

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 15, 2011, 01:59:25 PM »

The main reason why competitive and puzzle games dominate in videogames is probably simply because programmers dominate their development.

In my experience, the Creative / Game Director and ( Lead / Senior ) Designers do most of the decision-making concerning interactivity.
Jonathan Hise Kaldma

Posts: 41

View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2011, 11:25:07 AM »

If the visual programming language exposes everything (logic as well as assets), as Quest3D does, then the artist is stimulated to make connections between all those things. And this is exactly where games become interesting: when the appearance of the objects in the games are influenced by the behavior of the player, for instance, or when the sound is influenced by the state of the game, or the speed of an animation by the time of day, etc. It's all numbers, in the end, and a visual interface allows you to make calculations with all of them. This can lead to wonderful environments that feel much more alive than things that can only be built through careful and rational construction.

I've never had any problem switching between code and art myself, so I've always wondered where your aversion to programming comes from, but this finally made it click. It's not that making those connections in code is impossible or even harder, it's that coding discourages experimentation, whereas visual programming encourages it.

Makes me think of the music program Reason, where you can flip over the synthesizers to pull cords between different inputs and outputs. I always loved that.

Perhaps I should try some visual programming.
Michaël Samyn

Posts: 2042

View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2011, 10:46:43 AM »

Making mistakes may be the single most important element of the artistic process.

Especially in a medium that is so undefined in terms of artistic creation. We need the freedom to experiment. There should not (yet) be a "right" way to do things. We need to be able to do first and think later. Then creating interactivity becomes an interactive process in itself (in the Crawfordian sense).
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 10:50:16 AM by Michaël Samyn » Logged
God at play

Posts: 490

View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2011, 11:55:10 PM »

Check this out, this is kinda blowing my mind a bit. It's sort of a development environment, with a focus on designing the actual development environment to stimulate experimentation.

I love the "nextLeader = [huge graph]" Smiley

Mick P.

Posts: 69

View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2015, 06:43:23 PM »

It's hard to tell people this sometimes, but often with software we find ourselves wishing for science fiction, or systems that won't be available for decades to come. Computers have only been around for 30 or 40 years however you count them, and they haven't changed much in all of that time.

I think everyone wants this outcome. It's just a hard problem. Quest3D sounds like an anomaly that is also a toy system, as these things tend to be. You may have been smarter to just have kept using Quest3D. I think publishing on many platforms is overrated, and people can find their way to a Windows system, or just do without X game until they can.

Quest3D would've forced you to continue acting in the space of artists instead of commercial video game makers, and I think it would've been healthier, especially if you'd known where you'd be years later after Sunset.

(I find that constraints is the secret to unleashing creativity. Quest3D could've been the perfect constraints. Fluxus made me wonder if was still active.)
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 06:50:11 PM by Mick P. » Logged

Pages: 1 [2]
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!