Is game technology a low-level programming knowledge or a true science?

The name of this topic sums it all; Many days ago, a mechanical engineer- and software programmer whom I know tells his fellow colleagues that game tech is no science- it is only a repetition of logic and a time-waster. If that is true, then rendering is also just a damn logic? I don't do programming much- I'm a hobbyist level designer. Correct me if I am in the wrong forum.

Gameseizer_00

 

That's a pretty broad question and topic, and you aren't going to find a real answer, as it is largely opinion.

Firstly, all programming is a repetition of logic.

Does anyone really set out to just waste their own time? A waste of time can only be considered so as an opinion, and is therefore subjective.

Game technology being 'low level programming knowledge' is something I have never heard of before.
There are a lot of sections of games programming that are at the height of technology.
Games in general are considered to be at the forefront of Reactive Computing technology.
Often games create new technology that would be considered in the realm of 'true science' (whatever that is), any glances at whitepapers put forwards for AI technologies, or Hair or Water Rendering techniques, or procedurally generated content, would confirm that.

Might I ask if your friend has actually ever done any game programming?
If not, which I assume is the case, this is largely a pointless discussion, no?

 

Programming is a mix of logic and maths. For videogames the most relevant area of mathematics is probably linear algebra.

To answer your question, one needs to understand what "science" is exactly. Now there are many definitions, but all of them more or less boil down to this (if you simplify them enough):
"Science is about obtaining knowledge through research."

What about games and everything involved?
Is creating games a science? No, it's the exact opposite. It's an art.
So is there any science involved? Sure, it's called "computer science". Computer science includes areas like "computer graphics" and "artificial intelligence". This research is relevant for a lot of areas/industries, with videogames being one of them.

Researching and applying works both ways. There's general stuff that is just applied in videogames and there's stuff that is being researched for videogames*.

*Fast realtime raytracing comes to mind.

Your smug friend could use his seemingly unending wisdom to just give us one. After all it's "only a repetition of logic and a time waster", right? After that, those folks over at Intel could stop wasting time researching this.

On a more serious note:
Calling it a "time-waster" is purely subjective. If your friend doesn't understand that, he's just trolling you.

 

It's science if you are contributing to the advancement of the knowledge of your respective field. Be that computer science or engineering or ...

Let's say this engineer is solving Laplace transforms and Z-transforms to solve some vibration or control problem on an airplane, sure it's more complex than adding behaviors to colliders and rigidbodies, but it's not science either. It's all text book knowledge. It's been done before.

However, if the engineer is working on achieving a more cost effective way of capturing solar energy or the programmer is devising a new algorithm to parallel compute DNA sequences without running into deadlocks... that's all science.

 

No. That is the case. I want to prove to him that game programming and tech is science-but I need strong proof." Game technology being 'low level programming knowledge" that is what my friend said.

 

What my friend mean is that game tech is not complex- easy to make and is a job for no scientist. He said that game is all about input-output and similar stuff.

 

Then he should try it himself because he obviously hasn't

 

Well, I don't think too many people would argue that most of the tech used in games is not being pioneered in the field. There are probably cases of things being applied uniquely in games, but nothing comes to mind as a technology that had no application before being put in a game.

As for being a time waster, it's an art/craft. It's like going up to someone carving a marble statue and going "Why are you wasting your time with this? We've already built the temple and it's perfect. Also, why are you carving a penis? Can't you just put pants on it?"

 

Have him go to SIGGRAPH, and I'm sure everyone there will be very interested in his highly astute opinions.

Game technology is a massively cross-cutting discipline which involves very pure theoretical science (algorithms, logic, math, etc.) through "softer" sciences such as psychology and human-computer interaction. It also involves many areas of applied science and engineering, and virtually every different field of art and design.

It's a waste of the time the same way music is a waste of time.

I really wouldn't waste too much energy worrying about that guy's opinions.

 

Haha I remember one time in 6th grade we went on a field trip to a museum. This museum was filled with "naked art" statues. There was also this computer where you could examine each piece in 3D. I went up to the machine and I selected the David model and for no reason at all, the computer zoomed in on the penis and I got so freaked out that I started running thr other direction. Running wasn't allowed so a security guard caught me and saw the computer screen. He knew it was me so we found my teacher and the guard told her what happened. LOL I didnt get in trouble though because the teacher and I were good friends hahahahah I had to share that

 

The core of Computer Science (CS) is basically applied math. If you see what is presented at an applied math conference, it's basically only stuff that is CS in reality.

Computer Science is a very wide field (from core math to neurology to psychology). And so is game programming.

There are "soft" things like gameplay programmer and "hard" stuff like game engine design or developing new rendering features.

Many new rendering features are presented at conferences like SIGGRAPH, this is academic stuff, pure science and engineering. Many people say compiler designers and game engine designers are the forefront of computing. If your friend thinks the stuff John Carmack did is "soft" then he has no idea what he is talking about.

Edit: But if you use Unity you are probably on the "softer" end. Not everybody can be a John Carmack.

 

Tell him he's a troll.

 

"Everything is easy to the man who isn't responsible for doing the work." My degree says Computer Science, and my 11 years developing games has been VASTLY harder than my 10 years developing software for Fortune 500 companies. More philosophical than that ... I couldn't say.

Gigi

 

http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/people/stam/reality/Research/pdf/GDC03.pdf

Let him wrap his head around realtime Navier-Stokes equation solving in fluid dynamics and get back to us with the line of bluster and fume. I believe he may even be an actual case of the Navier-Stokes equation blowing up as all boundary conditions broke down. As a mechanical engineer ain't all he is capable of doing is rearranging springs, levers and gears measuring their state and predicting their action in various configurations. Same stuff a five year old does with Lego and he don't need a frickin' piece of paper from a University shaped building to get 'er done.

 

mathematician < < < < < < < < < < < < < < logician < < < < < < < < < < < < Betrand Russell < < < < < < < < Godel < < < < < < < Turing < < < < < < < < < Language Architect < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Games Programmer \/ < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < The Matrix < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < The Chosen One < < < < < < < < < < < < < < Aliens


In all seriousness, creating a rendering engine is 99% Science. It uses the laws of optics written down by Isaac Newton and other scientists.

 

Lol my friend showed me that when I was thinking about doing game development. It scared me. hah

 

Seems like a nice person but not the most dynamic of speakers is he. I have insomnia at the moment. I might watch this video later to help me dift off.

 

He is a programmer, not a speaker.

 

got that right.





Hang on...

 

So, according to him, anything that is not science and is repetitive is a waste of time. That means that he never bathed since the first bath he took, because that would be a total, unscientific waste of time.

And mechanical engineering is, by definition of the word "engineering", not science. It's just repetition of equations of motion and a complete and utter waste of time.

I don't care much for classification just for classification's sake, and I'm pretty sure that making games isn't science. But most things that are worth doing aren't science either, and that doesn't make them any less valuable.

 

Well games do mostly involve physics which is a branch of science...

 

This topic is already beat, but let's dismantle this sentence:

game tech is no science- it is only a repetition of logic and a time-waster

the first part:
game tech is no science

Let's have a look at definitions of the word "science":

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

While game development clearly has nothing to do with definition 1, game development sure is methodological, and can sure be considered a "discipline" - however this is more of a lay-mans usage of the word science. It all depends if you want to argue over meanings of words. Is it a "Science" the way scientists use that word? No. Unless you are developing something totally new and never-done before, like the Oculus Rift, maybe

The second part:
it is only a repetition of logic

Game development requires logic. Is it always "repetitive"? Sometimes, but sometimes new and innovative thinking is required

The third part:
and a time-waster

If game development is a hobby, then all hobbies are by his definition are time wasters, which is untrue since hobbies help us relax and enjoy life, which is not "wasting time". If it is a job then that is DEFINITELY not a time waster, especially if it is a job one likes.

 

you can use video game to alter the perceptions of others..
it is an art..
but it could be studied; in what ways has the peoples perceptions changed?

simulations can be used for science...
any art can be perceived in a way as to enrich the thoughts relevant to scientific advance... inspiration

 

Note it does specifically state games technology, so saying 'video games are art' is entirely missing the point.
It's the technology you use to make the games, not the methods and design of the games, and therefore, is more science than art, though if you really want to get into it, it's engineering.