Game design is as hard if not harder than engineering

game design is not game engine design

that's just busy work
a mathematician could do that but an engineer couldn't do what a mathematician does

>(((just be yourself)))

Doing actual good game design can be tricky. It's not as refined of a process as a lot of engineering, so it can be difficult in that sense. Obviously at the mid or lower end, yes, it doesn't require much prerequisites. There's not really much mathematics (we're talking about game design here - not implementation). It doesn't really make much sense to directly compare them though. It's like comparing creative writing and solving differential equations.

Good response

>calls other people stupid
>calls upon the internet to make his arguments for him
literally off yourself retard

>the "just bee yourself" hate meme
We all know that the "just be yourself" advice only works if you are already a great person. If you are not a great person then being yourself is a detriment. But really, what are you supposed to do? Not be yourself? Live a lie? Wouldn't that make you more of a failure and kill you inside?

It is always better to just try to enjoy what you have, find that silver lining. If you can't be yourself then just kill yourself.

So.. This friend took both and got a higher grade in fluids?

New user entering the fray (geneticsfag), but I think it depends on the level of passion and rigor of the student, and the quality of the program/mentorship above all else in these kinds of things. Any kind of design where you have to try to optimize based on a number of factors, both difficult to quantify in terms of the psychology of the intended aesthetic, and those factors that are quantifiable which constitutes the 'how' of the design process.

Take for example, trying to piece together a certain track of music. A lot of advanced design nowadays takes full advantage of the modern tech and comprehension of sound, to the point that often times music is perfectly composed graphically, or at least designed graphically and then taken to analogue means of recording/producing. One example of that tactic would be to try to represent a scaling pitch by a certain factor, and you believe there is some facet of psychology that will appeal to people better this way- take an autistic example like if you for whatever reason think the Fibonacci sequence would work, then you scale the pitch, tempo, or whatever other element to it and run it along, deciding on the instrument based on whatever other numerical or psychological factors.

Then you take into account the accoustics of average commercial hardware, and how to optimize based on that, and it's a difficult and rigorous process that requires insight and experience.

If we want to get into the science of "why" certain patterns of music or light will be more pleasurable, I could go a bit into that if you're not sold yet on it being a necessarily confounding sort of a technical field. Due to the nature of cellular development being a process of "Release signal to surrounding neighbors that tells them to differentiate in a certain way", the development signals are subject to the regular physics of a gradient created of the signaling molecule emerging from some epicenter. (Continued in a new post)

They are hard in different ways. How do you propose we compare the two?