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?

(Continued)

That's why biological macrostructures are, more often than not, either radially or axially symmetrical. Our neck, arms, legs, etc. are roughly radially symmetrical, creating tubes, and our body overall is axially symmetrical. The same is seen in almost every species of anything, because that's just how physics works.

In the brain, during network development, some of the same is at play. We differentiate between left and right half of the brain simply because it shares quite a bit of axial symmetry. As part of this symmetry, however, there is a sort of duality to certain processing and input pathways- this kind of research is new, but intuitively strong in terms of explaining why symmetry is not only favored aesthetically but also understood better.

If something is asymmetrical, it simply isn't processed as efficiently- There can be one chain of neuronal firings within the brain that leads to processing, in the process leaving a sort of trail of neuro-transmitters that we can use to quantify (to a degree) how strong the connection has been made, the more NTs a neuron receives, the more likely it is to fire/more often it will fire. When there's symmetry to what is being processed, either in the volume from both ears, or an object is visually symmetrical, it takes advantage of the symmetry in the neural pathways which processes, releasing more NTs in crucial steps. It's difficult to quantify, as there are of course tons of interneurons, but the theory is nonetheless strong and can be observed in statistical manners.

Taking advantage of these kinds of psychologies (even if you don't know the necessary biology- just that it's an observed trait), is a game of guess and check on a grand level, which I think should be respected.

What a lot of math people don't see is that it is one thing to understand a math concept on paper and on the other hand to implement and embedded it into a complex system like a game engine

It's not game engine design though, they use Unity exclusively.

What unit shall we use to compare the hardness of your fields? You’re an engineer, so you know what units are, right?

i think my passion is making games, but I've already wasted the good years of my life on sci stuff. being a game designer is a risky thing and you will probably end up poor, non-gamer will not respect your work. and you will not really do anything serious or crucial work for society. I guess this is my rationale for not doing game design. to be on-topic i think its hard because you will probably not make a living out of it

There are things that no one in the world is good at