|
|
|
|
|
|
by dan00
5402 days ago
|
|
|
"My original post was pointing out video games certainly, for the most
part, fit into these tradeoffs in a common way. (Again, I am talking about
applied software engineering in video games, not all facets of video
games.) If you're working on fascinating computational geometry algorithms
for the next game that lets people run around shooting each other in the
head, I think you know where what you're doing falls on these dimensions,
and I think it's important to know if you're comfortable there. (Yes, I
play and love Quake 3.)" Ok, you're saying, that you don't judge, but are doing it the whole time. Your definition of meaningful is very simplistic. It's like
saying, that exertion could be without catharsis. No, they can't
be without each other. If they can't be without each other, than
both are meaningful in the same way. |
|
|
If I had said something along the lines "working on your college degree is a better use of your time than gambling your money away in a casino" I'd not be 'judging' gamblers who do so. I'd be judging the acts themselves and how I see their relative merit and the rewards they'll bring the person doing them. I'd also be stirring up less controversy.
It's disappointing that people in this thread have tried to attack me personally or twist my words to be interpreted as 'judgements.' I don't think it's controversial to say that playing video games excessively is, in the long run, not the most rewarding endeavor. The question is, does this extrapolate to making a career of the construction of games themselves (exclusively on the software engineering side, the topic of this thread.) I happen to think that it does, particularly when I look at all the energy and talent that goes into creating them and the draw they have due to the fact that our generation was raised on gaming and that it offers enticing technical challenges.