Still, in my point of view, your viewpoint and the article's one can be aligned. Strictly speaking, converting your ideas about the fantasy world into code to run the game is "solving a problem". I'd argue that any creative process can be coined as a problem-solving exercise, except for the fact that in many such cases the problem isn't tangible and the outcome isn't measurable.

> I'd argue that any creative process can be coined as a problem-solving exercise

Problem solving with real-world constraints = engineering

Problem solving without any constraints = art

Art has always had constraints: funding, the physical media’s capabilities, and the ability to reach an audience. This is why any time a new technology shift happens there’s a spike of artists trying things which were not previously feasible.

It's a spectrum. I just wrote down the two ends.

Also, an artist's constraints are often self-prescribed, and they can easily change them if they like.

> Also, an artist's constraints are often self-prescribed, and they can easily change them if they like.

the most amazing art (both graphics and music) i have seen on computer were from atari, amiga, & c64 demosceners. these artists had real software and hardware contraints.

i like what you said about it being a spectrum though. i think it's hard to tell when engineering becomes art and art becomes engineering. but one can easily spot pure (for its own sake) engineering or pure art.

There's also a fair bit of "engineering for engineering's sake" (as a parallel of "art for art's sake" - "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art's_sake), "divorced from any didactic, moral, politic, or utilitarian function".

This is reminiscent of the old divide between mathematics and philosophy:

true and useful = math

true and useless = philosophy

What occupation, I wonder, was the person who coined that joke? Compare:

"It is not possible to justify the life of any genuine professional mathematician on the ground of the 'utility' of his work." (G. H. Hardy, 1940)

Which side does the practice of distinguishing between the useful and the useless fall on?

philosophy decides :)

I wouldn't bet on the "true" part in philosophy. More like nonsensical.

Having watched a significant amount of the hand made hero series (the closest I’ll get to writing games) i’m more inclined to side with the grandparent on this one.

Game dev can be just hardcore programming juggling everything from euler equations to hardware performance budgeting.

Sure you can take the view this are just constraints in a problem solving exercise.

Or it’s highly skilled programming. I fall on the latter view for sure.

I would argue that life is solving a problem of living.

I would not write a post about it.

You could argue that, but that would apply to painters, chefs, mechanics, hair dressers, everyone.

Also, this article is extremely short and seems to mainly just be repeating a few already very well established and common ideas; as if it was put together by a marketing guy by cutting and pasting a few things. Is it just an ad for the link at the end 'webflow' ?

I think game is art. Art is made for publish thought of creater, which has power that solves real-world problems. Writing game code (art) is equals to solving problems.

You solve other people's boredom problem.

A game has everything to do with the real world. A game is only successful if real-world people want to play it.

Ok, so when u make an unsuccessful game youre not solving problems?

No, I meant exactly what I said, nothing else.

Entertaining games solve people's desire to be entertained.