Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8112224" data-attributes="member: 177">So, to add a slightly different perspective from outside games as food for thought....In mathematics and theoretical physics, there's a word for much of what seems to be intended by the &quot;meta-aesthetics&quot;.&nbsp; For us, the word is &quot;elegance&quot;.&nbsp; As you may imagine, a lot of the math in these areas can be really, really hairy and complicated.&nbsp; But, it turns out that most of the time, the general statements that turn out to be true are... elegant.&nbsp; Simple to state.&nbsp; They have symmetries, are smooth, and often fit in just a few lines.&nbsp; Einstein's Special and General theories of Relativity.&nbsp; Newton's equations of motion.&nbsp; Maxwell's Equations.&nbsp; Schrodinger's equation.&nbsp; The Laws of Thermodynamics.&nbsp; The basic statements of all these things are painfully simple.&nbsp;&nbsp; They only get hairy when you then layer them into the real world, where there are sharp corners and small details that make math hard.&nbsp; But the concepts?&nbsp; Elegant.&nbsp; Elegance is part of the sniff-test for being true.&nbsp; It isn't sufficient, but inelegance is a thing that suggests that you don't have it all quite right yet.&nbsp; For us in games, of course there's going to be a very reasonable press towards practicality.&nbsp; Maxwell's equations, and Einstein's, are elegant, but aren't practical for day-to-day use at home.&nbsp; However, there's perhaps a thing to be said for looking at the elegance of a design, looking at that meta-aesthetic, and seeing if maybe it is an indication of some true thing about play that you can then look to preserve as you find a practical implementation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8112224, member: 177"] So, to add a slightly different perspective from outside games as food for thought.... In mathematics and theoretical physics, there's a word for much of what seems to be intended by the "meta-aesthetics". For us, the word is "elegance". As you may imagine, a lot of the math in these areas can be really, really hairy and complicated. But, it turns out that most of the time, the general statements that turn out to be true are... elegant. Simple to state. They have symmetries, are smooth, and often fit in just a few lines. Einstein's Special and General theories of Relativity. Newton's equations of motion. Maxwell's Equations. Schrodinger's equation. The Laws of Thermodynamics. The basic statements of all these things are [I]painfully simple[/I]. They only get hairy when you then layer them into the real world, where there are sharp corners and small details that make math hard. But the concepts? Elegant. Elegance is part of the sniff-test for being true. It isn't sufficient, but inelegance is a thing that suggests that you don't have it all quite right yet. For us in games, of course there's going to be a very reasonable press towards practicality. Maxwell's equations, and Einstein's, are elegant, but aren't practical for day-to-day use at home. However, there's perhaps a thing to be said for looking at the elegance of a design, looking at that meta-aesthetic, and seeing if maybe it is an indication of some true thing about play that you can then look to preserve as you find a practical implementation. [/QUOTE]

Verification