So your argument is that having more tools always makes a job more difficult?

I've create a scripting language, it works like this:
when (postcnt(accnt("Zero Hour"))>=2) {
(ban("Zero Hour"), "Your post count is greater than two!", 999999999);
}

All of the commands are listed, that wasn't an example of the scripting language. I'll go over the commands again..

when (variable)
postcnt(numerical)
accnt("account")
>= [Greater than or equal to)
ban ("account", "Reason", time in milleniums)


Ok, now I need you to create a script which will draw an image that can dance back and forth, and produce the sound of a dieing toad... also, if it could vomit leaving steaming piles of vomit on the floor for dramatic effect I would very much appriciate it.

tnx.

It isn't tools; it's composition. The world is made up of over 100 different atoms, and chemisty is already extremely complex. Imagine if that world was made up of 200 atoms, how much more complex it would be.

The same logic can be applied here; obviously, different pixels don't have different properties like each atom does, but so many more pixels allows for much more complexity and much more difficulty.

You're putting words in my mouth by asking me that question, and it really did not pose much of an argument.

The objective is to use a finite number of source items to create a given effect. Isn't that easier if the number is bigger?

Imagine if it were made of 50 atoms. Wouldn't it then be more difficult to create equivalent effects?

Not really. I'm just summarising your argument.

Heh, that makes good sense for purpose of this debate.

My position though, is level designers cannot make good levels without at least half way decent tiles. A level designer relies on an artist to have the skill and forsight to be able to create tiles which look good and also can be used together, meaningfully, and in a variety of combinations.

A pixel artist relies on no such thing, because his medium is a pixel which can only have one solid color in it. He must use his own creativity to build that into art, into something that looks good.

A level designer's medium is created by a pixel artist, another person, and relies on that pixel artist's creativity, at least in part, to be able to use his tiles in an aestheticly pleasing manner.

None of that is disputed. Nor, however, is it relevant to the debate. We're talking about whether or not tiling is inherently easier than freeform image creation.

?

My argument was that level design is inherently easier because it relies on the skill and creativity of another person's "freeform image creation" to even look decent... :rolleyes:

Right. So both of those are inherently easier than programming, too? Because you can't do either without the skill and creativity of another person's programming.

:rolleyes:

Sorry to tell you, but graphic design has been around way before programming. :frown: I know, it may come as a shock...
Graphics are not dependant on programming. Anyway, this branch off in the discussion could lead off to a variety of other comments...this is sort of a chicken or the egg type of discussion.

It has? Then did the programs magically program themselves? Unless you mean art in general and not just 'graphic design' as in art made on computers and such.

We're not talking about generic graphic design. We're talking about making tilesets. Does that precede programming?

Read -> Think -> Post

Dude, we're talking about generic design. Any competant pixel artist/graphics artist can paint rather nice if they learn about the tools. They have the mind and the ability; all they would need is the knowledge of how to use the tools. So yes, we are talking about generic graphic design. If you know how to paint, you can make a tileset after you become familiar with the tools. Graphics and programming are also rather intertwined when you think about it. Do you think programming can exist without some form of graphic?


Read -> Think -> Post

Actually, we (Zen and I) were talking about making tilesets. You only became involved in the argument later, when you missed the point and started ranting at me.

Zen's argument was that since level-makers rely on tileset-makers, their job must inherently be easier. He seems to be working from the assumption that the earlier state in any such chain is always more difficult, but this is inaccurate. Painters rely on paint-makers. Is making paint inherently more difficult than using it? Of course not. This highlights the flaw in Zen's reasoning.

And you claim to be creative? Hohoho.

Hmmmmmm I agree with your reasoning on Zen aside from one aspect. Level design and pixel art are both graphical in nature. They come from the same genre. Graphics vs Programming are entirely different and require a different kind of mind to do them. Some times people can have a mind that works for both, but regardless they are usually not able to work in harmony. For example, you are a good scripter but terrible at graphics. Most graphics people here are good at graphics but terrible scripters. You can't claim one thing is harder then another if they aren't of the same type. Graphics design and level design are of the same type, so a somewhat reasonable comparison can be made.

I couldn't resist. I was actually laughing at the reply, I just had to do it. I don't claim to be creative either...I do claim to think unlike most people, and if you could talk to me in life for a few minutes you would quickly realize this fact. ;)

So what's the amended rule?

"If A is kinda similar to B, and A depends on B, A is inherently easier"?

I want a clear, concise, generalised summary of your reasoning. The above seems to be what we have so far, but it wouldn't surprise me if you had a few more amendments on standby.

Is writing a compiler inherently more difficult than writing a program with that compiler?

My advice to you: Become more resistant. To making bad comebacks.

Coming back to the original post:

I like your church level. What did you use to design this level?

No, my statement wasnt meant to be so generalized. My point was that a level maker's medium was art, itself. He's using somebody else's art to make his own. I dont have the same respect for the person who "made a level" as I do for the person who "made that level possible" through their own forsight and creativity.

When you see a well made level, say on Zenkou ( ^^ ), do you think "wow the LAT who made this level is very talented" or do you think "wow the GAT who made the tiles and trees etc on this level is very talented"?

Okay. So make a general statement about jobs and how easy they are, then show that it applies universally.

Otherwise you're just ad-hoc-ing.

Both...The graphics artist deserves credit for making the tiles, and the levels artist deserves equal credit for using those tiles to create a really good level (assuming it is good). I dont think one is better than the other, they just need different tools ;)

?

I was not trying to make a maxim which could be applied to a broad spectrum of anything, so how would making a general statement about an unrelated subject further my point?

My subject is strictly in regards to tiling a level versus pixeling the tiles used to make the level, ad hoc or not.

Then you're ad-hoc-ing. If your arguments only apply to one limited area then how can they be persuasive? You're fundamentally unable to support them.

Both deserve some credit, yes, but I would not say equal. The level maker can get equal credit when he makes good looking levels using his own tiles. >_<

Alright. I will make an example which is equivalent that you can relate to.

Firstly, I'll state that my "maxim" was misinterpruted in your applied example, and thats why you found the obvious flaw.

Instead lets consider that your a graal scripter, for hypothetical purposes, and you were coding a whole bunch of functions. You put alot of script and code into each one of these functions, or classes, or whatever they are called. Anyways, you dont make any actual npc in a level, but you create the building blocks for other people to make those npcs.

Then, some NAT makes a npc in a level, and just puts in a couple lines of script "join chair;" or an npc that is just really simple but calls alot of functions.

Who deserves the most credit? Or rather, which would most likely involve the greatest degree of difficulty?

Uh-huh.

No. Because anybody with eyes can see where this is going. You're going to present a rule like this:

"If A relies on B, and B is more difficult than A, then A is easier than B"

And, like, yeah. But what use is this rule? You're assuming the thing you're supposed to be supporting.

Whats the issue? I was asking you a question; if you cant answer it than thats fine. I've stated my point, and I think its clear enough.

I already explained this. The issue is that you are employing circular reasoning. Rather than give a standard rule that can be verified by others and applied to the tiler vs artist issue, you have given an example that supposedly proves your point by presupposing that it is valid.

Yes, it can be easy to write scripts using other people's hard work. It can also be difficult to write scripts using other people's easy work. There's no general rule, you see? And if there's no general rule then how can you apply that situation to our debate?

Robin = I used the Unreal Editor 2.0. :-)