59 réponses à ce sujet

[-Merk-]

Hey, Bioware can express all the artistic freedom they want.

I'm free not to pre-order any more EA/Bioware games.

Freedom works both ways.

Modifié par -Merk-, 14 mars 2012 - 10:50 .

[Kitsune413]

Tsantilas wrote...

If mass effect was intended to be put on display in a gallery, then people could argue that it is art.  It isn't.  It is an interractive medium. 

 
If movies are art then Mass Effect 3 is Art. For ease of use I'd like to label it as Art.

Mass Effect 3 moved me. The game is Awe inspiring in the way that it is capable of making you feel. It is brilliant and marvelous in the way that it makes you feel hope and makes you feel despair.

The vast majority of people are only upset by the Ending. Not the whole ending. Just a period of time after the protoganist is risen up on a pedastal to make a final decision.

The outcry probably honestly has to do with the vast amount of feelings they pile on you from the very beginning. Because there are only one or two relationships they have to build they can use your previously established relationships against you to make you feel. They do. They overwhelm you with the characters and setting that they've previously established so that in the final moments of the game, when they do not give you an outlet for that emotion that they have piled upon you, that your feelings are simply overwhelming.

If there is art then surely Mass Effect 3 is it.

Bioware advertised ME3 as the final conclusion to the trilogy.  We payed 60 bucks for a finished product, but general opinion is that this was falsly advertised since the cryptic tweets by bioware seem to point towards more to come that isn't in the actual game at the moment.  Anything other than a free patch that completes the game will just prove that.

Mass Effect 3 is a finished product. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. So this argument rings hollow. It can be argued against. It is easily defeated. Its not the words that you want to use.

You are carrying an excess of emotional baggage that you need addressed. Most people who were emotionally invested in the series does. The ending didn't bring closure. People see plotholes. People see mistakes. People are grasping at straws. But all they really want to know is what happened.

You do not get the pleasure to die with Shephard. If you did you would no longer have any worldly worries. You do not, so it is natural that you need to know what happened.

None of this helps you fight the charges leveled against you.

Also thank you for being a good sport. I'm not singling you out to pick on you. Your comments are easy to build upon. To think about. I appreciate theem.

Modifié par Kitsune413, 14 mars 2012 - 11:03 .

[Duraiden]

The problem here is that people seem to equate artistic freedom with immunity to all criticism. That somehow we should just accept the way things are because that's how the artist wanted it, but that's not how it works.

Artistic freedom simply means we can't force the artist to change, I can't go out and physically force the writer to re-write his ending nor can I sue him to change the ending.

But I do have the right to say "Look, I think your ending sucks and I think you should change it" and I can say to my friends, it's a great game but the ending is terrible take that as you will be you might want to consider if you want to buy the game or not.

Modifié par Duraiden, 14 mars 2012 - 11:04 .

[Kitsune413]

Stu_Shepard wrote...

Any art that goes mainstream is motivated by financial gain in spite of the artists intentions. So yes, in spite of any honourable intentions a developer may have on a game it is completely feasable that this could be perverted in the pursuit of a greater financial reward. We've seen it with films which is why a director will later release a directors cut which the studio would not necesarilly allow them to release in cinemas. More often than not these are better than the theatrical release (but half the time that's because the theatrical release is awful).

This is a very good comment in regards to the topic. Thank you.

[Kitsune413]

Duraiden wrote...

The problem here is that people seem to equate artistic freedom with immunity to all criticism. That somehow we should just accept the way things are because that's how the artist wanted it, but that's not how it works.

Artistic freedom simply means we can't force the artist to change, I can't go out and physically force the writer to re-write his ending nor can I sue him to change the ending.

But I do have the right to say "Look, I think your ending sucks and I think you should change it" and I can say to my friends, it's a great game but the ending is terrible take that as you will be you might want to consider if you want to buy the game or not.

And this. These are good words to think about.

[Qutayba]

I don't think artistic freedom is what the issue is: no one is claiming they want the government to censor BioWare's work. What people are talking about is artistic integrity - essentially that an artist should be able to stand behind their work even if people don't like it.

I'm all for artistic integrity. I think BioWare should be able to stand behind their work and support their writers. But supporting artistic integrity doesn't mean withholding all criticism, nor does it mean that changing the work would make them have less integrity.

Artists edit and change their work all the time, and for myriad reasons. In the Renaissance, artists often worked for patrons, who could, say, demand that God not be depicted floating around nude.

Some works of art, such as Munch's the Scream, was actually created several times (it's not just one painting).

Some artists, like da Vinci, commonly painted new paintings over their old one.

Arthur Conan Doyle resurrected Sherlock Holmes because fan outrage at his death caused him to reconsider.

Go to BestBuy and take a look at how many "Director's Cut" or "Extended" versions of movies are out there (such as Blade Runner, one of the visual inspirations for Mass Effect).

And then we have video games like Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age, or Bethesda's many games, that give players tools to mod the game and shape their experience.

And what is DLC and expansion packs if not an addition/change to the game?

And on top of all of this: no one, other than EA, can "force" BioWare to do anything. It will have to be their decision. No one's artistic integrity will be compromised.

It's just a silly argument.

EDIT: I think it's also important to remember that no one from BioWare, as far as I know, has tried to push the artistic integrity line.  It's mostly been from the knee-jerk responses from some people in the gaming press.

Modifié par Qutayba, 14 mars 2012 - 11:31 .

[bloodstalker1973]

Qutayba wrote...

I don't think artistic freedom is what the issue is: no one is claiming they want the government to censor BioWare's work. What people are talking about is artistic integrity - essentially that an artist should be able to stand behind their work even if people don't like it.

I'm all for artistic integrity. I think BioWare should be able to stand behind their work and support their writers. But supporting artistic integrity doesn't mean withholding all criticism, nor does it mean that changing the work would make them have less integrity.

Artists edit and change their work all the time, and for myriad reasons. In the Renaissance, artists often worked for patrons, who could, say, demand that God not be depicted floating around nude.

Some works of art, such as Munch's the Scream, was actually created several times (it's not just one painting).

Some artists, like da Vinci, commonly painted new paintings over their old one.

Arthur Conan Doyle resurrected Sherlock Holmes because fan outrage at his death caused him to reconsider.

Go to BestBuy and take a look at how many "Director's Cut" or "Extended" versions of movies are out there (such as Blade Runner, one of the visual inspirations for Mass Effect).

And then we have video games like Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age, or Bethesda's many games, that give players tools to mod the game and shape their experience.

And what is DLC and expansion packs if not an addition/change to the game?

And on top of all of this: no one, other than EA, can "force" BioWare to do anything. It will have to be their decision. No one's artistic integrity will be compromised.

It's just a silly argument.

EDIT: I think it's also important to remember that no one from BioWare, as far as I know, has tried to push the artistic integrity line.  It's mostly been from the knee-jerk responses from some people in the gaming press.

This.

Everyone assumes classical artists were all about a vision. They worked on commission, and they had to please the patrons, or they starved. By the same token, many film actors and directors today make deals to make popular movies so studios will fund more artistic, less commercial films.

They do this because, if the studios don;t make money, they can't make films at all. If you put artistic expression before everything else, people begin to not care as much. Especially with games. I'm not buying an artistic work, I'm buying an experience. I understand it is the studio's intellectual property. But if enough of that studio's work leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I stop buying their products. Products, not artistic pieces. Somewhere, game designers got so caught up with being taken seriously as artists that they lost track of the fact that artists in every other major theatre of entertainment routinely compromise to stay in line with public demand. If they don't, they lose customers.

yes companies have every right to stick to their artistic guns come what may. But they do not have any right to have people buy their games. This gets forgotten too often. Just because you label something "art" does not mean it automatically is guarranteed to profit.

And yes, BW has EA backing. They may feel untouchable. A lot of companies as big if not bigger than EA have done the same, and closed up after too long ignoring the fanbase.

And EA? They will drop BW without a second thought it profits start slipping and move on to the next up and coming developer, regardless of whether or not BW thinks differently. EA will not let anything come before the bottom line. Which, honestly, is what businesses do ultimately, artistic vision or not.

[Tsantilas]

@Kitsune413

Don't worry about it.  We are debating a topic, I'm not that childish that I would take offense in a civilized conversation.  Anyway I'll stick with my opinion that games are not art but since everyone seems to want to believe they are, I'll make another point.

I'm an illustrator, which I think qualifies me as an artist.  I get commissioned to do paintings, that is my job.  It is what I am payed to do.  If someone asks me to paint something, pays me to do it, and I do not deliver to his/her standard, I can't simply say "this is my vision, deal with it" or "pay me another 20 bucks and I'll add some more stuff to it".  Even if I don't sign a legally binding contract stating exactly what will be detailed in the painting, if I do not live up to the customer's standards, he will not come back to me for further commissions, or recommend me to other potential customers.

Bioware marketed ME3 as a game where your choices in the trilogy mattered, and we will get more than just generic ending A, B, or C.  The final product directly contradicts that statement as has been pointed out in this forum.  The paying customers complain about it, to which Bioware says: Hold on to your copies, there will be dlc.  This is like me making a painting of the last supper, only Jesus is missing and I'm asking for extra money to include him later.

[nytraven]

My thoughts is wouldn't ME as a consumer product be considered commissioned art? If I hire an artist to paint a portrait of my family and when they gave me the finished painting my face alone looked like a picasso, would I have the right to complain? I didn't want a picasso I wanted a portrait of my family. I would think I would be within my rights to say "uhm, you need to fix my face, or I'm not paying you." Since we payed for the product ahead of time we can't 'not pay'. I am not an artist but when a work is commissioned don't you have to deliver what the customer requested?

ed. Sorry tsantilas, I did a quick reply at the bottom of the first page, didn't realize I was directly following your example that was much better worded

Modifié par nytraven, 15 mars 2012 - 06:02 .

[Lankist]

The difference between the (commonly used) classical novel example and Mass Effect is that Shakespeare/Melville/what-have-you didn't give the audience license. Bioware has given the audience license (though it's a terrible idea to abuse it). Their initial goals were not to tell their own story exclusively, they were expressly to tell a story *with* the player, attempting to involve the player in every aspect of the plot.

The issue with turning around now and saying players aren't respecting artistic integrity is that the players are not demanding license of the the story. The players were *given* license over the story a long time ago, to very great effect. The audience has become much more invested in this story because the folks who built it did such an excellent job of helping the player to tell their own story, even at the expense of one singular vision. That, in and of itself, is the artistic quality of Mass Effect. A blurring of the lines between viewer and creator. This whole boondoggle is just a natural extension of that, testing that original precedent of player-agency over the story.

The question is not what journalists or commentators think about artistic integrity, and it doesn't even really matter what the players themselves think about artistic integrity. Right now, it's a rather defining decision for Bioware as to what their priorities were from the outset and what they are right now, whether the artistic integrity of the story derives itself from the story itself or the way the story was told.

This medium is still experimental, and there really isn't a definite line between whose story this is. Both sides feel degrees of ownership over it, but if it was intended for Bioware to be the absolute proprietor over the story as a piece of art, then I don't know why they would even attempt to involve the players' input to such an extent.

Modifié par Lankist, 15 mars 2012 - 06:11 .