145 réponses à ce sujet

[freshtoothpaste]

I reject the argument that because X is art, the ending can't be changed. Take Return of the Jedi. No, please, take it.

But anyway, take Return of the Jedi. I didn't like the changes to the end. But I don't deny that George Lucas and his filmmaking team aren't artists. I also don't deny that on some level, if the artist wants to change the ending, he can change the ending.

Staying in the geekoverse, The Hobbit is art. Several elements, specifically surrounding the ring, were changed between its first publication and later editions. There are other literary works that also had changes. Charles Dickens, an artist, changed the ending of Great Expectations due to fan pressure. Bioware themselves recently requested changes to Mass Effect: Deception.

So, these are all works of art. They're also works of mass culture, consumer art. All of which had changes.

There's nothing about art that's so sacrosanct it can't be changed later, and in fact, artists change their work all the time.

I think these Bioware guys are clearly artists. And if they wanted, they could change their art. In fact, we've been paying them to change their work of art for some time, in the form of DLC.

These arguments about, "Art can't be changed," are based on a faulty premise. I reject the premise, and hope that the artists at Bioware listen. And if not, well ...

LONG LIVE MARAUDER SHIELDS!

[Habs25]

Sezarious wrote...

It is greatly concerning the number of people defending the idea that WE, the customers cannot demand a better ending.

Well [color=rgb(255, 0, 0)">BIOWARE DOES NOT treat Mass Effect as a peice of art. ]LIKE [/color]A PRODUCT[/b].... BECAUSE IT IS!  It has a monetary value.

Art is priceless.

Mass Effect is $110.00.

Therefore, we as customers may chose whether or not the game is [color=rgb(255, 0, 0)">WORTH ]WANT[/color] to treat it like a bad TOASTER, we will.  If we WANT BETTER, WE WILL DEMAND BETTER.  Or we will TAKE OUR MONEY ELSEWHERE.

No matter what people would like to think,  Bioware and it's Artists DO NOT have the moral Highground here.  They are SALESPERSONS trying to sell their PRODUCT.  If you don't want it, don't buy it, or return it

If they don't want to change it, they are only HURTING THEMSELVES.

[b]HOLD THE LINE

You see it as a product you are entitled to demand things from, the producers see it as their creative artwork. You really think that the years it took to develop the story and the universe, bring it all to life in an interactive medium... you think that is not art? Yes it is a "product", but so are other forms of art such as music, paintings, sculptures, movies, theatre productions. We all pay for these, because that is the artists' means of subsistence, it's what they do for a living, make art. If you don't like it, don't buy it, if you bought it and didn't like it, then sure voice why you didn't and even stop buying from that artist, but you have no right to demand that someone's creative vision be changed just because you and some other people don't like it. The most you can do is return the product and carry on with your life.
Either way, I'd cool it down and stop worrying about what is going on right now, give it time, I'm sure that even before this controversy that BW has been planning more for ME3 than what everyone is currently talking about. If you're still disappointed in a couple of months, then yeah you can stop buying whatever they produce and hold a grudge if you will, but right now just give it time.

[dkear1]

The word art has become such a broadly defined nonsensical word to the point that taking a dump on your lawn could qualify. Using this excuse to not change something that is considered crap by quite a few is lazy and insipid.

[MARIACHI isBACK]

Uchimura wrote...

Mass Effect is a massterpiece.

You're 100% right!

Also, if Mass Effect is not art, how come it has an art book???

Modifié par MARIACHI isBACK, 16 mars 2012 - 05:28 .

[dkear1]

MARIACHI isBACK wrote...

Uchimura wrote...

Mass Effect is a massterpiece.

You're 100% right!

Also, if Mass Effect is not art, how come it has an art book???

I hope that is sarcasm............otherwise it looks like a chewbacca defense.

[DropTech]

ME3 was a buisness decision first and foremost. Its a comercial product first and foremost. Every "artistic" decision in ME3 was made with maximising thats products potential income. If not then please explain the arty farty part of the MP portion.

[Verhalthur]

Isn't the very definition of art something that a person subjectively finds artful?

It's not art to you, but it might be for other people.

[Harshfact]

It's art if you see it as art, no one is allowed to force you to accept or deny it in any way because there is no definition to art , that' the beauty of it which renders the OP's point quite pointless.

oh and if art is priceless and ME is not art then it does make sense that you pay money for it otherwise well ... it'd be on sale and no one would be able to buy it

[Nightsider2169]

What you don't understand is that the ending is just fine as it is (provided you did what you were supposed to do and got the perfect ending).

Bioware did a beautiful job of leaving the ending open for future DLC and even Expansions. All the hints are there to completely explain the ending IF you simply pay attention to the story and comments thru out the trilogy.

All of you people who are complaining about the ending need to get over yourselves, its a perfect blend of suspense, mystery, and artistic expression. It needs to be added onto of course, which is obviously the plan, but it DOES NOT need to be changed.

[abaris]

DropTech wrote...

ME3 was a buisness decision first and foremost. Its a comercial product first and foremost. Every "artistic" decision in ME3 was made with maximising thats products potential income. If not then please explain the arty farty part of the MP portion.

Exactly.

There are art elements, but the ones working those were doing someone else's bidding. They were also the ones working for a paycheck and not for the big sales percentage dosh.

[bennyjammin79]

dkear1 wrote...

MARIACHI isBACK wrote...

Uchimura wrote...

Mass Effect is a massterpiece.

You're 100% right!

Also, if Mass Effect is not art, how come it has an art book???

I hope that is sarcasm............otherwise it looks like a chewbacca defense.

Ooooh Chewy eez so supa sexi!!! He no need no defense!!!

[DropTech]

Is a car art? It gets designed to be estheticaly pleasing on top of being a good ride.
Ico's NA cover. Was that art? Why did these same journalists **** about not getting the Japanese version of it.

Modifié par DropTech, 16 mars 2012 - 05:47 .

[Verhalthur]

DropTech wrote...

Verhalthur wrote...

Isn't the very definition of art something that a person subjectively finds artful?

It's not art to you, but it might be for other people.

Is a car art? It gets designed to be estheticaly pleasing on top of being a good ride.
Ico's NA cover. Was that art? Why did these same journalists **** about not getting the Japanese version of it.

I'm sure a car is art to some people.

[Keshryn]

I have been a fan of Bioware since Baldurs Gate and have enjoyed the Mass Effect games, however the ending for Mass Effect 3 was dissapointing. I played ME2 prior to purchasing ME3 and was looking forward to "Saving Earth" as the offical statement implied.

The graphics are improved, but even at the RPG setting the gameplay is like an interactive story with less user interaction then any prior Mass Effect game. If they want to lose customers then they should continue to make games that end like this!

Kobayashi Maru

[The Razman]

Yes, Mass Effect is art. It is entertainment art, just like Hollywood cinema, popular literature and the mainstream music industry. No amount of annoying red bolded letters will change that.

[Ghost Warrior]

samurai crusade wrote...

ME is in the smithsonian for art of video games.
The universe, characters, and world are pieces of art from very creative minds. I'm sorry that you didn't like the ending but the trilogy is still beautiful and a work of art

+1

[dkear1]

Nightsider2169 wrote...

What you don't understand is that the ending is just fine as it is (provided you did what you were supposed to do and got the perfect ending).

Bioware did a beautiful job of leaving the ending open for future DLC and even Expansions. All the hints are there to completely explain the ending IF you simply pay attention to the story and comments thru out the trilogy.

All of you people who are complaining about the ending need to get over yourselves, its a perfect blend of suspense, mystery, and artistic expression. It needs to be added onto of course, which is obviously the plan, but it DOES NOT need to be changed.

Please stop trying to cram your opinion down my throat.  You think it is fine and I think it blows chunks.  Both opinions are correct BECAUSE THEY ARE OPINIONS.  An opinion is neither right nor wrong as it is completely subjective and owned by the individual.

So stop with the nonsense its is quite juvenile and lame.

Modifié par dkear1, 16 mars 2012 - 06:18 .

[Stompi]

I also would have liked better endings, and the series has also lost its replay value for me, but I definiately wouldn't pay one cent for an ending DLC of a trilogy that should have been finished with the third game. I don't remember having to pay for an expansion book/movie that explains what happenend at the end of LoTR etc. So please either stubbornly stand by your endings or release an enhanced edition patch for free the way CD Project does with their games.

A ending DLC that costs money would only make things worse and will perhaps even make it seem like you planned the whole thing from the start to milk additional money from emotional fans, who are even grateful for it.

Modifié par Stompi, 16 mars 2012 - 06:17 .

[dkear1]

The Razman wrote...

Yes, Mass Effect is art. It is entertainment art, just like Hollywood cinema, popular literature and the mainstream music industry. No amount of annoying red bolded letters will change that.

This is your opinion.  Nothing more. 

Art is such a deluded word these days that a person can crap on the sidewalk and call it art.  Besides everything must stand or fall in the light of public opinion.  This game will succeed or fail and only time will tell.

Modifié par dkear1, 16 mars 2012 - 06:19 .

[The Razman]

dkear1 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Yes, Mass Effect is art. It is entertainment art, just like Hollywood cinema, popular literature and the mainstream music industry. No amount of annoying red bolded letters will change that.

This is your opinion.  Nothing more. 

Art is such a deluded word these days that a person can crap on the sidewalk and call it art.  Besides everything must stand or fall in the light of public opinion.  This game will succeed or fail and only time will tell.

You can say it's my opinion, but it's not like I'm talking subjectively here; I'm saying that with a logical basis.

We have two types of "art" in our society. Purist art, which includes paintings like the Mona Lisa, music such as Bach and Tchaikovsky, and certain types of art cinema (the names of which I could say but almost nobody will have heard of). Then you have consumerist art; pieces with artistic merit created by artist but made for business purposes. This includes most works of literature fiction like The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter, all of our mainstream music, "popular" cinema that most of us are familiar with ... and video-games.

The whole "can video-games be art" argument is centred around whether games can be part of the former definition of art, as the other entertainment mediums have proven they can be. Nobody has ever, ever questioned or doubted whether video-games are art in the latter definition. And I don't think you're going to try now, are you?

[Ryvack]

The Razman wrote...

dkear1 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Yes, Mass Effect is art. It is entertainment art, just like Hollywood cinema, popular literature and the mainstream music industry. No amount of annoying red bolded letters will change that.

This is your opinion.  Nothing more. 

Art is such a deluded word these days that a person can crap on the sidewalk and call it art.  Besides everything must stand or fall in the light of public opinion.  This game will succeed or fail and only time will tell.

You can say it's my opinion, but it's not like I'm talking subjectively here; I'm saying that with a logical basis.

We have two types of "art" in our society. Purist art, which includes paintings like the Mona Lisa, music such as Bach and Tchaikovsky, and certain types of art cinema (the names of which I could say but almost nobody will have heard of). Then you have consumerist art; pieces with artistic merit created by artist but made for business purposes. This includes most works of literature fiction like The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter, all of our mainstream music, "popular" cinema that most of us are familiar with ... and video-games.

The whole "can video-games be art" argument is centred around whether games can be part of the former definition of art, as the other entertainment mediums have proven they can be. Nobody has ever, ever questioned or doubted whether video-games are art in the latter definition. And I don't think you're going to try now, are you?

Oh FFS Razman....ART is ART!

[DropTech]

Is cooking art?

[The Razman]

Ryvack wrote...

The Razman wrote...

dkear1 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Yes, Mass Effect is art. It is entertainment art, just like Hollywood cinema, popular literature and the mainstream music industry. No amount of annoying red bolded letters will change that.

This is your opinion.  Nothing more. 

Art is such a deluded word these days that a person can crap on the sidewalk and call it art.  Besides everything must stand or fall in the light of public opinion.  This game will succeed or fail and only time will tell.

You can say it's my opinion, but it's not like I'm talking subjectively here; I'm saying that with a logical basis.

We have two types of "art" in our society. Purist art, which includes paintings like the Mona Lisa, music such as Bach and Tchaikovsky, and certain types of art cinema (the names of which I could say but almost nobody will have heard of). Then you have consumerist art; pieces with artistic merit created by artist but made for business purposes. This includes most works of literature fiction like The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter, all of our mainstream music, "popular" cinema that most of us are familiar with ... and video-games.

The whole "can video-games be art" argument is centred around whether games can be part of the former definition of art, as the other entertainment mediums have proven they can be. Nobody has ever, ever questioned or doubted whether video-games are art in the latter definition. And I don't think you're going to try now, are you?

Oh FFS Razman....ART is ART!

I tried writing that in my dissertation, but they wanted more, damn them.

[dkear1]

The Razman wrote...
You can say it's my opinion, but it's not like I'm talking subjectively here; I'm saying that with a logical basis.

We have two types of "art" in our society. Purist art, which includes paintings like the Mona Lisa, music such as Bach and Tchaikovsky, and certain types of art cinema (the names of which I could say but almost nobody will have heard of). Then you have consumerist art; pieces with artistic merit created by artist but made for business purposes. This includes most works of literature fiction like The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter, all of our mainstream music, "popular" cinema that most of us are familiar with ... and video-games.

The whole "can video-games be art" argument is centred around whether games can be part of the former definition of art, as the other entertainment mediums have proven they can be. Nobody has ever, ever questioned or doubted whether video-games are art in the latter definition. And I don't think you're going to try now, are you?

What is logical about a word that has become so deluted that it can literally apply to someone crapping on the sidewalk? 

Purist  or classical or old - take your pick of what you call it.  The Mona Lisa was not considered art the day it was painted (it was just another painting).  This occured only when public opinion decided it was truely worth something.  Same for music or cinema.   Thus it is and always will be public opinion that cements things into art IMHO.

As I stated before with such a deluded word anything and everything could be considered art today and by that definition nothing is really art.   Ya know the I'm special, your special, everybody's special means NOBODY is special.  It is a circular arguement that has no resolution.

And in light of such this game can and should be held up to scrutanty.  You know that quite a few movies have been shown to test audiences and reworked because those audiences thought it sucked.  What is so different here?

[The Razman]

dkear1 wrote...

The Razman wrote...
You can say it's my opinion, but it's not like I'm talking subjectively here; I'm saying that with a logical basis.

We have two types of "art" in our society. Purist art, which includes paintings like the Mona Lisa, music such as Bach and Tchaikovsky, and certain types of art cinema (the names of which I could say but almost nobody will have heard of). Then you have consumerist art; pieces with artistic merit created by artist but made for business purposes. This includes most works of literature fiction like The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter, all of our mainstream music, "popular" cinema that most of us are familiar with ... and video-games.

The whole "can video-games be art" argument is centred around whether games can be part of the former definition of art, as the other entertainment mediums have proven they can be. Nobody has ever, ever questioned or doubted whether video-games are art in the latter definition. And I don't think you're going to try now, are you?

What is logical about a word that has become so deluted that it can literally apply to someone crapping on the sidewalk? 

Purist  or classical or old - take your pick of what you call it.  The Mona Lisa was not considered art the day it was painted (it was just another painting).  This occured only when public opinion decided it was truely worth something.  Same for music or cinema.   Thus it is and always will be public opinion that cements things into art IMHO.

As I stated before with such a deluded word anything and everything could be considered art today and by that definition nothing is really art.   Ya know the I'm special, your special, everybody's special means NOBODY is special.  It is a circular arguement that has no resolution.

And in light of such this game can and should be held up to scrutanty.  You know that quite a few movies have been shown to test audiences and reworked because those audiences thought it sucked.  What is so different here?

Uh ... well ... no. The Mona Lisa was always art. All paintings of that nature are considered art, regardless of public opinion. You're trying to state that something is only art if its popular as such, ignoring the fact that we do have criteria for what art is. Very arguable criteria ... but strongly defined enough to discount what you're saying about "a man defacating on the sidewalk is art".

It's public opinion which defines something as "high" art (like separating the likes of Banksy and some random street graffiti artist), yes. When you say that art is a "deluded" word (I don't think you're using that word right, by the way?) what you're saying is that we can make it fit whatever we want it to. But that's not quite true ... it's just that the criteria for art are extremely complex and most of the general public never want to get into it.

As for whether it can be held up to scrutiny ... I don't think I ever said that because it's art, it shouldn't be? Even purist art is criticised and scrutinised to within an inch of its life. And the difference between this game and movie test audiences? Movie test audience's only function, the only reason for their existence, is to get the most money out of people; test screenings for audience reaction are only arranged so they can tailor things exactly to what the public want. Creatively, an artist doesn't have to change their work for what the public wants, even if we're talking about a piece of entertainment art which is made for business purposes. If the public doesn't like it, they won't buy it.