145 réponses à ce sujet

[dkear1]

Again, it comes back to a deluded word that truthfully is subjective in meaning. The Mona Lisa is a painting to me, nothing more. I couldn't care less if it burned in a fire to be quite honest. We can argue this forever but it will always remain a subjective thing.

Games also seek to make money just as movies or music do. I can promise you EA is ALL about money and doesn't give a damn about "art" by any definition.

As to the last statement - we do agree on that. No one is forced to change anything. However, if the intent was to make a large profit and not changing something hurts that it makes sense financially to bite the bullet and make the change. Does the shoe fit in this case? Time will tell.

[abaris]

dkear1 wrote...

However, if the intent was to make a large profit and not changing something hurts that it makes sense financially to bite the bullet and make the change. Does the shoe fit in this case? Time will tell.

If rumors and headlines are true, they already sold more than 5 million copies. That sure sounds good in EAs ears. So, the game is a success and probably (despite the ending) quite rightly so.

The question seems rather if enough people are disappointed enough by the endings to not buy another Bioware title in the future - or to postpone their buying decision until they know all the details.

[Aesieru]

Games are art, no doubt there, but art is also a product.

[The Razman]

You're ... really not understanding, and you're using words wrong despite my pointing it out, so I get the feeling you're not listening.

It doesn't matter what the Mona Lisa is to you. It is, by its nature, art. All you said there was that its art that you do not care about. Which is where the subjectivity come in; we don't all have to like the same art. But what's art and what isn't is not always subjective, by any means. To believe that the definition of art is completely fluid and subjective just means you haven't taken the time to read around the topic and learn otherwise.

Art can still exist to make money. It won't be considered "high art", just like a Hollywood movie won't be considered high art compared to films being shown at a fringe film festival. That doesn't make it suddenly not art in nature because there's money involved; it just means that monetary gain is one of the influences on the artistic direction. That's true for it all ... even stuff made by EA.

[wolfstanus]

So... Movies are art.
Videoames that require a lot of the same things as a movie has and even more because modeling scripting textures etc etc is not art because some random people on the Internet says its not? I lold so hard I derped my pants.

[abaris]

The Razman wrote...

Art can still exist to make money. It won't be considered "high art", just like a Hollywood movie won't be considered high art compared to films being shown at a fringe film festival. That doesn't make it suddenly not art in nature because there's money involved; it just means that monetary gain is one of the influences on the artistic direction. That's true for it all ... even stuff made by EA.

The better question is intent. Games and movies are multi million dollar efforts with the intent to make money. That's entertainment industry with artistic elements.

Art in itself isn't made with the intent to rake in dosh. It's a side effect for a select few lucky ones, but other artists don't burn all their brushes or destroy their chisels just because they didn't get a million for their last work.

And another difference between the entertainment industry and art is the fact that artists in the entertainment industry are rather low in the food chain. Apart from a few directors and actors the ones with the creative ideas are on paychecks doing the bidding of the suits.

[dkear1]

The Razman wrote...

You're ... really not understanding, and you're using words wrong despite my pointing it out, so I get the feeling you're not listening.

It doesn't matter what the Mona Lisa is to you. It is, by its nature, art. All you said there was that its art that you do not care about. Which is where the subjectivity come in; we don't all have to like the same art. But what's art and what isn't is not always subjective, by any means. To believe that the definition of art is completely fluid and subjective just means you haven't taken the time to read around the topic and learn otherwise.

Art can still exist to make money. It won't be considered "high art", just like a Hollywood movie won't be considered high art compared to films being shown at a fringe film festival. That doesn't make it suddenly not art in nature because there's money involved; it just means that monetary gain is one of the influences on the artistic direction. That's true for it all ... even stuff made by EA.

Art by its very definition IS fluid and IS subjective.  Words do change in meaning and this word has changed in my opinion for the worse.  Its broad based application to darn near everything makes it borderline nonsensical.

I have done quite a bit of reading and it is that reading that has lead me back to this.  Today's cinema make be "high art" by your definition 200 years from now and that will be up to those folks living at the time. 

I never said art can't make money.  In fact it often is its main driver.  The Mona Lisa was not done at the whim and fancy becuase the painter was bored. 

My contention is calling something art or artitisic is not a shield to hide behind when public opinion rips it up.  The market will determine its worth and the creator then has a choice to make on whether to change it.   This is the point.

Modifié par dkear1, 16 mars 2012 - 07:26 .

[wolfstanus]

(fu too phone)

Read below.

Modifié par wolfstanus, 16 mars 2012 - 07:33 .

[wolfstanus]

Here it is.
Paintings
Sketches
Movies
Video games
Line art
ASCII
writing
Metal work
Sculptures
Lawn Art
Modern
Theater

It's all art in one form or another. Your opinion does not matter as it is widely accepted even in the art community that these are all forms of art.

[dkear1]

wolfstanus wrote...

Here it is.
Paintings
Sketches
Movies
Video games
Line art
ASCII
writing
Metal work
Sculptures
Lawn Art
Modern
Theater

It's all art in one form or another. Your opinion does not matter as it is widely accepted even in the art community that these are all forms of art.

ROFL......my opinion matters a great deal to me and your so called art community can stuff it. 
Oh, Lawn art and ASCII............ROFL............I am off to sculpt some dog crap into stick men so I can take a picture and get it into their gallery.............ROFL.

.............walks away shaking head...............

Modifié par dkear1, 16 mars 2012 - 07:35 .

[wolfstanus]

Exactly.. Your opinion...
Your argument is invalid. Art is art
I can say the same form a lot of modern painting because a 3 year old can do the same. But it's still a form of art. Go back to school.

[Overule]

Whether it's art or not is a moot point. The question up for debate is whether it's the product we were promised it would be.

[He4vyMet4l]

I don't know if everyone share the same meaning of the word, but ME3 is one of the most artful creations ever made.

[Darkeus]

k177sh0t wrote...

Who said it was?

This was also expressed in an opinion piece from a journalist at Gamestop.  Laura something.....

[The Razman]

abaris wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Art can still exist to make money. It won't be considered "high art", just like a Hollywood movie won't be considered high art compared to films being shown at a fringe film festival. That doesn't make it suddenly not art in nature because there's money involved; it just means that monetary gain is one of the influences on the artistic direction. That's true for it all ... even stuff made by EA.

The better question is intent. Games and movies are multi million dollar efforts with the intent to make money. That's entertainment industry with artistic elements.

Art in itself isn't made with the intent to rake in dosh. It's a side effect for a select few lucky ones, but other artists don't burn all their brushes or destroy their chisels just because they didn't get a million for their last work.

And another difference between the entertainment industry and art is the fact that artists in the entertainment industry are rather low in the food chain. Apart from a few directors and actors the ones with the creative ideas are on paychecks doing the bidding of the suits.

I'd disagree with that, a lot of artists (especially painters) produce art on commission to make a living, so the factor of money isn't completely absent there. But there's definitely a difference between being paid to produce art, and producing art to make money.

[XRelakX]

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

Mm ..did you say art is priceless? I take it that all the artist that sell their work is actually for 0$.Also ME is 110$? Depends on where you buy the game and at what time.

And to be honest Art this days have diff definitions and some of them are included in ME that you like it or not is other thing.So apparently if i make a great painting and such (giving the common defnition of art im using this as example but i know painting etc not the only thing that is related to art)..i cant sell it because otherwise is not art.

Seems legit.

[Obrusnine]

Aesieru wrote...

Games are art, no doubt there, but art is also a product.

Like I said, there is no such thing as art that isn't a product.

[The Razman]

dkear1 wrote...
Art by its very definition IS fluid and IS subjective.

Art is. What we consider to be art isn't. That's something with fairly consistent precedents and cultural markers that we can identify.

You're getting those two points mixed up, sorry.

[Darkeus]

Video games are in a weird place. They are very much a product that people pay for. Just because it has art assets and storytelling does not make it, "art".

However, it is a form of collaborative art. It is not one person making a piece of art, it is a large group of people contributing art to a product.

I know people want video games to be art so that it validates gaming, but it is more of a product than a piece of art. There seems to be a placement of video games as art for validation, not based off of facts.

Of course, this is just my opinion.... 

Modifié par Darkeus, 16 mars 2012 - 08:10 .

[The_Real_Lee]

You have too keep in mind, that art ranges from the Sistine Chapel to a urinal called "The Fountain."

When art is that broad, anything is art. I would say Mass effect 3 is hundreds of steps above "The Fountain."

[The Razman]

Darkeus wrote...

However, it is a form of collaborative art. It is not one person making a piece of art, it is a large group of people contributing art to a product.

I know people want video games to be art so that it validates gaming, but it is more of a product than a piece of art.

Film is as well, though? And most music?

[The_Real_Lee]

Sezarious wrote...

MaynPayn wrote...

How do you define art?

Again i'm talking about the fact that Gamers who have complained have been told that Mass Effect is Art "So stop complaining, we're not changing it".  But BIOWARE is a Company.  They are selling it as a product.  Thus we ARE entitled to treat it as one.

Yes, art is clearly not a product that people buy and sell. Why I complain to the artist all the time when I don't like the way the buffalo looks. Harry Koyama really doesn't like all of the phone calls I make.
 

[The_Real_Lee]

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Mass Effect 3 is not art at all . Its a piece of dog Sh as far as a Sci Fi game goes

You have to keep in mind, people have sold actual poop as art.

[Reidbynature]

Yes and no. I believe most video games are a form of art and also that there are some deeper themes in Mass Effect that make it compelling, but it's not the type of art the apologists are desperately trying to convince everyone it is. Remember, "lots of speculation from everone!". People should be more intelligent than that and call out things like that for the bs it is.