281 réponses à ce sujet

[-REDACTED-]

OK I had to log in just to post a reply in here because frankly this boggles my mind that we're even having this discussion. Not only are video games art, but I consider Mass Effect to be a shining example of all that video games should aspire to be. Mass Effect has an incredibly rich and engrossing story wrapped up in complex characters and interesting situations. It evokes emotions from us when we play, and it invites social commentary and criticism on key philosophical and political discussions.

Art by its very nature is complex and hard to define, but video games are more than just "games" now. They are interactive stories. So yes the point that video games are art and should be treated as such should be taken very seriously. While many of us (myself included) were disappointed by the ending, to say that games are not art and therefore can be considered a commercial commodity that is subject to the will of its fan-base is absurd.

While video games are much more collaborative than other forms of media, it is ultimately up to the creators of these games to decide what should and should not be put into the game. Just because we spent $60 on this game does not give us the right to make demands of Bioware. Sure we make strong suggestions (*make the indoctrination theory cannon *cough *cough), but we are not the content producers. It is ultimately up to Bioware to decide what should and should not be put into THEIR game.

Having said this, it would still be in Bioware's best interest to listen to its very passionate fan-base as they do have quite a few good ideas themselves. So does this mean that we should stop providing feedback and stop criticizing Bioware? Of course not. Does this mean that Bioware should simply do as they please while ignoring the very people who care about them the most? Not by a long shot. However, there is such a thing as artist integrity, and for better or for worse, it should be protected at all costs.

TL;DR Video games are art, and it is ultimately up to the creators to decide what should and shouldn't be done with their creations. However, it is in their best interest to listen to their consumers.

[braisbr1]

I don't want to sound arrogant or anything, that's not what I mean with the words I'm about to write, but the definition of art is fairly simple. And you don't have to believe me - you have the books of Viollet le Duc, an architect, to support this. I mention an architect because that's what I'm studying, nothing else.

What's art? Art is something's achievement to cause an emotion in an individual. So if a painting shakes you, or a movie, or a game - for you, that's art. No matter what anybody else says, that's art. End of the question.

This is the reason that nowadays there are art tendencies that claim that everything in our life is art - which I personally endorse. I believe that everything in this life can move you, so long as you have the eyes to see it.

But far from this view of what art is, or what art can be, I think in this case the most important part is why - why video games are sometimes, or in most cases, not considered a form of art.

The reason is simple, and it is because traditionally they have been seen as just that, as a game. This trend is being crushed in recent years, but there's still a lot of people who think like that, so games are not considered art. There's only one reason for people who understand what art is to not see videogames as a form of art - and that is conservationism. They didn't grow up with games or fail to see them with their potential, or don't get touched by them because in their minds all they can see is just a means oh killing time.

but never doubt about it, games are art.

[Genera1Nemesis]

SoulDire wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

SoulDire wrote...

What about Mass Effect: Deception? It's full of plot holes and lore inconsistencies. The fans demanded it be changed and both Bioware and the publishing company apologized and agreed to change it. That's odd. I though that the author of the fiction had total say in his product no matter what. Guess it only applies to videogames.

That whole work was a botch job from the get-go - it's not like it was a great read and then the last page turned into illiterate nonsense - it was all illiterate nonsense.

Wait so are you saying you are okay with the author having to change the book?  If so, that is a direct contradiction to your previous argument.  It was a work of art and the author has the right to dictate that art right?

Now we're getting into specifics; the author of Deception does not own the intellectual property that is 'Mass Effect' Bioware does.

Case in point there are hundreds of novels written about the Star Wars universe, and Lucas gives them 'permission" to write those books based on a list of his own criteria (ie a set of guidlines that must be followed) because it is his intellectual property. As such is the case with Deception; Bioware allowed a 3rd party writer to write that story and write it he did...the mistake was made that Bioware didn't seem to give him the guidlelines or rules that it must fit their intellectual property.

You can still purchase Deception as it was originally written; nobody is stopping you from doing so. Bioware is 'fixing' the book so that it fits with their intellectual property and thus fits their creative direction. The original work is still 'art', but it didn't fit Biowares cannon so they are well within their rights to change it (by their own choice) whether people are satisfied with it or not.

[Klijpope]

AveryChim wrote...

The simple reality of it is that without consumers ME3 wouldn't exist, at least in its current form. You may be able to argue that mass effect 3 is indeed a work of art, but you cannot deny that it's much more a consumer product then it is art. The biggest reason for creating ME3 is to earn money! Do you think if ME2 totally bombed, they would even start development on ME3?

See previous post - all artworks have a 'target audience', and are designed to earn a living for the artist. Art galleries have a consumer base, and shareholders. The fact that something is also a consumerist product has absolutely no bearing on whether it is art or not. Therefore, irrelevant.

SoulDire wrote...

What about Mass Effect: Deception? It's full of plot holes and lore inconsistencies. The fans demanded it be changed and both Bioware and the publishing company apologized and agreed to change it. That's odd. I though that the author of the fiction had total say in his product no matter what. Guess it only applies to videogames.

Klijpope wrote...
That whole work was a botch job from the get-go - it's not like it was a great read and then the last page turned into illiterate nonsense - it was all illiterate nonsense.

Wait so are you saying you are okay with the author having to change the book?  If so, that is a direct contradiction to your previous argument.  It was a work of art and the author has the right to dictate that art right?

Where did I say the author had to change the book? All I said was that it was universally terrible; the other poster was talking about it being changed. I have no opinion on that - it was bad art, really bad art, and I don't really care about it (plus, difficult to fix apart from being totally rewritten, by a better author). 

Modifié par Klijpope, 20 mars 2012 - 04:05 .

[ScotGaymer]

I still do not agree Klijpope.

Yes Art Galleries have "consumers" of the "service" that they provide. But they are not "consuming" the art, they are partaking in the service of viewing the art that the gallery provides.
It's fine distinction but it's there nonetheless.

Also generally speaking "art" is not mass produced in the same manner that video games are. There is an element of that in consumerism, to me at least.

I don't expect you to agree with me as I understand why you think that video games are art. I can certainly see the arguement, but to me those arguements amount to the product being "artistic" as opposed to being outright art.
Again another fine distinction, but I feel is there nonetheless.

Perhaps part of my hostility towards the "Its art!" arguement is because some sections of the gaming industry and media (and indeed consumer base also) use the art arguement as a means to undermine consumer rights. As if "artistic lisence" somehow shields a product that is paid for by consumers from constructive criticism.
Like it some how gives them the right to do and say whatever they please and not expect any come back on it.

And they have the cheek to accuse us of being "entitled".

[SoulDire]

-REDACTED- wrote...

OK I had to log in just to post a reply in here because frankly this boggles my mind that we're even having this discussion. Not only are video games art, but I consider Mass Effect to be a shining example of all that video games should aspire to be. Mass Effect has an incredibly rich and engrossing story wrapped up in complex characters and interesting situations. It evokes emotions from us when we play, and it invites social commentary and criticism on key philosophical and political discussions.

Art by its very nature is complex and hard to define, but video games are more than just "games" now. They are interactive stories. So yes the point that video games are art and should be treated as such should be taken very seriously. While many of us (myself included) were disappointed by the ending, to say that games are not art and therefore can be considered a commercial commodity that is subject to the will of its fan-base is absurd.

While video games are much more collaborative than other forms of media, it is ultimately up to the creators of these games to decide what should and should not be put into the game. Just because we spent $60 on this game does not give us the right to make demands of Bioware. Sure we make strong suggestions (*make the indoctrination theory cannon *cough *cough), but we are not the content producers. It is ultimately up to Bioware to decide what should and should not be put into THEIR game.

Having said this, it would still be in Bioware's best interest to listen to its very passionate fan-base as they do have quite a few good ideas themselves. So does this mean that we should stop providing feedback and stop criticizing Bioware? Of course not. Does this mean that Bioware should simply do as they please while ignoring the very people who care about them the most? Not by a long shot. However, there is such a thing as artist integrity, and for better or for worse, it should be protected at all costs.

TL;DR Video games are art, and it is ultimately up to the creators to decide what should and shouldn't be done with their creations. However, it is in their best interest to listen to their consumers.

This is a good post, good argument.  I can cocede that Mass Effect 3 is art, but it is a commercial commodity.  There is a lot of art that is a commercial commodity and I have a firm belief that the consumer of said commodity has a say, usually in the form of financial compensation.  I don't buy video games to appreciate them as art, I buy them to be entertained and this was no exception.  I was greatly entertained up to the ending and then I was disappointed so as a disgruntled consumer I am voicing my concerns.  If they add a new ending through dlc, I'll buy it.  If not, then I'll move on, but I'll be careful where I spend my money from now on with Bioware.

[SoulDire]

Klijpope wrote...

SoulDire wrote...

What about Mass Effect: Deception? It's full of plot holes and lore inconsistencies. The fans demanded it be changed and both Bioware and the publishing company apologized and agreed to change it. That's odd. I though that the author of the fiction had total say in his product no matter what. Guess it only applies to videogames.

Klijpope wrote...
That whole work was a botch job from the get-go - it's not like it was a great read and then the last page turned into illiterate nonsense - it was all illiterate nonsense.

Wait so are you saying you are okay with the author having to change the book?  If so, that is a direct contradiction to your previous argument.  It was a work of art and the author has the right to dictate that art right?

Where did I say the author had to change the book? All I said was that it was universally terrible; the other poster was talking about it being changed. I have no opinion on that - it was bad art, really bad art, and I don't really care about it (plus, difficult to fix apart from being totally rewritten, by a better author). 

Point taken. I can concede to that point.  That book was pretty terrible all around.

[Genera1Nemesis]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I still do not agree Klijpope.

Yes Art Galleries have "consumers" of the "service" that they provide. But they are not "consuming" the art, they are partaking in the service of viewing the art that the gallery provides.
It's fine distinction but it's there nonetheless.

Also generally speaking "art" is not mass produced in the same manner that video games are. There is an element of that in consumerism, to me at least.

I don't expect you to agree with me as I understand why you think that video games are art. I can certainly see the arguement, but to me those arguements amount to the product being "artistic" as opposed to being outright art.
Again another fine distinction, but I feel is there nonetheless.

Perhaps part of my hostility towards the "Its art!" arguement is because some sections of the gaming industry and media (and indeed consumer base also) use the art arguement as a means to undermine consumer rights. As if "artistic lisence" somehow shields a product that is paid for by consumers from constructive criticism.
Like it some how gives them the right to do and say whatever they please and not expect any come back on it.

And they have the cheek to accuse us of being "entitled".

So, music is not art because it is mass produced with the intention of profit?

Let's look at this a moment. Michaelangelo produced some of the greatest pieces of art in history; but he did it for profit and because without making money he couldn't do what he did anyways. By this rationale what he did was never 'mass produced' but images and copies of his art have been for years and years.

So basically you're saying that the mass produced copies are not art; okay fine. So that means the original Gold Disc (what the game creators send to manufacturers to be copied) is in fact art and the copies aren't, is that the destinction your trying to make?

[Zhor2395]

According to 16 CFR 1505.1 [Title 16 -- Commercial Practices; Chapter II -- Consumer Product Safety Commission; Subchapter C -- Federal Hazardous Substances Act Regulations; Part 1505 -- Requirements for Electrically Operated Toys or Other Electrically Operated Articles Intended for Use by Children; Subpart A – Regulations], video games means “video game hardware systems, which are games that both produce a dynamic video image, either on a viewing screen that is part of the video game or, through connecting cables, on a television set, and have some way to control the movement of at least some portion of the video image.”

In other words, Google hates me, and I hate it right now

[-REDACTED-]

SoulDire wrote...

-REDACTED- wrote...

OK I had to log in just to post a reply in here because frankly this boggles my mind that we're even having this discussion. Not only are video games art, but I consider Mass Effect to be a shining example of all that video games should aspire to be. Mass Effect has an incredibly rich and engrossing story wrapped up in complex characters and interesting situations. It evokes emotions from us when we play, and it invites social commentary and criticism on key philosophical and political discussions.

Art by its very nature is complex and hard to define, but video games are more than just "games" now. They are interactive stories. So yes the point that video games are art and should be treated as such should be taken very seriously. While many of us (myself included) were disappointed by the ending, to say that games are not art and therefore can be considered a commercial commodity that is subject to the will of its fan-base is absurd.

While video games are much more collaborative than other forms of media, it is ultimately up to the creators of these games to decide what should and should not be put into the game. Just because we spent $60 on this game does not give us the right to make demands of Bioware. Sure we make strong suggestions (*make the indoctrination theory cannon *cough *cough), but we are not the content producers. It is ultimately up to Bioware to decide what should and should not be put into THEIR game.

Having said this, it would still be in Bioware's best interest to listen to its very passionate fan-base as they do have quite a few good ideas themselves. So does this mean that we should stop providing feedback and stop criticizing Bioware? Of course not. Does this mean that Bioware should simply do as they please while ignoring the very people who care about them the most? Not by a long shot. However, there is such a thing as artist integrity, and for better or for worse, it should be protected at all costs.

TL;DR Video games are art, and it is ultimately up to the creators to decide what should and shouldn't be done with their creations. However, it is in their best interest to listen to their consumers.

This is a good post, good argument.  I can cocede that Mass Effect 3 is art, but it is a commercial commodity.  There is a lot of art that is a commercial commodity and I have a firm belief that the consumer of said commodity has a say, usually in the form of financial compensation.  I don't buy video games to appreciate them as art, I buy them to be entertained and this was no exception.  I was greatly entertained up to the ending and then I was disappointed so as a disgruntled consumer I am voicing my concerns.  If they add a new ending through dlc, I'll buy it.  If not, then I'll move on, but I'll be careful where I spend my money from now on with Bioware.

Thank you for saying that! I do agree with you that as consumers, our greatest tool is our wallet. We vote with our wallet, and it ultimately is the deciding factor for pretty much all mediums of art. We have a demand for entertainment, and Bioware is the supplier. Should they listen to their customers? Damn right. It would be stupid not to. However, the consumers should not be the only thing that is taken into account when making games and that artistic vision is the overriding factor for whaat should be produced.

[J4J0]

I find the whole "Art" discussion completely irrelevant.
The real issue here is about the use of the medium - in this case the format of a computer game.

Comparing books and movies to a computer game is misleading, because both movies and books lack the key feature of computer games (especially RPG) - interactivity.

It's on this basis, that I find the Mass Effect 3's ending poorly made. With loss of any meaningful interactivity it forgoes one of it's most distinguished features to transcend into a sort of movie format. That doesn't sound so bad, but doing it at a key moment - the ending - the moment that we've all been waiting for, is... poorly thought out.

In light of this, if one should still insist on analogies to back one's arguments, then more context is required to not make it hyperbolic. A question poses itself:
How would You feel like, if George Lucas have had someone to narrate the last 15 minutes of "Return of the Jedi"?

[Can0fCorn]

The law interprets that video games are art.

[Genera1Nemesis]

J4J0 wrote...

I find the whole "Art" discussion completely irrelevant.
The real issue here is about the use of the medium - in this case the format of a computer game.

Comparing books and movies to a computer game is misleading, because both movies and books lack the key feature of computer games (especially RPG) - interactivity.

It's on this basis, that I find the Mass Effect 3's ending poorly made. With loss of any meaningful interactivity it forgoes one of it's most distinguished features to transcend into a sort of movie format. That doesn't sound so bad, but doing it at a key moment - the ending - the moment that we've all been waiting for, is... poorly thought out.

In light of this, if one should still insist on analogies to back one's arguments, then more context is required to not make it hyperbolic. A question poses itself:
How would You feel like, if George Lucas have had someone to narrate the last 15 minutes of "Return of the Jedi"?

Please don't give Lucas any more ideas....

[SoulDire]

I am not going to compare a painting to Mass Effect. That's not going to be a valid argument. When you buy a painting, you know what you are getting. You see it, you like it, you buy it. That's not going to change. My argument is that I spent money on this video game based on developer comments that the endings would reflect the choices I made throughout the series and I was not satisfied that was the case. I feel justified calling for additional dlc that can deliver that. If it happens I'll spend even more money to purchase it, I feel it's only right to compensate someone for their work. But I am not going to apologize for voicing my concerns and requesting something different because it's art.

[AveryChim]

Klijpope wrote...

AveryChim wrote...

The simple reality of it is that without consumers ME3 wouldn't exist, at least in its current form. You may be able to argue that mass effect 3 is indeed a work of art, but you cannot deny that it's much more a consumer product then it is art. The biggest reason for creating ME3 is to earn money! Do you think if ME2 totally bombed, they would even start development on ME3?

See previous post - all artworks have a 'target audience', and are designed to earn a living for the artist. Art galleries have a consumer base, and shareholders. The fact that something is also a consumerist product has absolutely no bearing on whether it is art or not. Therefore, irrelevant.
 

I'm not disagreeing with you. The issue isn't about whether ME should be consider art or not, the issue is that even if it IS art, it is still considered a consumer product and is in the best interest of artist to change it in order to meet consumer expectations, from a business stand point at least.

[Klijpope]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I still do not agree Klijpope.

Yes Art Galleries have "consumers" of the "service" that they provide. But they are not "consuming" the art, they are partaking in the service of viewing the art that the gallery provides.
It's fine distinction but it's there nonetheless.

Hmmm, different art world to the one I've worked in then, where commercial galleries are a showcase for buyers, who come in to purchase the work, for themselves or their clients. Check out the Frieze Art Fair, in London, funnily enough (which now owns the ME3 ending) as an example. All of that is commercial product - much of it mass produced. Or the professional artists I know who can earn a living making art for 'consumers'.

FitScotGaymer wrote...
Also generally speaking "art" is not mass produced in the same manner that video games are. There is an element of that in consumerism, to me at least.

I don't expect you to agree with me as I understand why you think that video games are art. I can certainly see the arguement, but to me those arguements amount to the product being "artistic" as opposed to being outright art.
Again another fine distinction, but I feel is there nonetheless.

Therefore the Beatles are not art, Mozart is not art, Tolstoy and Shakespeare are not art, Man Ray is not art, etc, etc. Even Rembrandt, as he ran a production line.

FitScotGaymer wrote...
Perhaps part of my hostility towards the "Its art!" arguement is because some sections of the gaming industry and media (and indeed consumer base also) use the art arguement as a means to undermine consumer rights. As if "artistic lisence" somehow shields a product that is paid for by consumers from constructive criticism.
Like it some how gives them the right to do and say whatever they please and not expect any come back on it.

And they have the cheek to accuse us of being "entitled".

This is irrelevant to the discussion about whether videogames are art. Fact is, the writers of those articles are counting on 'come back' - they were adding to / provoking discussion. Still irrelevant here, though.

[AlexMBrennan]

SInce when did [sic] video games stop being GAMES and become "art?"

I blame Heavy Rain

[Genera1Nemesis]

SoulDire wrote...

I am not going to compare a painting to Mass Effect. That's not going to be a valid argument. When you buy a painting, you know what you are getting. You see it, you like it, you buy it. That's not going to change. My argument is that I spent money on this video game based on developer comments that the endings would reflect the choices I made throughout the series and I was not satisfied that was the case. I feel justified calling for additional dlc that can deliver that. If it happens I'll spend even more money to purchase it, I feel it's only right to compensate someone for their work. But I am not going to apologize for voicing my concerns and requesting something different because it's art.

That is a reasonable thing your last statement. Personally I found enjoyment in the endings (my opinion don't shoot me for it) and I think that making a request is reasonable so long as you accept that they may not heed that request.

for people to outright demand a change is not in the best interests of everyone; you can't force the actors, the writers, the producers, the director, the assistants and so on to go back and retcon things just because you demand it. Offering constructive critism is always a good thing; so long as we realize that we do not own the intellectual property at all and therefor have zero say in the content that is made. We can choose not to purchase things; and we can choose not to purchase future products; but we cannot force them or guilt them into it because at the end of the day our right to do so is the same as the right to go out and force someone to carry our bags for us; we are not dictators but a lot of people sure are sounding like it on this 'ending' issue.

[Lady Catastrophe]

Surely videogames (especially Mass Effect) can be categorised as art partly due to the ridiculous amount of work that goes into them? All the time and effort that goes into making a game as deep and immersive and atmospheric as possible has got to count for something.

And, speaking in defense of games being seen as an art form, in many art classrooms (let's use mine as an example) videogames are recognised by almost every student in my class--including my 63 year old lecturer--as an art form. And they're all fine artists who swear by charcoal and oil paints. I'm even doing a project on video game concept art as part of my final--something I would not be allowed to do if my lecturer believed that it had nothing to with art.

True, 'art' is something different for everyone. I know a few people who believe that anything created with the use of Photoshop and a WACOM tablet cannot possibly be seen as art in any way, shape of form. And at the other side of the spectrum there are people like me who use both traditional and digital media to create art, and people like my mother who only use digital. Does that make her any less of an artist? Hell no.

And...I have no idea where I'm going with this.

Modifié par Lady Catastrophe, 20 mars 2012 - 04:29 .

[AveryChim]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

That is a reasonable thing your last statement. Personally I found enjoyment in the endings (my opinion don't shoot me for it) and I think that making a request is reasonable so long as you accept that they may not heed that request.

for people to outright demand a change is not in the best interests of everyone; you can't force the actors, the writers, the producers, the director, the assistants and so on to go back and retcon things just because you demand it. Offering constructive critism is always a good thing; so long as we realize that we do not own the intellectual property at all and therefor have zero say in the content that is made. We can choose not to purchase things; and we can choose not to purchase future products; but we cannot force them or guilt them into it because at the end of the day our right to do so is the same as the right to go out and force someone to carry our bags for us; we are not dictators but a lot of people sure are sounding like it on this 'ending' issue.

I don't think most people are demanding a change... Sure, they are pressuring bioware into seriously considering it via online peditions and movements, but the ball is still very much in bioware's court. Demanding would be more like... if you don't change the endings we will pursure legal action or kill your families.

Edit: I think we're going very off topic here...

Modifié par AveryChim, 20 mars 2012 - 04:31 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

Mass Effect is filled with various art forms; scenery, character design, music, tech design, actors or dramatic art as it were, story and interactivity (the last I believe is somewhat of a new form of art that only video games or choose you own adventure books can really pull off). To outright dismiss the entirety of it as not being art is pretty silly considering all the various elements it takes to build the game are all considered to be various forms of art.

[Dragoonlordz]

Games have always been a form of art even if the OP does not admit this as true, what the artist/creators wished to express and story wish to tell. ME3 was not commissioned or made to specification by the customer, any feedback listened to was the creators choice and nothing more.

Bit like an Bioware having someone say "I like the colour blue", the artist (Bioware) also likes the colour blue so he adds it to his artwork. That person did not make pay them to make it blue or force the Bioware to make it blue. The creators listened to people and chose to make it blue because he agreed with it and felt the same. It has never really been our story even though PR put the spin on it to sell more games, it has always been Biowares story and the fans were lucky enough that Bioware allowed any freedom in the story Bioware created. With regard to games and Bioware, they as artists listen to people but just because you may have infleunce in the fact you are being heard does not mean you have any say on how they create it, if you say something they agree with and they feel the same way or feel that can improve their story (Biowares) then they may do it but infleunce vs control you do not have the latter.

As with all art, the feelings you get from it are subjective. Unlike office work art where a company makes things to customer specification or an artist making commission peices, Bioware does not fall into the same catagory they are more like the scuplturers and painters who create a box with half a shark in each end (Damien Hirst) types, they create something and hope people like it and with to buy it not legally binding contracts to make something for fan specifications or paid for in advance by fans who commissioned a peice.

The mistake Bioware made is giving the people the wrong impression via PR that the fans dictate the story and art. Being listened to does not mean you control it, it is their choice to listen whether they hear something agree with and do or do not hear somthing they agree with and ignore. They also made the mistake in constantly pumping the ego of the fans, making them feel unique and special (ego stroking), which has led to fans beleif they have more say on things than they actually do (spoiled child symptom). 

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 20 mars 2012 - 04:47 .

[ScotGaymer]

I was going to post another response about this but I really can't be bothered cos my viewpoint has been cherry picked, and is being dismissed as irrelevant so theres no point in trying.

So kewl. Whatever.

Don't agree with or like the art arguement but I am not telling people who do agree or like it that they are wrong, or that their opinion is irrelevant. Nor am i cherry picking what they say and twisting it to support my own viewpoint.
Like I said I understand it. I just disagree and view things differently.

Theres nothing wrong in that.

[Twistedfaith]

Since the colours; red, blue and green obviously meant so much that the 16 'endings' were so diverse, and so different..- Totally not 95% the same, with minor tweaks to the last 5 percentage, no

[kakomu]

-REDACTED- wrote...

OK I had to log in just to post a reply in here because frankly this boggles my mind that we're even having this discussion. Not only are video games art, but I consider Mass Effect to be a shining example of all that video games should aspire to be. Mass Effect has an incredibly rich and engrossing story wrapped up in complex characters and interesting situations. It evokes emotions from us when we play, and it invites social commentary and criticism on key philosophical and political discussions.

Art by its very nature is complex and hard to define, but video games are more than just "games" now. They are interactive stories. So yes the point that video games are art and should be treated as such should be taken very seriously. While many of us (myself included) were disappointed by the ending, to say that games are not art and therefore can be considered a commercial commodity that is subject to the will of its fan-base is absurd.

While video games are much more collaborative than other forms of media, it is ultimately up to the creators of these games to decide what should and should not be put into the game. Just because we spent $60 on this game does not give us the right to make demands of Bioware. Sure we make strong suggestions (*make the indoctrination theory cannon *cough *cough), but we are not the content producers. It is ultimately up to Bioware to decide what should and should not be put into THEIR game.

Having said this, it would still be in Bioware's best interest to listen to its very passionate fan-base as they do have quite a few good ideas themselves. So does this mean that we should stop providing feedback and stop criticizing Bioware? Of course not. Does this mean that Bioware should simply do as they please while ignoring the very people who care about them the most? Not by a long shot. However, there is such a thing as artist integrity, and for better or for worse, it should be protected at all costs.

TL;DR Video games are art, and it is ultimately up to the creators to decide what should and shouldn't be done with their creations. However, it is in their best interest to listen to their consumers.

Actually, giving Bioware/EA/Et al. $60 specifically gives us the right to make demands of the makers of the games. Of course you can make demands of others, even if you don't pay them (it especially holds no water when the content is free), but by virtue of having spent money on a product, we are given a vast quantity of rights (both legally and morally) to make demands of the content providers.

Moreover, whether a medium is considered "art" is wholly irrelevant. The game is still a consumer product. It is still sold to consumers for mass consumption. It was specifically designed to make the developer/publisher a profit. By virtue of being designed to be sold, it affords the consumers the right to give feedback (in the form of criticism, boycott and demands for specific content).

However, even if someone is hung up on the idea of art being immutable, consider, if you will, Michelangelo. His two best known works, The Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and David, were both commissioned by other entities. While they utilized his skill, they had requirements and demands of the works. Leonardo's Mona Lisa was also considered commissioned. In all of these cases, the artist is most certainly credited with the work, but probably would not have made the work without the commission or the work may have been vastly different without outside influence.

The only art which can be truly be considered immutable is that which is created by someone for no other purpose than to exhibit. Once someone attempts to sell their art (whether it's music, paintings, movies, etc), the consumers opinions and demands become more important. Either the artist can listen to feedback to make their work more palatable or they can ignore it and suffer a decrease in sales.

Modifié par kakomu, 20 mars 2012 - 04:49 .