281 réponses à ce sujet

[Klijpope]

AveryChim wrote...
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.

Not disagreeing with you, either. Not only is it good customer service to keep your users happy, it is good PR also, and BW will need some after this.

However, there is a difference to 'fixing' the ending to make the original artistic intention stronger and the outcomes more explicit (in terms of showing that the Relays do not kill everyone, for instance), to caving in to a happy-ever-after thing (that 50%+ of poll users want).

[Keiran Solaris]

Smithsonian disagrees with you.

They are preparing to open an exhibit about how videogames are art and I agree with that.

Whether it's art or not, the product was sold to people and after experiencing it, they are displeased. It's simply put good business to make that right. If I create something, sell it to people then tell them all to shut up when they don't like it, I'm not going to have a lot of customers left.

[ScotGaymer]

Actually you know what i am going to post because I am actually annoyed that you pair have completely twisted what I said.

Firstly, I did not say that Mass Production precludes something from being Art. I said that there was an element of mass production in consumerism that does not usually apply to Art. Which is completely true.

Secondly, as to Books and Movies. Yes I am saying they are not really art either. At least not in most cases because in most cases they have the same overall goal as Video Games as a form of entertainment.

Thirdly, I am not and never said that it is not possible for Video Games (and movies books etc) to BE art. I specifically said they CAN be, even if I think that they become less video gamey the closer to being "art" that they get. It all depends on what the goal is.

Fourthly, Music is a completely different scenario from most Video Games, most books, most movies etc. Because again it entirely depends on WHAT THEY DO.
Music is usually art (not always but usually) because the point of music is usually what the point of art is, IMO. Again the mass production of it does not necessarily preclude it.

Fifthly, my statement about why I am so hostile to the arguement was a concession to you guys that I might not be right. That I was open to having my mind changed through further discussion, even if I had so far not been convinced.

And finally, what I am saying is ENTIRELY my opinion. And I am perfectly willing to admit that I may well be completely wrong. But it is how I see it.
I would never dream of twisting what people say in order to dismiss their opinion as completely irrelevant; I would just agree to disagree; doing otherwise would just be totally unnecessary douchebaggery.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 20 mars 2012 - 04:58 .

[Neothanos]

Theres a lot of art in a game, but its a collective art dozens contribute and unlike unique vision single person doing it, has a lot of monetary, marketing and IP corporate interest put in mashed together.

A more valid question is how much art there is in programing and coding? Takes lot of skill/learning to do, but is it art? Netherless it is a fudamental aspect of the game.

I consider a game a sum of its parts art sure is in it, but all of it art? If so its a very collective one.
If they did the original ending as the writer intended I migth consider the art excuse somewhat valid, but it was a director decision to tell the player as little as possible, as it turned out it was far too little.

Art doesnt excuse the lack of sense in the ending and the heavy handness that marks its delivery. Where is the real impact of choice that marked the series?

Modifié par Neothanos, 20 mars 2012 - 05:36 .

[DHspartan138]

tenojitsu wrote...

 Riddle me this... SInce when did video games stop being GAMES and become "art?" I understand that designing characters, environments, etc takes an artistic touch, like being able to draw, and writing a good story requires a great deal of skill and talent, but is it really art? In my opinion, books are books, movies are movies, and "art" is painting, sculpture, and other stuff like that. I never learned about books, movies, or video games in any "art" class that I've taken. How come everyone that does anything that requires a bit of skill want to be called an artist? The guy who owns the local BBQ joint makes some mean fried chicken, maybe he's an artist too.

Its a video game, period. Art can't be mass produced, i.e., there is only one Mona Lisa (yes there are copies and if that's where you take your argument just don't even bother). The content of a DVD game that gets pumped out by the thousands is not art, and I'm tired of being told we have to treat Bioware like "artists." I'm sure these are the same people that feel the need to call everyone they know the first time their snot nosed kid goes poopy in the potty, because apparently that's art too (see mass effect 3 ending)

Ever heard of Homer's Odyssey, the poems of Edgar Allan Poe, the plays by William Shakespeare? How about the films Silence of the Lambs, Alien, The Shining, Forrest Gump, among many others? Art isn't just some painting hanging in a gallery somewhere; it's a piece of media that creativitely represents an aspect, trait or observation of the culture and/or time period it was made in. By every definition games are art. They have always been art and will always be art, based on the very fact that they illustrate the world they emerge in, open our minds to the ideas of their creators and inspire emotion in its audience based entirely on their own interpretations of the piece.

In short, video games are art because they are culturally and creativity relevant to the world around them. To reject this, especially after all the talent and effort that goes into even the most basic game, is nothing short of blind ignorance.

Now, if Mass Effect 3 is a work of art, is BioWare obligated to change it? No. If BioWare doesn't feel inclined to change the game, then they are fully within their rights to keep it the way it is. Should they change it anyway? Yes. Even if a video game is art, BioWare is still a business. More importantly, the developers are people like the rest of us. If their fans/ their core market is telling them there's an issue with the game, they should be more than happy to take the feedback and make adjustments as they see fit. Changing the Mass Effect 3 ending wouldn't be censoring art, it would be proving how important the relationship between developers and gamers truly is.

Modifié par DHspartan138, 20 mars 2012 - 05:05 .

[DHspartan138]

double post

Modifié par DHspartan138, 20 mars 2012 - 04:58 .

[AveryChim]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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). 

Spoken like a true fanboy. You put Bioware in such high regard that you are unwilling to accept critism against their products, even if they might be well thought out and reasonable. You make it seem as if the consumers are the lucky ones and should be thankful that we get to play their wonderfully crafted experience and just accept whatever flaws as "artistic licence" and just move on.

I have to disagree. Consumers have always dictated the way games are made and stories are crafted. If we don't fight for what we want to see in a game and just accecpt whatever the developers throw at us, the industry will NEVER progress. Just look at the CoD series. Consumers seem to have forgotten that we actually hold the power to make or break a developer.

[XTR3M3]

sure this game is art. the current definitions of art allow it to fall within that category. Is it good art? up until the end it was awesome. What they did with the end is like Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa and then adding a huge zit on her nose. Seriously BioWare, the game is great, just get rid of the "zit" at the end. It is the only blemish on the series we can't live with.

[EliteOp-11]

Isnt being artistic about being unique? ME3's ending is sooooo cliche and played out how many times has "sacrifice for greater good" been used to end a story. Its not "artsy" anymore just dull and cliche

[Alamar2078]

Personally I think video games can qualify as art. However mass produced video games also count as "products". As products we expect that claims made by the company making the product match the actual product itself.

[AveryChim]

Klijpope wrote...

AveryChim wrote...
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.

Not disagreeing with you, either. Not only is it good customer service to keep your users happy, it is good PR also, and BW will need some after this.

However, there is a difference to 'fixing' the ending to make the original artistic intention stronger and the outcomes more explicit (in terms of showing that the Relays do not kill everyone, for instance), to caving in to a happy-ever-after thing (that 50%+ of poll users want).

What's the purpose then for keeping the original artistic intention? Wouldn't it be more benifical to satisfy the customer? Also, I'm sure bioware has the ability to satisfy their consumer's demands and craft a masterful story at the same time, as they've shown us many many times before.

[spacehamsterZH]

I find it very odd that people who are so passionate about the crappy ME3 ending and claim to be huge fans of the series at the same time look with disdain on the idea that games can be art. You love this game, but you insist that videogames are meant to be a consumer product without deeper meaning? Okay.

The question isn't whether games can be "art". The problem is that this claim is used to excuse the endings, and that doesn't make sense. We wouldn't band together to demand the end of the Harry Potter saga be changed because we accept that it's a novel and it ends the way JK Rowling wanted it to end. But here's the thing: videogames can be art, but they are not novels or movies. They're their own medium, and what makes them great as a medium is that they're interactive. Yanking control away from the player at the end of a 100-hour saga and forcing a largely unchangeable ending on them the way ME3 does is simply a bad artistic choice because it abandons what makes the medium great. It's the same thing as if a Potter novel ended with a picture, or the last 10 minutes of a movie were replaced by text boxes. Sure, you can do that, but it's silly to operate in one medium and act like it's another.

[kakomu]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

I find it very odd that people who are so passionate about the crappy ME3 ending and claim to be huge fans of the series at the same time look with disdain on the idea that games can be art. You love this game, but you insist that videogames are meant to be a consumer product without deeper meaning? Okay.

The question isn't whether games can be "art". The problem is that this claim is used to excuse the endings, and that doesn't make sense. We wouldn't band together to demand the end of the Harry Potter saga be changed because we accept that it's a novel and it ends the way JK Rowling wanted it to end. But here's the thing: videogames can be art, but they are not novels or movies. They're their own medium, and what makes them great as a medium is that they're interactive. Yanking control away from the player at the end of a 100-hour saga and forcing a largely unchangeable ending on them the way ME3 does is simply a bad artistic choice because it abandons what makes the medium great. It's the same thing as if a Potter novel ended with a picture, or the last 10 minutes of a movie were replaced by text boxes. Sure, you can do that, but it's silly to operate in one medium and act like it's another.

Arguing whether a game is or isn't art is wholly irrelevant. What's important is whether art is immutable. To that degree, It has been shown empiracly in all forms of media and entertainment that no consumer art is immutable. This extends to video games, movies, music, books, TV shows, etc.

Modifié par kakomu, 20 mars 2012 - 05:31 .

[razor150]

Could I use the art defense if  repainted the Mona Lisa? Maybe, but it would be a bankrupted arguement since the artistic vision isn't mine.

ME3's ending is lifted straight from the last Matrix. The is no artistic integrity there in which to argue for. 

[Klijpope]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
And finally, what I am saying is ENTIRELY my opinion. And I am perfectly willing to admit that I may well be completely wrong. But it is how I see it.
I would never dream of twisting what people say in order to dismiss their opinion as completely irrelevant; I would just agree to disagree; doing otherwise would just be totally unnecessary douchebaggery.

If that's directed at me, I never said your point of view was irrelevant; I said that whether something is a consumer product or not is irrelevant to a discussion as to whether it is art. I am sorry if you took a different meaning ot my words - that was not the intention.

Neothanos wrote...
A more valid question is how much art there is in programing and coding? Takes lot of skill/learning to do, but is it art? Netherless it is a fudamental aspect of the game. 

It can be. Back when I was working on interactive art projects, the coding bit felt the same as drawing, filming, and writing. It can be just as creative and requires the use of imagination.

Like painting, when decorating a room, is not really art, so coding, when doing something administrative, like making a poll or a quiz, isn't really either. Or taking an x-ray; it's like a photo, but the intention is not creative, it's diagnostic. But you could use x-rays in an art project...

Neothanos wrote...
I consider a game a sum of its parts art sure is in it, but all of it art? If so its a very collective one. 
If they did the original ending as the writer intended I migth consider the art excuse somewhat valid, but it was a director decision to tell the player as little as possible, as it turned out it was far too little.

So is a film or any collaborative endeavour. Not all those working on a film would call themsleves artists. Pretty sure the best boy and the grip don't regard themselves as artistes (at least, the ones I've met see that as a craft), but they know the type of product produced by their collective work is an artform.

Neothanos wrote...

Art doesnt excuse the lack of sense in the ending and the heavy handness that marks its delivery. Where is the real impact of choice that marked the series? 

No, it doesn't. it is incongruent. I agree with this statement. However, whether that is right or wrong is worthy of debate.

AveryChim wrote...
<snip>
I have to disagree. Consumers have always dictated the way games are made and stories are crafted. If we don't fight for what we want to see in a game and just accecpt whatever the developers throw at us, the industry will NEVER progress. Just look at the CoD series. Consumers seem to have forgotten that we actually hold the power to make or break a developer.

Apply that argument to a book or a film, and it comes across a bit silly. Sorry. (Notice I was attacking your argument, not you - please avoid throwing about insults like 'fanboy')

It is absolutely right that people register their opinions and dislike of something, and it is right that people can campaign for the ending to be changed or amended. However, claiming the right to 'dictate' or 'make or break' a developer because of this is something of an overreaction.

EliteOp-11 wrote...

Isnt being artistic about being unique? ME3's ending is sooooo cliche and played out how many times has "sacrifice for greater good" been used to end a story. Its not "artsy" anymore just dull and cliche

No, it isn't about being unique. It is not even about being original, although the best art tends ot be (and note, unique and original are not interchangable). Yes, Mass Effect is full of cliches - most art is, actually.

However, Mass Effect is actually unique - there is no other work in existence that offers what this series does; even just mechanically, migrating story states through three games, so successfully, until perhaps right at the very end, has never been achieved before on such a scale.

AveryChim wrote...

What's the purpose then for keeping the original artistic intention? Wouldn't it be more benifical to satisfy the customer? Also, I'm sure bioware has the ability to satisfy their consumer's demands and craft a masterful story at the same time, as they've shown us many many times before.

Alan Moore would disagree, and he knows more than all of us put together. 

Also, impossible to satisfy all the complainants, as folk are complaining about different things. Even if they fix the end to my satisfaction (showing that the Mass Relays do not kill the Krogan/Quarrian/Everyone, and what Joker is up to), there are still going lots of folk (half maybe, according to the polls) still clamouring for a happy ending. If they do that, the other half will complain about that.

There is no easy fix, if at all. 

razor150 wrote...

Could I use the art defense if  repainted the Mona Lisa? Maybe, but it would be a bankrupted arguement since the artistic vision isn't mine.

ME3's ending is lifted straight from the last Matrix. The is no artistic integrity there in which to argue for. 

All artists beg, borrow, and steal. The Wachowski Bros did for the end of the Matrix. Every fantasy saga rips off Tolkien, and Tolkien was ripping off the Old Norse skalds, etc, ad infinitum.

And some artists have done exactly that; repaint the Mona Lisa, or like the Chapman brothers, printed over real Goya prints with clown faces. Not saying that would be good art, and I regard the latter as crass cultural vandalism. But it is now part of art history which stirs passionate debate. Doesn't justify it, in my eyes, but that debate is still valid.

[Yttrian]

Art is not beyond criticism.

Whether it is or is not has no relevance.

This is a deliberate red herring fallacy that has spiralled into semantics.

[tschamp]

If ME Trilogy is still around and being talked about in 100 years, I will call it "art" and not a product.

[Klijpope]

Yttrian wrote...

Art is not beyond criticism.

Whether it is or is not has no relevance.

This is a deliberate red herring fallacy that has spiralled into semantics.

This is true, art is not beyond criticism.

Whether an artistic decision should be changed because (a segment of) the audience wishes it to be is a worthy topic for debate.

What is being discussed here is whether Mass Effect is a (flawed) work of art or merely a consumer product.

If the former has any bearing then this falls under freedom of expression and no one can demand anything, only ask nicely.

[Dragoonlordz]

AveryChim wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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). 

Spoken like a true fanboy. You put Bioware in such high regard that you are unwilling to accept critism against their products, even if they might be well thought out and reasonable. You make it seem as if the consumers are the lucky ones and should be thankful that we get to play their wonderfully crafted experience and just accept whatever flaws as "artistic licence" and just move on.

I have to disagree. Consumers have always dictated the way games are made and stories are crafted. If we don't fight for what we want to see in a game and just accecpt whatever the developers throw at us, the industry will NEVER progress. Just look at the CoD series. Consumers seem to have forgotten that we actually hold the power to make or break a developer.

No you just need to accept not everything in life revolves around what you want and you will not always get your way. Consumers have not forgotten that they fund developers and games but what they also know is that video games are not oxygen supplies. Your hysteria over an element of a game does not reflect consumers as a whole, many realise games are classed as a form of entertainment, they treat it as such and if something does nto entertain them they buy something else that does. Also entertainment is art from books, movies and games all three are art, all are subject to the artists intention and would not exist without it. You merely help fund their art.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 20 mars 2012 - 06:36 .

[ScotGaymer]

Yeh you kinda did say that my opinion was irrelevant, but whatever.

You, and that other guy, clearly can not be talked to.

[Klijpope]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Yeh you kinda did say that my opinion was irrelevant, but whatever.

You, and that other guy, clearly can not be talked to.

Seriously, where are you getting this from? I over reacted in one post (although I was still trying to attack your argument, not you), and then apologised. 

I was then later saying that the argument you raised to support your opinion was irrelevant to the discussion we were having. If I thought your opinion was irrelevant, why would I try to answer your points?

Modifié par Klijpope, 20 mars 2012 - 07:30 .

[robbyiscool]

The reason the "art" defense doesn't work is because the product didn't fit the promises made. If I say I'm gonna paint a picture of a horse for you, and then give you a list of horses, colors, backgrounds to choose from, charge you $60 for it, and then give you a painting of a cow, would you be allowed to ask me to change it? Its my art, no?

[Inprst]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Secondly, as to Books and Movies. Yes I am saying they are not really art either. At least not in most cases because in most cases they have the same overall goal as Video Games as a form of entertainment.

Sorely disagree.

The purpose of all literature IS to entertain. Whether it be to entertain your mind, your thoughts, or tickle your emotions, the point is, it's entertainment. That is the goal for storytelling. 

Is The Great Gatsby not entertaining the same way the Hunger Games is? I find both highly entertaining but in different ways - they're still, at the end of the day, entertainment. And indeed, I find both to be art forms, the former in the written aspect. You cannot teach someone how to weave prose together, express their thoughts, or teach somebody how to have voice.

EDIT: And how in the world is music in a different category? It depends on what an author or director does as well as what a musician does, so why do musicians go into a special category? Music's primary reason for existing is to entertain as well - all arts serve this purpose in one way or another. 

EDIT 2: Also, I think you're fortetting that in the performing art of music, there is indeed writting involved...the penning of notes. Is that no longer an art as well?

Modifié par Inprst, 20 mars 2012 - 08:32 .

[Klijpope]

robbyiscool wrote...

The reason the "art" defense doesn't work is because the product didn't fit the promises made. If I say I'm gonna paint a picture of a horse for you, and then give you a list of horses, colors, backgrounds to choose from, charge you $60 for it, and then give you a painting of a cow, would you be allowed to ask me to change it? Its my art, no?

If you'd commissioned the work yourself, then you would be within your rights. In the case of ME3, you'd be EA.

But if you'd instead bought a ticket to go to an exhibition of a painting of a horse, and then the horse in that painting was revealed to anachronisticaly have cloven hooves and udders, then not so much. You could complain to he exhibitor about false advertising, but would this be reasonable? What redress would be acceptable? 

[moater boat]

I disagree that video games are not art. If film, literature, and music are all considered an art, why would an amalgamation of all 3 NOT be art?

BUT I do agree that the art defense doesn't work simply because even though an artist has every right to create art as they want, the do NOT have a right to lie to those that purchase their art, nor should there be ANY repercussions to those that criticize said art. That is what art is all about, after all, personal interpretation. Bioware is perfectly within their right to make a game with a horrible ending if that is where their artistic beliefs lead them. Likewise, it is perfectly within our rights to say "This is horrible, fix it or you will lose me as a customer."

Beyond the broken promises, neither side is obligated in any way.