281 réponses à ce sujet

[Tallestra]

I do believe that games are art, some of the games perfectly fit the definition of artistic vision. But since most of the games are also interactive medium, with some of the RPG games pushing envelope further and further, games require their own brand of art. I think ME games created their own gaming subgenre, of deeply interactive drama maybe, but the ending suddenly turns it into something else entirely, resulting in our disappointment.

[Yttrian]

The "art" defense is a fallacy that labels something as being beyond criticism.

And I can certainly criticise anything, art included, if it was missold, incomplete and ends by destroying itself and any reason you bought it.

[Jackal7713]

whydoyouwanttoknow wrote...

Even if it is art, if someone sells you art, wrapped up in a box, and you can't see it unless you pay for it, and it's advertised as being a pic of a duck and you pay for it and open it and it's a pic of a dog the artist can't claim artistic licence because you paid for a pic of a duck.

Exactly the point. When buying art I walk into a gallery. I see the finished work and then choose to buy it. You can't play the artistic freedom game without obeying the rules.

So that means game developers can't sell online pre-orders, MP passes, or DLC.  The work has to be completely finished and sold as such after it is view entirely.  Becuase when you buy a painting at a gallery, you don't just buy the paint seperately from the canvas and frame.

Modifié par Jackal7713, 20 mars 2012 - 08:37 .

[tenojitsu]

Its funny how a thread designed to discuss if video games should really be considered "art" still ends up with people talking about the bad endings, lol.

Again, the whole point of this thread is whether video games are truly art, but even deeper, do game developers hide themselves behind "the art defense" when they turn out a lousy game.

[tenojitsu]

Yttrian wrote...

The "art" defense is a fallacy that labels something as being beyond criticism.

And I can certainly criticise anything, art included, if it was missold, incomplete and ends by destroying itself and any reason you bought it.

DING DING DING, we have a winner!

Modifié par tenojitsu, 20 mars 2012 - 08:37 .

[Cyruge]

Yttrian wrote...

The "art" defense is a fallacy that labels something as being beyond criticism.

And I can certainly criticise anything, art included, if it was missold, incomplete and ends by destroying itself and any reason you bought it.

Agreed. People using the "art" defence shouldn't be able to crtitisize anything as long as you lable it "art".

[tenojitsu]

Cyruge wrote...

Yttrian wrote...

The "art" defense is a fallacy that labels something as being beyond criticism.

And I can certainly criticise anything, art included, if it was missold, incomplete and ends by destroying itself and any reason you bought it.

Agreed. People using the "art" defence shouldn't be able to crtitisize anything as long as you lable it "art".

Which is really funny that movies are considered art by most and and ripped apart and dissected by critics and consumers around the world, and nobody cares. It is expected that badly made movies will get blasted, but a group of video gamers critisizes a game and suddenly we are all "entitled" children

Modifié par tenojitsu, 20 mars 2012 - 08:41 .

[Jackal7713]

Yttrian wrote...

The "art" defense is a fallacy that labels something as being beyond criticism.

And I can certainly criticise anything, art included, if it was missold, incomplete and ends by destroying itself and any reason you bought it.

Great point.

[az350z]

juliannacorn wrote...

az350z wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

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.

Maybe you're right. When's the last time someone filed an FTC complaint because his chicken wasn't as spicy as he thought?

Same thing as this.

/thread............

Totally different.  If the same man ordered a vegan substitute for fried chicken and received fried chicken, then filed the complaint with FTC then it would be the same thing.

I believe video games are a form of art.  That aside, time and time again it was stated that the ending would reflect the choices we made, that it would be more than A, B, or C, that it wasn't even possible to be able to count how many endings there were as it was too layered for that.

The complaint would be false advertisement, which is exactly what the FTC is for.  Do I think it was a little overboard, sure.  But not all that surprising.

It's not a contract, buddy. Studios can say whatever the hell they want. This is the entertainment world, not food religion. Even then, FTC involvement is ridiculous.

What if Warner Bros said last year that Christopher Nolan's Batman would live. And we all watch the 3rd part of the trilogy this summer and he dies. What are you going to do, sue them? Call the FTC? Yell at Warner Bros? Start a picket line?

Childish antics no matter how you look at it, IMO.

And again, don't ever forget the fact that we are talking about something in entertainment.

Modifié par az350z, 20 mars 2012 - 08:46 .

[Aetius5]

Ok, so check this out. Some people say the fans who are unsatisfied are being entitled, spoiled, whiny, whatever. Why does a PAYING customer have to be one of those things in order to ask or demand the company to improve their product? If I pay somebody to make a portrait of myself and I don't like it, don't I have the right to tell him to change it? He might be an artist, but if I dislike his rendition, why should I be forced to accept it, if I'm paying for it? Case in point, I won't pay for it (or any other BW) product again without seeing the finished product (bye bye preorders).

[Jackal7713]

tenojitsu wrote...

Cyruge wrote...

Yttrian wrote...

The "art" defense is a fallacy that labels something as being beyond criticism.

And I can certainly criticise anything, art included, if it was missold, incomplete and ends by destroying itself and any reason you bought it.

Agreed. People using the "art" defence shouldn't be able to crtitisize anything as long as you lable it "art".

Which is really funny that movies are considered art by most and a ripped apart and dissected by critics and consumers around the world, and nobody cares. It is expected that badly made movies will get blasted, but a group of video gamers critisizes a game and suddenly we are all "entitled" children

Thats because Game deleopers only want to see you as a consumer when your paying them money.

[tenojitsu]

az350z wrote...

juliannacorn wrote...

az350z wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

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.

Maybe you're right. When's the last time someone filed an FTC complaint because his chicken wasn't as spicy as he thought?

Same thing as this.

/thread............

Totally different.  If the same man ordered a vegan substitute for fried chicken and received fried chicken, then filed the complaint with FTC then it would be the same thing.

I believe video games are a form of art.  That aside, time and time again it was stated that the ending would reflect the choices we made, that it would be more than A, B, or C, that it wasn't even possible to be able to count how many endings there were as it was too layered for that.

The complaint would be false advertisement, which is exactly what the FTC is for.  Do I think it was a little overboard, sure.  But not all that surprising.

It's not a contract, buddy. Studious can say whatever the hell they want. This is the entertainment world, not food religion. Even then, FTC involvement is ridiculous.

What if Warner Bros said last year that Christopher Nolan's Batman would live. And we all watch the 3rd part of the trilogy this summer and he dies. What are you going to do, sue them? Call the FTC? Yell at Warner Bros? Start a picket line?

Childish antics no matter how you look at it, IMO.

And again, don't ever forget the fact that we are talking about something in entertainment.

One guy contacts the FTC and now all of a sudden it is assumed we are all on board with that ONE guy. If you read some of the post last night, mostly everyone that doesnt like the ending thought that the guy SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT,

[smegmalongbeach]

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)

when did video games become art? when bioware started developing video games

[tenojitsu]

smegmalongbeach wrote...

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)

when did video games become art? when bioware started developing video games

I think you're being sarcastic, but Im not sure

[Jackal7713]

tenojitsu is right. Retake people thought the FTC guy was going way to far and only speaking for himself. You shouldn't bundle us up with him just because you want to.

Modifié par Jackal7713, 20 mars 2012 - 08:50 .

[lltoon]

I'll repost what I've said in another thread:

People tend to misunderstand art and assume that art and the industry that hires artists don't have standards.

I do quite a bit of art myself as a hobby (mostly on the subject of cartoons) and
there is such a thing as badly drawn and badly conceived art.

Even getting hired in the industry requires you to make art to some standard that is acceptable. The gaming industry or the animation industry hire artists and illustrators based on the quality of artwork (basic anatomy, color theory etc etc..) and how the artist understand their audience and knows exactly what type of reaction they want to get out of the audience.

For example, in the realm of pin-up art this is what is considered a reasonably good piece of art:


and this is what's considered a bad piece of art:




Same thing goes for sci-fi, (if you want to call it art.)

This is awesome:

The concept is quite original, and entertaining. It lets you play with your
imagination to interpret the reasons on why or how this poor fellow
became a zombie. In that, it's just an interesting concept to look at. Even if you don't agree with my analysis, one thing is true with this image: It fulfilled the client's vision of what he wanted to be seen.




This, on the other hand, isn't art to me. It's a lazy concept where some
brushes were slapped onto a stock image with no imagination that went
into it. It's commonly known that if you want to make art, you have to love the product you are producing, you have to enjoy making the art. This image below just tells me that the artist was not bothered with creating a Quarian face, and saw it as a chore, something that needed to be got out of the way as fast as possible.



I can go on forever pointing out how Mass Effect 3 is full of bad artwork
from a storytelling perspective and from an illustrative perspective.

The only good point I can give to ME3's art is for the concept art book,
but those illustrators are hired on commission basis and most of their
amazing artwork are often scrapped and thrown away, which I think is a waste.

Modifié par lltoon, 20 mars 2012 - 08:51 .

[az350z]

tenojitsu wrote...

az350z wrote...

juliannacorn wrote...

az350z wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

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.

Maybe you're right. When's the last time someone filed an FTC complaint because his chicken wasn't as spicy as he thought?

Same thing as this.

/thread............

Totally different.  If the same man ordered a vegan substitute for fried chicken and received fried chicken, then filed the complaint with FTC then it would be the same thing.

I believe video games are a form of art.  That aside, time and time again it was stated that the ending would reflect the choices we made, that it would be more than A, B, or C, that it wasn't even possible to be able to count how many endings there were as it was too layered for that.

The complaint would be false advertisement, which is exactly what the FTC is for.  Do I think it was a little overboard, sure.  But not all that surprising.

It's not a contract, buddy. Studious can say whatever the hell they want. This is the entertainment world, not food religion. Even then, FTC involvement is ridiculous.

What if Warner Bros said last year that Christopher Nolan's Batman would live. And we all watch the 3rd part of the trilogy this summer and he dies. What are you going to do, sue them? Call the FTC? Yell at Warner Bros? Start a picket line?

Childish antics no matter how you look at it, IMO.

And again, don't ever forget the fact that we are talking about something in entertainment.

One guy contacts the FTC and now all of a sudden it is assumed we are all on board with that ONE guy. If you read some of the post last night, mostly everyone that doesnt like the ending thought that the guy SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT,

OK..... then yell at the creators? Start a picket line?

I don't care what you call it or how far you choose to go. It may be to a lesser extent, but YES, you are on board. And I'm not talking directly to YOU, I mean YOU as a "movement." You ARE intentionally making a scene and that's all that matters. And it remains childish antics.

[tenojitsu]

Jackal7713 wrote...

tenojitsu is right. Retake people thought the FTC guy was going way to far and only speaking for himself. You shouldn't bundle us up with him just because you want to.

I have yet to see any logically, well written reasons why the anti-retake people like the ending. Honestly, I would love to see what their reasons are. Perhaps there are reasons why the ending makes more sense than I found in it, and Im missing something. So far, however, all I've seen the "Art" defense and the exaggeration of a few people's misguided comments/actions.

[tenojitsu]

double post, sorry

Modifié par tenojitsu, 20 mars 2012 - 08:55 .

[coolbeans]

They can do their arty, edgy non-sensical ending if they want

Just don't do it in a game where you've promised me many varied endings, dependent on the choices I've made throughout three games denying me my reasonable expected closure.

Also real art doesn't finish off with the crappiest text message in history say buy some DLC

[bchesson]

tenojitsu wrote...

Cyruge wrote...

Yttrian wrote...

The "art" defense is a fallacy that labels something as being beyond criticism.

And I can certainly criticise anything, art included, if it was missold, incomplete and ends by destroying itself and any reason you bought it.

Agreed. People using the "art" defence shouldn't be able to crtitisize anything as long as you lable it "art".

Which is really funny that movies are considered art by most and and ripped apart and dissected by critics and consumers around the world, and nobody cares. It is expected that badly made movies will get blasted, but a group of video gamers critisizes a game and suddenly we are all "entitled" children

Amen! You knocked it out of the park tenojitsu....

Modifié par bchesson, 20 mars 2012 - 08:57 .

[Jackal7713]

@az350z

Because someone has a different opinion about something is it childish? Don't people have the right as consumers to express a complaint to a manufacture of the product they have been sold? Or is that childish?

[Klijpope]

tenojitsu wrote...

Cyruge wrote...

Yttrian wrote...

The "art" defense is a fallacy that labels something as being beyond criticism.

And I can certainly criticise anything, art included, if it was missold, incomplete and ends by destroying itself and any reason you bought it.

Agreed. People using the "art" defence shouldn't be able to crtitisize anything as long as you lable it "art".

Which is really funny that movies are considered art by most and and ripped apart and dissected by critics and consumers around the world, and nobody cares. It is expected that badly made movies will get blasted, but a group of video gamers critisizes a game and suddenly we are all "entitled" children

Games are clearly art; this discussion is proof of that. And labelling something art does not make it beyond criticism - in fact proper criticism is impossible until you've accepted it is art (that is when theory can be used to analyse it - just as has been happening with ME3 all over the interwebs).

Mass Effect is a text, and it is being interrogated in just the same way a book, film, or play would be. If that's not an example of art, then there is no such thing as art.

And just because it is mass produced does not stop it being art; Andy Warhol and the pop artists won that debate 50 years ago.

[Qutayba]

Of course it's art. Just because it's popular, mass produced, or connected to business doesn't mean it's not art. Is it great art? Well, that's another question.

The problem with the "art" debate going on here is that some people are saying that because it's "art" we can't question it - basically it becomes a question of authority. But artworks constantly evolve. Munch's Scream exists in several versions using different media and techniques. Books, musical compositions, and plays (including Shakespeare's) exist in multiple manuscripts and published versions with variations. Even popular media like movies get director's cuts or extended editions.

Just because it's art doesn't mean we can't critique it (and great art becomes "great" because of the process of criticism) and it doesn't mean the creators can't change it because either they or their fans have issues with it. Video games, in particular, with their patches, dlc's, and expansions, are a uniquely interactive and evolving art form. Asking BioWare to reconsider its ending to ME3 is not a violation of "art." Yes, ultimately, it's their decision, but we are not out of line for suggesting a change.

EDIT: Man, there are so many dimensions to this issue.  It's absolutely great to see people discussing what is meant by "art."  If nothing else, this game sure got us talking about some really cool things.

Modifié par Qutayba, 20 mars 2012 - 09:03 .

[tenojitsu]

az350z wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

az350z wrote...

juliannacorn wrote...

az350z wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

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.

Maybe you're right. When's the last time someone filed an FTC complaint because his chicken wasn't as spicy as he thought?

Same thing as this.

/thread............

Totally different.  If the same man ordered a vegan substitute for fried chicken and received fried chicken, then filed the complaint with FTC then it would be the same thing.

I believe video games are a form of art.  That aside, time and time again it was stated that the ending would reflect the choices we made, that it would be more than A, B, or C, that it wasn't even possible to be able to count how many endings there were as it was too layered for that.

The complaint would be false advertisement, which is exactly what the FTC is for.  Do I think it was a little overboard, sure.  But not all that surprising.

It's not a contract, buddy. Studious can say whatever the hell they want. This is the entertainment world, not food religion. Even then, FTC involvement is ridiculous.

What if Warner Bros said last year that Christopher Nolan's Batman would live. And we all watch the 3rd part of the trilogy this summer and he dies. What are you going to do, sue them? Call the FTC? Yell at Warner Bros? Start a picket line?

Childish antics no matter how you look at it, IMO.

And again, don't ever forget the fact that we are talking about something in entertainment.

One guy contacts the FTC and now all of a sudden it is assumed we are all on board with that ONE guy. If you read some of the post last night, mostly everyone that doesnt like the ending thought that the guy SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT,

OK..... then yell at the creators? Start a picket line?

I don't care what you call it or how far you choose to go. It may be to a lesser extent, but YES, you are on board. And I'm not talking directly to YOU, I mean YOU as a "movement." You ARE intentionally making a scene and that's all that matters. And it remains childish antics.

I think what we are doing is voicing usually well written opinions and ideas in a fairly civilized manner. Im not really sure what this "scene" is that we are making. As far as childish antics, last I heard nobody has yet left a flaming bag of dog poop at Casey Hudson's front door, so I'm not sure what the childish antics you are referring to even are.