281 réponses à ce sujet

[Inprst]

Klijpope wrote...

LadyLinnie wrote...

There's different kinds of art, and games, books, paintings, music can all BE art, but just because you did a painting doesn't qualify it as art. There are developers out there who aim to merge games and art, sure, but for most developers, for obvious reasons, entertainment value is far more important. Some relevant comparisons: popular fiction (entertainment) vs literary fiction (art); pop music (entertainment) vs opera (art); action movies (entertainment) vs serious drama films (art).
The obvious problem with the art defense is that most people wanted entertainment, then at the end (after some pretty good entertainment for 20 hours, I might add), the game suddenly went: ART! And then ended.

Sorry, that is bol**x, all of that is 'art'. Whether it is 'high' art or 'low' art just depends on how pretentious you are. If something is entertaining does not disqualify it as art. Lady Ga Ga is as much 'art' as 'Tosca', and Tosca is entertaining to an opera afficionado.
If you did a painting, you created some art. May not be good art, but it is still art. Any other definition is elitist and so subjective as to be useless.

I agree with the pope. This is same problem in genre fiction. Writers will work their ass off creating a wonderful piece of fiction, filled with intrigue and as much introspection as any "literary" novelist will, and yet, they get ostracized by the "elite" and put in the literary ghetto. Many a writer try to avoid this. Look at Atwood, who's vehemently described her work as anything but sci-fi for ages.

[tenojitsu]

tjmax wrote...

Detha wrote...

Film is pretty clearly defined.  Sports are less open-ended than art when it comes to qualification.  Maybe you just had an overly artsy film study class.

You do know harry potter was suposed to die, but people got so upset about it she changed it right?

This is a true statement

[DemGeth]

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Oh just read again...that is what you think


Jesus......really?

You need to get some culture in you, that is just beyond sad.

And this is the typical argument of the people who like the ending. Belittling and personal attacks

Your belittling every musician, author, and about half a dozen worthies in order to take a literal defintion and apply a common use term to it.  

And all for a point that could be summed up as, "you can critize art", without demeaning those people,

It's just a terrible point.

[Chuvvy]

I think games can be art, however, they're so different from Books, Music, or Film, you can't really compare them. The "it can't be changed because it's art" argument gets thrown out as soon as you realize that the player is an active participant in the "art". You passively watch a movie, you passively read a book, however you actively play a game. You take part in the story, and for an RPG like Mass Effect, you are the story, or at least that's what bioware would have you believe, they spent five years playing up that you, YOU, are telling the story. That changes things up, allot. If it were something like RDR, where it's a set narrative, telling a story, the argument could fly, however, this is an RPG, you affect things in the game, and you have every right to be pissed off if they throw that out.

And, when you get down to it, art is sold, people make money off of it, you should do what the consumer wants. That's why movies have early showings, so they can tweak it to make it more appealing.

[tenojitsu]

DemGeth wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Oh just read again...that is what you think


Jesus......really?

You need to get some culture in you, that is just beyond sad.

And this is the typical argument of the people who like the ending. Belittling and personal attacks

Your belittling every musician, author, and about half a dozen worthies in order to take a literal defintion and apply a common use term to it.  

And all for a point that could be summed up as, "you can critize art", without demeaning those people,

It's just a terrible point.

At no point did I belittle anyone. I said that all of these thing require skill and talent, just because I dont think certain things are "art" isnt an attack on anyone. Good try though, keep reaching!

P.S. Movies are critized by everyone on the planet, and nobody seems to care

Modifié par tenojitsu, 20 mars 2012 - 10:27 .

[Venturisection]

I don't stare at art for 150hrs
I don't watch a film for 150hrs
I don't read the same book for 150hrs

Non Fiction text changes all the time with tweeks.
Lucas Changed his movies (not that I agreed with that but whatever)
Arthur Conan Doyle had to bring Sherlock Holmes back to life back in the day due to public outcry.
No True Artist is ever really finished they always wish they could go back and change a little bit make something a little bit better. The Idea Art is ever finished is Nonsense. The idea that Designs are ever perfect is nonsense. The idea that everything is perfectly Engineered is nonsense.

The deadline dictates how it is finished otherwise you'd be developing it forever. In this case it seems they ran out of time.

The more emersive the experience the more psychologically attached you are and as if you are living it which sounds like horse**** but apparently its not and has an effect on oneself at a deeper level.

If It was like painting a picture it would be painting a beautiful watercolour with all the background for something very profound at the front and then painting Pikachu.  With Crayons

www.facebook.com/MassEffect3Poll

[DemGeth]

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Oh just read again...that is what you think


Jesus......really?

You need to get some culture in you, that is just beyond sad.

And this is the typical argument of the people who like the ending. Belittling and personal attacks

Your belittling every musician, author, and about half a dozen worthies in order to take a literal defintion and apply a common use term to it.  

And all for a point that could be summed up as, "you can critize art", without demeaning those people,

It's just a terrible point.

At no point did I belittle anyone. I said that all of these thing require skill and talent, just because I dont think certain things are "art" isnt an attack on anyone. Good try though, keep reaching!

your taking the common use definition that we use and applying the dictionary definition to it.  when people speak of artists, they're reffering to creative proffessions.  that's how the word is being used.  that's the common use definition.  

you don't think music is art?  well come up with another term for it, that's the way the words used.  

[Detha]

tjmax wrote...

Detha wrote...

Film is pretty clearly defined.  Sports are less open-ended than art when it comes to qualification.  Maybe you just had an overly artsy film study class.

You do know harry potter was suposed to die, but people got so upset about it she changed it right?

I don't know what relevance that has to what I was trying to say about what and what doesn't qualify as art.  The statement that "Art should not be changed for others" is a different argument that I'm not taking part in.

I believe the writing, story, music and art direction surrounding games can qualify as art, not the gameplay itself in most cases.  The only game with gameplay that I would without a doubt consider art is MGS4.

[tenojitsu]

DemGeth wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Oh just read again...that is what you think


Jesus......really?

You need to get some culture in you, that is just beyond sad.

And this is the typical argument of the people who like the ending. Belittling and personal attacks

Your belittling every musician, author, and about half a dozen worthies in order to take a literal defintion and apply a common use term to it.  

And all for a point that could be summed up as, "you can critize art", without demeaning those people,

It's just a terrible point.

At no point did I belittle anyone. I said that all of these thing require skill and talent, just because I dont think certain things are "art" isnt an attack on anyone. Good try though, keep reaching!

your taking the common use definition that we use and applying the dictionary definition to it.  when people speak of artists, they're reffering to creative proffessions.  that's how the word is being used.  that's the common use definition.  

you don't think music is art?  well come up with another term for it, that's the way the words used.  

The point was the term artist is being used too loosely these days. I call people who make music musicians, buts that me.

[Yttrian]

DemGeth wrote...

Your belittling every musician, author, and about half a dozen worthies in order to take a literal defintion and apply a common use term to it.  

And all for a point that could be summed up as, "you can critize art", without demeaning those people,

It's just a terrible point.

Ad hominem.
Appeal to ridicule.
Deflection.

You are literally arguing semantics rather than addressing the core argument.

Whether it is art or not, is insulting or not; neither has any bearing on the ability to criticise.

Modifié par Yttrian, 20 mars 2012 - 10:31 .

[tenojitsu]

Yttrian wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Your belittling every musician, author, and about half a dozen worthies in order to take a literal defintion and apply a common use term to it.  

And all for a point that could be summed up as, "you can critize art", without demeaning those people,

It's just a terrible point.

Ad hominem.
Appeal to ridicule.

You are literally arguing semantics rather than addressing the core argument.

thank you

[DemGeth]

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Oh just read again...that is what you think


Jesus......really?

You need to get some culture in you, that is just beyond sad.

And this is the typical argument of the people who like the ending. Belittling and personal attacks

Your belittling every musician, author, and about half a dozen worthies in order to take a literal defintion and apply a common use term to it.  

And all for a point that could be summed up as, "you can critize art", without demeaning those people,

It's just a terrible point.

At no point did I belittle anyone. I said that all of these thing require skill and talent, just because I dont think certain things are "art" isnt an attack on anyone. Good try though, keep reaching!

your taking the common use definition that we use and applying the dictionary definition to it.  when people speak of artists, they're reffering to creative proffessions.  that's how the word is being used.  that's the common use definition.  

you don't think music is art?  well come up with another term for it, that's the way the words used.  

The point was the term artist is being used too loosely these days. I call people who make music musicians, buts that me.

Art is legally used to cover any creative proffession.....it's why we can read Ulyssess in America. It's not a special brand.  Art can be terrible.  But it's still art. 

[DemGeth]

Yttrian wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Your belittling every musician, author, and about half a dozen worthies in order to take a literal defintion and apply a common use term to it.  

And all for a point that could be summed up as, "you can critize art", without demeaning those people,

It's just a terrible point.

Ad hominem.
Appeal to ridicule.
Deflection.

You are literally arguing semantics rather than addressing the core argument.

Whether it is art or not, is insulting or not; neither has any bearing on the ability to criticise.

Actually I said you can critize art.  So what's your point?

[RagingCeltik]

Cyruge wrote...

I think the main reason why the "art" defense doesn't work is because games are made for the customers, just like a chair or a banana. It's a product, and it's up to the consumer to validate it and if necessary, ask for something better.

The majority of famous artworks were commissioned by other people.   Mona Lisa was commissioned by nobles.   Under your framework, the Mona Lisa is not art because it was made for a customer.

[Storenumber9]

You can call it art, but it's still a product for mass consumption.
So, there's a point where you probably should listen to your customers.

[Storenumber9]

RagingCeltik wrote...

Cyruge wrote...

I think the main reason why the "art" defense doesn't work is because games are made for the customers, just like a chair or a banana. It's a product, and it's up to the consumer to validate it and if necessary, ask for something better.

The majority of famous artworks were commissioned by other people.   Mona Lisa was commissioned by nobles.   Under your framework, the Mona Lisa is not art because it was made for a customer.

I've never found the Mona Lisa all that impressive, to be honest.

[tenojitsu]

DemGeth wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

DemGeth wrote...

Oh just read again...that is what you think


Jesus......really?

You need to get some culture in you, that is just beyond sad.

And this is the typical argument of the people who like the ending. Belittling and personal attacks

Your belittling every musician, author, and about half a dozen worthies in order to take a literal defintion and apply a common use term to it.  

And all for a point that could be summed up as, "you can critize art", without demeaning those people,

It's just a terrible point.

At no point did I belittle anyone. I said that all of these thing require skill and talent, just because I dont think certain things are "art" isnt an attack on anyone. Good try though, keep reaching!

your taking the common use definition that we use and applying the dictionary definition to it.  when people speak of artists, they're reffering to creative proffessions.  that's how the word is being used.  that's the common use definition.  

you don't think music is art?  well come up with another term for it, that's the way the words used.  

The point was the term artist is being used too loosely these days. I call people who make music musicians, buts that me.

Art is legally used to cover any creative proffession.....it's why we can read Ulyssess in America. It's not a special brand.  Art can be terrible.  But it's still art. 

Not saying that art cant be bad. Im saying, as someone else put it, Subways ability to make a mean sandwich doesnt make them artists. The point of this wasnt to discuss the legal definition of art

[Yttrian]

DemGeth wrote...

Actually I said you can critize art.  So what's your point?

That "art" is not a defense against logical criticism regardless of medium.

Thankfully it seems like we agree; so a geniune "thank you". Now back to the discussion of relevant opinions and away from semantics.

Modifié par Yttrian, 20 mars 2012 - 10:37 .

[tenojitsu]

The point of this was the validity of the argument that Bioware shouldnt change the ending because the game is "art"

[Vergil_dgk]

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)

Books, movies and games can certainly be art, in my oppinion. But Mass Effect is art on the level of a Hollywood blockbuster franchise. It isn't "high" art like War and Peace by Tolstoy (amazing book btw.) or all those lovely Cypress trees by van Gogh. Even great art can be critized and great artists certainly make mistakes (factual and otherwise) - so there is no good reason why one can't critize "pop" art like Mass Effect. E.G. Tolstoy made several changes to War and Piece over the years as a result of criticism from intellingent people and his own evolving tastes. The great strength of video games are interactivity and ME utilizes this to great effect - but this also means that you can't strip away player choice at the end without ruining what made the game good.

[SimKoning]

I am getting really tired of hearing the “but it’s not art if the artist makes changes for the sake of fans!” argument. Why is it a generally tolerated if a corporation that puts up money for a film forces changes, such as removing/adding scenes in the name of ensuring the profitability of a product, yet when fans, who pay for the product ask that something be changed because of obvious plot holes ask for the same, they are accused of being ignorant overgrown children that just don’t “get it”? Does anyone else find this to be extremely hypocritical and elitist?
From tv tropes:

"As one person rarely has the financial resources to create and more importantly distribute their own television shows, movies, comics, etc. entertainment is generally produced by corporations. They are the ones that put up the money to see your favorite book turned into the film of the book. While an actor gets paid for their services, they're ultimately free agents; eventually they will move on to another gig. At worst they lose their time and reputation, but only rarely are financially invested in their work's success. Directors exist in a similar situation. A television network or studio, though, is a single entity, and if what it produces doesn't make a profit the business folds.No matter how brilliant that last episode was or how insightful the protagonist's dream was about the nature of man, if nobody watched it and the advertisers are complaining, survival means you have to put Old Yeller down.


In the end nobody likes this, so it is in the executives' best interest to see that their money is well spent, budgets are kept, and the show gets finished by sweeps. Often this means vetoing ideas, or dictating that certain elements be added in. So when the organization behind the creators takes a hand in creation you get this trope. The goal of an executive is to try to steer the show into the direction of profitability.One way in which these traits manifest themselves is for the executive to force changes on a show which he feels is too different or edgy, in order to make it "less risky" or "more appealing to the audience" — in other words, garner higher ratings. "More appealing" often translates into "more action-oriented" or "sexier" or, in the immortal words of Woody Harrelson as Steve Martin's producer in L. A. Story[/i], "more wacky, less egghead."


Often the executive wants to reach the lowerst common denominator for better or worse. And far too often this can edge over into denigrating vewers' intellect or that their memory is comparable to a gold fish. And of course if you stick too closely to what "works" it can be hard to stand out. Which can be the surest death sentence of all.Sometimes, though, the meddling is solely because the executive wants the show dead for one reason or another. Of course, it can backfire and the executive either eats crow, gets replaced, cancels the show anyway[/i] (ratings and revenue be damned), or gets an ego."

The fact is all I am asking for is that the "God kid" scene be deleted and that the endings are altered so that they are more contignet upon your war assets and EMS. Also, all I need is 3 endings: galaxy destroyed (bad); relays, citadel and Reapers destoyed, but galactic dark age (medium); Citadel and relays survive, but reapers are shut down (good). This would mostly be a matter of editing, and would cost far, far less than the 2 or 3 expensive cinemenatic trailers EA had paid for. Not to mention this is a game based around PLAYER CHOICE. The changes listed above would be enough to get me playing my favorite science fiction game of all time again. It would eliminate all the plote holes, leave the Reapers as terrifying mecha Cthulhus (rather than pawns of some deranged space kid) and give me the feeling that the decisions I'm making through the course of the game have *some* impact on how positive the ending is.

[RagingCeltik]

Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."

Video games fit the bill.

[DemGeth]

tenojitsu wrote...

The point of this was the validity of the argument that Bioware shouldnt change the ending because the game is "art"

It doesn't matter in any case.  That is up to the artist.  If they as artists want to change it due to public pressure they can.  If they don't want to, they won't.

No of course I don't subscribe to the "art arguement"....books get edited.  Films get edited to death actually.  TBH for me it's a plainly obvious answer so that arguement is dull and boring. 

[Yttrian]

tenojitsu wrote...

The point of this was the validity of the argument that Bioware shouldnt change the ending because the game is "art"

It isn't valid.
It also isn't valid that they "should" or "must" because a large portion of their fanbase wants it.

I want them to; as do potentially hundreds of thousands of others.
Whether they will change the ending it is up to them to decide and create; all customers can do is provide feedback.
They probably will if potential revenue generated outweighs potential losses.

I am guessing DemGeth and tenojitsu got circling around what you personally define as "art"; which doesn't lead anywhere as it is based in semantics.

Modifié par Yttrian, 20 mars 2012 - 10:46 .

[Klijpope]

SaturnH wrote...

As a freelance storyboard illustrator, I think the "art defense" is absolute bull. If I draw a frame a certain way that I think is cool, but the director doesn't like, it changes immediately with no questions asked. I would be absolutely insane to refuse making changes due to "artist integrity". If a client with certain expectations is paying me for my time, I need to think about things with the client's opinions in mind- not my own. Even if I personally love a drawing, it is a failure if it doesn't meet the expectations of the client. I don't see the situation at Bioware as any different, only much larger. Instead of one client, they have millions, but all those people are in fact clients with expectations who are paying for Bioware's time.

The difference being that the director was your employer/client. This is not the relationship between producer and consumer. It would be like the film's viewers after watching the result demanding that you change your storyboard so that it makes the end product reflect what they want - how would you feel about that?

When JK Rowling allowed Harry to live at the end, the book had not been published. Also, maybe Harry living made the ending worse - we will never know that now.

And the false advertising hokum is definitely reaching (without flexibility).

George Lucas can fiddle with his works; we may not like it, but we know he has the right as its creator. Heck, even the fans can get involved - the 'Phantom Edit' is a good thing, both in itself and the fact that it exists. However, demanding that Lucas reedit TPM so that it matches the Phantom Edit would be excessive, and yes smack of entitlement.

If someone can go out and recreate the ending of ME3 themselves, even using the assets on the PC version, to reflect their vision of the ending (and then offer it up for free as an alternative), then fair play, and well done them (not sure how EA or the law would feel, but I don't have to worry about that, this is just a thought experiment).

We can ask BioWare to alter/improve their ending; we can plead with them to do it; what we have no right to do is demand a new ending. We may be invested in the story as players/consumers, but we are not the creators. We can have our opinions, we can critique it, we can express our anger or affection, but can never demand, as a right, changes on our whims.

I'm ambivalent about the ending, and I have sympathies for the more reasoned and polite side of the 'Movement' (which thankfully seems to be most of them/you), but claiming false advertising and demanding change like a mob with pitchforks (which is what the FTC thing is) is both unedifying, unethical, and morally bankrupt.