281 réponses à ce sujet

[tenojitsu]

DemGeth wrote...

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. 

Glad to have you on board!

[DemGeth]

Yttrian wrote...

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 many hundreds of thousands of others.
Whether they will change 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.

"My" defintion is the actual usage of the word....just for the record 

[Yttrian]

So it seems unanimous that:

• "Art" is not a defense.
• We have the ability to criticise.
• They don't have to commit.
• It is probably wise for them to do so.

[tenojitsu]

Klijpope wrote...

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.

I disagree about the false advertising thing (and no, I do not think the whol FTC was justified). When a company promises one thing and delivers the opposite I get upset, period. Doesnt matter if its a lawn mower, a car, or a video game. Its the principle of the whole thing.

At this point, whats the different between asking them to changing and demanding it be changed, other than the word used to describe it?

[tenojitsu]

DemGeth wrote...

Yttrian wrote...

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 many hundreds of thousands of others.
Whether they will change 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.

"My" defintion is the actual usage of the word....just for the record 

And just when we were getting along, haha.

Modifié par tenojitsu, 20 mars 2012 - 10:51 .

[Yttrian]

DemGeth wrote...
"My" defintion is the actual usage of the word....just for the record 

Agreed; but arguing emotions and semantics is rarely productive, regardless who is right.
Thankfully we seem to be out of those waters now.

Modifié par Yttrian, 20 mars 2012 - 10:52 .

[tenojitsu]

Yttrian wrote...

So it seems unanimous that:

• "Art" is not a defense.
• We have the ability to criticise.
• They don't have to commit.
• It is probably wise for them to do so.

^THIS

[Catastrophy]

Of course are computer games art.

Just take this series and look e.g. at the voice acting. You need professional people for that. Voice actors are the reason why I play games like these in English. (And not some shabby German Synchronsprecher who uninspiredly reads aloud a crappy translation.)

Art isn't only painting pictures. Art is about creating. And creating also includes literature, films, plays and computer games. In them you can create whole new ideas, worlds, characters, stories. Those things are even more creative than a picture or a statue.

So yes, a computer game is art, in general. Let's not discuss whether Pong is art - let's agree that computer games can be art.

And I definitely would count Mass Effect to the artsy type of computer game.

Generally, I would say that an artist should not change his creation because the critic demands so. Quite an arrogant idea to tell someone: "Hey, your piece don't please me, rewrite that!" I'd never demand that.

I just note the ending of Mass Effect is disappointing and well below the level of the rest of the series. It's like someone else wrote the ending.
I state my critique, hurl a digital boo at the creators - exchange with my co-audience. An artist has to face his audience - so what basically happens here is reception. It just isn't as cultivated as in the NYT feuilleton section. And it's more emotional because we all lived the protagonists struggle in the game. Because many identified with Shepard and the story elements. This is very personal art, intensive and emotional.

However, I just mark this off as another bad trilogy ending - no big deal - I've seen a couple of those.

I enjoy however some great ideas on this forum on how an alternative might work out. There are a lot of creative ideas and wording them here is also work of art, I'd say.

[tenojitsu]

To me, its more than just a bad ending. I could live with a bad ending if it at least behaved like they said it would (No A, B, C ending, etc)

[Yttrian]

tenojitsu wrote...

To me, its more than just a bad ending. I could live with a bad ending if it at least behaved like they said it would (No A, B, C ending, etc)

We could have all lived with a "bad" ending.

Unfortunately what we have doesn't seem to relate to the franchise in anyway; whether on moral, political or even technological grounds.

For a franchise built on explaination of the smallest details, rewarding every inch of effort, shaping the universe by your choices - it was horrific to find a homogenous and plothole ridden ending that lacked any real closure or explaination while being seemingly contrary to what we were promised on about a dozen issues in a dozen advert mediums almost word for word.

[tenojitsu]

I mean to specifically say it wont be an A,B,C ending, only to give a Red, Blue, Green ending is insame to me

[SaturnH]

Klijpope wrote...

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?

Yes, you're right that the relationship is not quite the same.  But I would feel totally fine about changing my storyboards for anyone at anytime as long as they are willing to pay for the labor.  I would be happy to pay Bioware for DLC that includes the requested changes.  I would never expect this to be free of charge.  I just hope enough other people are willing to spend some money beacuse the only way this will happen is if Bioware is being paid for their labor.

[lakdav]

Dont see how this is any different that the last book, Mass Effect: Deception. The only real difference that we only want the ending changed, not the entire last game. They are fixing Deception, last i heard. A book is closer to what is commonly considered as art than a game, and they are changing it becouse 1) we complained and 2) we were right to complain. There are hundreds of arguements why the ending is wrong, there are some arguements why it 'might' make sense with a lot of space magic attached.

Bioware CAN do this. They have the technology. This being a software makes it even easier to fix, there is minimal logistic cost compared to printing a new edition of books or reprinting and posting pictures.

[Ozzyfan223]

has anyone heard of art critique? I consider myself an aspiring artist, and when I create something, and show it to people, what is my purpose for showing them? To get advice and insight on how to make it better.

when did art become something that can't be criticized? If a piece of art has something fundamentally wrong with it, it can be criticized. ME3's ending has major artistic flaws, and as so it should be criticized. Bioware should be taking note and planning to improve it.

[Shallyah]

Even if games were considered art (which they're not for now, at least not globally), that does not exclude them from being modified and reshaped to the consumer's needs and demands. Even globally recognized forms of art have to be reshaped often to adapt to one or another people. Let's not even go into what censors do to some movies or books. That is art being plainly raped as its creator conceived it, molded and modified to a people's convenience, or what some government think convenient to their people.

Another example is voice-over dubbing, when a movie makes it to a country where the original language is not majorly spoken. There is a lot of art lost in the translation, that often is up to the interpretation of the translator. Besides, hearing Sean Connery is not the same as hearing the hungarian dude who dubs Sean Connery. The writer that chose Sean Connery, possibly did it because he portrayed his character in the artful way he wanted, and that is all lost by simply putting someone else's voice there. And it doesn't even matter if the change is for better or for worse, but it's art being modified to appease the consumer. You don't tell the consumer "learn English". You give them the movie dubbed and translated to raise your sales, and swallow your artful pride. I remember fondly a scene of the movie "V for Vendetta" where V makes an awesome introduction of himself in a beautiful, artful wordplay with words starting with or containing "v". If you go to Youtube and watch dubbed versions in other countries, you'll either laugh or cry, but will definitely see how the intended impact of that scene is all lost when you take it away from the Ye Olde English environment.

Art as a concept of something holy and untouchable is an utopic concept that belongs to an utopic world. In this capitalist world what matters is the walletm abd art needs to mold to needs of the consumers, who afterall, are the ones paying for it. And for the record, videogames are still not globally considered a form of art. I'm pretty sure in time they will, like movies were, but that's not the case for now.

Modifié par Shallyah, 20 mars 2012 - 11:29 .

[Evanz]

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)

Yeah, the argument with "Art" is naive and primitive attempt aimed to cause confusion and awe amongs simpletons and peasants.

Game is a software and can be altered with patch/update/DLC without a notice.

There is more truth and right for customers to demand the quality of the product they paid for (like a game) then in saying that it is an art and cannot be changed.

Real-life art is constant evolution, experimentation and improvement. Books are edited, movies are cut, paintings are corrected, music is remixed.

And games are patched.

[Klijpope]

SaturnH wrote...

Klijpope wrote...

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?

Yes, you're right that the relationship is not quite the same.  But I would feel totally fine about changing my storyboards for anyone at anytime as long as they are willing to pay for the labor.  I would be happy to pay Bioware for DLC that includes the requested changes.  I would never expect this to be free of charge.  I just hope enough other people are willing to spend some money beacuse the only way this will happen is if Bioware is being paid for their labor.

This is fair, a request for amendments, and a willingness to pay for that labour. Will that satisfy everyone, though? Not sure it will, based on some comments and the FTC ting.

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

has anyone heard of art critique? I consider myself an aspiring artist, and when I create something, and show it to people, what is my purpose for showing them? To get advice and insight on how to make it better.

Indeed, I am sure BW might want to 'improve' the endings to clarify them and give more closure. That, however, is not the same as changing the Catalyst and the Choice, or giving a happy ending. Should BW scrap their original intention, or improve it so that the outcome is clearer?

Evanz wrote...

Yeah, the argument with "Art" is naive and primitive attempt aimed to cause confusion and awe amongs simpletons and peasants.  

No it isn't, it is a valid reaction to the claims that this is merely a product and a consumer rights issue, when it fact it is actually mainly a freedom of expression issue.

Evanz wrote...
Game is a software and can be altered with patch/update/DLC without a notice.

There is more truth and right for customers to demand the quality of the product they paid for (like a game) then in saying that it is an art and cannot be changed.

Real-life art is constant evolution, experimentation and improvement. Books are edited, movies are cut, paintings are corrected, music is remixed.

And games are patched.

And that is what is intriguing and novel about this whole situation. Videogames are a different kind of artform to books and films. This very debate is helping to define the relationship between game dev as artist and their audience/players.

And actually define in a very big way - this is a watershed moment for videogaming. This game, and this ending caused that - and this in itself is amazing enough. 

[Evanz]

[quote]Klijpope wrote...
[quote]Evanz wrote...

Yeah, the argument with "Art" is naive and primitive attempt aimed to cause confusion and awe amongs simpletons and peasants.  [/quote]

No it isn't, it is a valid reaction to the claims that this is merely a product and a consumer rights issue, when it fact it is actually mainly a freedom of expression issue.
[/quote]
I mean it's childish to say to consumers who have more right to demand refund/quality they paid for and were promised that they are stupid and cannot demand that because it's an art and then calling them stupid again because they do not understand that art.
It is a failed argument in it's very core.

[quote]Klijpope wrote...
[quote]Evanz wrote...
Game is a software and can be altered with patch/update/DLC without a notice.

There is more truth and right for customers to demand the quality of the product they paid for (like a game) then in saying that it is an art and cannot be changed.

Real-life art is constant evolution, experimentation and improvement. Books are edited, movies are cut, paintings are corrected, music is remixed.

And games are patched.
[/quote]

And that is what is intriguing and novel about this whole situation. Videogames are a different kind of artform to books and films. This very debate is helping to define the relationship between game dev as artist and their audience/players.

And actually define in a very big way - this is a watershed moment for videogaming. This game, and this ending caused that - and this in itself is amazing enough. 
[/quote]
[/quote]
I worked in GameDev industry (mainstream) and I will soon be back to it.
I am sorry my friend, but thats not how it looks on the inside.(although I wish I could say otherwise).

The only argument companies will ever understand is when their sales(aka profits) drops.
People in charge (the bosses) are usually 40, 50, 60 y old who can't see past sales and their marketing division reports. Yeah, like some guys who think players should pay real money for reloading their weapons. They really think that way. Most of them doesn't know how to start a game on a console, and have minimal understanding of newer windows OS.

Until the people who do the real job in gamedev (usually a team leads) get the power (preferably by starting their own companies) games will not, and should not be considered ArtForm, unless it is an artform of scaming you and taking away your money.

As an insider, I will keep my opinion that games are entertainment and should be treated as piece of software (a product) where the user has all the right to demand the quality especially when they were promised one.

Modifié par Evanz, 20 mars 2012 - 12:27 .

[Klijpope]

Evanz wrote...

Until the people who do the real job in gamedev (usually a team leads) get the power (preferably by starting their own companies) games will not, and should not be considered ArtForm, unless it is an artform of scaming you and taking away your money.

As an insider, I will keep my opinion that games are entertainment and should be treated as piece of software (a product) where the user has all the right to demand the quality especially when they were promised one.

There is no difference between film-making and game development in that respect - none at all. Films are a product, there is a business process, and they need a market. Even 'art' movies go through this (lest we forget, Star Wars was effectively an 'art movie' to Fox in 1976-77).

Just because it is also a business does not stop it being an artform. "Downton Abbey" is not my cup of tea, but it certainly is felt as art by some people, and it has a business plan and a bottom line to consider.

If there is theoretical criticism (in the terms of a literary text) possible, and my god there is with this game*, then it can be considered 'art'.

*the fact that the California Literary Review disagrees with you shows that art critics regard it as art, otherwise, they have no place reviewing it. Some of the very best definitions of art (especially in an interactive context) I have ever read have emerged specifically because of this game and its ending.

There will be books written about this, and it has already generated more words (as in 'paid for' commentary) than any other game in history within 2 weeks of release.

[Skirata129]

Saying that something is art and thus cannot be insulted is a bit of a fallacy. Art is perfection in the eye of the beholder and this game is far from perfect.

[Evanz]

Klijpope wrote...
There is no difference between film-making and game development in that respect - none at all

Once you are done with the movie you are basically out of luck. There is little chance to change anything. You don't have actors, you don't have cameramen etc.

With the game you always have source code, assets, you have 2d/3d artists, programmers and level designers ready (assuming that they are still working in your company).
If you decide to add an unicorn shooting rainbows it's just a question of making a 3d model, texture and animation and then implementing it.

All that is needed is some will to do it.

as for the rest of your comment:
maybe.

Except for the part about CLR, as I have absolutely no trust in American critics (no offence).

Modifié par Evanz, 20 mars 2012 - 01:16 .

[Genera1Nemesis]

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)

So books, that are mass produced; are not art? They are easily changable (Stephen King has released two versions of the Stand) so that means that we should dictate how stories are written by those who write them?

I call b.s. on your entire argument. These things are 'created' works that have a lot of work put into them. If I write a novel I'm not an artist you say? Or if I write and perform music, then I should let the fans decide how I write it? I didn't agree with how LoTR ended so maybe they should change the ending in those books, because you know; I didn't like it so much...

[Icinix]

I think a big issue is that people are trying to lump video games into art, or lump them into existing genres.

Video games are something different entirely.

A video game could be art, a movie could be art, and a book could be art.

But all of those things can also not be art.

Video games are video games which can sometimes already be classified as art.

..but that doesn't mean all video games should be art, nor does it mean if some art all should be.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Personally, I think whether we call it art or not is irrelevant. The key issue is that many of us consider it bad writing.

[Yttrian]

Art is not beyond criticism.

The entire idea is a red herring we are fighting over for the sake of semantics.

Stop.