281 réponses à ce sujet

[Smiley556]

Klijpope wrote...


Just out of interest, do you ask for a refund from the cinema after watching a movie you hate (or better still, a movie you quite like, but with an ending that appalls you)?

I was forced to watch Transformers 3 at the cinema (I made a friend go and see X-Men: First class). To me, that film was not merely awful, it was insulting, and once Nimoy had used "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", it had molested my childhood. I spent the final 20 minutes screaming obscenities at the screen at the top of my voice (no one else could hear - the film was too loud).

Yet, I did not ask for my money back. I had watched it until the end. Neither did I start a campaign to get that line excised from the movie. It was three hours of pure drek.

On the other hand, with ME3, for even the most vocal detractors, it was 20-40 hours of fun, or even brilliance, marred by 10 minutes of debatable narrative and a goofed up cinematic.

If I buy a cinema ticket for 1 viewing of the movie, and after having seen the movie consider it a bad movie, I will not buy the movie for myself on dvd for the full price. If I had gotten one playthrough of ME3 for the price of a cinema ticket, I would not have bought the game afterwards. I have no urge to replay ME3 in the same way I have no urge to rewatch a movie I didnt like.

Modifié par Smiley556, 20 mars 2012 - 03:11 .

[Hejdun]

Lazy and nonsensical efforts are still lazy and nonsensical whether they apply to art or "just a video game."

All you have to do is contrast what they promised the endings would be with what they actually are to realize that what we got wasn't what Bioware wanted to make, but rather what they threw together because they lacked the time to do it right. Does anyone REALLY thing that anyone at Bioware is saying to themselves "I'm proud of that Mass Effect 3 ending"?

The point is to attempt to force Bioware to spend just a little more money and effort to make the ending they promised us and the one they wanted to make.

[Genera1Nemesis]

http://gawker.com/58...e-art-after-all

So you disagree with this then?

[SoulDire]

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

[Genera1Nemesis]

http://www.gamespy.c.../1103298p1.html

or this...

[Hejdun]

People would generally say that movies and television series are art as well. Yet you don't see people defending Jack and Jill, or the ending to Lost as pieces of art above criticism. Just the opposite, they were universally panned by fans and critics alike. Unlike movies or television series, video games provide a mechanism through which to easily edit content. You could make an argument that given how bad the ending is, fixing it would be more akin to releasing a patch which fixes the game. Or simply think of it as the "director's cut" of a movie, wherein the one in control of the story tells us the story he always intended to tell before the buffoons in charge of the money stopped him.

[Erszebeth]

Ah yes. You understand, game journalists *need* games to be art to be *critics*. If needs be, just take a look at IGN's Colin Moriarty and all his posturing concerning the RetakeMassEffect movement.

[Klijpope]

SoulDire wrote...

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

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

All films, all books, all plays, are considered art, and that is proved by the endless faculties of academics discussing them, the doctorates awarded to their theory and criticism, and so on. Does not matter, at all, if these are commercial works or not.

Games have the same features; they are not just software - if so, film is just chemistry and literature just wood pulp.

And please, to those late to this thread - I am not saying ME3 is art and therefore defies criticism. In fact, I'm saying the opposite: ME3 is art because of the torrent of criticism it is getting for a creative decision. If that is not art, nothing can be.


And a final point, if game devs were to be made legally accountable for the hyperbole they might use talking about their game, then Peter Molyneux would have been sent to the electric chair years ago.

I am not saying what MW and CH said wasn't misleading, but downright dirty lying, well, that's an unfair accusation.

Modifié par Klijpope, 20 mars 2012 - 03:27 .

[AveryChim]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

http://gawker.com/58...e-art-after-all

So you disagree with this then?

Just because some games can be considered art, doesn't mean all games are. Even if you consider games art, doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed or improved; that is the limitations of paintings and music, in that they are fixed media, games are not.

Also, the art museum is possibilty only trying to attract new or younger visitors.

[Corrik Ronis]

Art, games, product, none of these things are mutually exclusive terms. Just acting like just because something is art it is above scrutiny or somehow not able to be held to the same standards as other products.

[ScooterPie88]

Art is a valid defense when you are doing it purely for pleasure and asthetic value.  However most artists, actors, writers create their art in such a way that their fans enjoy it (and therefore buy it).  Bioware has every right to do whatever the heck they want with their art but that means they also have every right not to profit from it when their fans are displeased.  You can't deliver a turd to people than say, "You have to swallow it without complaint because it's art."

[SoulDire]

Quite frankly if it weren't for this Smithsonian business I doubt we would be hearing anything about art. If this art thing had any weight then we wouldn't have gotten the changes to Deception that we requested. This is a consumer product, consumers always have a say.

[Rheinlandman]

You know art when you see it, all mediums are like this.

Favorite law quote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]
—Justice Potter Stewart

In my mind Red Dead Redemption is art, Bioshock with its noir feeling and philosophical undertones is too. Are all games art? No, but they can be, ME3 falls short.

[Klijpope]

SoulDire wrote...

Quite frankly if it weren't for this Smithsonian business I doubt we would be hearing anything about art. If this art thing had any weight then we wouldn't have gotten the changes to Deception that we requested. This is a consumer product, consumers always have a say.

This is a depressing sentiment. Your are relegating all artistic endeavour to consumer products, and effectively denying even the existence of art. The fact that this debate is being reduced to a banal consumerist procedure is dispiriting as much as fallacious.

You would not have the passion to argue this if ME3 was just a mere consumerist product, like a box of soap powder (are your smalls really whiter than white?). 

[TcomJ]

It's more like they tell us they will give us this Picasso sculpture in the first game, they gave it once we paid. Monalisa's painting as traded as they told after we gave them the money as a fair trade. Then they say this last product will be the most georgeuos art ever, it will be like Pantheon building, they gave us toilet seat when the money already went out of our pocket.


Even a toilet can be considered as art, but we the customer ask for another art that's not a toilet. Pretty clear that we asked for Pantheon building art (ME3) not the toilet art (ME3's ending)
Art~ lol

Modifié par TcomJ, 20 mars 2012 - 03:41 .

[ScotGaymer]

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

http://gawker.com/58...e-art-after-all

So you disagree with this then?

Yes.

Yes I do.

While some games can be and are "art" - Art Games like Dear Esther and Journey - not all games are so. And in my opinion games that do become "Art" then kinda stop being video games really. Nor am I saying that "art games" cannot be enjoyed and celebrated btw.
The reason I think that is because I believe that what games are and do is pretty much diametrically opposed to what art is and does.

Art = Something that makes you think. Something that makes you feel. Usually about the "deep stuff" of the world and all thats in it.
Video Games = Something that is entertaining and (keyword here) Diverting. Something that distracts you. Something that makes you NOT think or feel about the "deep stuff" of the world and all thats in it.

IMO, it can't be both.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 20 mars 2012 - 03:40 .

[Klijpope]

Rheinlandman wrote...

You know art when you see it, all mediums are like this.

Favorite law quote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]
—Justice Potter Stewart

In my mind Red Dead Redemption is art, Bioshock with its noir feeling and philosophical undertones is too. Are all games art? No, but they can be, ME3 falls short.

Firstly, that is a legal decision - not to be confused with the truth, whatever that is.

Secondly, the way in which you have defined art must include ME3 - it is just bad art, in your opinion, while Bioshock and RDR are better.

That is what people actually mean when they look at 2 similar things and say one is art and the other isn't - expressing a preference.

[Klijpope]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Genera1Nemesis wrote...

http://gawker.com/58...e-art-after-all

So you disagree with this then?

Yes.

Yes I do.

While some games can be and are "art" - Art Games like Dear Esther and Journey - not all games are so. And in my opinion games that do become "Art" then kinda stop being video games really. Nor am I saying that "art games" cannot be enjoyed and celebrated btw.
The reason I think that is because I believe that what games are and do is pretty much diametrically opposed to what art is and does.

Art = Something that makes you think. Something that makes you feel. Usually about the "deep stuff" of the world and all thats in it.
Video Games = Something that is entertaining and (keyword here) Diverting. Something that distracts you. Something that makes you NOT think or feel about the "deep stuff" of the world and all thats in it.

IMO, it can't be both.

This is more pretentious than a lot of the twaddle that art students come out with (and I used to be one!)

ME3 made me think, and made me feel. No film or book has made me cry more often and harder. Yes, the ending leaves a lot to be desired - but it is unquestionably art.

You would not be on these boards passionately decrying it if it wasn't.

[SoulDire]

Klijpope wrote...

SoulDire wrote...

Quite frankly if it weren't for this Smithsonian business I doubt we would be hearing anything about art. If this art thing had any weight then we wouldn't have gotten the changes to Deception that we requested. This is a consumer product, consumers always have a say.

This is a depressing sentiment. Your are relegating all artistic endeavour to consumer products, and effectively denying even the existence of art. The fact that this debate is being reduced to a banal consumerist procedure is dispiriting as much as fallacious.

You would not have the passion to argue this if ME3 was just a mere consumerist product, like a box of soap powder (are your smalls really whiter than white?). 

Any product that is produced with the direct intention of making money is a consumer product, Mass Effect 3 included.  If I am not satisfied with any consumer product I make my concerns known to the producer, even a box of soap, if those concerns are not met then I take my business elsewhere.

Not all artistic endeavour is consumer products, I saw a guy who placed a pickle in a bucket of water and called it art, I don't remember him trying to sell it to anyone.  But if he had, then that would be consumer product and, as I said, the consumer should always have a say.

[Tommytsunami]

The art defense, at least in my opinion, goes out the window as soon as choice is stripped away from you in the ending. The choices and consequences were what made this story unique. It was the first time, at least done well, in which the choices of one game directly altered certain aspects of the next... The ever changing story based on your Shepard's actions is what made the series artistic. When the control was taken away from player the story went from art to cliche...

I know some may adamantly disagree with me and that is fine, but in my opinion the travesty of the ending and lack of choice which made this series what it is completely removes the "ending as art" argument from being even remotely credible.

[ScotGaymer]

Call my viewpoint on it pretentious if you like.

I just think they do different things, and have different goals. To me ultimately Video Games are a product that has a consumer base. Nout pretentious about that.

But hey launch personal attacks on someone that disagree's with you if you like. It only makes you look bad, and supports my viewpoint.

[AveryChim]

Klijpope wrote...

SoulDire wrote...

Quite frankly if it weren't for this Smithsonian business I doubt we would be hearing anything about art. If this art thing had any weight then we wouldn't have gotten the changes to Deception that we requested. This is a consumer product, consumers always have a say.

This is a depressing sentiment. Your are relegating all artistic endeavour to consumer products, and effectively denying even the existence of art. The fact that this debate is being reduced to a banal consumerist procedure is dispiriting as much as fallacious.

You would not have the passion to argue this if ME3 was just a mere consumerist product, like a box of soap powder (are your smalls really whiter than white?). 

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

[Subject M]

Video-games can of course be art in many ways and according to many definitions.
However something so inconsistent could never be called good art or should be immune to improvement. There are times where I too had to develop a product or a design further, because those who ordered it were not fully satisfied with my work. As an artist, you then need to add or develop you product further, in a way that both keeps your artistic intentions intact as well as satisfies the customer.

[SoulDire]

Klijpope wrote...

SoulDire wrote...

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

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

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

[Klijpope]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Call my viewpoint on it pretentious if you like.

I just think they do different things, and have different goals. To me ultimately Video Games are a product that has a consumer base. Nout pretentious about that.

But hey launch personal attacks on someone that disagree's with you if you like. It only makes you look bad, and supports my viewpoint.

Apologies, shouldn't have said it like that. Please forgive me.


However, you do realise that art, as in 'proper art' that goes in art galleries, also has a consumer base? Very much smaller and wealthier than the consumer base videogames have, but the fact a work has a consumer base does not invalidate it as an artform. That art galleries are also commercial ventures and some even have shareholders? 

The artworld is certainly not the cliche of the struggling artist in his garret - Van Gogh is almost unique in that respect. And that many authors do not have experience the pain and misery first hand; Iain Banks tends to have a lot of fun being a writer, especially only having to work 3 months out of every year.

Tommytsunami wrote...

The art defense, at least in my opinion, goes out the window as soon as choice is stripped away from you in the ending.

Funnily enough, the fact that users/players choose things, especially at a conclusion, was one of the reasons some of the more fusty theoreticians claimed that games could never be art (Mr Ebert once included, though he since recanted)