1311 réponses à ce sujet

[MetalCargo999]

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]MetalCargo999 wrote...

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]MetalCargo999 wrote...

[/quote]

I disagree with the homogenized story.  This form of story telling lends itself to presenting several options the story can go.  Look at Mass Effect 2, for example.  You can actually die, as Shepard, in the end game.  I actually found this ending to be very powerful, and twhen Shepard's role in the conversation was filled by Joker?  Fantastic!  Risk isn't the problem.  Getting it right is the problem.  Do you think Bioware would be making changes or additions if people weren't poking holes through the endings like swiss cheese?  Probably not, because while people may personally dislike the ending, they can't really argue against its validity as an ending.

As for the DLC thing, I totally agree, and it scares me.  But I'm likely not going to play a lot of video games after ME3 because of how terrible it has made me feel about the gaming industry as a whole.  - metalcargo999[/quote]

I personally don't think that is a great example of risky story telling.  Regardless if you have a game where shepard dies his story still continues in the next one. There was going to be a sequel and shepard was the star.  If they had hired t2o more voice actors and had a fill in for shepard, it would have meant something in the long run.  By having mass effect 3 with shepard as the lead it was made canon.

The only thing about the end of 2 that had weight was the fact members of your crew could die, because that carried over. 

I very much think they would make changes and additions if you were not able to poke holes in the story.  Again that is not the sole drive behind this movement.  Many people of the movement want to be able able to put a bullet in the catalyst while shouting "reap this!", then go home and bang the cheerleader.  Enough people that EA would be able to make a fast buck.  I still stand behind Casey being resentful in his response to the fan outcry.  I think he honestly is willing to stand by the ending, it's not biowares call though.  

EA will make money off this and Bioware will take less chances.  This will affect our wallets and biowares stories.
- ashdrake1
[/quote]

You're sort of making my point in a weird way, though.  You're saying that risk, with respect to the Mass Effect 3 story, involves taking away player choice and forcing authorial intent.  This, I would argue, flies in the face of the very nature of this form of story telling.  I said earlier how hijacking your art to make a point instead of using it is not good work.  I think this applies here. 

While I understand where you're coming from, I can't accept such a constrained ending as being good seeing how one of the developers even said that there is no canon for Shepard.  Each of us makes our own canon.  There hasn't been any good justification for sacrificing the nature of this form of storytelling beyond, "because it's the ending.  Obviously."  This really doesn't work for me.  Ultimately, in a strange way, I'm asking Bioware to not sacrifice its art for the sake of polarity, and to do what it always has done, only in increasing measure.

But honestly at this point, just give me closure and fill whatever plot holes appear to exist, and I'm happy.  To watch them on Youtube and see if they're any good.  Then buy them if they're worth it.[/quote]

-MetalCargo999

Not really.  This form of interactive story telling has been this way since game one.  It has been as such for the entire series. It is interactive only to a point.  All of the endings have been the same with a hard choice to make at the end.  We get to modify the story a bit as it goes, but the end results have always been the same.  Sovereign is always destroyed, the collectors are always defeated and the reapers are no longer eating the galaxy.  There not being a cannon for shepard is just not true, points a, b and c are reached regardless.  It's just the bit's in the middle we get fiddle with.

Bioware lets us tweak the story as we go, but the ending is always set in stone.  You can put a bit of personal spin on it, but the results are ultimately the same.  We can choose to save the council, blow up the base or choose red, green or blue.  As far as the over arching story it has little to no effect.  No one listens if you kill or save the council.  Nothing great comes from blowing up or saving the base. Red, green and blue probably has the biggest effect on the story because we have to speculate on it, instead of finding out it did not matter.

Hell my biggest problem with the game isn't the ending, it's choices I made that are flat out irrelevant.  I felt more betrayed by Udina being on the council and another rachni appearing.  Both should have had better repercussions.  But at this point we are back to personal views on what makes a good story and how we think it should have gone.  I would have liked a better telling of those two parts of the story and I still want to know wtf Jorker is doing.

I just think the cost is to high.
[/quote]

But again, look at the vast improvement made to player choice with relation to the overarching story from ME1 to ME2!  Why are we taking one step forward, then two steps back?  Plus, I think it was Casey Hudson himself who said that because this is the end of the series, the developers aren't limited like they were in ME1 and ME2.  Mike Gamble said something like, "how can we give everyone the same ending when they've been playing their Shepard?" (paraphrased, obviously).  Why does taking a risk in ME3 involve going back on those initial comments and even the initial form of story telling?  Why are we not improveing, but instead regressing?  Our demands (maybe not the right word considering the topic of this thread) are for Bioware NOT to stay in a rut and to get better specifically when it comes to "choose your own story" stories.  And the cost when it comes to art I think is an exaggeration.  The cost, when it comes to DLC and how it will change the gaming industry is valid.  But just like players revolted against this, they can, as consumers, revolt against crooked DLC business practices.  The only reason that sales model will succeed is if people give in and buy it.[/quote]

I would have loved it if the end had played out like ME2 with hard choices that put each of your milatary assets at risk.  Working with them as you worked with your crew in 2.  That in my mind would have been the perfect way to do the end.  Would have felt much more interactive and making our choices matter.  


I would have loved it if the end had played out like ME2 with hard choices that put each of your milatary assets at risk.  Working with them as you worked with your crew in 2.  That in my mind would have been the perfect way to do the end.  Would have felt much more interactive and making our choices matter. 

I think the huge step backwards was for a obvious reason.  EA.  I don't think they were given the time to do the ending they wanted.  I still think it would have ended more or less the same, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts they were not given the time or budget to implement it.  They flat out said they wanted to do a indoctrination thing but it was to hard.  That's bull.  Given the time and resource they could have accomplished it.  Instead they did the best they could within the given time.  They did their best with a risky memorable ending.  Regardless of it being good, it was damn effective.  Look at the speculation as to what happens next on the forums.

The war against DLC has already been lost.  Bethesda made a metric ton of money off horse armor despite the vocal complaints against it.  Now studios won't have to put much thought into an ending because they can just charge you to fix it.  This going to be much worse than a day one dlc, now you will need to pay more to finish the game.  I strongly think this will have a large impact on story telling and as you agree the DLC.  I won't stop playing games because of it, but I will in future look back at this being a major stepping stone in our unpleasant nickle and dime future.
[/quote]

Well this has been an interesting exchange.  I should prolly go to bed since I have work tomorrow.  Nice chatting with you.

[Jackal7713]

Grasich wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Grasich wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

You know EA just love this argument. Seriously. By all means, surrender whatever influence you have, which is almost nothing anyway. Giving yourself moral limits when dealing with EA is the silliest thing I have ever heard of. EA looks at you and sees ---------> $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

What?! EA is all about art and artistic freedom they don't...

Oh wait...

www.youtube.com/watch

I've seen that. It is incredibly disturbing.

I would not be surprised if that man literally sees people as walking, talking wallets.

The guy totally seems like a one of the wall street housing bankers.

[Unit-Alpha]

Jackal7713 wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Grasich wrote...

aliengmr1 wrote...

You know EA just love this argument. Seriously. By all means, surrender whatever influence you have, which is almost nothing anyway. Giving yourself moral limits when dealing with EA is the silliest thing I have ever heard of. EA looks at you and sees ---------> $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

What?! EA is all about art and artistic freedom they don't...

Oh wait...

www.youtube.com/watch

I've seen that. It is incredibly disturbing.

I would not be surprised if that man literally sees people as walking, talking wallets.

The guy totally seems like a one of the wall street housing bankers.

Or Enron guys.

[Renoscott]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

[FemmeShep]

Grasich wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

Grasich wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

So why do people think that art can't be a collaboration? That it can't be changed....

Another loaded question.

Personally though I don't get it. I think some people have this view of artists as all being noble beings trying to teach moral messages through their art or something. Let's face it though, most art is done to please an audience, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I didn't mean for it to be loaded. I just think it's strange how people view "art" as this object that is only made for the gratification of the artist, and not for others. I especially find this weird, seeing as BioWare has built their company around fan participation and collaboration.

I agree that no one should force them to change anything. But I also don't see a problem with fans voicing their want for something different. And whatever BioWare decides, is what they decide. 

I agree. I just can't wrap my head around the concept of a commercial product being the same as "art for the artist".

It's pretty complicated, I agree. And maybe some of us aren't fully taking that into consideration (and I say this to those on both sides of the argument).

Because you are right, art isn't always just art, it's also a product that they sell to consumers. It's always a thin line between what is art, and what is a product. Or rather, the balance between the two. It's strange, because with TV shows, they get their funding by commericals. And the ad money is based on viewers. So the audience doesn't have to pay for the show itself (unless you consider what you pay for utilities), they just have to tune in. 

But Video Games are different. You pay for the product to view and play it, and the artist/company makes money off that art/product. It's no longer enough to just have the audience viewing. So unlike TV shows, it's almost like there is more of a blur between art and product. And IMO in situations like this, you have more of an obligation to the audience. 

I just keep coming back to the fact that, BioWare has always been about collaboration. How they have built their brand and sold their product has been based on this. This is why I don't 100% buy into the artistic integrity argument, as I believe BioWare has some responsibility to their customers.

On the flip side though, I also don't want someone doing something, because they are forced to do it. This whole thing stinks, and is unfortunate. 

[Grasich]

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

[FemmeShep]

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

....and yet, the artist askes the people to participate in shaping the story...

Again I don't think you can really compare Video Games, or specifically this niche/genre as the same to other things....

Modifié par FemmeShep, 24 mars 2012 - 05:26 .

[UKillMeLongTime]

thats too much to read

ending sucked and always will. They promised one thing and gave another

some claim artistic freedom when discussing the crucifix in a jar of urine.

if that is art then the ending was art

[DemGeth]

lol

It deals with the real world terms of what the implications are when the public or judiciary decide what is and isn't art.

Though of course I only used DA:O because were on BSN.

((And I do think that Bioware can change/modify the ending if they want and fans can ask))

[dubdevo]

Pottumuusi wrote...

Hasn't this been covered before?
They have the right to make any sort of ending they want.
I have a right to think that their ending is terrible and say that it would be better if they did X.
They have the right to change or not change the endings if they want to. They just have to decide if they like their "artistic integrity" or whatever better than they like my money.

Yep. 

[Grasich]

FemmeShep wrote...


It's pretty complicated, I agree. And maybe some of us aren't fully taking that into consideration (and I say this to those on both sides of the argument).

Because you are right, art isn't always just art, it's also a product that they sell to consumers. It's always a thin line between what is art, and what is a product. Or rather, the balance between the two. It's strange, because with TV shows, they get their funding by commericals. And the ad money is based on viewers. So the audience doesn't have to pay for the show itself (unless you consider what you pay for utilities), they just have to tune in. 

But Video Games are different. You pay for the product to view and play it, and the artist/company makes money off that art/product. It's no longer enough to just have the audience viewing. So unlike TV shows, it's almost like there is more of a blur between art and product. And IMO in situations like this, you have more of an obligation to the audience. 

I just keep coming back to the fact that, BioWare has always been about collaboration. How they have built their brand and sold their product has been based on this. This is why I don't 100% buy into the artistic integrity argument, as I believe BioWare has some responsibility to their customers.

On the flip side though, I also don't want someone doing something, because they are forced to do it. This whole thing stinks, and is unfortunate. 

On that, I think we can ALL agree.

[ashdrake1]

[quote]MetalCargo999 wrote...

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]MetalCargo999 wrote...

[quote]ashdrake1 wrote...

[quote]MetalCargo999 wrote...

[/quote]

I disagree with the homogenized story.  This form of story telling lends itself to presenting several options the story can go.  Look at Mass Effect 2, for example.  You can actually die, as Shepard, in the end game.  I actually found this ending to be very powerful, and twhen Shepard's role in the conversation was filled by Joker?  Fantastic!  Risk isn't the problem.  Getting it right is the problem.  Do you think Bioware would be making changes or additions if people weren't poking holes through the endings like swiss cheese?  Probably not, because while people may personally dislike the ending, they can't really argue against its validity as an ending.

As for the DLC thing, I totally agree, and it scares me.  But I'm likely not going to play a lot of video games after ME3 because of how terrible it has made me feel about the gaming industry as a whole.  - metalcargo999[/quote]

I personally don't think that is a great example of risky story telling.  Regardless if you have a game where shepard dies his story still continues in the next one. There was going to be a sequel and shepard was the star.  If they had hired t2o more voice actors and had a fill in for shepard, it would have meant something in the long run.  By having mass effect 3 with shepard as the lead it was made canon.

The only thing about the end of 2 that had weight was the fact members of your crew could die, because that carried over. 

I very much think they would make changes and additions if you were not able to poke holes in the story.  Again that is not the sole drive behind this movement.  Many people of the movement want to be able able to put a bullet in the catalyst while shouting "reap this!", then go home and bang the cheerleader.  Enough people that EA would be able to make a fast buck.  I still stand behind Casey being resentful in his response to the fan outcry.  I think he honestly is willing to stand by the ending, it's not biowares call though.  

EA will make money off this and Bioware will take less chances.  This will affect our wallets and biowares stories.
- ashdrake1
[/quote]

You're sort of making my point in a weird way, though.  You're saying that risk, with respect to the Mass Effect 3 story, involves taking away player choice and forcing authorial intent.  This, I would argue, flies in the face of the very nature of this form of story telling.  I said earlier how hijacking your art to make a point instead of using it is not good work.  I think this applies here. 

While I understand where you're coming from, I can't accept such a constrained ending as being good seeing how one of the developers even said that there is no canon for Shepard.  Each of us makes our own canon.  There hasn't been any good justification for sacrificing the nature of this form of storytelling beyond, "because it's the ending.  Obviously."  This really doesn't work for me.  Ultimately, in a strange way, I'm asking Bioware to not sacrifice its art for the sake of polarity, and to do what it always has done, only in increasing measure.

But honestly at this point, just give me closure and fill whatever plot holes appear to exist, and I'm happy.  To watch them on Youtube and see if they're any good.  Then buy them if they're worth it.[/quote]

-MetalCargo999

Not really.  This form of interactive story telling has been this way since game one.  It has been as such for the entire series. It is interactive only to a point.  All of the endings have been the same with a hard choice to make at the end.  We get to modify the story a bit as it goes, but the end results have always been the same.  Sovereign is always destroyed, the collectors are always defeated and the reapers are no longer eating the galaxy.  There not being a cannon for shepard is just not true, points a, b and c are reached regardless.  It's just the bit's in the middle we get fiddle with.

Bioware lets us tweak the story as we go, but the ending is always set in stone.  You can put a bit of personal spin on it, but the results are ultimately the same.  We can choose to save the council, blow up the base or choose red, green or blue.  As far as the over arching story it has little to no effect.  No one listens if you kill or save the council.  Nothing great comes from blowing up or saving the base. Red, green and blue probably has the biggest effect on the story because we have to speculate on it, instead of finding out it did not matter.

Hell my biggest problem with the game isn't the ending, it's choices I made that are flat out irrelevant.  I felt more betrayed by Udina being on the council and another rachni appearing.  Both should have had better repercussions.  But at this point we are back to personal views on what makes a good story and how we think it should have gone.  I would have liked a better telling of those two parts of the story and I still want to know wtf Jorker is doing.

I just think the cost is to high.
[/quote]

But again, look at the vast improvement made to player choice with relation to the overarching story from ME1 to ME2!  Why are we taking one step forward, then two steps back?  Plus, I think it was Casey Hudson himself who said that because this is the end of the series, the developers aren't limited like they were in ME1 and ME2.  Mike Gamble said something like, "how can we give everyone the same ending when they've been playing their Shepard?" (paraphrased, obviously).  Why does taking a risk in ME3 involve going back on those initial comments and even the initial form of story telling?  Why are we not improveing, but instead regressing?  Our demands (maybe not the right word considering the topic of this thread) are for Bioware NOT to stay in a rut and to get better specifically when it comes to "choose your own story" stories.  And the cost when it comes to art I think is an exaggeration.  The cost, when it comes to DLC and how it will change the gaming industry is valid.  But just like players revolted against this, they can, as consumers, revolt against crooked DLC business practices.  The only reason that sales model will succeed is if people give in and buy it.[/quote]

I would have loved it if the end had played out like ME2 with hard choices that put each of your milatary assets at risk.  Working with them as you worked with your crew in 2.  That in my mind would have been the perfect way to do the end.  Would have felt much more interactive and making our choices matter.  


I would have loved it if the end had played out like ME2 with hard choices that put each of your milatary assets at risk.  Working with them as you worked with your crew in 2.  That in my mind would have been the perfect way to do the end.  Would have felt much more interactive and making our choices matter. 

I think the huge step backwards was for a obvious reason.  EA.  I don't think they were given the time to do the ending they wanted.  I still think it would have ended more or less the same, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts they were not given the time or budget to implement it.  They flat out said they wanted to do a indoctrination thing but it was to hard.  That's bull.  Given the time and resource they could have accomplished it.  Instead they did the best they could within the given time.  They did their best with a risky memorable ending.  Regardless of it being good, it was damn effective.  Look at the speculation as to what happens next on the forums.

The war against DLC has already been lost.  Bethesda made a metric ton of money off horse armor despite the vocal complaints against it.  Now studios won't have to put much thought into an ending because they can just charge you to fix it.  This going to be much worse than a day one dlc, now you will need to pay more to finish the game.  I strongly think this will have a large impact on story telling and as you agree the DLC.  I won't stop playing games because of it, but I will in future look back at this being a major stepping stone in our unpleasant nickle and dime future.
[/quote]

Well this has been an interesting exchange.  I should prolly go to bed since I have work tomorrow.  Nice chatting with you.[/quote]

Ditto.  I just wanted to add one last thing.  Not every author hits it out of the park.  We should have done what we have always done, leave feedback and expect them to fix it in the next game.  It worked pretty well for 2 and 3 and we would not set this sort of precedent.

also Thanks for the intelligent chat.  Love how everyone else here doesn't care.  This is going to suck so much in a 2 years minimum.

[Unit-Alpha]

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

ART!

IT IS CONFUSING; THUS IT MUST BE ART!

[Dethead123]

DemGeth wrote...

False doesn't matter in the arguement it's theoritical  

But the situation is so vastly unheard of. For one, as advances in technology and business come about, so too understanding and acceptance of cultures and social backgrounds. You can see it even now in America back in the 60's gay rights were unheard of, in the same breath so were video games! By the time games would be allowed/have the capacity to show gay romance it's more likely to imagine the general public is desensitized enough for it to not be a major factor in sales. This theoritical situation is just hard to use as a appropriate analogy.

[Renoscott]

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

[Grasich]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

ART!

IT IS CONFUSING; THUS IT MUST BE ART!

OF COURSE! HOW COULD I NOT SEE IT BEFORE?!

[Skyhawk02]

That article was a really interesting read, it is good to see this thread getting so much attention

[iTofu]

Video games, especially games like Mass Effect, are art. Fits pretty cleanly within the definition. There was even an "The Art of Video Games" exhibit at the Smithsonian. It's definitely a product, don't even know how this is disputable. I'm not really clear why some people think it's mutually exclusive. Agree to disagree I guess.

Nonetheless, my opinion is the art argument is bogus. Art has always been modified. When commissioned art doesn't meet the expectations, the artist modifies it or risks future work.

I disagree with the books and movies parallel. I get it, but there is such an enormous difference in consumer time  and involvement. The producer and consumer dynamic is different. There are so many movies, movie trilogies and books that I loved and I would accept or did accept an ending that was strange, open ended and was riddled with plot holes.

Luc0s wrote...

If BioWare decides to do nothing, I'll be hugely dissapoined, but I'll still fully support them.

If BioWare decides to do nothing, I'll be very dissapoined too. I won't buy any DLCs for Mass Effect 3, may never play single player again, probably reconsider before preordering a BioWare game...

I'm not demanding a different ending, but when it comes to my interest in purchasing additional ME products and confidence in future BioWare products... Well... It is what it is. It's not a protest, it's just where I'm at.

Many studios I would just sell the game, but I like BioWare and love Mass Effect, so I am going to continue to send my feedback and constructive criticism to BioWare in respectful manner and see where it goes. If that's entitled. That's cool.

Modifié par iTofu, 24 mars 2012 - 05:37 .

[Unit-Alpha]

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

Except this wasn't made for the artist's enjoyment, this was made for public consumption.So it was made for the people.

[Marixus99.9]

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

Wut?

[Grasich]

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

I'm still not getting you 100%.

That would be an example of "art for the artist"

ME3 is an example of a commercial product with artistic elements.

[Lugaidster]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Sorry, but claiming that art has an objective definition is patently untrue. The term is incredibly subjective.

And we aren't even talking about content here.

This game fits the commonly accepted consunsus (which is why it is the one that appears on dictionaries) on the meaning of the word in many societies, not just the american one. The term isn't subjective, the work that abides to the term's definition is. The definition is at most loose, not subjective. 

In any case, following your logic, you're contradicting yourself. If it is indeed not objective, then it's stupid to say the game is not art in absolute terms like you have said in the past posts. How can you if the definition is really subjective?

Modifié par Lugaidster, 24 mars 2012 - 05:31 .

[Cyph3rX]

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

...and then they charge money for it and it changes from purely art to a consumer product.

[Unit-Alpha]

Grasich wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

ART!

IT IS CONFUSING; THUS IT MUST BE ART!

OF COURSE! HOW COULD I NOT SEE IT BEFORE?!

You were obviously unworthy, but you have passed the test. It was so deep and meaningful that nobody understood it!

[aliengmr1]

Renoscott wrote...

Grasich wrote...

Renoscott wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Art is for the people. Paying for it makes it a commodity.

Art is from the creator, not the people.

I... what?

A creator makes a art pice with all his meaning, intenchons and symbolioms and puts it out for people to see. The people then view this art and try to make there own view of the art or see what the creator has made. It wasnt made FOR the people or BY the people.

This is actually wrong on so many levels. If you are applying that logic to video games and the like.