208 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

ITT: BSN discusses a red herring.

Certainly though, BioWare's ability to stumble from controversy to controversy (Dragon Age 2, Deception, ME 3 endings) could be classified as an art.

At the end of the day, demanding an ending to tie up (most) loose ends by providing closure, be coherent within the context of the given narrative and reinforce the themes established throughout is not demanding a lack of artistic integrity, it's demanding competency.

Especially when you consider how BioWare has built up expectations for Mass Effect 3.

Now, whether you think that BioWare has been able to do that with Mass Effect 3's ending is obviously up for debate and not one I wish to engage. I make no judgements on Mass Effect 3's ending here.

But I wish people would stop falling back to the "art" argument. It's as if the same people who were demanding Garrus and Tali play a greater role as LIs suddenly woke up to the concept of "artistic integrity" just because BioWare used the phrase in it's PR. Or the people namedropping Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as if the Mass Effect series are equivalent to his works.

It's sad.

Mass Effect 3 is a commercial game that was designed to appeal to as many people as possible and earn as much money as possible. While that doesn't inherently rule it out as art, or stand out as a bad goal in of itself (it's the goal of every game in the mainstream) I hardly think "artistic integrity" is much of a goal when Jessica Chobot was casted as a VO and given significant coverage as part of the game's marketing campaign or when BioWare decided to charge for Javik as Day 1 DLC.

Use your brians people and failing that, at least try to. If you want to defend/attack the endings, you can do much better than "it is/is not art!"

Modifié par CrustyBot, 25 mars 2012 - 11:00 .

[rdrules]

JudasMesiah wrote...

Like them I hated the ending. But like I won't tell Vincent Van Gogh to change Starry Night 
.

heres something really bad about that, people keeep mentioning paintings when they make this statement but any painting that was commisioned aka paid for by someone from the artist, including ones that are now considered works of art even alkot of masterpieces could have been told to go back and change it by the person paying for it 

[Kronner]

Videogames are not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. While some parts of the game require certain artistic touch does not mean the final product is a form of art.

If it is, then the custom spiced chicken breast and pasta I cooked today is an art too.

[Yaevinn]

This Roger Ebert guy is so damn right. Video games are made to earn money, deal with it.

[quethefux]

Photography, since its popular advent in the late 1800s, has only been getting the respect it is entitled to just recently. By the looks of it, it'll also take video games 200 years to get some respect.

[FatalX7.0]

Kronner wrote...

Videogames are not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. While some parts of the game require certain artistic touch does not mean the final product is a form of art.

If it is, then the custom spiced chicken breast and pasta I cooked today is an art too.

Culinary arts.

The art of preparing and cooking food.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 25 mars 2012 - 11:04 .

[ttchip]

I suggest you try 'Limbo'...

[JudasMesiah]

Damien Shepherd wrote...

US Supreme Court Votes in Favor of Protecting Video Games As Art

Read more: http://technorati.co.../#ixzz1q7eEU1MJ

It was voted 7-2 last june, your free to your own opinion just know your gonna have a hell of a time convincing anyone here especially since it's the law of the land.

Videogames are malleable art and as such can be changed, mmo's do it all the time based on player feedback, bioware has told us several times that we were part of the creative process, Casey Hudson himself even went as far to say we were co-creators of ME3, so even if it is undeniably art we are not in the wrong to ask for change to the endings.

I'm not asking the legality or the merit of having fan involvement. What I'm trying to ask is are we supposed to stick our noses or should we stay out of the artistic process.
'Cause leave an artist to their devices will often times suprised you.

[quethefux]

Kronner wrote...

Videogames are not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. While some parts of the game require certain artistic touch does not mean the final product is a form of art.

If it is, then the custom spiced chicken breast and pasta I cooked today is an art too.

You're comparing video games to chicken. You're obviously not an artist.

And other massively produced or consumed products you use on the daily aren't art, right? So cars aren't art. And shoes aren't art. Or clothes. Or buildings.
So all the professional character designers, writers, digital painters, set designers, game designers, etc. that are hired to produce games aren't artists and didn't go to prestigious art programs across the country to learn how to produce fantastic methods of interaction dealing in 2D, 3D, AND 4D.

Funny. Engineers/doctors/etc. are never questioned nearly as much as artists are. Laymen think they have the authority to decide what IS and ISN'T art when they haven't even taken a course in art history, theory, or philosophy. Seriously? As someone else said: play Limbo.

PS Ever heard of culinary arts? Of course you haven't.

PPS And, no: products made to be used in large quantities are not just art. They make use of the artistic process for specific purposes. It's called design, you ass.

Modifié par quethefux, 25 mars 2012 - 11:11 .

[quethefux]

ttchip wrote...

I suggest you try 'Limbo'...

A ****in' +.

[da mighty rEAper]

MASS EFFECT 3

}(+){

-dialogue choices are lot less but differ greatly compared to rest of the trilogy
-better controls(cover usage, running, tumbles)
-character relationship feels more alive( both between crew members and shep with his/her LI )

}(-){

-story is silly (that crucible **** is so dumb)
-tailored for multiplayer
-retarded and uninteresting sidequests(eavesdropping)
-plot of other trilogy games was changed for some retarded( or just extremely bad executed) technological singularity idea
-despite refusing they still failed with day one dlc, as to there is no reason to not include such valuable content in the game
-reapers are dumb (oh hi dere Sovereign)
-Cerberus and TIM storywise potential is COMPLETELY WASTED
-retarded antagonist (that asian assassin is so retarded, i almost felt like i was watching some stupid anime)

thats not all



http://geek.pikimal....t-name-release/

thats not all

[FatalX7.0]

quethefux wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Videogames are not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. While some parts of the game require certain artistic touch does not mean the final product is a form of art.

If it is, then the custom spiced chicken breast and pasta I cooked today is an art too.

You're comparing video games to chicken. You're obviously not an artist.

And cars aren't art. And shoes aren't art. Or clothes. Or buildings. So all the professional character designers, writers, digital painters, set designers, game designers, etc. that are massively hired to produce games aren't artists and didn't go to prestigious art programs across the country to learn how to produce fantastic methods of interaction dealing in 2D, 3D, AND 4D. It's called design, dip****.

Funny. Engineers/doctors/etc. are never questioned nearly as much as artists are. Laymen think they have the authority to decide what IS and ISN'T art when they haven't even taken a course in art history, theory, or philosophy. Seriously?

PS Ever heard of culinary arts? Of course you haven't.

Art is subjective.

Someone can see a car or clothing, even buildings, as art. Some buildings are made as art, some really crazy, and beautiful, builds.

The design, how it's built, how it looks.

Video games were officially declared art, years ago. I think I already said this here, but I feel the need to say it again, even if it doesn't necessarily fit with this post.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 25 mars 2012 - 11:11 .

[da mighty rEAper]

btw your head is head is flawed op.. :/

[Kronner]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Culinary arts.

The art of preparing and cooking food.

There's a difference. If you go to random pub and order from their menu, what they bring you is not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. Videogames are exactly that, imho.

[quethefux]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

quethefux wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Videogames are not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. While some parts of the game require certain artistic touch does not mean the final product is a form of art.

If it is, then the custom spiced chicken breast and pasta I cooked today is an art too.

You're comparing video games to chicken. You're obviously not an artist.

And cars aren't art. And shoes aren't art. Or clothes. Or buildings. So all the professional character designers, writers, digital painters, set designers, game designers, etc. that are massively hired to produce games aren't artists and didn't go to prestigious art programs across the country to learn how to produce fantastic methods of interaction dealing in 2D, 3D, AND 4D. It's called design, dip****.

Funny. Engineers/doctors/etc. are never questioned nearly as much as artists are. Laymen think they have the authority to decide what IS and ISN'T art when they haven't even taken a course in art history, theory, or philosophy. Seriously?

PS Ever heard of culinary arts? Of course you haven't.

Art is subjective.

Someone can see a car or clothing, even buildings, as art. Some buildings are made as art, some really crazy, and beautiful, builds.

The design, how it's built, how it looks.

Video games were officially declared art, years ago.

Yeah... That's what I said.

[Vez04]

Sees thread title.

*Puts on Facepalm*

[FatalX7.0]

quethefux wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

quethefux wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Videogames are not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. While some parts of the game require certain artistic touch does not mean the final product is a form of art.

If it is, then the custom spiced chicken breast and pasta I cooked today is an art too.

You're comparing video games to chicken. You're obviously not an artist.

And cars aren't art. And shoes aren't art. Or clothes. Or buildings. So all the professional character designers, writers, digital painters, set designers, game designers, etc. that are massively hired to produce games aren't artists and didn't go to prestigious art programs across the country to learn how to produce fantastic methods of interaction dealing in 2D, 3D, AND 4D. It's called design, dip****.

Funny. Engineers/doctors/etc. are never questioned nearly as much as artists are. Laymen think they have the authority to decide what IS and ISN'T art when they haven't even taken a course in art history, theory, or philosophy. Seriously?

PS Ever heard of culinary arts? Of course you haven't.

Art is subjective.

Someone can see a car or clothing, even buildings, as art. Some buildings are made as art, some really crazy, and beautiful, builds.

The design, how it's built, how it looks.

Video games were officially declared art, years ago.

Yeah... That's what I said.

You said they aren't art.

I said they can be. Am I missing something? I must be.

[Fortack]

There isn't a definition or set of rules that makes something "art" or not, therefore the point made in the OP is a pointless one.

[FatalX7.0]

Kronner wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Culinary arts.

The art of preparing and cooking food.

There's a difference. If you go to random pub and order from their menu, what they bring you is not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. Videogames are exactly that, imho.

And music?

Books?

Movies?

[moneycashgeorge]

Here's my take on this, I think many of you are missing the point.

Modern video games are really a package of several different kinds of media. Some are art, and some are not. Take Mass Effect for example;

The cut scenes are art. Its an animated video, like any other. The environments and models are a kind of digital sculpting, also art. The skyboxes are a painting, that is art. Characters, conflicts, plots, all of these are part of narrative art. The music is art.

Third person shooting? Not art. Inventory management, upgrading, and other game mechanics are not art. These are just...games. Designing them is not art, or else the person who created basketball is an artist.

So, I think that ultimately the only correct answer is that games in it of themselves are not art, but a game may contain art in it.

A story is always art, but a game doesn't need a story to be a game. It does however need gameplay. So Mass Effect, Half-Life, etc., games that focus on the story, are perhaps in most part art. Pac Man is not art, Mario is not art, Call of Duty is not art. These are just.....amusements.

[Wrex4Life]

It is not an entitle few though a large part of evryone who plays it disliked the ending, maybe they don't hate it as much as the retake guys but they still hate,

You can basically go to any forum on the internet at this point that isn't Game/movie/ or tv show specific and see a thread of someone who hates the ending.

[quethefux]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

quethefux wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

quethefux wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Videogames are not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. While some parts of the game require certain artistic touch does not mean the final product is a form of art.

If it is, then the custom spiced chicken breast and pasta I cooked today is an art too.

You're comparing video games to chicken. You're obviously not an artist.

And cars aren't art. And shoes aren't art. Or clothes. Or buildings. So all the professional character designers, writers, digital painters, set designers, game designers, etc. that are massively hired to produce games aren't artists and didn't go to prestigious art programs across the country to learn how to produce fantastic methods of interaction dealing in 2D, 3D, AND 4D. It's called design, dip****.

Funny. Engineers/doctors/etc. are never questioned nearly as much as artists are. Laymen think they have the authority to decide what IS and ISN'T art when they haven't even taken a course in art history, theory, or philosophy. Seriously?

PS Ever heard of culinary arts? Of course you haven't.

Art is subjective.

Someone can see a car or clothing, even buildings, as art. Some buildings are made as art, some really crazy, and beautiful, builds.

The design, how it's built, how it looks.

Video games were officially declared art, years ago.

Yeah... That's what I said.

You said they aren't art.

I said they can be. Am I missing something? I must be.

I thought I was pretty clear that I was extrapolating on what he said defines art from not-art: if something is made to be used in large quantities or consumed by many, it's not art.
So, based on that definition, cars/shoes/clothing/buildings/etc. are actually not-art. I made it very clear I disagreed with that.

On a side note, most arts made to serve with a utilitarian function in mind become design. Though there are fine artists that deal with the blurring between fine arts and design (the two are not the same, but do make use of similar principles; both are art).

Modifié par quethefux, 25 mars 2012 - 11:17 .

[CroGamer002]

PFT-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

You seriously linked Roger Ebert's blog about this?


Oh my God, that's just sad. Hilarius, but still sad.

[FatalX7.0]

quethefux wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

quethefux wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

quethefux wrote...

Kronner wrote...

Videogames are not art. It's a product designated for mass consumption. While some parts of the game require certain artistic touch does not mean the final product is a form of art.

If it is, then the custom spiced chicken breast and pasta I cooked today is an art too.

You're comparing video games to chicken. You're obviously not an artist.

And cars aren't art. And shoes aren't art. Or clothes. Or buildings. So all the professional character designers, writers, digital painters, set designers, game designers, etc. that are massively hired to produce games aren't artists and didn't go to prestigious art programs across the country to learn how to produce fantastic methods of interaction dealing in 2D, 3D, AND 4D. It's called design, dip****.

Funny. Engineers/doctors/etc. are never questioned nearly as much as artists are. Laymen think they have the authority to decide what IS and ISN'T art when they haven't even taken a course in art history, theory, or philosophy. Seriously?

PS Ever heard of culinary arts? Of course you haven't.

Art is subjective.

Someone can see a car or clothing, even buildings, as art. Some buildings are made as art, some really crazy, and beautiful, builds.

The design, how it's built, how it looks.

Video games were officially declared art, years ago.

Yeah... That's what I said.

You said they aren't art.

I said they can be. Am I missing something? I must be.

I thought I was pretty clear that I was extrapolating on what he said defines art from not-art: if something is made to be used in large quantities or consumed by many, it's not art.
So, based on that definition, cars/shoes/clothing/buildings/etc. are actually not-art. I made it very clear I disagreed with that.

On a side note, most arts made to serve with a utilitarian function in mind become design. Though there are fine artists that deal with the blurring between fine arts and design (the two are not the same, but do make use of similar principles; both are art).

Okay, I thought that might have been your intention, but I was not entirely sure.

[saga56]

games are not art- they are a mass produced product, they dont make games for the ' love of it' if games dont sell well they wont make another.