208 réponses à ce sujet

[Woodstock-TC]

cui bono ?
- museum and art reviewers will generally be inclined to redefine adding some new "trendy" things into the portfolio in order to extend the reach and be the first to catch the resulting interest. you can see (exaggerating to make a point) the same happening in the care-segment where previous healthy patients are being marked ill just to create new customers. the reach is extended, new customers and interest is being generated.

- game writers and designer will often love having the mark of an artist attached. its hip and sounds much more like "Self empowered", "self determined" instead working on a "product", or even more "mass market product".
can you do art in a mass market product, enjoy and have your ideas enjoyed ? sure. see bauhaus. form follows function. just forget your ego. dont just do "art for the art sake" or you are in the wrong profession.

Modifié par Woodstock-TC, 26 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[abaris]

Erode_The_Soul wrote...

So commissioned works don't qualify as art, in your opinion?

EA commissioned it, to use your example. The consumer didn't.

[InvincibleHero]

o Ventus wrote...

It's still a product (In our time anyway). A damned good product, but a product nonetheless.

Nope a book may be a product being paper and ink, but the words and themes are art. None of that is diminished because 1 or 100 million people experience the art product or who paid how much for it. The art remains as intended whether a painting or novel and only your perception changes that you see it as a product and not art. Art can be sold so it remains art but worth something.

A product is something produced by definition and all art is produced so draw whatever conclusion you will.

[Tazzmission]

JudasMesiah wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

oh look this again........................................

Are video games art? Ask the Smithsonian...


A new exhibit at the American Art Museum in Washington, D.C., just might settle a decades-old debate about the artistic merit of video games
Two years ago, Roger Ebert famously ranted that "video games can never be art." But today, video games seem to be receiving "recognition as a legitimate and significant form of art," says Chad Sapieha at Canada's Globe and Mail. The Smithsonian, the world's largest museum and research institution, has opened an exhibit at the American Art Museum in Washington, D.C., titled "The Art of Video Games: From Pac-Man to Mass Effect." With the Smithsonian on board, is the debate settled once and for all?
This settles it: Of course video games are art, says Kate Cox at Kotaku. And a visit to the museum proves it. The entire atmosphere of the American Art Museum, from the giant marble columns to the curious patrons, says: "This is the home of Serious Art." There's something "sacred about the space where over two centuries' worth of painting, sculpture, folk art, and more are displayed." And guess what: Seeing a "lovely and iconic" screenshot from Mass Effect 2 alongside those classic pieces just feels right.
"I played Myst at the museum: Visiting 'The Art of Video Games'"
But the exhibit doesn't make its case: "The Art of Video Games" is a "technologically impressive but intellectually inert exhibition," says Phillip Kennicott at The Washington Post. It would certainly make a worthwhile addition to a technology or history museum, but it has no business in an institution devoted to art. The exhibit "fails to grapple with questions about the definition and boundaries of art." Instead, displays about the evolution of graphics and interactivity focus too much on history and technical achievement. This is just another instance of a society that "would rather everything be art than anyone feel excluded from the realms of sanctified culture."
"In 'The Art of Video Games'"
Who knows? Art is so subjective: This exhibit is a boon to the "video games are art" cheerleaders, says Darren Franich at Entertainment Weekly, but "I've always thought it was pointless to argue" about this. After all, "art" may be the most loosely-defined word we have. A skilled athlete is described as an artist on the field. Virginia Woolf wrote about women who planned parties as a form of art. "Really, everyone could be called an 'artist.'"
"The Smithsonian will convince you that video games are art"

http://news.yahoo.co...-132000652.html

I can see your point and see what the Smithsonian is doing. But what I'm trying to say is Bioware is tainting it's own artistic vision to satisfy the bullies and with what's happening right now.
Will this situation affect videogames (not just Bioware's products) in the future.

the only reason why this is being mentioned is because your still pissed about an ending i bet

dont lie you know thats true because no such threads were created before any leak or the game came out

are you now gona say the united states congress is wrong now for even saying yes games are art because you have this obsession about a 10 minute ending that to you is bad?


you and alot of people fail to understand is bioware is the creator of the series and can pretty much do w/e the hell they want with it

this is where imo fans get this idea they feel like they themselves own something when in fact they dont

Modifié par Tazzmission, 26 mars 2012 - 06:50 .

[wolfstanus]

So all the greatest artists ****d them selfs out in one way or another. Commissions for companies etc there are copies of their work across the world smithsonian says video games are art. But me3 is not art because.

You the "fan" says so
It's a video game (lolwut)
There's millions
It was a commission
It's a video game.
Internet armchair experts say so.

Good to know
Now music is not art.
Painting etc is not art
Anything that's payed for is not art.

[foo man chew]

wolfstanus wrote...

So all the greatest artists ****d them selfs out in one way or another. Commissions for companies etc there are copies of their work across the world smithsonian says video games are art. But me3 is not art because.

You the "fan" says so
It's a video game (lolwut)
There's millions
It was a commission
It's a video game.
Internet armchair experts say so.

Good to know
Now music is not art.
Painting etc is not art
Anything that's payed for is not art.

So what every product you buy can be considered art what does it matter if video games are art.Art can be changed people who purchase art can ask for changes.Art is not some sacred thing when sold its a product subject to consumer fedback and change,

[wolfstanus]

Go tell a artist to change his finished product. That you didn't commission but bought a copy of... See how fare you get.

foo man chew wrote...

wolfstanus wrote...

So all the greatest artists ****d them selfs out in one way or another. Commissions for companies etc there are copies of their work across the world smithsonian says video games are art. But me3 is not art because.

You the "fan" says so
It's a video game (lolwut)
There's millions
It was a commission
It's a video game.
Internet armchair experts say so.

Good to know
Now music is not art.
Painting etc is not art
Anything that's payed for is not art.

So what every product you buy can be considered art what does it matter if video games are art.Art can be changed people who purchase art can ask for changes.Art is not some sacred thing when sold its a product subject to consumer fedback and change,

[Woodstock-TC]

Tazzmission wrote...
are you now gona say the united states congress is wrong now for even saying yes games are art because you have this obsession about a 10 minute ending that to you is bad?
 

 

The us congress.. as reference for artistic definitions. thanks for bringing it up. i do however agree that a lot of art is involved to create a game. (such as creating a car or chair)

Tazzmission wrote... 
you and alot of people fail to understand is bioware is the creator of the series and can pretty much do w/e the hell they want with it

just to give a short sight of my bg: half my family is listed in wiki as artists. these guys are musicians, writers, poets, sculptors and painters.
myself i satisfy my "call" as photographer - part time - as i earn more money and dont need to care about much with my full time work.

now there are so many different approaches to art, that you will be surprised.. its not like - i deduct from your sentence - what you may know from tv that an artist just sits around and "creates art" for the "art sake" or to follow his own ideas.
That may be great but doesnt pay off most of the cases.

If you want to have a living you will notice (and this starts as soon as with art school, collegue, university etc) that 90% of the times you´re being creative following an exactly defined framework. you are NOT free to do as you like.
the art is to find the best balance between your own ieads, inner genius and the client requirements.
the client can be a museum requiring works on specific themes, a collector, your prof, a client a stakeholder or the product manager.
the percentage in which you can move however defines the true genius, defines true outstanding work. its usualyl NOT what most ppl belive just doing "everything different" but refining and pushing boundries.
as mentioned before, you can see it perfectly at Bauhaus design. They reduced previous "artistic" notes to the true form following perfectly the function. They didnt try to create art for the art sake, rendering the client annoyed on an unusable chair. The chair is perfect and comfortable. The design however became clean and of timeless elegance.
Thats outstanding art. The chair is STILL USABLE yet may even be more ergonomic for the customer.
Some of the best very commecial product related (Art)works you can see in the automobile industry where the designer is restricted by form, materials, company general design-language and customer requirements but in the 10% (or more) he can define can generate art without neglecting any of the other given constrains.

What you can see in the "young" generation of Gaming is a lot of ppl that have a great deal of knowledge about game design, coding, level generation or even writing, which would like to be great artists because its "hip", but have no clue how to do so. (like a painter which would suddenly like to be a pictor)
Thus the easiest mistake to do is to do what every amateur is doing. Just trying to do "art" for its own sake.

Modifié par Woodstock-TC, 26 mars 2012 - 07:02 .

[NightfallRob]

The problem with your post OP is that it doesn't matter whether or not video games are art. You instead rant on themes of entitlement. Entitlement occurs when someone demands what they have no right to demand (and I am a clinical social worker so unless your credentials stack up to mine, I recommend that you accept my definition and not attempt to debate it). However, if a promise is made that a) your choices will matter and there are 16 separate endings to the game and then neither of these promises is filled, then there is legitimate cause for outrage. Especially since promising something, then not delivering, and profiting from this behavior is frequently referred to as fraud. The only reason the ME 3 ending is not fraud is a lack of mens rea. However, regardless of mindset when made, the game does not fulfill the promises made to all purchasers, whether they are upset or not, as things stand currently. That's why some of us are angry.

The days when we were in our teens or early 20's and had to put up with this treatment are long gone. We're adults now, with families, jobs, homes, and a sense of our own worth. And our time and money are worth more than the ME 3's current ending. If BW doesn't want to change the ending I'll be happy if they offer to provide me with $120 (I got into Mass Effect late so I didn't pay full price across all three games).

To make this easier for you to understand, think of how you react when you order food at a restaraunt and it's bad. You send it back. And if it remains bad, you refuse to pay or demand your money back. And here's the important part: you either don't pay or get your money back, every single time, even at fast food places. This is called customer service. This is what all of us are demanding,  basic acknowledgement that as customers we have the right to be purchasing what were promised.

[FatalX7.0]

The National Endowment for the Arts says that video games are art.

I believe I already posted my usual artsy fartsy counter-argument here, though.

[AdmiralCheez]

Can I just... say a few things about art? As an artist (sort of--I'm in school for it and sold a few pieces, so it counts), I think I can offer a little perspective.

The old adage of an artist working alone in her creative sphere, free from all outside influence, letting her raw talent and pure soul spill out onto the canvas? It's a big, stinkin' lie. I mean, sure, sometimes I paint stuff for myself, and sometimes I get lucky and someone wants to buy it, but the cold, hard fact of the matter is that if I want to earn a living, I have to paint something that will sell. That means I have to pay attention to current trends and what the critics are saying about my work, and I have to accept commissions from buyers, where they straight-up tell me what they want me to paint and how.

The great works of Michelangelo, Raphael, and all the other ninja turtles? The majority were commissioned by either wealthy families or the Catholic Church. Good ol' Michie was PAID to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. You don't put that amount of work into something just for funzies, especially if you're a guy like Michelangelo, who'd rather be sculpting, anyway.

Art is a powerful medium for self-expression and communication, but it's also a commodity. Video games, with their high production costs and heavy marketing, are more on the commercial end of art. That doesn't mean they're a lesser art (making a game sure as hell ain't easy, and you can paint entirely for reasons other than money and still suck), but they also have to follow the rules of something designed to be bought and sold. One of those rules is paying attention to what your consumer base is doing.

So like all other media, games are art, but they're products, too.

And, seriously, can we please stop touting artistic integrity as an excuse? I mean, jeez, being lazy and disrespectful towards your own work, credibility, and loyal fanbase is kind of, you know, the opposite of showing integrity. Hell, the endings destroyed ME's integrity more than fan pandering ever has, Miranda's ass included.

[AdmiralCheez]

Juromaro wrote...

I own Mass Effect 3, well I own the finished product at least.....However I do not and will never own the creative process that went into making mass effect 3, regardless if Bioware states that I was "part" of the creative process and I am a "Co-Creator" of the game. I own the finished product nothing more nothing less.....as you said alot of these take back whatever groups fail to realize that.

So did making Garrus and Tali LIs corrupt their "artistic vision?"  Did giving Miranda and Ashley sensible armor corrupt their "artistic vision?"  Does releasing patches to fix bugs corrupt their "artistic vision?"  Does including PoC/LBGT characters like Samantha and Steve corrupt their "artistic vision?"  Did more squad banter and better shooter mechanics corrupt their "artistic vision?"

Seems to me like part of that "artistic vision" involves taking fan feedback into account.

"Take Back ME3" is just very loud, very organized fan feedback.

[InvincibleHero]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Can I just... say a few things about art? As an artist (sort of--I'm in school for it and sold a few pieces, so it counts), I think I can offer a little perspective.

The old adage of an artist working alone in her creative sphere, free from all outside influence, letting her raw talent and pure soul spill out onto the canvas? It's a big, stinkin' lie. I mean, sure, sometimes I paint stuff for myself, and sometimes I get lucky and someone wants to buy it, but the cold, hard fact of the matter is that if I want to earn a living, I have to paint something that will sell. That means I have to pay attention to current trends and what the critics are saying about my work, and I have to accept commissions from buyers, where they straight-up tell me what they want me to paint and how.

The great works of Michelangelo, Raphael, and all the other ninja turtles? The majority were commissioned by either wealthy families or the Catholic Church. Good ol' Michie was PAID to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. You don't put that amount of work into something just for funzies, especially if you're a guy like Michelangelo, who'd rather be sculpting, anyway.

Art is a powerful medium for self-expression and communication, but it's also a commodity. Video games, with their high production costs and heavy marketing, are more on the commercial end of art. That doesn't mean they're a lesser art (making a game sure as hell ain't easy, and you can paint entirely for reasons other than money and still suck), but they also have to follow the rules of something designed to be bought and sold. One of those rules is paying attention to what your consumer base is doing.

So like all other media, games are art, but they're products, too.

And, seriously, can we please stop touting artistic integrity as an excuse? I mean, jeez, being lazy and disrespectful towards your own work, credibility, and loyal fanbase is kind of, you know, the opposite of showing integrity. Hell, the endings destroyed ME's integrity more than fan pandering ever has, Miranda's ass included.

All this means nothing. Obviously BW/EA know how to sell games and took their audience into account when makking the game. They put back in weapon mods, gave more romance options, put in combat rolls, imroved melee and many other things requested by fans. They get to write the story and how it ends period. Now people are free to dislike it, but it is a valid use of their property.

Their very future depends on their holding the line against unreasonable usurpation of their IP rights. They will have no recourse but to give in every time this comes up in the future and it will. Human nature shows give an inch and people always want MORE.

Lazy now the only disrespect is from you just because you hate the endings. I am sure they worked very hard long hours like devs do in crunch times for any game. That is uncalled for.

You made the I want my happy ending thread on the ME2 boards and I would have liked a chance to have my Shepard's with LI, but that isn't how they saw it. I can acccept that with maturity. Unless you paid the 30+ million budget of ME3 you did not commision BW to make the game and have no say. If you accept a contract with your personal art that is your business as it has no relevance to this situation.

I guess selfish people will never get that artists should stick up for other artists on principle. People only want what they want and don't care the legitimacy of BW to do with their property as they feel they need to.

[dbx1]

This post is a poor representation of Art. Shakespeare revised a lot of major works and so did a ton of writers and great artists, as a general rule, if it sucks, you rewrite it. Sometimes the original is better, see Star Wars, other times the revision is better.  Many of the classics of literature have been edited and rewritten by multipler writers.  I think people underestimate how much of writing in the past have been revised post 1st edition release. Artists/writers/creators have the write to change their works in what ever way they see fit. Now if they don't want to do it, that's fine too. Songs get remixed and redited all the time, people who can't see that revisions and changes happen all the time in other artistic fields and that a bad ending, a bad story that doesn't get rewritten is just going to be trash. Unfortunately ME3 is likely the last game I will ever buy from EA/Bioware and I've bought almost every game of their since BG1. It's sad but this game marks the end of Bioware, they made a derivative product to milk the IP and put in a grind multiplayer system which you are forced to play. Dragon Age 2 was the knife in stomach and ME3 is the sword chopping the head off. It was great while it lasted but everything ends.

Modifié par dbx1, 26 mars 2012 - 07:49 .

[Maria Caliban]

JudasMesiah wrote...

As a art to be truly consider art (at least from my definition of art) should be left on the device of the artist and must not be influence or intervend by any outside influences, sure the artist can take outside influences (like players feedback) but that must not interfere with the art what so ever. 

Awesome. Shakespeare, Leonardo Di Vinci, and Beethoven are no longer artist.

JudasMesiah wrote...

I can tell you with certainty that team ICO coudn't give a damn about what their fans think and yet they created a masterpiece of a game.

Then by your very definition video games are art.

This is exactly the level of mental acumen I expect from someone calling himself Judas Mesiah.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 26 mars 2012 - 07:55 .

[wolfstanus]

Take back? They never owned any part of the me ip to take back

[JudasMesiah]

bigCman123 wrote...

It's normal for artists to get outsides opinions or ask for critiques on their art. That's one way to learn and to get better. People rate and give feedback on art all the time. Your argument is invalid. Source: Personal Experience.

In my opinion, video games are art in the same way that music, movies, and novels are art.

Yes I understand that. But if said opinion/critism called for changing the art itself and said artist is gutless/stupid enough to change the art.
Then he ceased to be an artist and just becomes a craftsmen.

[MDT1]

Of course Video games are Art.

But like with every other form of art it's also true that, if you want to make your living with your art you have to find a balance between your artistic vision and what the customer wants.

[InvincibleHero]

MDT1 wrote...

Of course Video games are Art.

But like with every other form of art it's also true that, if you want to make your living with your art you have to find a balance between your artistic vision and what the customer wants.

I would agree with this but sometimes they have to do what they need even if it isn't what the fans want. They have been very accomodating in all their games up to this point and where has that gotten them?

[AdmiralCheez]

InvincibleHero wrote...

All this means nothing. Obviously BW/EA know how to sell games and took their audience into account when makking the game. They put back in weapon mods, gave more romance options, put in combat rolls, imroved melee and many other things requested by fans. They get to write the story and how it ends period. Now people are free to dislike it, but it is a valid use of their property.

And it's BECAUSE the rest of the game was so good and took fan feedback into account that the endings MADE NO GOD DAMNED SENSE.

Their very future depends on their holding the line against unreasonable usurpation of their IP rights. They will have no recourse but to give in every time this comes up in the future and it will. Human nature shows give an inch and people always want MORE.

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile, eh?  Same's true for corporations.  The more you defend crap business practices, the more those practices will be used.  Day one DLC, more money for less content, increased focus on marketing hooplah and "special bonuses," everything tied to your Facebook account and smartphone whether you want it or not?  Welcome to the future.  The only way to reverse these trends is to not support them, either by not purchasing new games or by complaining.  Preferably both.

Lazy now the only disrespect is from you just because you hate the endings. I am sure they worked very hard long hours like devs do in crunch times for any game. That is uncalled for.

Look at your ME2 endgame.  Now back to ME3.  Now back to ME2.  Now back to ME3.  Sadly, ME2's brilliant endgame mechanic was not present in ME3.  ME2 (and even ME1) presented different endgame scenarios that reflected your previous actions and reacted to immediate in-game decisions.  The cutscenes you saw, dialogue you heard, and characters you either rescued or sentenced to death were all carefully programmed into the game, obviously taking a massive effort and contributing immensely to overall replayability.

And then comes ME3, which has ONE cutscene with very minor variations (lol purdy colors).  The results of three actions that are vastly different in principle play out largely the same, and the actions themselves depend on a lump sum of points as opposed to individual variables and triggers.  Player input in the final conversation is minimized.  In light of the previous two endgames, which set the standards for what Bioware was capable of, ME3's ending does seem pretty damn lazy.

After all the hype the devs themselves fostered for those last five minutes, the comparative lack of thought and effort is especially insulting.

You made the I want my happy ending thread on the ME2 boards and I would have liked a chance to have my Shepard's with LI, but that isn't how they saw it. I can acccept that with maturity. Unless you paid the 30+ million budget of ME3 you did not commision BW to make the game and have no say. If you accept a contract with your personal art that is your business as it has no relevance to this situation.

A happy ending would have been nice, but ultimately what I wanted was one that was, regardless of emotional tone, worthy of the franchise.  Getting closure, seeing the full effects of my actions, watching the themes and conflicts finally reach a climax and elegant resolution, feeling satisfied as the credits rolled--THAT was way more important than whether or not I got to ride off into the sunset with my alien trophy spouse of the week.


The problem with ME3's ending is that it failed all over the place.  There was zero closure, things happened too quickly and without reason or explanation, the core themes and pre-established lore were violated to the point that the entire series seemed trivialized, and the presentation was overall lackluster.


I spent hundreds of dollars and hours on this series.  I don't know about you, but I at least would like something worth the time and money.

I guess selfish people will never get that artists should stick up for other artists on principle. People only want what they want and don't care the legitimacy of BW to do with their property as they feel they need to.

Did you miss the part where I said I was an artist?  Allow me to let you in on a little secret: Sometimes artists screw up.  They goof.  They blunder.  They make mistakes, sometimes without realizing it.  Should they not fix those mistakes because lol art?

The irony here is that the people involved in the "Take Back ME3" movement are the ones way more concerned with the integrity of the series than Bioware seems to be.  As it stands, the ending does not preserve the standards Mass Effect was made famous for.   That's all we want: We want the devs to try again, to produce something that provides closure, that makes sense, that doesn't violate the lore, that pays respect to player participation and all the other themes of the series.

We gave them our time and our money in hopes that they'd follow through on their promises.  They didn't.  We, as paying customers, would like them to correct that.

[abaris]

Tazzmission wrote...

you and alot of people fail to understand is bioware is the creator of the series and can pretty much do w/e the hell they want with it

Of course they can do whatever they want with the series. But unlike some painter going all artsy fartsy their mother company will be less than pleased if their vision doesn't generate money.

So art for arts sake is pretty much out of the question.

[AdmiralCheez]

Juromaro wrote...

Artistic or not has nothing to do with the Take Back ME3 groups. The whole "Art" debate is just a crutch that unhappy gamers use.

However this Take back issue does nothing for the community. It shows gamers as complainers, and Bioware giving in shows the complainers that it's okay to completely trash the entire game, threaten it's employees, blame the publisher and that if you cry enough you'll get your way. This is the only truth. Every single game that uses "community" feedback to develop their games all go through it. Blizzard does it every week, Bioware is now doing it with ToR, and ME3.

I didn't like the endings, not because of how they ended but because each choice made me think about what I can lose vs what I can gain.

Just my opinion though.

Opinions are cool so long as they don't belittle other people.  Yeah, some people were jerks, but does that make the rest of us jerks?

Look.  When a lot of people pay a lot of money for a product, and that product sucks, they should let the seller/manufacturer know it sucks.  It's too late to get refunds for our games, so we have to resort to complaining.  All the fanfare and stuff?  Just an effort to make it more fun and make sure the complaints get noticed.  Plus, you're more likely to make a difference if you're organized.

Waiter, the dinner was great, but one of your chefs peed on my dessert.  Since I can't get a refund, could I please have another slice of cake?