262 réponses à ce sujet

[kbct]

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

[Tirigon]

jds1bio wrote...
 if studios like BioWare keep handing me staggering victories like this, art will never have a chance.  After all, a mature audience for an art form would never seriously suggest changing the ending to a book, movie, or tv show, nor would BioWare ever respond to its audience's feedback and make changes to its games, allowing a poisonous strain of thought to run rampant in its games.

Read it, because that's really what it says.

I have a feeling "art" is becoming a synonym to "sh!t", at least on this forum.

"The story is full of plotholes" - "lol no it's ART"

BioWare didnt deliver what they promised  - "It's because of ARTISTIC INTEGRITY"

BioWare should fix the ending - "Lol no that would KILL ART"

Franky, it's getting annoying.

[mikelope]

kbct wrote...

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

Pretty much. It's saying art is allowed to fail. 

[Phategod1]

Arkitekt wrote...

Bad article.

The end themes go against everything ME trilogy stood for. The end theme is all about caving to the master and a nihilistic perspective over the cosmos. ME was always about fighting against nihilism, against "impossible odds" - "never tell me the odds!!" - Mass Effect was always about Hope and Unity. I am not saying anything new here, everyone knows this.

Well, everyone but the New Yorker, who don't. The sheer twist from this battling against all nihilistic forces in the universe, against the Cosmicist perspective into accepting what the Master of the Universe tells you, into caving to his choices, into caving into nihilism and hopelessness, is the biggest problem here that was unaddressed by the article.

To sway these problems into "all those teens just want boobs n guns don't cave to those pricks" kindof an article just smacks of ignorant ranting. The New Yorker is ignorant about the real issues concerning the ending of ME3.

The thing you don't understand is, that if you are calling for a change in the ending YOU ARE THE NIHILIST!

[jds1bio]

nedpepper wrote...

I just like the fact that I'm not the only one to make an Annie Wilkes reference....

The article does make great points.  No one demanded The Sopranos to be reshot.  You have to admit, thie response is unorthodox and a little creepy.  And as I've said in other threads, Bioware should stick to their guns.  But they're not going to.  And we now have a slippery slope and the entitlement will be rewarded.  Bad precedent.

You have no idea what BioWare's plans for this game are, or have been.  They may have a lot of gamers, and perhaps a few execs at EA asking just what is going on, but they may be doing exactly what they want to be doing.  And depending on what that turns out to be, it could pay off for both them and the gamers, leaving the journalistic intelligensia as the big losers.

[Arkitekt]

Phategod1 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Bad article.

The end themes go against everything ME trilogy stood for. The end theme is all about caving to the master and a nihilistic perspective over the cosmos. ME was always about fighting against nihilism, against "impossible odds" - "never tell me the odds!!" - Mass Effect was always about Hope and Unity. I am not saying anything new here, everyone knows this.

Well, everyone but the New Yorker, who don't. The sheer twist from this battling against all nihilistic forces in the universe, against the Cosmicist perspective into accepting what the Master of the Universe tells you, into caving to his choices, into caving into nihilism and hopelessness, is the biggest problem here that was unaddressed by the article.

To sway these problems into "all those teens just want boobs n guns don't cave to those pricks" kindof an article just smacks of ignorant ranting. The New Yorker is ignorant about the real issues concerning the ending of ME3.

The thing you don't understand is, that if you are calling for a change in the ending YOU ARE THE NIHILIST!

Hardly, I'm merely renegade-interrupting all this shenanigan towards a better non-nihilistic ending!

[NedPepper]

Arkitekt wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

I just like the fact that I'm not the only one to make an Annie Wilkes reference....

The article does make great points.  No one demanded The Sopranos to be reshot.  You have to admit, thie response is unorthodox and a little creepy.  And as I've said in other threads, Bioware should stick to their guns.  But they're not going to.  And we now have a slippery slope and the entitlement will be rewarded.  Bad precedent.

The hell with precedents. What's with all these people clinging on to the status quo? Can't really imagine a better world, one where things can change for the better? Say, changing the ending of Mass Effect to the better?

No one demanded The Sopranos to be reshot because that was truly impossible. Changing the ending of Mass Effect is *not* impossible, although I know we will never actually get that.

Another thing these article writers never get well is that BioWare *didn't* cave to the fans. They are going to *expand* on the endings, not changing them. However, they just assume what is untrue and bash BioWare for it. Funny thing is, this is not the first site to do this blatant mistake. Bah, "reporters". We have dismissed these claims.

I give up.  You guys send your cupcakes and your lawsuits and...whatever.  Whatever floats your boat. I hope you get your way.  I guess....

[AlanC9]

Could people who don't know what nihilism means kindly refrain from using the term? Arkitect, you've been pushing that bit of silliness long enough.

[Br0th3rGr1mm]

I think it's a very well written piece and shows a rather balanced look at how the "outside" (non-gaming) world views this issue.

[Rabidlamb]

Artistic integrity:

[Madmoe77]

Someone at PAX needs to ask in no uncertain terms,"Panel; if your work as Game designers is considered an unalterable work of art, why then create the game specifically with the ability to be altered with DLC content, patches and future re-releases?"

Put the conversation to rest. If the panel has no consensus on the issue then the game is not a collaborative work of art. If they dodge the question simply repeat it.

[deadshame]

Rabidlamb wrote...

Artistic integrity:

Dude, that's SO artistic. Lets praise it and say anyone who doens't like it just doesn't "get it." <_<

Modifié par deadshame, 26 mars 2012 - 09:10 .

[Tirigon]

AlanC9 wrote...

Could people who don't know what nihilism means kindly refrain from using the term? Arkitect, you've been pushing that bit of silliness long enough.

A definition of Nihilism (well, THE definition actually:
http://uncyclopedia....m/wiki/Nihilism

[Father_Jerusalem]

mikelope wrote...

kbct wrote...

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

Pretty much. It's saying art is allowed to fail. 

Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

[Arkitekt]

nedpepper wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

I just like the fact that I'm not the only one to make an Annie Wilkes reference....

The article does make great points.  No one demanded The Sopranos to be reshot.  You have to admit, thie response is unorthodox and a little creepy.  And as I've said in other threads, Bioware should stick to their guns.  But they're not going to.  And we now have a slippery slope and the entitlement will be rewarded.  Bad precedent.

The hell with precedents. What's with all these people clinging on to the status quo? Can't really imagine a better world, one where things can change for the better? Say, changing the ending of Mass Effect to the better?

No one demanded The Sopranos to be reshot because that was truly impossible. Changing the ending of Mass Effect is *not* impossible, although I know we will never actually get that.

Another thing these article writers never get well is that BioWare *didn't* cave to the fans. They are going to *expand* on the endings, not changing them. However, they just assume what is untrue and bash BioWare for it. Funny thing is, this is not the first site to do this blatant mistake. Bah, "reporters". We have dismissed these claims.

I give up.  You guys send your cupcakes and your lawsuits and...whatever.  Whatever floats your boat. I hope you get your way.  I guess....

That's more like it! 

[Il Divo]

Sophisticated audiences understand that while they might hate any given plot decision, they ultimately have to respect the creative wishes of those who made the thing great in the first place; this is what gives the medium integrity.

Sorry New Yorker, I'll respect artistic integrity when I'm not required to shell out $200 for the entire story. Until then, your conclusions are irrelevant.

[Avissel]

Wow....they managed to be wrong about both sides. That's impressive in a way.

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

Erm no.

Just because many artists failed does not mean failing is a requirement for art. That's black metal you are talking about.

[Arkitekt]

AlanC9 wrote...

Could people who don't know what nihilism means kindly refrain from using the term? Arkitect, you've been pushing that bit of silliness long enough.

The hell with your snarky shenanigans. I had my share of philosophical lectures and reading thank you very much. Why won't you stop assuming your interlocutors are younger than yourself?

[Il Divo]

Avissel wrote...

Wow....they managed to be wrong about both sides. That's impressive in a way.

Haha,

/win.

[jds1bio]

The talk of games as art needs to be toned down. I'd rather talk about whether game creators are artists (but not in this thread), the games (like books, sculptures, movies) are just the creations.

But - do games reflect aesthetic properties appreciated by humans? Are games thought-provoking and appreciated on several emotional, pyschological, physical, and intelligent levels? Are games covered, critiqued and appreciated in major media publications? Like works of music, books, movies, etc. are games appreciated even though they may be or seem to be unfinished? Do games get exhibited in museums and galleries?

Once you realize the answer to all these questions is "yes", the "art" question becomes moot.

[Arkitekt]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mikelope wrote...

kbct wrote...

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

Pretty much. It's saying art is allowed to fail. 

Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

face + desk

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

Erm no.

Just because many artists failed does not mean failing is a requirement for art. That's black metal you are talking about.

I never said it was a requirement for art. I simply said that the statement that "art isn't allowed to fail" is a fallacy.

[Il Divo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mikelope wrote...

kbct wrote...

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

Pretty much. It's saying art is allowed to fail. 

Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

Art certainly is allowed to fail. But there isn't necessarily a rule which says that art can't give it a second try. A final draft, if you will.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 mars 2012 - 09:16 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

mikelope wrote...

kbct wrote...

The New Yorker: The ending sucks, but that's art.

Pretty much. It's saying art is allowed to fail. 

Of COURSE art is allowed to fail. Some of the greatest artists in history failed for YEARS.

That's what makes it art.

face + desk

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that all art must be successful in order for it to be art?