262 réponses à ce sujet

[chester013]

The new Yorker will poo poo anything that can't be done one handed, you see one must keep a hand free for a snifter of brandy

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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.

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.

You kidding me?

[Phategod1]

Hypothetically speaking lets just say Bioware agrees to change the ending, and lets just say its

A.free and

B. the ending you always wanted.

Now lets just say hypothetically It actually ruins all future story based games in the future all the bioshocks, and Assassins creeds all ruined. Will it have been worth it?

Modifié par Phategod1, 26 mars 2012 - 09:18 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Il Divo 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.

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.

And I didn't say that. I simply said that the assumption that art isn't allowed to fail is an incorrect assumption.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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.

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.

You kidding me?

So "requirement" and "allowed" mean the same thing to you, do they?

[jojon2se]

Heh: "Oh, hello there. I didn't see you at first - you look a bit like ants from up here on my high horse."

:9

[NedPepper]

Arkitekt wrote...

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! 

I might be giving up...but I can't but to feel embarrassed as a gamer.  Sorry.

[Praetor Knight]

It's a cynical thing to think about, but everybody has an agenda anyway right? So meh, that reads more like an opinion piece to me, where it does not matter what is discussed simply that their position is validated. And the artistic integrity stuff is really getting under my skin with how that belief is being defended so blindly. But it does cut both ways anyway, so again meh. : (

April can't come soon enough.

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


So "requirement" and "allowed" mean the same thing to you, do they?

My point was the "that's what makes it art" part.

[Arkitekt]

jds1bio wrote...

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.

It's more straightforward than all of this. There exists this "Myth" that art is a creation that comes from the Artist genious alone, and that the culture must suck it up as it was "created" by the inspired genious. Art has been treated like this since the Rennaissance. However, like all myths, it's merely a construct, it's not "truth", and worse it depends a *lot* from exactly the mediums we are discussing about. For instance, while a painting can be "repainted", it rarely is, however an architectural design (which is also ART btw), is constantly changing according to various inputs and constraints.

So I cannot see this "Truth" where games (which are obviously art forms) cannot be redesigned and made better, and I cannot see this "Truth" where gamer feedback must not have any interference in this change. It's all in these intelligentsia heads, who are a lot more preoccupied with the artists than the art itself. They do not love the art. Their opinion is therefore irrelevant.

[Il Divo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Il Divo 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.

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.

And I didn't say that. I simply said that the assumption that art isn't allowed to fail is an incorrect assumption.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were saying that, which rereading my response it does sound like. It was meant more as an addition to your statement. My bad.  

[Arkitekt]

nedpepper wrote...
I might be giving up...but I can't but to feel embarrassed as a gamer.  Sorry.

Don't be embarrassed for what you never did. That's ridiculous. Be aware though that this whole "art" defense is shenanigannian bollocks, and I know the frak I am talking about, since I made my share of philosophical studies and treatises on this very subject in my course.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


So "requirement" and "allowed" mean the same thing to you, do they?

My point was the "that's what makes it art" part.

And my point is that it's not that it's required to fail, but that it's required to be ALLOWED to fail. Art can be succesful as all get-out, but success is not what makes it art. 

[jds1bio]

Phategod1 wrote...

Hypothetically speaking lets just say Bioware agrees to change the ending, and lets just say its

A.free and

B. the ending you always wanted.

Now lets just say hypothetically It actually ruins all future story based games in the future all the bioshocks, and Assassins creeds all ruined. Will it have been worth it?

I think the point is that there's nothing to lose here.  The first BioShock already ruined itself because of its silly final plot twist boss battle, and Assassin's creed has already overstayed its welcome a bit.  Both series already offer story DLC for additional pricing, so having a bit of BioWare DLC be free won't have a negative impact.

BioWare/EA has already made a lot of money with ME3 and just wants to be able to sell more DLC down the road for this game.  If they give a little bit now, they will contine to get even more later.

[Arkitekt]

Phategod1 wrote...

Hypothetically speaking lets just say Bioware agrees to change the ending, and lets just say its

A.free and

B. the ending you always wanted.

Now lets just say hypothetically It actually ruins all future story based games in the future all the bioshocks, and Assassins creeds all ruined. Will it have been worth it?

Lets imagine that I get sex tonight.

Now lets just say hypothetically it actually ruins all future sex that everyone else might have.

Will it have been worth it?

[Madmoe77]

jds1bio wrote...

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.

I have been to countless galleries and museums and not once was their a sign saying,"please interact with the works." A nice bundle of wet brushes next to a painting? A hammer and chisel next to a sculpture? A mixtable next to symphonic orchestra? Are amusement parks also art? Games are more of an interactive exercise in meditative escapism. The fact they have imagery, story and happenings does not in itself quantify art. We may consider it artistic but it is clearly designed for change in DLC, interactivity in the gameplay and more over it's meant to be used. So the next question is a tool a work of art? It funcitions like a tool.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Il Divo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Il Divo 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.

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.

And I didn't say that. I simply said that the assumption that art isn't allowed to fail is an incorrect assumption.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were saying that, which rereading my response it does sound like. It was meant more as an addition to your statement. My bad.  

Oh no problem. And yes, just because you fail a first draft doesn't mean you have to rest on your laurels and just accept it. That's the beautiful thing about art - you can stop wherever YOU want to stop and it's still art. Regardless of whether it's a "success" or a "failure", art is whatever you make of it. 

[Arkitekt]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


So "requirement" and "allowed" mean the same thing to you, do they?

My point was the "that's what makes it art" part.

And my point is that it's not that it's required to fail, but that it's required to be ALLOWED to fail. Art can be succesful as all get-out, but success is not what makes it art. 

So your point was moot from the start. Everything is automatically "allowed" to fail, since there is no guarantee in the universe that anything will not.

[TheProfessor234]

Why do people care about the New Yorker again?

Is it because they're "sophisticated?"

[NedPepper]

And I'll repeat what I said in another thread. When this new ending comes out and it's unsatisfactory, do they just keep making new endings until there's a general consensus on a message board. Sorry, it's a slippery slope. And even worse, you'll keep paying for it....

[Il Divo]

Phategod1 wrote...

Hypothetically speaking lets just say Bioware agrees to change the ending, and lets just say its

A.free and

B. the ending you always wanted.

Now lets just say hypothetically It actually ruins all future story based games in the future all the bioshocks, and Assassins creeds all ruined. Will it have been worth it?

That would depend. Are the people who made Bioshock and Assassin's Creed going to design endings bad enough to upset a significant number of gamers? If so, I only view this movement as a plus in the grand scheme of things.

Keep in mind, retake Mass Effect wouldn't be this big a deal if your "normal" amount of gamers were upset about the results. I can't say we're a majority group, but the outcry is more than you typically see after a Bioware game is released.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 mars 2012 - 09:29 .

[Arkitekt]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

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?

I'm under the impression that the characteristic of being allowed to fail is surely not what makes it art.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...


So "requirement" and "allowed" mean the same thing to you, do they?

My point was the "that's what makes it art" part.

And my point is that it's not that it's required to fail, but that it's required to be ALLOWED to fail. Art can be succesful as all get-out, but success is not what makes it art. 

So your point was moot from the start. Everything is automatically "allowed" to fail, since there is no guarantee in the universe that anything will not.

No, my point has been that assuming something can only be called "art" if it's succesful is a fallacy, that art is whatever you make of it. Failure, success, complete, incomplete... it's ALL art. 

[Father_Jerusalem]

nedpepper wrote...

And I'll repeat what I said in another thread. When this new ending comes out and it's unsatisfactory, do they just keep making new endings until there's a general consensus on a message board. Sorry, it's a slippery slope. And even worse, you'll keep paying for it....

There's already been calls to make the new endings free... and to make From Ashes free.. and... it's just... where does it go from there? 

[Arkitekt]

nedpepper wrote...

And I'll repeat what I said in another thread. When this new ending comes out and it's unsatisfactory, do they just keep making new endings until there's a general consensus on a message board. Sorry, it's a slippery slope. And even worse, you'll keep paying for it....

No, actually I'm pretty sure that if people get mostly unsatisfied (most likely), they will sigh and eventually move on, sad that BioWare were unable to pull it off. Eventually people will slightly get away from future BioWare games, and perhaps with luck some new comers will seize the opportunity and are able to build up their own epic that will have its proper ending.

Or not. Perhaps the only thing the article got right was to declare this bad situation we are in as "the human condition". It's all a valley of tears, with irony being a great solace.