262 réponses à ce sujet

[Arkitekt]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ahh, but why should they be required to change it?

That's also pretty subjective. What happens when something you really invested your time into and really like, suddenly behaves so poorly and out of character? Won't you demand it correct its behavior? That it correct its mistake?

This is basic sociology here. We all do this everyday. It's always up for the person to either "cave" in to the demands or not, and I don't think for a moment anyone here does not respect this right. HOWEVER, if they don't "cave in" to the demands, people will know what to count on from now on, and that's the biggest threat any consumer here can make, which is, when you think about it, a pretty thin threat.

It is what it is. If BioWare cares about their fans and their relationship to their consumers, they will throw us a bone. If they don't, they won't, and their brand will take its proportional hit.

Going off of Tirigon's example above, the first Matrix movie was phenomenal. I was invested in it, I must have watched it on video 10-20 time, a friend and I tried coming up with our own RPG based off of the world of the Matrix... when they released the second Matrix movie, it was a giant turd. 

I didn't demand change, I didn't demand my money back. I simply accepted that it was crap, and decided to not bother with any more Matrix movies. To this day, I've only seen bits and pieces of the third when it aired on cable tv. I have no interest in watching it.

Well good for you. Please tell me good sir on why exactly should everyone follow your moral example here?

Personally speaking I didn't care for the second / third movies to suck, for multiple reasons. The first is that there are two movies there. To change them would mean a complete rewrite of both. That's inane and impossible. Secondly, I only "invested" two hours previously into that movie. Not analogous here.

Being disappointed in BioWare and not wanting to buy any of their games or buy into their "artistic vision" anymore is perfectly valid, and not something I, for one, would try and talk someone out of. You got hurt, not wanting to keep going back is PERFECTLY valid.

Sure.

It's when you demand that someone compromise what they want in order to give you what you want that I take an issue with it. 

It's their freedom to hear me out or not. Why would you take "an issue" with this is beyond my comprehension. Professionally, I do this every time my clients do not like my designs and have issues with some particulars of it. I never feel as if the client is a moron that "didn't get it" and that he is somehow "harrassing me" or anything like that. It's part of the relationship. Games are different, but BioWare were always proudly affirming their close relationship with their custumers.

[Il Divo]

mikelope wrote...

I don't think art 'comes from above the cloud with its godly incense.' But if I believe in my art, no matter how c**ptastic it is, I will stick with it. If you think that's just me being romantic, then so be it.

That's fine and I'll fully accept that. But you have to keep in mind a few details:

1) When you made those paintings, you did not rely on consumers in order to produce them. If you want to say "consumers be damned" there is nothing in the world to stop you, but your art does not even require consumers in order to be made, only to be sold.

Here's the rub: if EA thought that Mass Effect 3 would not have sold a dime, would the developers in any capacity have been given the funds to make it? As long as the answer to that question is "no", I see no problem with the audience providing input and expressing demand for a certain product.

2) In order to experience the full effect of your painting, I had to do nothing more than look at it, substantially different than the involved process of playing a game. There was nothing hidden from me, no nasty surprises discovered in the last minute. Now, this does not mean the player is "entitled" to a quality product, merely that if the company/writer has any interest in future sales, it is in their interest to keep their consumers happy.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 mars 2012 - 10:18 .

[BeefoTheBold]

Deleted to keep it civil by author.

Modifié par BeefoTheBold, 26 mars 2012 - 10:16 .

[jds1bio]

Tazzmission wrote...


thats funny because you dont know how the gaming buisness works either

dont be walking around saying people dont know squat when you in fact no nothing either

Keep it civil please.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

But why is my scribbled on napkin a failure if people throw it in the trash? Just because they didn't like it? Why is their opinion more valid that mine, especially as I'm the artist?

Majority opinion.

Tolkein's books are a pain to try and get into when you read them. They're a pain. The imagery is gorgeous, but his penchant for describing everything down to the most minute detail and using 20 words when 1 or 2 would do is painful, and this is coming from someone who ADORES reading.

Some say so. It is true, actually (even though for me that was a good rather than bad thing). Nevertheless they are loved both by critics and, according to the sales, the broader masses. Which is my point exactly - if art deserves success, it will get it. IN SPITE of its flaws.

And there is also art that just isn't commercially succesful... it doesn't make it NOT art. Take a look at any of Terrence Malick's movies. None of them have been commercially succesful, but they're among the most beautiful pieces of art to ever grace the big screen.

Commercially successful and successful are not the same.
Again, I will bring the music analogy (it's the same with novels and movies but I know more about music^^): One of my favorite bands is ASP. They are by no means successful on a grand scale - making a limited edition of only 7000 copies woldwide would have gotten the label bankrupt had it not sold most copies, and 300 or so fans at a concert is relatively much. However, AMONG THEIR SUBCULTURE, they are considered one of the best and most famous bands.
In comparison, look at Justin Bieber. His sales are in the millions, but relative to the number of people who know him he is much less successful - he actually has become the avatar of crappy pop for the masses in the internet.

I dont know Terrence Malick but I would assume that, at least if you are right in your judgement, his work is loved among those who actually know it.

Majority opinion says that "Twilight" is great literature. I'm sorry, I don't value majority opinion because the vast majority of people have no interest in finding out what's GOOD, just what's POPULAR. I mean, you contradict yourself right there with your Justin Bieber comparison.

Art doesn't have to be succesful, even among subcultures, to be considered art. Art is whatever you make of it.

[EagleScoutDJB]

Why do we care what a newspaper has to say? I really only care what Bioware and the fans of the game have to say.

Edit: I do use blogs and reviews that agree with my point of view, because sometimes they are better at saying what I'm feeling.  But unless your here talking about it and hearing other peoples points of view what do you really know anyway.

Modifié par dbollendorf, 26 mars 2012 - 10:26 .

[Il Divo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

But why is my scribbled on napkin a failure if people throw it in the trash? Just because they didn't like it? Why is their opinion more valid that mine, especially as I'm the artist?

Majority opinion.

Tolkein's books are a pain to try and get into when you read them. They're a pain. The imagery is gorgeous, but his penchant for describing everything down to the most minute detail and using 20 words when 1 or 2 would do is painful, and this is coming from someone who ADORES reading.

Some say so. It is true, actually (even though for me that was a good rather than bad thing). Nevertheless they are loved both by critics and, according to the sales, the broader masses. Which is my point exactly - if art deserves success, it will get it. IN SPITE of its flaws.

And there is also art that just isn't commercially succesful... it doesn't make it NOT art. Take a look at any of Terrence Malick's movies. None of them have been commercially succesful, but they're among the most beautiful pieces of art to ever grace the big screen.

Commercially successful and successful are not the same.
Again, I will bring the music analogy (it's the same with novels and movies but I know more about music^^): One of my favorite bands is ASP. They are by no means successful on a grand scale - making a limited edition of only 7000 copies woldwide would have gotten the label bankrupt had it not sold most copies, and 300 or so fans at a concert is relatively much. However, AMONG THEIR SUBCULTURE, they are considered one of the best and most famous bands.
In comparison, look at Justin Bieber. His sales are in the millions, but relative to the number of people who know him he is much less successful - he actually has become the avatar of crappy pop for the masses in the internet.

I dont know Terrence Malick but I would assume that, at least if you are right in your judgement, his work is loved among those who actually know it.

Majority opinion says that "Twilight" is great literature. I'm sorry, I don't value majority opinion because the vast majority of people have no interest in finding out what's GOOD, just what's POPULAR. I mean, you contradict yourself right there with your Justin Bieber comparison.

Art doesn't have to be succesful, even among subcultures, to be considered art. Art is whatever you make of it.

Just to throw my two cents in, since this is an interesting discussion, for me art is nothing more than a medium. Plays are a medium, film is a medium, etc. Any work in that medium is art, though it may or may not be good art, depending on how I feel about it.

[Aesieru]

Who cares about the New Yorker.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Ahh, but why should they be required to change it?

That's also pretty subjective. What happens when something you really invested your time into and really like, suddenly behaves so poorly and out of character? Won't you demand it correct its behavior? That it correct its mistake?

This is basic sociology here. We all do this everyday. It's always up for the person to either "cave" in to the demands or not, and I don't think for a moment anyone here does not respect this right. HOWEVER, if they don't "cave in" to the demands, people will know what to count on from now on, and that's the biggest threat any consumer here can make, which is, when you think about it, a pretty thin threat.

It is what it is. If BioWare cares about their fans and their relationship to their consumers, they will throw us a bone. If they don't, they won't, and their brand will take its proportional hit.

Going off of Tirigon's example above, the first Matrix movie was phenomenal. I was invested in it, I must have watched it on video 10-20 time, a friend and I tried coming up with our own RPG based off of the world of the Matrix... when they released the second Matrix movie, it was a giant turd. 

I didn't demand change, I didn't demand my money back. I simply accepted that it was crap, and decided to not bother with any more Matrix movies. To this day, I've only seen bits and pieces of the third when it aired on cable tv. I have no interest in watching it.

Well good for you. Please tell me good sir on why exactly should everyone follow your moral example here?

Personally speaking I didn't care for the second / third movies to suck, for multiple reasons. The first is that there are two movies there. To change them would mean a complete rewrite of both. That's inane and impossible. Secondly, I only "invested" two hours previously into that movie. Not analogous here.

Being disappointed in BioWare and not wanting to buy any of their games or buy into their "artistic vision" anymore is perfectly valid, and not something I, for one, would try and talk someone out of. You got hurt, not wanting to keep going back is PERFECTLY valid.

Sure.

It's when you demand that someone compromise what they want in order to give you what you want that I take an issue with it. 

It's their freedom to hear me out or not. Why would you take "an issue" with this is beyond my comprehension. Professionally, I do this every time my clients do not like my designs and have issues with some particulars of it. I never feel as if the client is a moron that "didn't get it" and that he is somehow "harrassing me" or anything like that. It's part of the relationship. Games are different, but BioWare were always proudly affirming their close relationship with their custumers.

Because you're not BioWare's client. You didn't go to BioWare and ask them to develop a space-opera video game that has blue chicks and giant space squids in it and are then unhappy with the end result. BioWare developed this game and produced it and put it out for sale. Yes, you bought it and BioWare got money from you, but that doesn't make you a co-developer or a client, it makes you a consumer. 

If I made a painting and put it up in a gallery and someone bought it, then came to me and said "I like it all, except for this bit here in the corner. I demand you redo that, and do it for free." Would that be acceptable? Because I, personally, would take that canvas and smash it over that person's head. 

[Arkitekt]

mikelope wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Because it is possible to change it?

Look, I sort of understand where you come from, but pay attention. Your attitude is a romantic one, and not universal. I say romantic because it pressuposes that once a work is finished, it must "Stand on Its Own" and take it to the bitter end, perhaps saluting the far horizon as it sinks down filled with bullets of hatred. This is a romantic view point, nothing more. If however you see this whole phenomenon as one giant Epic that was trashed in its final minutes, and that there's still the chance to correct the huge mistake as spotted by the community at large, then this "romanticized" view becomes silly and annoying.

Art is not immutable. Art is not something that comes from above the clouds with its godly incense.

Art is work. Art is mutable. Art is culture. And it is changed everyday.

I'm not saying it can't be changed, but can't you see how problematic your stance is. Pressuring an artist to change their own work is different from saying it sucks then the artist agreeing with you. I mentioned this on another thread before, Picasso's demoiselles d'avignon was hated, Stravinsky was booed many times, Ulysses was deemed pornographic. They stuck to their guns. Then there's the recent n-word controversy  in Huckleberry Finn.

"Can't you see"? I deal with this stuff in my work every goddamned time. And you know what? It's perfectly fair. It's part of the relationship between the designers and the clients. You say that Picasso was "booed", like all those others. I tell you that this is all part of this mythology of the "Genious Lonely Artist" who will always gets it right. I tell you this: this mythology is what has wrecked most of the art since the beggining of the 20th century, with it all being an exercise of self-promotion in Ivory Towers scrambling for the "critics" attention span. It incentivizes the autistic nature of art.

The worst part of your comment is the implication that only on this attitude of "stucking to their guns" will good art become reality. Which is bollocks. Historically so.

I don't think art 'comes from above the cloud with its godly incense.' But if I believe in my art, no matter how c**ptastic it is, I will stick with it. If you think that's just me being romantic, then so be it.

Yes, that is "romantic". Mind you, that's not "bad", it's just what it is and definitely not the only possible pov. So tell you what. If BioWare "caves", then it's probably because they don't believe in it that much, and perhaps because they cherish their relationship with the fans more than this romantic autistic sense of genious.

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Majority opinion says that "Twilight" is great literature. I'm sorry, I don't value majority opinion because the vast majority of people have no interest in finding out what's GOOD, just what's POPULAR. I mean, you contradict yourself right there with your Justin Bieber comparison.

Art doesn't have to be succesful, even among subcultures, to be considered art. Art is whatever you make of it.

Actually no.

Majority of Twlight fans say it's great, sure. Because they are deluded and have bad taste in music (Edit: I meant literature of course. But music probably as wellB)).

HOWEVER, because Twilight is a lot more successful than it deserves, the actual majority of those who KNOW about it varies between "well if my GF wants to see it I will join her, because we have sex afterwards" and "holy sh!t what is this crap I can finally understand why some people want to burn books we should do it with this one".

And I brought up Bieber because it is the same. The majority of people think he sucks. But if 1000 million people know you, you can easily sell 10 million copies - and it is still only 1% !!!! who actually liked that stuff.

Modifié par Tirigon, 26 mars 2012 - 10:25 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Il Divo wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

But why is my scribbled on napkin a failure if people throw it in the trash? Just because they didn't like it? Why is their opinion more valid that mine, especially as I'm the artist?

Majority opinion.

Tolkein's books are a pain to try and get into when you read them. They're a pain. The imagery is gorgeous, but his penchant for describing everything down to the most minute detail and using 20 words when 1 or 2 would do is painful, and this is coming from someone who ADORES reading.

Some say so. It is true, actually (even though for me that was a good rather than bad thing). Nevertheless they are loved both by critics and, according to the sales, the broader masses. Which is my point exactly - if art deserves success, it will get it. IN SPITE of its flaws.

And there is also art that just isn't commercially succesful... it doesn't make it NOT art. Take a look at any of Terrence Malick's movies. None of them have been commercially succesful, but they're among the most beautiful pieces of art to ever grace the big screen.

Commercially successful and successful are not the same.
Again, I will bring the music analogy (it's the same with novels and movies but I know more about music^^): One of my favorite bands is ASP. They are by no means successful on a grand scale - making a limited edition of only 7000 copies woldwide would have gotten the label bankrupt had it not sold most copies, and 300 or so fans at a concert is relatively much. However, AMONG THEIR SUBCULTURE, they are considered one of the best and most famous bands.
In comparison, look at Justin Bieber. His sales are in the millions, but relative to the number of people who know him he is much less successful - he actually has become the avatar of crappy pop for the masses in the internet.

I dont know Terrence Malick but I would assume that, at least if you are right in your judgement, his work is loved among those who actually know it.

Majority opinion says that "Twilight" is great literature. I'm sorry, I don't value majority opinion because the vast majority of people have no interest in finding out what's GOOD, just what's POPULAR. I mean, you contradict yourself right there with your Justin Bieber comparison.

Art doesn't have to be succesful, even among subcultures, to be considered art. Art is whatever you make of it.

Just to throw my two cents in, since this is an interesting discussion, for me art is nothing more than a medium. Plays are a medium, film is a medium, etc. Any work in that medium is art, though it may or may not be good art, depending on how I feel about it.

I agree with you. I despise the Twilight novels. I think they're atrociously written and send SEVERAL horrible messages to young girls. 

Are they "art"? Yes. Even though I hate them, they're still art in the medium of literature. 

Are video games a medium? Is "Mass Effect" art within that medium? Well... that's what the debate is, now, isn't it?

[mikelope]

Il Divo wrote...

mikelope wrote...

I don't think art 'comes from above the cloud with its godly incense.' But if I believe in my art, no matter how c**ptastic it is, I will stick with it. If you think that's just me being romantic, then so be it.

That's fine and I'll fully accept that. But you have to keep in mind a few details:

When you made those paintings, you did not rely on consumers in order to produce them. If you want to say "consumers be damned" there is nothing in the world to stop you, but your art does not even require consumers in order to be made, only to be sold.

Here's the rub: if EA thought that Mass Effect 3 would not have sold a dime, would the developers in any capacity have been given the funds to make it? As long as the answer to that question is "no", I see no problem with the audience providing input and expressing demand for a certain product.

Yes. I think that's what the article means when it says the "predicament gaming is in." Gaming itself is relatively new that's why it's not held in the same respect as films or books. Movies had the same problem in its early days but that's changed. If gaming wants to be treated with the same respect regarding artistic merit, it has to make tough decisions. (If not, then this discussion is moot.) That's how I interpreted the article.

[jds1bio]

I thought the debate was whether fans or BioWare were being treated too harshly in this article.

[oniradix]

People don't ask for endings of other "art" because they do not have DLCs waiting in the wings. Players know now that the games have DLCs that can change games (Fall Out 3) so, it's not that strange . . . not at all . . .

Also, video games are part of the "commercial” art realm not “fine” art (this is what I teach in college) You HAVE to take into consideration of your client / players. If not you will lose them (and if you are fine with that then no problem). Same with ANY artist in the "commercial” art field (that wants to get hired and paid). We have to change our “art” all the time; it’s our job to design the best we can while considering the clients needs, wants, expectations and budget. I really hate this “art” argument as and artist. Bottom line, you are in the "commercial” art field to make money, you can’t do that if you misinterpret your client / players. My only question is how could they have been so far off? Bad market analysis or new market or economic model? I doubt it was for artistic reasons, I’m thinking more economical.

Modifié par oniradix, 26 mars 2012 - 10:28 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Tirigon wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Majority opinion says that "Twilight" is great literature. I'm sorry, I don't value majority opinion because the vast majority of people have no interest in finding out what's GOOD, just what's POPULAR. I mean, you contradict yourself right there with your Justin Bieber comparison.

Art doesn't have to be succesful, even among subcultures, to be considered art. Art is whatever you make of it.

Actually no.

Majority of Twlight fans say it's great, sure. Because they are deluded and have bad taste in music.

HOWEVER, because Twilight is a lot more successful than it deserves, the actual majority of those who KNOW about it varies between "well if my GF wants to see it I will join her, because we have sex afterwards" and "holy sh!t what is this crap I can finally understand why some people want to burn books we should do it with this one".

And I brought up Bieber because it is the same. The majority of people think he sucks. But if 1000 million people know you, you can easily sell 10 million copies - and it is still only 1% !!!! who actually liked that stuff.

Hey, I agree with you. Twilight is atrocious and, to me, offensive. But why is my opinion, or your opinion, more valid than the opinions of anyone who likes it? Why should OUR opinions be forced on a Twilight fan? 

And yeah, that's 1%, it still doesn't mean you have to sell even that much to be succesful. To me, just making art makes it art. You don't have to sell it, you don't have to do anything with it, just the fact that it exists makes it art, and that's what I'm trying to say.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to the world of journalism, where money is made by painting anything and everything in the most negative light you can credibly get away with... because nobody wants to read about sunshine and bunnies, they want DRAMA.

[Arkitekt]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Because you're not BioWare's client.

That's ridiculous. Stop being silly.

You didn't go to BioWare and ask them to develop a space-opera video game that has blue chicks and giant space squids in it and are then unhappy with the end result. BioWare developed this game and produced it and put it out for sale. Yes, you bought it and BioWare got money from you, but that doesn't make you a co-developer or a client, it makes you a consumer.

The relationship between the designers and the clients of the product are different, but this difference is always mutating in different mediums. You are perfectly right in saying that this is different from the relationship between an architect and a client, but then I would also be perfectly right in saying that this relatioship is different from the one between a movie producer and its consumers.

The mere fact of the existence of a promised year-long schedule of DLCs and the constant requests for feedbacks for what should be included or not from the devs is a clear indication of these differences that you are not paying attention to. If I knew these developers had already "moved on" to make a completely different game and were "done" with ME3, I'd probably agree with you too to an extent. However, this is not the case.

If I made a painting and put it up in a gallery and someone bought it, then came to me and said "I like it all, except for this bit here in the corner. I demand you redo that, and do it for free." Would that be acceptable? Because I, personally, would take that canvas and smash it over that person's head. 

Every medium is different.

[Il Divo]

mikelope wrote...

Yes. I think that's what the article means when it says the "predicament gaming is in." Gaming itself is relatively new that's why it's not held in the same respect as films or books. Movies had the same problem in its early days but that's changed. If gaming wants to be treated with the same respect regarding artistic merit, it has to make tough decisions. (If not, then this discussion is moot.) That's how I interpreted the article.

Unfortunately, we do have a long way to go. But personally, trying to be as unbiased as I can, I think if gaming ever reaches its peak, it has the potential to surpass films (and perhaps novels) as an art form. But that's talking in the extremely distant future, like "we're all gone" kinda future.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 mars 2012 - 10:29 .

[Tazzmission]

jds1bio wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...


thats funny because you dont know how the gaming buisness works either

dont be walking around saying people dont know squat when you in fact no nothing either

Keep it civil please.

im being civil im just saying the guy has no right to say otherwise when he himself isnt involved in such a buisness

alot of people have that attitude lately and frankly im sick of it

even the same people who say omg im so mad im going to boycott all dlc when in fact they wont

they sit on there computer talk alot of hot garbage demonizing ea and bioware and yet they still post on a ea bioware forum

ive tried to stay silent but when i see bs im going to call them out on it

[Arkitekt]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to the world of journalism, where money is made by painting anything and everything in the most negative light you can credibly get away with... because nobody wants to read about sunshine and bunnies, they want DRAMA.

GRIMDAAAARK!!

[PRC_Heavy_Z]

I guess this New Yorker Journalist was not sophisticated enough to realize that we the customers paid to have this artwork and the artwork would not be possible without our monetary contributions.

I guess he was also not sophisticated enough to realize that games' story among other aspects have been altered in the past repeatedly based on customer demands and we have yet to see such "slipper slope"

Finally, I guess he was not sophisticated enough to see we paid for this art to be as beautiful and complete as the artist had assured us in the beginning, only to find an unfinished and unpolished piece of "art".

Modifié par PRC_Heavy_Z, 26 mars 2012 - 10:36 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Arkitekt wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Because you're not BioWare's client.

That's ridiculous. Stop being silly.

You didn't go to BioWare and ask them to develop a space-opera video game that has blue chicks and giant space squids in it and are then unhappy with the end result. BioWare developed this game and produced it and put it out for sale. Yes, you bought it and BioWare got money from you, but that doesn't make you a co-developer or a client, it makes you a consumer.

The relationship between the designers and the clients of the product are different, but this difference is always mutating in different mediums. You are perfectly right in saying that this is different from the relationship between an architect and a client, but then I would also be perfectly right in saying that this relatioship is different from the one between a movie producer and its consumers.

The mere fact of the existence of a promised year-long schedule of DLCs and the constant requests for feedbacks for what should be included or not from the devs is a clear indication of these differences that you are not paying attention to. If I knew these developers had already "moved on" to make a completely different game and were "done" with ME3, I'd probably agree with you too to an extent. However, this is not the case.

If I made a painting and put it up in a gallery and someone bought it, then came to me and said "I like it all, except for this bit here in the corner. I demand you redo that, and do it for free." Would that be acceptable? Because I, personally, would take that canvas and smash it over that person's head. 

Every medium is different.

It's not ridiculous. You're not paying for the development of this game. You are not an equal partner. BioWare developed this game with the expectation of selling copies of it to recoup their investment and make money. You are a consumer, you buy the copy and are unhappy with it. That does not give you the right to demand BioWare change their views to suit yours. 

If BioWare CHOOSES to listen to fan feedback and criticism, that's great. But that's their CHOICE. They are, in no way, required to. 

And I know the argument. "If they don't listen to us, we'll stop buying their products." And, again, that's a perfectly valid choice for you to make. But that still doesn't mean they're REQUIRED to listen to you. BioWare can listen and evaluate the anger at their product and see how many people are returning the game and know, approximately, how many people will, in fact, stop buying their products and if they choose to do something about that... that's entirely up to them.

You are a consumer, you have the right to buy a product, to dislike a product, to criticize a product, to return a product (assuming you bought it from a place that accepts returns), to slag that product online, to get into fights with people who did like that product... you don't have the right to DEMAND that a company change the way they make that product to suit your vision.

[Tirigon]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Hey, I agree with you. Twilight is atrocious and, to me, offensive. But why is my opinion, or your opinion, more valid than the opinions of anyone who likes it? Why should OUR opinions be forced on a Twilight fan?

They shouldnt. I dont even have a real problem with it - I have the books myself because I wanted to know what all the fuzz was about, and I just found them rather bland and that's it.
If someone likes them, more power to them.

I just want to make clear that it is NOT a majority opinion because I have a different art definition than you. I define it, as I said before, by its popularity amongst those who know it.

And yeah, that's 1%, it still doesn't mean you have to sell even that much to be succesful. To me, just making art makes it art. You don't have to sell it, you don't have to do anything with it, just the fact that it exists makes it art, and that's what I'm trying to say.

I just think that this is a cheap, and ultimately pointless, definition. If everything someone created is Art by its mere existence, then it becomes an empty word with no meaning.
By your definition, the cake I had for breakfast is art. The milk I drank is art. Hell even the products of me digesting it would be art (wait - some people actually believe that: http://en.wikipedia....i/Artist's_shit).

For you, I ask you not to troll but because I honestly do not understand it, what would NOT be art?

[mikelope]

Arkitekt wrote...

The worst part of your comment is the implication that only on this attitude of "stucking to their guns" will good art become reality. Which is bollocks. Historically so.

Never implied that at all. But you do lose the revolutionary ones, the ones who tried to change things. Change start at the fringes.