282 réponses à ce sujet

[EvilMind]

zephyr2025 wrote...

Everyday I have less and less respect for Bioware

This

[xsdob]

Greed1914 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Also, I'm seeing the video games are not art crowd rear it's head here.

So I have to ask, since video games don't count because they rely on visual and audio effects as well as writing, do films qualify as art to you? because most of the world already sees them as art and they aren't any different than games.

Also, about interactivity, you have to turn the pages or move the cursor to read a book, you can't just not interact with it and expect to be able to read it. By your own definition books do not count as art because they involve participation by another person. And films, once made into home viewing formats such as television or streaming or dvd's require and allow interaction to view them, mostly using a mouse or remote control.

So books and films are not art, music has control mechanisms that allows interactivity from the listener so that also doesn't count, so all that's really left is traditional pre-renniscance art, statues and paintings and that's about it.

So all forms of media, by the thought process that an art form that requires audience participation and interaction to view, are not art. Funny, i thought people would be more embracing of the first art form that allows the viewers to be a part of it.

Oh well, I guess it's worth sacrificing video games getting the respect they deserve from people and setting artistic media back to the pre-radio era if it means getting the last 5 minutes of a fantastic and phenomenal game changed.

I'm not sure you quite understand what people have been saying.  Games are both art and product.  While they do involve massive amounts of creative input, they are also produced on a large scale by corporations. 

As for interactivity, nobody was saying that games were any more or less artistic based on interactivity.  About the only one making that argument would be Roger Ebert who doesn't see games as art precisely because they are interactive.

Also, flipping a page or plessing play on your remote is passive.  You press play and the story progresses in only one way.  You turn a page, same thing.  

To your point of mass production and sale, all art are reproduced and sold to the public, do these diminish the value of the artwork in question?

I own a copy of the godfather and a 2001 space odessy, are these films now considered to not be art anymore bacause copies were made for the public to buy and own?

I have beethovens 5th symphony on my ipod, does the fact that I was able to buy it from a producer for purley profit driven goals make the piece less worthy of being called art?

I have been thinking of buying a copy of the fellowship of the rings at my school to see what tolkiens works are really like, does this diminish the books artistic value, the fact that I may purchase it and that it was made as a means to make money form consumers?

Or how about a monalisa poster, or a statue of david one foot tall replica, are these tools for money making really a means to justify not considering these works of art art anymore?

Just because something was made for profit does not make it any less art, the entire sistine chapel was just a job Michealangelo and a handful of other people did cause getting a commission from the church meant a very large amount of cash curtisy of the chatholic church.

Being made for profit incnetives has nothing to do with artistic value. Art is a work that appeals to a sensory part of the human brain and is meant to convey a story, message, viewpoint, or any other narrative thought. Art is also something that can be changed by the artist hand, this is artistic integrity, the artist hand is the one who changes the art, not the commissioner's had, meaning the commissioner can't snatch the brush out of the painters hand after he's done and smear paint all over the piece cause he wanted to, that is what integrity protects from.

And if anyone tries to tell you that artistic integrity is anything other than that, or that it means that art can't be changed by people demands, than they are filled with bull****. Unless fans are demanding that they be allowed into the studio to over see and correct everything about the ending instead of bioware, than artistic integrity is not theratened in the least. So I don't want to see anyone claim that I'm jsut trying to protect the endings, they should be changed, but games should still be considered art.

Modifié par xsdob, 02 avril 2012 - 07:51 .

[Dreogan]

johnbonhamatron wrote...

I believe in two simple tenets.

1/ Video games are art.

2/ Art can be changed.

See? It's simple to reconcile, if you really try.

Oh my god, how can you live with yourself?!

[Phyzzix]

Slidell505 wrote...

Phyzzix wrote...

How do you figure it even gets 4? All I liked about the ending was literally the music... Maybe the music is worth 4 points but that's a stretch...

The Catalyst music is god tier, I hate that kid, but I love the music.

 

Touche, but I mean, idk. 4 is kind of hard to give an ending that gets literally nothing else right somehow.

[CroGamer002]

Harry Potter's ending sucked, but it still made some sense, didn't went against established themes, no assassination of protagonist's character and gave closure.

Mass Effect 3 ending can NOT be compered with that.

Also, J.K. Rowling NEVER gave any false promises for ending. Bioware is just full of them.
And Harry Potter is doesn't have interactive storytelling, Mass Effect has.

Oh and universe that Rowling created was not murdered by that ending, Mass Effect universe is by this endings.


So yeah, Mr. Barnett has no idea what's he talking about.

[xsdob]

Dreogan wrote...

johnbonhamatron wrote...

I believe in two simple tenets.

1/ Video games are art.

2/ Art can be changed.

See? It's simple to reconcile, if you really try.

Oh my god, how can you live with yourself?!

Who knows, but he is right.

[Harmless Crunch]

JK Rowling also wanted to kill Ron off but decided against it as it didn't fit in with the plot and would have only been there to have a grimdark moment.
Sound familiar?

[CroGamer002]

Mr.House wrote...

Wait wait wait, did he just use J.K Rowling and Harry Potter as a point? Despite the fact she changed the ending to please her fans?

Wait, she did?

How did I missed that?

[Iconoclaste]

I thought I read that Rowlings would not be forced to write a new book if she decided not to, I did not read from the statement anything related to the "ending" of an existing book...

RenascentAnt1 wrote...

 "Just as J.K. Rowling can end her books and say,
"That is the end of Harry Potter.' I don't think she should be forced to
make another one," Mr. Barnett said.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 02 avril 2012 - 08:00 .

[Hendrik.III]

When J.K. Rowling had made a crap ending to her series, there had also been a fan outrage. One so much more worse than this.

Quality matters. Sh*tty art is still sh*tty.

[Chuvvy]

Hendrik.III wrote...

When J.K. Rowling had made a crap ending to her series, there had also been a fan outrage. One so much more worse than this.

Quality matters. Sh*tty art is still sh*tty.

And she changed it right? I don't know much about Harry Potter, but he died in the original ending, and then she changed it right? Or am I making this up?

[Billabong2011]

Dreogan wrote...

JK Rowling is a damn good storyteller. To even compare Bioware's craft to Rowling is metaphorically spitting in her face.

While I agree, it is my humble opinion that the last two HP books were veeeeeeeery much below the quality of the first five... (though don't get me wrong, HP's ending was worlds more satisfying than THIS.)

[CroGamer002]

Arcian wrote...

mebtru wrote...

I wonder how the Harry Potter fans, would react if in the end Voldemort is just a peon and some random character appears and tell harry potter that he must destroy all the magic just because he was controlling Voldemort. lolololololol

That's... actually a very astute comparison.

Wow, can't imagine the rage if that happen.

[Billabong2011]

Slidell505 wrote...

Hendrik.III wrote...

When J.K. Rowling had made a crap ending to her series, there had also been a fan outrage. One so much more worse than this.

Quality matters. Sh*tty art is still sh*tty.

And she changed it right? I don't know much about Harry Potter, but he died in the original ending, and then she changed it right? Or am I making this up?

Making it up, lol sorry!
I agree Hendrik, I hated HP's ending with a passion. But I find ME3's ending to be infinitely more offensive to the rest of the narrative -- at least HP was on a slow decline since the sixth book...

[Billabong2011]

xsdob wrote...

Greed1914 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Also, I'm seeing the video games are not art crowd rear it's head here.

So I have to ask, since video games don't count because they rely on visual and audio effects as well as writing, do films qualify as art to you? because most of the world already sees them as art and they aren't any different than games.

Also, about interactivity, you have to turn the pages or move the cursor to read a book, you can't just not interact with it and expect to be able to read it. By your own definition books do not count as art because they involve participation by another person. And films, once made into home viewing formats such as television or streaming or dvd's require and allow interaction to view them, mostly using a mouse or remote control.

So books and films are not art, music has control mechanisms that allows interactivity from the listener so that also doesn't count, so all that's really left is traditional pre-renniscance art, statues and paintings and that's about it.

So all forms of media, by the thought process that an art form that requires audience participation and interaction to view, are not art. Funny, i thought people would be more embracing of the first art form that allows the viewers to be a part of it.

Oh well, I guess it's worth sacrificing video games getting the respect they deserve from people and setting artistic media back to the pre-radio era if it means getting the last 5 minutes of a fantastic and phenomenal game changed.

I'm not sure you quite understand what people have been saying.  Games are both art and product.  While they do involve massive amounts of creative input, they are also produced on a large scale by corporations. 

As for interactivity, nobody was saying that games were any more or less artistic based on interactivity.  About the only one making that argument would be Roger Ebert who doesn't see games as art precisely because they are interactive.

Also, flipping a page or plessing play on your remote is passive.  You press play and the story progresses in only one way.  You turn a page, same thing.  

To your point of mass production and sale, all art are reproduced and sold to the public, do these diminish the value of the artwork in question?

I own a copy of the godfather and a 2001 space odessy, are these films now considered to not be art anymore bacause copies were made for the public to buy and own?

I have beethovens 5th symphony on my ipod, does the fact that I was able to buy it from a producer for purley profit driven goals make the piece less worthy of being called art?

I have been thinking of buying a copy of the fellowship of the rings at my school to see what tolkiens works are really like, does this diminish the books artistic value, the fact that I may purchase it and that it was made as a means to make money form consumers?

Or how about a monalisa poster, or a statue of david one foot tall replica, are these tools for money making really a means to justify not considering these works of art art anymore?

Just because something was made for profit does not make it any less art, the entire sistine chapel was just a job Michealangelo and a handful of other people did cause getting a commission from the church meant a very large amount of cash curtisy of the chatholic church.

Being made for profit incnetives has nothing to do with artistic value. Art is a work that appeals to a sensory part of the human brain and is meant to convey a story, message, viewpoint, or any other narrative thought. Art is also something that can be changed by the artist hand, this is artistic integrity, the artist hand is the one who changes the art, not the commissioner's had, meaning the commissioner can't snatch the brush out of the painters hand after he's done and smear paint all over the piece cause he wanted to, that is what integrity protects from.

And if anyone tries to tell you that artistic integrity is anything other than that, or that it means that art can't be changed by people demands, than they are filled with bull****. Unless fans are demanding that they be allowed into the studio to over see and correct everything about the ending instead of bioware, than artistic integrity is not theratened in the least. So I don't want to see anyone claim that I'm jsut trying to protect the endings, they should be changed, but games should still be considered art.

.........
I love you.
That is everything I think and feel and ... and ...
you articulated it so well, and .........
HERE, HAVE A COOKIE

[cutegigi]

xsdob wrote...

Also, I'm seeing the video games are not art crowd rear it's head here.

So I have to ask, since video games don't count because they rely on visual and audio effects as well as writing, do films qualify as art to you? because most of the world already sees them as art and they aren't any different than games.
-snip-

Well.. the creator can call their creation whatever they want. Art, book of prophecy, holy book, the dam farkin best invention in teh world, or whatever else they can think of. I dont really care as long as its actually fulfill the long list of promises they told me when they sold me their creation. 
When it did not deliver, and the creator hides behind excuses like: "but... its art .... !!!" then I call BS.

Modifié par cutegigi, 02 avril 2012 - 08:12 .

[sargon1986]

Greed1914 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

"You can't please everyone, so let's settle for pleasing the absolute minimum amount of people!"

I don't get this argument.

Me neither.  That's something that just sticks with me on all this.  That ending felt like it achieved the minimum.  The Reapers were beaten, which was a given, and we got three "different" endings that recycled the same footage.  The reason I came to be such a fan of Bioware's games is because they went far beyond the minimum.

Mythic is used to this kind of logic, they've been practicing this strategy since Warhammer Online - which now has 50k subscribers. 

[Gibb_Shepard]

Billabong2011 wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

Hendrik.III wrote...

When J.K. Rowling had made a crap ending to her series, there had also been a fan outrage. One so much more worse than this.

Quality matters. Sh*tty art is still sh*tty.

And she changed it right? I don't know much about Harry Potter, but he died in the original ending, and then she changed it right? Or am I making this up?

Making it up, lol sorry!
I agree Hendrik, I hated HP's ending with a passion. But I find ME3's ending to be infinitely more offensive to the rest of the narrative -- at least HP was on a slow decline since the sixth book...

No, he's right. Rowling changed the ending to Harry Potter because of fan outcry.

[shockins]

xsdob has some good points a couple posts back, I think. I kind of took the "artistic integrity" bit to be more an assertion of their ownership of the material rather than a claim to be deserving of some high art marker. Now before you jump down my throat, I agree that Bioware developed Mass Effect in a way that allowed us to have some ownership of the character and events and each make our own Sheps, which I believe makes the game so resonant to us. However, all available choices were developed for us through time and effort by the BW crew and the right is there's to make it beautiful or accidentally drive it off a cliff...much to my chagrin.

[ambroseaz]

Jawsomebob wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

JK Rowling is a damn good storyteller. To even compare Bioware's craft to Rowling is metaphorically spitting in her face.

J.K rowlings ending of harry potter was probably an 8/10 it was not perfect but it was good. Very good.

Biowares ending was probably a 4 out 10....

No, it was actually a 1, they just added 3 colors to make it look like a 4. 

[JasonDaPsycho]

JK Rowling never promised multiple drastically different endings for Harry Potter. She just said she cried writing the ending.

Get your facts right.

[Mad-Max90]

Fine, if it's art, that's great for them. It just seems weird that an artist would look back at his work and not see a flaw. If they were so worried about their artistic integrity, why then did they let an ending completely ruin the rest of the story they told? You'd think if they really valued their integrity they wouldn't have released such a half-assed ending. Seriously, you can only hide behind meaningless words until it comes back to bite you.

[weltraumhamster89]

Foulpancake wrote...

Considering they are 110% clueless, JK rowling changed the end of Harry Potter, she was originally going to have Harry die, but fan response was very negative so she changed it before the release.

Too bad they didn't do a lick of research or even have any clue what they were talking about....

Wow, even I did not know this, thank you! 

PAX is next friday isn't it? We will see.

[bleetman]

Amusing.