138 réponses à ce sujet

[Xoahr]

I recently wrote a thread about artistic integrity, that people seemed to enjoy (see here: http://social.biowar.../index/10769603), and which gave some people, hopefully, a deeper understanding of art and the idea of artistic integrity, and how it could be applied to an artistic and commercial setting. This time, I'd like to address the idea of 'gamer entitlement.'

The word 'entitled' is a transitive verb, and has two main definitions:
1. To give a name or title to.2. To furnish with a right or claim to something. In this case, the first definition is more akin to ennobling, the process of gaining a peerage title. The second definition, however, is in the meaning which has been thrown around so loosely lately.

In this case, the word 'entitled' has been used in a perjorative sense, as if the person demanding change is spoilt - that they unduly deserve a greater reward or benefit, as they are bereft of 'true' entitlement, based on either universally accepted rights, or nationally accepted laws. 

I can see their argument, which largely seems to rely on artistic integrity - if the creation is an artistic vision, it is entitled of you to demand change. It would be entitled to demand Shakespeare to rewrite the ending to The Tempest. It would be entitled to demand Stephanie Meyer to stop writing terrible literature. Yet this is where your idea of artistic integrity breaks down. As stated in the other thread, artistic integrity can only be used on art without commercial purpose (i.e, the purest forms of art). In this case, BioWare ultimately do seek profit, or gain from their products, and in that respect, whether the game is art, it lacks artistic integrity due to that commercial connection. They cannot demand artistic integrity whilst also demanding money from consumers. The 'entitled' examples I gave earlier - they're not far from the truth. Was it entitled to demand Sherlock Holmes return from the dead? Was it entitled to demand a new ending for Pip, in Great Expectations? Is it entitled of radio stations to censor swear words in songs?

I would argue, no, it is not entitled. The thing they all have in common is that they are primarily motivated by a commercial neccesity. In this case, Conan Doyle required Sherlock Holmes to pay his bills. Dickens realised how upset people would become if Great Expectations had a truly depressing ending. Radio stations realise that they may lose consumers, offended at the language.

Gamers are not entitled. Gamers purchase a game, and with that purchase a gamer is entitled to consumer rights. It is the equivalent of purchasing a Louis Vuitton handbag, only to discover it is just a leather handbag - a nice one, but not worth the £3995 you just spent. You can return it, and get a refund, without being entitled, because your consumer rights are protected by one rule, which is nearly universal in every country in the western world: When you buy an item from a trader (eg a shop or online shop) the law says the item must be: as described – match the description on packaging or what the trader told you.

This is the issue that certain gamers have with Mass Effect 3. It doesn't make them entitled. Demanding changes doesn't make them entitled. For years, gamers have demanded changes - such as lowering the accuracy of the Ump45 in CoDMW2, or 'nerfing' a certain class in WoW. Patches and updates are released, which gamers demand - for game breaking bugs, or cosmetic changes.

People are arguing that the gamer is entitled for demanding change to something they purchased, which did not match what they were told they would get. This 'sense of entitlement' these gamers have is not just an entitlement. Yes, they are entitled, but they are entitled through their consumer rights. It is not perjorative. Ultimately, as a last example, when Fallout 3 came out, there were many complaints about the ending - so much so, that Bethesda fixed it with DLC. There were no complaints about entitlement then.

This new DLC that BioWare has announced will not 'fix' the ending. It will not address the gaping plot holes, or keep the Shepard you created in character. Ultimately, no major changes will occur from it. The gamers who are acting entitled, like spoilt little brats, are the complete opposite. They are the responsible consumer. 

Modifié par Xoahr, 07 avril 2012 - 07:24 .

[ReavCZ]

Thank you for this very good post!

[MrnDpty161]

Good write --- wait until the spitting mob comes around yelling at you to claim your a nutcase and then smugly tell you a bunch of spew and hate.

[Xoahr]

MrnDpty161 wrote...

Good write --- wait until the spitting mob comes around yelling at you to claim your a nutcase and then smugly tell you a bunch of spew and hate.

If they post succinctly, rationally and calmly, I will happily reply to them. I will ignore anything which is a 'spew' or other such flamebait.

[Anima03]

Good post Xoahr, well written and an interesting read.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Good post, OP. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much discussion you'll get from the other side. Mostly they'll just post one or two sentences filled with words such as "entitled", "whiny", or "spoiled" without much of an actual rebuttal.

[Xoahr]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

Good post, OP. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much discussion you'll get from the other side. Mostly they'll just post one or two sentences filled with words such as "entitled", "whiny", or "spoiled" without much of an actual rebuttal.

I'd still be interested to see what they'd have to say.

[HopHazzard]

If creators want to give in to fan demands and change their works, they are free to do so. The entitlement comes into to play when fans come to believe that creators are obligated to give in to their demands, that they don't have the right to refuse to make changes if they don't want to.

As far as radio stations and foul language goes, I don't know how it works in other countries, but in the USA, what can be broadcast over the radio is regulated by a government agency. It's not so much fear of offending their listeners that has radio stations censoring foul language, so much as the sure knowledge that they'll be fined into the poor house and lose their broadcast license if they don't.

[Amioran]

Xoahr wrote...
Yet this is where your idea of artistic integrity breaks down. As stated in the other thread, artistic integrity can only be used on art without commercial purpose (i.e, the purest forms of art). In this case, BioWare ultimately do seek profit, or gain from their products, and in that respect, whether the game is art, it lacks artistic integrity due to that commercial connection. They cannot demand artistic integrity whilst also demanding money from consumers.

Sorry but this is completely and absolutely an idiocy. A form of art doesn't depend at all on if it is meant to be bought or not. You can either read about the "art for art's sake" concept in Nietzsche "Beyond good and evil" to understand in reality the idiocy of this concept in itself.

In short: It doesn't exits a thing as that. The artist also if s/he works for his/her art and nothing more in any case try and aspires at his/her work to be known, either directly or indirectly. This doesn't deteriorate the quality of the art itself, and on the contrary, who doesn't it's just an hypocrite hiding him/herself under a form of manierism.

The fact that you sell your work it doesn't mean that you must do what the purchaser wants. What kind of idiotic statement that is?

So, extrapolating what you say, you pretend that in the renaissance when the church commissioned all the major art operas of all the times the artists were not "true" aritsts because their works were commissioned? And so, because of that, those artists couldn't defend their "artistic integrity" because they had none? Do you get what absurd imbecility it is to say a thing as that?

In short:
"Michelangelo was not a true artist because his work was commisioned and he sold it. Michelangelo couldn't abide to his artistic integrity because he was not an artist being his work commissioned."

Sure, how not. Why don't you try to publish this great theory in some university and try to see the result for yourself?

OMG.

Why, oh why, people insist on talking about things they don't know nothing about and without thinking about them for more than a second?

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 08:01 .

[Artemis_Entrari]

HopHazzard wrote...

If creators want to give in to fan demands and change their works, they are free to do so. The entitlement comes into to play when fans come to believe that creators are obligated to give in to their demands, that they don't have the right to refuse to make changes if they don't want to.

The thing is, you can pretty much apply this to anything.  By the above definition, every single consumer who ever bought something acts "entitled" because they want that product they bought to meet a certain standard they expected of it, and if that expectation isn't met, they let their feelings be known.  It's then up to the company to either ignore that request (or demand, as you put it) and potentially lose that customer, or try and satisfy him/her.

So what makes those who are "demanding" a different ending different than any other consumer out there?

[OutlawTorn6806]

I wish that Charles Dickens never did change his ending and other parts of his story because the original was far greater in my opinion. (Alternate versions are now available these days). Shouldn't have to bend your vision. 

In fact fans of Metallica that want them to constantly sound like they did ''in the old days'' are also entitled. Though Metallica is a commercial and artistic venture backed by a large corporation, they and only they can decide how their music sounds (and ends, lol).

I'm going to give you another example. When the movie Dodgeball came out, the writers wanted the team to actually lose at the end. But screen testers/producers changed it. The writers were disappointed but had to release anyhow, but the true/alternate ending was released as a DVD bonus. Do you want to be the producer/screen tester that forces the writer to change his vision?

Second, as a product, if you were promised something you don't like. You can return it. You have every right to. But if you continue to **** and moan and cry about it, little sympathy will be given to you. BW has done what it thinks its is right for their story and their product, and are willing to add onto it (for free). If you aren't happy with that, then you have the right to return it and forget about it.

Modifié par OutlawTorn6806, 07 avril 2012 - 07:58 .

[Xoahr]

HopHazzard wrote...

If creators want to give in to fan demands and change their works, they are free to do so. The entitlement comes into to play when fans come to believe that creators are obligated to give in to their demands, that they don't have the right to refuse to make changes if they don't want to.

As far as radio stations and foul language goes, I don't know how it works in other countries, but in the USA, what can be broadcast over the radio is regulated by a government agency. It's not so much fear of offending their listeners that has radio stations censoring foul language, so much as the sure knowledge that they'll be fined into the poor house and lose their broadcast license if they don't.

In the UK, if a product is faulty (such as not sold as advertised), you are automatically entitled to either: 
a) a refund
to trade the product for another (get 'internal credit')
c) demand the retailer issue a copy that was as advertised.

the third option is quite rare, and usually if they cannot produce an item as advertised, you can take them to a small claims court if they don't provide a refund. So, in this sense (at least in the UK), if ME3 is truly not the game which is advertised, the creators are theoretically obligated to give into the consumers' demands (or, of course, give a refund).

As I'm aware, in the UK, there are a number of Government ran radio stations (such as BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, etc), and those are regulated by the Government. Privately owned radio stations (such as XFM, Kiss100), they can air anything, so long as it isn't incitement to racial hatred, etc, yet they will still air songs with swear words censored. Either way, why it happens is a moot point - surely it's just entitled of the Government to censor the swear words?

[XqctaX]

good post. enjoyed reading it

[Amioran]

XqctaX wrote...

good post. enjoyed reading it

And people either say it is good! This is even worser.

[Xoahr]

Amioran wrote...

Xoahr wrote...
Yet this is where your idea of artistic integrity breaks down. As stated in the other thread, artistic integrity can only be used on art without commercial purpose (i.e, the purest forms of art). In this case, BioWare ultimately do seek profit, or gain from their products, and in that respect, whether the game is art, it lacks artistic integrity due to that commercial connection. They cannot demand artistic integrity whilst also demanding money from consumers.

Sorry but this is completely and absolutely an idiocy. A form of art doesn't depend at all on if it is meant to be bought or not. You can either read about the "art for art's sake" concept in Nietzsche "Beyond evil and hell" to understand in reality the idiocy of this concept in itself.

In short: It doesn't exits a thing as that. The artist also if s/he works for his/her art and nothing more in any case try and aspires at his/her work to be know. This doesn't deteriorate the quality of the art itself, and on the contrary, who doesn't it's just an hypocrite hiding him/herself under a form of manierism.

The fact that you sell your work it doesn't mean that you must do what the purchaser wants. What kind of idiotic statement that is?

So, extrapolating what you say, you pretend that in the Renassaince when the church commissioned all the major art operas of all the times the artists where not arists because their works were commissioned? And so, because of that, those artists couldn't defend their "artistic integrity" because they had none? Do you get what absurd imbecility it is to say a thing as that?

In short:
"Michelangelo was not a true artist because his work was commisioned and he sold it. Michelangelo couldn't abide to his artistic integrity because he was not an artist being his work commissioned."

Sure, how not. Why don't you try to publish this great theory in some university and try to see the result for yourself?

OMG.

Why, oh why, people insist on talking about things they don't know nothing about and without thinking about them for more than a second?

Firstly, a consumer can demand from a company through the idea of capitalism - if you upset the consumer, that will be affected in stock prices, and damage the company. Thus, it is in the companies best interest to keep a loyal consumer base who are satisfied with the companies products. This is also the same in this scenario - consumers are demanding good games from a company, they have upset the consumer (largely since DA2), and if you look at the response on the stock market, it hasn't been too hot for EA since around 2009.

Secondly, Michelangelo, as I wrote in my other thread, was ordered by the Pope to alter some paintings he had made in the Sistine Chapel. Nowadays, his work is respected for two reasons (as it often is with all artists)
a) He was talented to such a high percentile, his work is amazing
A common audience can unify around it and say 'yes, this is exemplary work'

This is why he was commisioned in the first place - what he made would have been frequently dictated by those demanding his services (for a similar example, Machiavelli's "The Prince" was commissioned for one of the Borgia's, yet the writing Machiavelli produces is very unlike his other works (which were very liberal, for the time).

[Amioran]

L00p wrote...
I prefer Schopenhauer myself

Schopenhauer was a recognized philosopher at his time.

and I also prefer not using OMG in any of my posts, as it gives a lousy impression of any points I want to make. 

When the point you refer to doens't exist to start with then you can do what you want with the rest.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to OPs excellent post. Your post was almost as excellent, but not quite.

As always I find these sort of people that have this urge to say that a thing is this or that yet they never explain why that's so. What's up, you cannot stand by what you say if not with easy statements as: "uh, you ugly bad bod, bad you"?

The OP post was an idiocy as I've already explained. Everybody that thinks the contrary or just don't know anything about these things or it's just an idiot him/herself. There's no way around it. Why? I already explained it much too well. There's nothing to debate about it.

Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 08:07 .

[Xoahr]

OutlawTorn6806 wrote...

I wish that Charles Dickens never did change his ending and other parts of his story because the original was far greater in my opinion. (Alternate versions are now available these days). Shouldn't have to bend your vision. 

In fact fans of Metallica that want them to constantly sound like they did ''in the old days'' are also entitled. Though Metallica is a commercial and artistic venture backed by a large corporation, they and only they can decide how their music sounds (and ends, lol).

I'm going to give you another example. When the movie Dodgeball came out, the writers wanted the team to actually lose at the end. But screen testers/producers changed it. The writers were disappointed but had to release anyhow, but the true/alternate ending was released as a DVD bonus. Do you want to be the producer/screen tester that forces the writer to change his vision?

Second, as a product, if you were promised something you don't like. You can return it. You have every right to. But if you continue to **** and moan and cry about it, little sympathy will be given to you. BW has done what it thinks its is right for their story and their product, and are willing to add onto it (for free). If you aren't happy with that, then you have the right to return it and forget about it.

Yet if he hadn't of changed the ending, not as many people would have read and appreciated that work.

I know very little about Metallica, but I do know that it is very rare to have complete artistic control if you are a music artist with a large corporation backing you - this is frequently why a number of bands develop their own labels. I would say the fans anger is misplaced - they should look for the 'master of puppets' (was that one of their songs?)

Dodgeball is a commercial exercise. They developed that film to make a profit. If the test audience wanted them to win, they realised this would give more profit, regardless of what the writers' wanted. That ending of losing, however, had already been made. In this case, ME3 is a commercial exercise. They developed that game to make a profit. If the test audience wanted different endings, they should make them, as this (would have) given them more profit, regardless of what the writers' wanted. Those different endings, however, have not yet been made, and EA is unsure of the benefits of creating them, thus, certain consumers feel angry. I have no qualms helping a company make profit.

I already have returned my copy. In fact, I made a profit off it. I think it is rather unlikely BioWare or EA will change the endings. If they do, I'll buy it again. However, what I'm more interested is in the idea of entitlement and artistic integrity which has sprouted due to it.

[AJRimmsey]

read op

yet another

[Xoahr]

Amioran wrote...

L00p wrote...
I prefer Schopenhauer myself

Schopenhauer was a recognized philosopher at his time.

and I also prefer not using OMG in any of my posts, as it gives a lousy impression of any points I want to make. 

When the point you refer to doens't exist to start with then you can do what you want with the rest.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to OPs excellent post. Your post was almost as excellent, but not quite.

As always I find these sort of people that have this urge to say that a thing is this or that yet they never explain why that's so. What's up, you cannot stand by what you say if not with easy statements as: "uh, you ugly bad bod, bad you"?

The OP post was an idiocy as I've already explained. Everybody that thinks the contrary or just don't know anything about these things or it's just an idiot him/herself. There's no way around it. Why? I already explained it much too well. There's nothing to debate about it.

What I think you're failing to see is that there are multiple ways to approach issues. I've also replied to your message, if you would care to read it. Ultimately, what I'm saying is this:
i) a company seeks to make a profit
ii) companies make profits on sales
iii) a lack of sales is a lack of profits

tied in with this:
i) in the freemarket, the consumer is king
ii) consumers make profit for companies
iii) it is idiocy to not listen to consumers

Would you call that idiocy? I would call that basic economics. Ultimately, words such as 'artistic integrity' and 'entitlement' are smoke screens. What I find interesting, however, is I see no way that 'artistic integrity' can apply to commercial art, and how a consumer can be 'entitled'.

[Amioran]

Xoahr wrote...
Firstly, a consumer can demand from a company through the idea of capitalism - if you upset the consumer, that will be affected in stock prices, and damage the company. Thus, it is in the companies best interest to keep a loyal consumer base who are satisfied with the companies products.

 
What this have to do with what I said? This have nothing to do with having the right or not to change the work of an artist.

Sure, the artist can decide (to sell his/her work, as it has happened in the past) to correct it or not for the sake of making a living, but the commissioner cannot PRETEND it and the artist it is the only one to decide to do it or not and the fact that s/he sell his/her work or not doesn't change this minimally.

Xoahr wrote...
Secondly, Michelangelo, as I wrote in my other thread, was ordered by the Pope to alter some paintings he had made in the Sistine Chapel. Nowadays, his work is respected for two reasons (as it often is with all artists)
a) He was talented to such a high percentile, his work is amazing
A common audience can unify around it and say 'yes, this is exemplary work'

A) Michelangelo was asked to change many things but he adhered to the change only in very few occasions and he always had the last word on it, not the commisioner.
 In some well known instances the church tried to force the change on Michelangelo and he became furious at it. In your opinion he shouldn't have because his work was commissioned, isn't it?

Then I know that Michelangelo was a great artist. It is not me that implied otherwise with what I wrote.