46 réponses à ce sujet

[Blight Nug]

what is art? It is a medium for humans to express ideas. Some expressions seek approval. So its not about whether EA/Bioware wants to create art or products, its about what kind of art they want to create.
Obviously the devs want to create art that fulfills their creative desires that also pleases their consumers. Artistic goals can sometimes overlap with economic goals.

[Xewaka]

Nizaris1 wrote...
Art never sell...it only become legend centuries later...

Are you aware of the term "patronage" and what it means?

[hoorayforicecream]

I've never met a professional game developer who prized artistic expression over providing for his or her family in ten years in the industry..

[Wulfram]

I don't think "art" is a particularly useful term in regards to computer games - excluding perhaps a few independent games - except as debating point. It's too difficult to define, really.

I don't doubt Bioware and the Dragon Age team want to put out a game that they can be proud of, that people enjoy.

Of course they also want to make money, and I do have issues with the way they market and monetize it.

[Herr Uhl]

Xewaka wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...
Art never sell...it only become legend centuries later...

Are you aware of the term "patronage" and what it means?

But the Mona Lisa isn't art, it was a comission that Da Vinci did to get money. So hence it is a product.

[Realmzmaster]

Xewaka wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...
Art never sell...it only become legend centuries later...

Are you aware of the term "patronage" and what it means?

Patronage means the artist is being supported (therefore being paid) by a patron. Works were commissoned by the patron. The patron expected results. So the artist was producing a product that had to please the patron. 

Bioware is making an artisitc product that they hope sells well. Products can be art, but the intention is that the art sells and makes a profit so the artist can continue making artisitic products.

Gamers can disparage the bean counters. It is those bean counters (who are people like us) that make sure everyone gets paid unless of course you are working at your job for free or volunteering your time. Those bean counters make sure that at the end of the day the company is still solvent and making a profit. 

[Maria Caliban]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Creating a great game and staying true to your artistic vision? Or creating a product that sells well regardless of quality?

Games are products.

And quality matters with products more than they matter with art.

[Fast Jimmy]

The subjective nature of 'art' is so broad, it defies a definition by nature.

If you sell something you make, it is a product. If you apply any level of skill, understanding, logic or imagination, one could argue it is art.

If the OP would like to make this thread about 'should game developers not care about profits' then that is a completely different discussion than if the game is 'art.'

The very term 'the art of negotiation' immediately proves that art is nt inherently disassociated with money.

[Sylvius the Mad]

False dichotomy. Art is a product.

[Firky]

Probably slightly next to the point, rather than on it, but ...

I recently went to this. http://gamemasters.a...net.au/#!/home/

After so many years of walking into games retailers, or trying to shop for games by watching trailers on Steam, or whatever, seeing more than 100 games presented as art, in a manner any person who has ever been to an art gallery would recognise, was SO refreshing.

I took my 5 year old along. We played everything from Lego Star Wars to Monkey Island to Ultima to really cute/fun/inspiring Indie games. We put on headphones to listen to Warren Spector (and so many designers), we watched people dancing or competing with each other on various games, and I read my son paragraphs of history from the wall, and we looked at concept art for really old school stuff.

It was amazing. I'm not sure what my point is, but seeing the history of games presented that way made me inordinately happy, somehow.

(Edit: Because, like, in a shop, games are all aligned on a shelf, with a price tag and posters etc. Then you pay for it, take it home and play it. Rather than listen to the designer, play, learn its history, engage with the space etc.)

Modifié par Firky, 21 novembre 2012 - 08:47 .

[cJohnOne]

I think the Artist might want to be more impactful while I perfer something more enjoyable.

[Jonata]

Go see another Joe Swanberg movie and let me enjoy The Hobbit.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

"Like ya, I liked Dragon Age when it was all about the art. You know, before it was a cool game to play. Now it's just another product, and it's like sooooooo mainstream..."

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 22 novembre 2012 - 12:20 .

[Maria Caliban]

I was a pasty white twenty-something with no fashion sense before it was cool.

[devSin]

That lady on the right... are those shoulder pads?

Be still, my beating heart.

[Jonata]

devSin wrote...

That lady on the right... are those shoulder pads?

Be still, my beating heart.

Clearly ME3's FemShep casual attires had an impact on pop culture.

[Doctoglethorpe]

Art exists to express something, a thought, feeling, whatever, not for profit but purely as a mode of conveying something. A product exists to do something for a consumer and generate profit in the process. Many video games, less so in modern times but still, only really exist to generate profit and don't really mean anything. You can't really say Pacman is art, theres no message there its just a game, its made just to give you something to occupy yourself with. But Bioware games clearly have expressive intentions, there is story and a point to that story beyond getting you from point A to point B. Regardless of the quality you believe it has, it is by definition art for attempting to express something.

So Bioware games specifically, Art Products. Period. Any argument is pure semantics. The two are not mutually exclusive as this debate often insists. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 22 novembre 2012 - 02:15 .

[PaulSX]

the stuff you bought is a product no doubt but the game's production follows a series of artistic processing so the designers might consider their work art-related. But I do not think one thing has anything to do with the other, since what you bought is just a copy of their work and you never own the work itself.

[rapscallioness]

Honestly, I think the devs want to make a really cool experience to share with us. Something that makes fans say, "wow". In a good way.

EA wants and needs to make money. And hey, that's a beautiful thing. Being poor sux. No money. No games.

However!, I do wish EA would demonstrate more control of their...*ahem* ...rudder. They start looking at all the potential revenue, and get way too excited.

Then Boom! You've got premature...uh...launch. An aftermath filled with questions of, "that's it?"  And an overall awkward and exasperating experience.

No one needs that drama.

Modifié par rapscallioness, 22 novembre 2012 - 04:23 .

[labargegrrrl]

for some reason, i'm reminded of a quote:

"there is no way you cannot not have a poetics, no matter what you do." -Daine DiPrima

my point? our everyday existence tends to art on accident half the time anyway.

very few ever consider the idea that sometimes people create products, get ideas, do things out of sheer boredom, and just naturally try to stumble through our lives, and end UP with art. people argue about whether art is/is not/can be/shouldn't be a product, and very seldom consider that products can be art.

so if this is only being done for the cash or because people are just trying to pay their mortgages (though i doubt it's that simple), art will still ensue.