232 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Sure, ME3 is "art", I guess.

But then, have you seen some of the stuff that gets considered "art"?

[archangel1996]

Kabooooom wrote...

Alright genius here is the definition of art for you:

Art - noun - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically (but not exclusively) in a visual form.

A painting is art. Music is art. Writing is art. Dancing is art.

Just because you want to **** and moan about how you think ME3 should have been and you think that somehow renders it 'not art', doesn't make it so.

So take your own advice and buy yourself a dictionary.

Again, a game changes in time, doesn't it? Hide behind a defination doesnt help, you know
I would really pay to know how many people actually convinced themselves of this only after what BW sayed
Think with your head

[NCommand]

archangel1996 wrote...

NCommand wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

The Parthenon or the Coloseum or the Monalise were the same at the time they were created, ME3 changes because it is a product, because it has not a form that will always be the same

Actually we have added and removed bits and pieces unto all your examples as time has passed

Yeah, because if we didn't they would have probably fallen, like at Pompei

Still, it refutes your argument, the Panthenon was regarded as art even though the christians threw out all the "heretical" stuff and replaced it with their own stuff, just because you can add or subract content to something doesn't make it less art

[Dr_Extrem]

archangel1996 wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Alright genius here is the definition of art for you:

Art - noun - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically (but not exclusively) in a visual form.

A painting is art. Music is art. Writing is art. Dancing is art.

Just because you want to **** and moan about how you think ME3 should have been and you think that somehow renders it 'not art', doesn't make it so.

So take your own advice and buy yourself a dictionary.

Again, a game changes in time, doesn't it? Hide behind a defination doesnt help, you know
I would really pay to know how many people actually convinced themselves of this only after what BW sayed
Think with your head

well .. it is art .. and art gets criticised ..

[NCommand]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Alright genius here is the definition of art for you:

Art - noun - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically (but not exclusively) in a visual form.

A painting is art. Music is art. Writing is art. Dancing is art.

Just because you want to **** and moan about how you think ME3 should have been and you think that somehow renders it 'not art', doesn't make it so.

So take your own advice and buy yourself a dictionary.

Again, a game changes in time, doesn't it? Hide behind a defination doesnt help, you know
I would really pay to know how many people actually convinced themselves of this only after what BW sayed
Think with your head

well .. it is art .. and art gets criticised ..

Exactly, just because someone says Mass Effect is art doesn't mean it can never be called bad, but their usage of the word "artistic integrity" means they won't change their vision because it's demanded so by the critics

[Ridwan]

iakus wrote...

Sure, ME3 is "art", I guess.

But then, have you seen some of the stuff that gets considered "art"?

Behold art!

Modifié par M25105, 21 mars 2013 - 06:19 .

[archangel1996]

NCommand wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

NCommand wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

The Parthenon or the Coloseum or the Monalise were the same at the time they were created, ME3 changes because it is a product, because it has not a form that will always be the same

Actually we have added and removed bits and pieces unto all your examples as time has passed

Yeah, because if we didn't they would have probably fallen, like at Pompei

Still, it refutes your argument, the Panthenon was regarded as art even though the christians threw out all the "heretical" stuff and replaced it with their own stuff, just because you can add or subract content to something doesn't make it less art

yes, but if i have a copy of ME3 with the CItadel DLC and you one with the Leviathan DLC? To me something has to be the same for everyone to be art, a game sooner or later will not be

[Mr.House]

I consider video game a piece of art, and just like art I criticize or praise them just like I would do on any other piece of art.

[JamesFaith]

And to question "Are videogames (ME3) art?" - yes, they are. Only problem with them is, that contrary to painting, drama or sculptures we were witnesses of so-called "pre-art stage" and only a little time passed since then.

We don't know exact beginnings of clasical arts when it was more technical thing that art (f.e. testing of new tools on bones when carved bones are just by-product and not real sculpture). But we saw it on new forms of art based on new technologies - classical examples of arts with such known stage are photography and movies.

First phorography was considered as result of technology with no "artistic added value". Just point and click machine. Yet now we accepted it as art thank to play with light, composition and so on. Movies were in same situation.

Purely technical videogames from "pre-art stage" were things like Tetris or Pac-Man. But many later games mixing classical art features (writting, painting, architecture, music, acting...) are real art, they just brought new aspect to art based on technology (players influence on game), which was already used only in limited way in literature and movies.

If one specific peice of art is good or bad is totally different question.

[NCommand]

archangel1996 wrote...

yes, but if i have a copy of ME3 with the CItadel DLC and you one with the Leviathan DLC? To me something has to be the same for everyone to be art, a game sooner or later will not be

Doesn't exactly work that way, they both have to be reviewd seperately yes because the content is different, but it can still be regarded as art, it might change someone's opinion, maybe they think ME3 is good with the CItadel DLC, but bad without it, but it will still be regarded as a artistic medium

[Dr_Extrem]

NCommand wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Alright genius here is the definition of art for you:

Art - noun - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically (but not exclusively) in a visual form.

A painting is art. Music is art. Writing is art. Dancing is art.

Just because you want to **** and moan about how you think ME3 should have been and you think that somehow renders it 'not art', doesn't make it so.

So take your own advice and buy yourself a dictionary.

Again, a game changes in time, doesn't it? Hide behind a defination doesnt help, you know
I would really pay to know how many people actually convinced themselves of this only after what BW sayed
Think with your head

well .. it is art .. and art gets criticised ..

Exactly, just because someone says Mass Effect is art doesn't mean it can never be called bad, but their usage of the word "artistic integrity" means they won't change their vision because it's demanded so by the critics

does that make their art better?

if an autor work gets criticised, he tries to do better. mass effect 3s ending was criticised, based on objective errors within the narrative. sticking to those errors (and adding new ones) is a bad decision.


the critics did not demand that the writers change their work - but they certainly hoped for it. criticism is not a bad thing and every artist should be thankful if he gets criticies in a constructive way.

the problem is, that the writers of mass effect behave, like their art is not to be criticised at all.

[archangel1996]

NCommand wrote...

archangel1996 wrote...

yes, but if i have a copy of ME3 with the CItadel DLC and you one with the Leviathan DLC? To me something has to be the same for everyone to be art, a game sooner or later will not be

Doesn't exactly work that way, they both have to be reviewd seperately yes because the content is different, but it can still be regarded as art, it might change someone's opinion, maybe they think ME3 is good with the CItadel DLC, but bad without it, but it will still be regarded as a artistic medium

Can we agree to disagree?

Modifié par archangel1996, 21 mars 2013 - 06:24 .

[Karlone123]

I agree with SilJeff, the whole trilogy is art to me, but the only standalone game I would consider art is ME2 and maybe ME1.

[NCommand]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

does that make their art better?

if an autor work gets criticised, he tries to do better. mass effect 3s ending was criticised, based on objective errors within the narrative. sticking to those errors (and adding new ones) is a bad decision.


the critics did not demand that the writers change their work - but they certainly hoped for it. criticism is not a bad thing and every artist should be thankful if he gets criticies in a constructive way.

the problem is, that the writers of mass effect behave, like their art is not to be criticised at all.

Never heard they said it makes it better, but I understand their usage of it to defend not changing the ending (which they did anyway eventually)

If I have a vision for something, but in the end people demand that I change the end product it's well within my right to claim it would damage my artistic integrity and that it will stay as it is

[BrookerT]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

When did Bioware actually use art as a defence for the endings, I really don't seem to remember.

leave it here.... for educational purpose.

I'm currently on a mobile here, does he actually use Art to defend the endings?

[NT121784]

I believe video games are art. But when the phrase is used to excuse poor planning, it cheapens the concept of video games as art

[Wayning_Star]

If ME is "art" what did it invoke in the eye's of the beholders?

(but for what ever it is, art or not, game or not, sci fi or not, sure got a lot of fans buzzing about what they thought IT was.. lol)

[archangel1996]

NCommand wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

does that make their art better?

if an autor work gets criticised, he tries to do better. mass effect 3s ending was criticised, based on objective errors within the narrative. sticking to those errors (and adding new ones) is a bad decision.


the critics did not demand that the writers change their work - but they certainly hoped for it. criticism is not a bad thing and every artist should be thankful if he gets criticies in a constructive way.

the problem is, that the writers of mass effect behave, like their art is not to be criticised at all.

Never heard they said it makes it better, but I understand their usage of it to defend not changing the ending (which they did anyway eventually)

If I have a vision for something, but in the end people demand that I change the end product it's well within my right to claim it would damage my artistic integrity and that it will stay as it is

But those people are not some random guy who payed the ticket to see the Gladiator and now they want it to change cuz they don't like it They made promises, if they consider their game  "art" they disrespected it by lying about it
And cutting things from their art jsut to sell them later
Theyc an say all they want, but if they disrespect their "art" they can not claim that, in the end, it is

Modifié par archangel1996, 21 mars 2013 - 06:32 .

[NCommand]

Wayning_Star wrote...

If ME is "art" what did it invoke in the eye's of the beholders?

(but for what ever it is, art or not, game or not, sci fi or not, sure got a lot of fans buzzing about what they thought IT was.. lol)

For good or bad it certainly will be remembered for far longer than most other video game endings

[JamesFaith]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the critics did not demand that the writers change their work - but they certainly hoped for it. criticism is not a bad thing and every artist should be thankful if he gets criticies in a constructive way.

the problem is, that the writers of mass effect behave, like their art is not to be criticised at all.

I have to disagree with this.

Critics don't hope for changes in authors works. They hoped for changes in next work from author or for a new version (f.e. in drama), but not in current judged work. Only a special group of critics - testers - doing this.

And that was problem with critism of ME3 - fans demanded changes of current game when BW wanted use feedback for their next work which is normal reaction on critism.

  

[NCommand]

archangel1996 wrote...

NCommand wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

does that make their art better?

if an autor work gets criticised, he tries to do better. mass effect 3s ending was criticised, based on objective errors within the narrative. sticking to those errors (and adding new ones) is a bad decision.


the critics did not demand that the writers change their work - but they certainly hoped for it. criticism is not a bad thing and every artist should be thankful if he gets criticies in a constructive way.

the problem is, that the writers of mass effect behave, like their art is not to be criticised at all.

Never heard they said it makes it better, but I understand their usage of it to defend not changing the ending (which they did anyway eventually)

If I have a vision for something, but in the end people demand that I change the end product it's well within my right to claim it would damage my artistic integrity and that it will stay as it is

But those people are not some random guy who payed the ticket to see the Gladiator and now they want it to change cuz they don't like it They made promises, if they consider their game  "art" they disrespected it by lying about it
And cutting things from their art jsut to sell them later
Theyc an say all they want, but if they disrespect their "art" they can not claim that, in the end, it is

Well, like all art that's up to the opinion of the induvidual, some people didn't like it and found it disrespectful to what it set out to do, others, like me for example found it good if not adequent and have no issue with the process that lead to the finished product

[Dr_Extrem]

NCommand wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

does that make their art better?

if an autor work gets criticised, he tries to do better. mass effect 3s ending was criticised, based on objective errors within the narrative. sticking to those errors (and adding new ones) is a bad decision.


the critics did not demand that the writers change their work - but they certainly hoped for it. criticism is not a bad thing and every artist should be thankful if he gets criticies in a constructive way.

the problem is, that the writers of mass effect behave, like their art is not to be criticised at all.

Never heard they said it makes it better, but I understand their usage of it to defend not changing the ending (which they did anyway eventually)

If I have a vision for something, but in the end people demand that I change the end product it's well within my right to claim it would damage my artistic integrity and that it will stay as it is

but you still have to live with the bad critique and the fact, that people will not like their work, because of their bad handywork.

if you dont change it for the better, you have to man up and swallow the critique. bioware response was, that we just dont get it.

[Dr_Extrem]

JamesFaith wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the critics did not demand that the writers change their work - but they certainly hoped for it. criticism is not a bad thing and every artist should be thankful if he gets criticies in a constructive way.

the problem is, that the writers of mass effect behave, like their art is not to be criticised at all.

I have to disagree with this.

Critics don't hope for changes in authors works. They hoped for changes in next work from author or for a new version (f.e. in drama), but not in current judged work. Only a special group of critics - testers - doing this.

And that was problem with critism of ME3 - fans demanded changes of current game when BW wanted use feedback for their next work which is normal reaction on critism.

  

i would agree, if we were discussing a book or movie ... but this is a computer game, where the content can easily be changed with addons, dlcs and patches. this medium is the most flexible and less static.

[mr.brightside4u]

Why would "Art" be less accurate than anything else.... say what you want!

[BSpud]

I'm not sure that something that gives you "Achievements" or "Trophies" from interacting with it can be considered "art." And that's okay. I'm not ashamed of loving "low-brow" entertainment/consumer products. I don't need or want my entertainment and time wasters/hobbies validated by the "art" label.