No games are not art, they are interactive medium which may and may not obtain certain forms of art and that´s all. If you wanted art in its purest form in game industry then go and play The Journey but overall games are colaboration of voice actors, developers, animators, music composers, writers as a collective effort with purpose of financial gain. Games are not just an art created to appeal certain crowd but crowd big enough to keep a franchise alive, therefore they are created with purpose of financial profit.
Is COD art ?
Is Fifa 2012 art ?
Is Left 4 dead art ?
Is Crash Bandicoot art ?
... So sooner then someone claim once again that games are art, because this particular case is an art - someone should learn what art is to begin with, games are at first place entertaiment and then you have to realize what bigger part of game itself if it´s art or gameplay.
Reality shows are may also use certain form of art like a music or pictures - are they art ? No they are not they are nothing more then entertaiment.
And about ME3 as an art ? If ME3 is an art, then it´s very wrong one - filled with plotholes, contradictions and in the end crippled core narrative for further milking of franchise.
Blog Post: The Mass Effect 3 controversy. One Year Later.
Débuté par
MrDavid
, mars 28 2013 07:40
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 10:03
spirosz
-
- Members
- 16 354 messages
Applepie_Svk wrote...
someone should learn what art is to begin with
Art is a form of expression, nothing more, nothing less - it's subjective and "technology" is the Developers canvas, as a peice of paper is to an "artist". Just different mediums.
Modifié par spirosz, 28 mars 2013 - 10:03 .
#53
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 10:10
UniqueName001
-
- Members
- 323 messages
I think this game is art. That doesn't change the fact that the endings were awful. "Art" is not a defense against criticism, especially when that art was, in fact, "commissioned art".
I reject the idea that we have to blindly accept all games for "the good of the industry". I also reject the idea that "we just didn't think about the endings hard enough". Neither is a defense of a rushed and incomplete product.
Criticizing the endings does not set some sort of terrible precedent. The bad precedent would be establishing that a game developer can take customers money and do absolutely anything they want with it without any repercussions. The bad precedent would be that it's OK for a game to be advertised with statements that turn out to be false. The bad precedent would be that the only opinions that matter are the tiny percentage of players who review games for giant magazines and without actually having and investment in the game.
The idea that customers who funded the game development aren't "owed" anything is ridiculous. I paid money for this product and you're damn right I am "owed" something. This game would not exist without the fans (read: customers). We have every right to complain if we feel that the product did not meet our expectations.
I reject the idea that we have to blindly accept all games for "the good of the industry". I also reject the idea that "we just didn't think about the endings hard enough". Neither is a defense of a rushed and incomplete product.
Criticizing the endings does not set some sort of terrible precedent. The bad precedent would be establishing that a game developer can take customers money and do absolutely anything they want with it without any repercussions. The bad precedent would be that it's OK for a game to be advertised with statements that turn out to be false. The bad precedent would be that the only opinions that matter are the tiny percentage of players who review games for giant magazines and without actually having and investment in the game.
The idea that customers who funded the game development aren't "owed" anything is ridiculous. I paid money for this product and you're damn right I am "owed" something. This game would not exist without the fans (read: customers). We have every right to complain if we feel that the product did not meet our expectations.
#54
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 10:22
Kabraxal
-
- Members
- 4 815 messages
If Bioware had delivered on the promise of vastly different endings based on the choices over all three games that would make each playthrough different by the end of the trilogy you'd have a point. Instead, what we originally got was three nihilistic endings practically lifted from another series and shoehorned into a series that doesn't match what is going on. And on top of that... they were hardly different at all and the galaxy was basically left in the same state regardless of the ending.
After that, the backlash was handled rather poorly with several outside sites just making it worse and prodding fans more and more to get more heated. Then along comes the EC, that while it fixes some things, it still doesn't actually deal with the main issues of the endings.... they do not thematically work, they do not truly ride on the choices you make through all three games, and there are so many glaring plot holes and absurdities that it still leaves most players with a feeling of no closure and no satisfaction. And really, the one ending where you can actually challenge the deus ex machina and not agree with the questionable statements it makes.... even though thematically it is far closer to the rest of the series, the fact that it is a defeat that isn't affected by any previous choices just further makes the promises Bioware had made outright lies.
That is the problem of the endings... some rather bad writing with a new antagonist being introduced at the last second (then later another new central plot device being introduced to try and prop up that antagonist), plot holes that aren't filled, thematic clashes, and most of all... promises that were made for years that were ultimately broken. That is why so many still are sore about the endings.
After that, the backlash was handled rather poorly with several outside sites just making it worse and prodding fans more and more to get more heated. Then along comes the EC, that while it fixes some things, it still doesn't actually deal with the main issues of the endings.... they do not thematically work, they do not truly ride on the choices you make through all three games, and there are so many glaring plot holes and absurdities that it still leaves most players with a feeling of no closure and no satisfaction. And really, the one ending where you can actually challenge the deus ex machina and not agree with the questionable statements it makes.... even though thematically it is far closer to the rest of the series, the fact that it is a defeat that isn't affected by any previous choices just further makes the promises Bioware had made outright lies.
That is the problem of the endings... some rather bad writing with a new antagonist being introduced at the last second (then later another new central plot device being introduced to try and prop up that antagonist), plot holes that aren't filled, thematic clashes, and most of all... promises that were made for years that were ultimately broken. That is why so many still are sore about the endings.
Modifié par Kabraxal, 28 mars 2013 - 10:22 .
#55
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 10:25
Xamufam
-
- Members
- 1 238 messages
It's not art, secondary belief is broken it Was written by J.R.R. Tolkien. there isnt any narrative coherance at the end, in storytelling it's needed to be considered art
And Mass Effect relies too much on contrivances to be art
Games are NOT art, they are PRODUCT that INCLUDES art. Just like a car, a
house, furniture, and almost every other product you pay money for and
then get annoyed with if it turns out to be less than you expected.
There are artistic elements involved to be sure, but in the end, they
are only product.
The only reason anyone ever stuck by the games are art silliness is in a desperate attempt to give them some respectability.
It failed.
Not to mention that any claims to artistic integrity in ME3 were
compromised the second they made a single decision based on the
directives of the corporate masters. Like Multi-player, getting it out
by a certain date, including or not including material because it would
alienate/ reach out to certain communities, etc., etc. Decisions that
are made not out of artistic choice, but to sell a product.
And Mass Effect relies too much on contrivances to be art
Secondary belief:
Inside it, what [the author] relates is 'true:' it accords with
the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it
were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the
magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World
again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from the
outside.-Tolkien
Games are NOT art, they are PRODUCT that INCLUDES art. Just like a car, a
house, furniture, and almost every other product you pay money for and
then get annoyed with if it turns out to be less than you expected.
There are artistic elements involved to be sure, but in the end, they
are only product.
The only reason anyone ever stuck by the games are art silliness is in a desperate attempt to give them some respectability.
It failed.
Not to mention that any claims to artistic integrity in ME3 were
compromised the second they made a single decision based on the
directives of the corporate masters. Like Multi-player, getting it out
by a certain date, including or not including material because it would
alienate/ reach out to certain communities, etc., etc. Decisions that
are made not out of artistic choice, but to sell a product.
Modifié par Troxa, 28 mars 2013 - 11:28 .
#56
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 10:30
dreamgazer
-
- Members
- 15 742 messages
Applepie_Svk wrote...
No games are not art, they are interactive medium which may and may not obtain certain forms of art and that´s all. If you wanted art in its purest form in game industry then go and play The Journey but overall games are colaboration of voice actors, developers, animators, music composers, writers as a collective effort with purpose of financial gain. Games are not just an art created to appeal certain crowd but crowd big enough to keep a franchise alive, therefore they are created with purpose of financial profit.
By your parameters, then, film (and music, and theater, and other performance displays) can't be classified as an art form. And I can't begin to express how inaccurate that is.
#57
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 10:35
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 286 messages
It may be "art" by some definitions, but when you sell your art for money, it becomes a product, subject to satisfaction of the consumer, like any other.
And if the consumer feels screwed over by the exchange, they'll stop buying your "art"
And artists who can't sell their art end up becoming starving artists.
And if the consumer feels screwed over by the exchange, they'll stop buying your "art"
And artists who can't sell their art end up becoming starving artists.
#58
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 10:36
Xamufam
-
- Members
- 1 238 messages
Not in storytelling their are rules that you must followed & it needs narrative coheranse to be considered artspirosz wrote...
Applepie_Svk wrote...
someone should learn what art is to begin with
Art is a form of expression, nothing more, nothing less - it's subjective and "technology" is the Developers canvas, as a peice of paper is to an "artist". Just different mediums.
And Mass Effect relies too much on contrivances to be art
Secondary belief:
Inside it, what [the author] relates is 'true:' it accords with
the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it
were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the
magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World
again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from the
outside.-Tolkien
Modifié par Troxa, 28 mars 2013 - 10:52 .
#59
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 10:38
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 286 messages
Troxa wrote...
It's not art, secondary belief is broken it Was written by J.R.R. Tolkien. their isnt any narrative coherance at the end, in storytelling it's needed to be considered art
Secondary belief:
Inside it, what [the author] relates is 'true:' it accords with
the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it
were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the
magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World
again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from the
outside.-Tolkien
Bolded is highly ironic, given the situation
#60
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:06
ZLurps
-
- Members
- 2 110 messages
Something to consider.
There are certain groups that benefit from art
The first and second are artist and customer. Artists create their works, there can be lot of things said here, but everybody must eat, so they produce art and sell those to customers who seek something to entertain them, decorate their house, whatever. Artist can eat, can even afford to develop his/her skills, experiments and create something else, it's all good.
Then there are collectors/investors. Collectors can collecting stuff because it's a hobby, or they are semi investors. For investors there can be short or long time investors. They invest all sort of things, pay keen eye on which they think is trendy at the time, put their own expenses and margin on top and sell it to customer. Long time investor thing is a bit more complicated but essentially it's all about money.
So there are many sort of customers, one type I haven't mentioned yet is **** important idiot, who really thinks s/he can buy self esteem. No painting, song, film, nothing is good enough unless it's "art". This customer type can be very important for certain kind of artists and investors because they tend to spend a lot to whatever happens to be their freak.
Game industry have very little reason to invest products for latter customer type however. No matter how eager spenders they are, their purchasing power is nothing in comparison to mass market. That doesn't mean games industry can't create "art".
Indeed works that can be considered to have both, significant cultural and historical value, Pac Man and Super Mario, attained their status because they were very, very successful entertainment products for mass market.
There are certain groups that benefit from art
The first and second are artist and customer. Artists create their works, there can be lot of things said here, but everybody must eat, so they produce art and sell those to customers who seek something to entertain them, decorate their house, whatever. Artist can eat, can even afford to develop his/her skills, experiments and create something else, it's all good.
Then there are collectors/investors. Collectors can collecting stuff because it's a hobby, or they are semi investors. For investors there can be short or long time investors. They invest all sort of things, pay keen eye on which they think is trendy at the time, put their own expenses and margin on top and sell it to customer. Long time investor thing is a bit more complicated but essentially it's all about money.
So there are many sort of customers, one type I haven't mentioned yet is **** important idiot, who really thinks s/he can buy self esteem. No painting, song, film, nothing is good enough unless it's "art". This customer type can be very important for certain kind of artists and investors because they tend to spend a lot to whatever happens to be their freak.
Game industry have very little reason to invest products for latter customer type however. No matter how eager spenders they are, their purchasing power is nothing in comparison to mass market. That doesn't mean games industry can't create "art".
Indeed works that can be considered to have both, significant cultural and historical value, Pac Man and Super Mario, attained their status because they were very, very successful entertainment products for mass market.
Modifié par ZLurps, 28 mars 2013 - 11:08 .
#61
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:12
Nykara
-
- Members
- 1 929 messages
dreamgazer wrote...
Spartas Husky wrote...
Sad thing is... they could have brought most of their base back if they had spent a fraction of the effort they put into Omega and Citadel into actually fixing the ending. Would have cost less too.
Oh well.
Who's to say that this magical new ending would be any better, though, and who's to say that people would actually buy a new ending?
If they could make it a happy ending or someone extend the current endings to give them a happy ending twist I would buy it in a heartbeat.
#62
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:12
Tron Mega
-
- Members
- 709 messages
maybe two incapable writers shouldnt have been solely relied upon to have made mass effects ending, especially when one of them isnt even a writer.
#63
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:14
jstme
-
- Members
- 2 007 messages
Is every movie that Hollywood makes - an art? In my opinion - no. There are movies that are art and there are cheap, mass produced, consumer oriented products.
Same with literature - there are masterpieces and there are pieces of something else.
And video game does not automatically equals art. Even (or especially) if it is published by Electronic Arts.
Same with literature - there are masterpieces and there are pieces of something else.
And video game does not automatically equals art. Even (or especially) if it is published by Electronic Arts.
#64
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:16
robertthebard
-
- Members
- 6 108 messages
I would say it's asinine to compare them, so yeah. How'd you get my FemShep face code???Wulfram wrote...
Eterna5 wrote...
F4H bandicoot wrote...
Art is not necessarily good..
Art is subjective.
You either like it or you don't. IF you don't like it then its asinine to claim it is factually bad.
Is it asinine to say that this is factually better than this?
However, in context with the actual statement made in the post you quoted that generated the query, would it be asinine of me to say that I didn't like the first painting, so it's factually bad?
#65
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:19
Maverick827
-
- Members
- 3 193 messages
And it looked like these these self-fellating hate threads were finally going away, too.
#66
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:20
ZLurps
-
- Members
- 2 110 messages
jstme wrote...
Is every movie that Hollywood makes - an art? In my opinion - no. There are movies that are art and there are cheap, mass produced, consumer oriented products.
Same with literature - there are masterpieces and there are pieces of something else.
And video game does not automatically equals art. Even (or especially) if it is published by Electronic Arts.
Cheap, mass produced consumer oriented products can be very signaficant however. I posted earlier about Pac Man and Super Mario.
That said, there can be a film about tentacle monsters attacking from space, and game about tentacle monsters attacking from space, both forgetten but few odd followers few years after their release.
Modifié par ZLurps, 28 mars 2013 - 11:20 .
#67
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:22
dreamgazer
-
- Members
- 15 742 messages
This is why the art debate and its participants frustrate me to no end when games enter the picture: by most veins of logic, almost anything can be reduced to non-art. Eventually, art nihilistically embodies everything and nothing.
#68
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:28
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
robertthebard wrote...
I would say it's asinine to compare them, so yeah. How'd you get my FemShep face code???
However, in context with the actual statement made in the post you quoted that generated the query, would it be asinine of me to say that I didn't like the first painting, so it's factually bad?
No. "Does it please me" is a fairly reasonable standard to hold a work of art to.
It's better than abdicating all ability to hold a real opinion.
Modifié par Wulfram, 28 mars 2013 - 11:28 .
#69
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:29
OMG it's G
-
- Members
- 35 messages
The endings are a cluster duck (thanks auto correct!) of a mess, and the flaws of them need to be pointed out every time they come up in discussion. I agree that it's time to move on, now that ME3 is finished there is no point anymore, the endings are what they are and they are not going to be changed, anyone who thinks they are are deluding themselves.
I still love eveything Mass Effect, it's my favourite game franchise, and I am excited to see what they are going to do with the next ME game. I just hope BioWare learns from this (naive I know) and never let Casey or Mac write anything on their own. Ever.
I still love eveything Mass Effect, it's my favourite game franchise, and I am excited to see what they are going to do with the next ME game. I just hope BioWare learns from this (naive I know) and never let Casey or Mac write anything on their own. Ever.
Modifié par GDub91, 28 mars 2013 - 11:32 .
#70
Posté 28 mars 2013 - 11:32
ZLurps
-
- Members
- 2 110 messages
dreamgazer wrote...
This is why the art debate and its participants frustrate me to no end when games enter the picture: by most veins of logic, almost anything can be reduced to non-art. Eventually, art nihilistically embodies everything and nothing.
Something many know art pieces have in common, be those paintings, music, films, whatever, is that they have stood the test of time and that's a good thing, because every now and then somebody somewhere get's an idea how people should think, what they should think and what they should value but when reviewed against our knowledge, history, cultures of past and present.
#71
Posté 29 mars 2013 - 12:07
Kroitz
-
- Members
- 2 441 messages
Trying to elevate games as a medium to art is just silly.
Every piece of "art" stands on it´s own. The subjective "artistic-value" of a painting is not measured by how well other paintings a received.
Every piece of "art" stands on it´s own. The subjective "artistic-value" of a painting is not measured by how well other paintings a received.
Modifié par Kroitz, 29 mars 2013 - 12:09 .
#72
Posté 29 mars 2013 - 12:21
robertthebard
-
- Members
- 6 108 messages
So what you're saying is that BSN should quit saying "Look at how well (insert game here) was received"? Because other than that, there is no content to what you're saying. Mass Effect, as a game, can stand on it's own. In fact, all three do. So I don't know what you're trying to say. Nor do I understand the concept of "stand on it's own" as a qualifier for art. Congrats though, you did up your post count...Kroitz wrote...
Trying to elevate games as a medium to art is just silly.
Every piece of "art" stands on it´s own. The subjective "artistic-value" of a painting is not measured by how well other paintings a received.
#73
Posté 29 mars 2013 - 12:23
spirosz
-
- Members
- 16 354 messages
Troxa wrote...
Not in storytelling
Is a painting not telling a story in itself? Is music not telling a story? Is any form of creative freedom not in relation to expressing one's self and their experiences through a form that allows them to tell their story?
#74
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Posté 29 mars 2013 - 12:27
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
-
- Guests
That's beautiful...spirosz wrote...
Troxa wrote...
Not in storytelling
Is a painting not telling a story in itself? Is music not telling a story? Is any form of creative freedom not in relation to expressing one's self and their experiences through a form that allows them to tell their story?
#75
Posté 29 mars 2013 - 12:38
MrDavid
-
- Members
- 256 messages
Damn, a few hours later you guys took this argument and ran with it. I appreciate all of your feedback, it certainly has been eye-opening. In light of some of your comments I had a few things I wanted to add so here goes:
1) While I liked the EC I don't expect all of you to. If you don't like the endings then that's fine. Your opinion is as valid as mine. I apologize if I implied otherwise.
2) Not every game qualifies as art, certainly not games like Battlefield, Call of Duty or FIFA. This is precisely the problem, not enough big franchises are trying to be anything more than entertainment. The Mass Effect trilogy has been called gaming's first epic, in that the three games all connect together to tell a larger story. It's more than a trilogy of games in the same way the Star Wars (the originals) is more than three movies or the Lord of the Rings is more than three books. I think this elevates Mass Effect above simply entertainment, at least for me (your opinino may differ).
3) There is no way around it; Mass Effect 3 is a terrific game (or a terrific shooter if you're into that sort of thing). I thought that was a bit more obvious. The ending is what is is but I don't think it lessens the value of the entire product to the point that you're owed something by Bioware. Not after the extended cut anyways. There's nothing wrong with wanting more, even if the ending ruins the entire game I don't think it means Bioware owes you. ie: If you go see a movie and it sucks then you have every right to criticize it. I don't think however, that the director owes you a better movie (maybe two hours of your life back).
4) I don't know if this counts but I would say that people aren't going to forget Mass Effect 3's ending anytime soon. So does that mean it stands the test of time? I mean it's been a year and clearly we all are very passionate about it. Just some food for thought.
Thank you all for your feedback.
1) While I liked the EC I don't expect all of you to. If you don't like the endings then that's fine. Your opinion is as valid as mine. I apologize if I implied otherwise.
2) Not every game qualifies as art, certainly not games like Battlefield, Call of Duty or FIFA. This is precisely the problem, not enough big franchises are trying to be anything more than entertainment. The Mass Effect trilogy has been called gaming's first epic, in that the three games all connect together to tell a larger story. It's more than a trilogy of games in the same way the Star Wars (the originals) is more than three movies or the Lord of the Rings is more than three books. I think this elevates Mass Effect above simply entertainment, at least for me (your opinino may differ).
3) There is no way around it; Mass Effect 3 is a terrific game (or a terrific shooter if you're into that sort of thing). I thought that was a bit more obvious. The ending is what is is but I don't think it lessens the value of the entire product to the point that you're owed something by Bioware. Not after the extended cut anyways. There's nothing wrong with wanting more, even if the ending ruins the entire game I don't think it means Bioware owes you. ie: If you go see a movie and it sucks then you have every right to criticize it. I don't think however, that the director owes you a better movie (maybe two hours of your life back).
4) I don't know if this counts but I would say that people aren't going to forget Mass Effect 3's ending anytime soon. So does that mean it stands the test of time? I mean it's been a year and clearly we all are very passionate about it. Just some food for thought.
Thank you all for your feedback.
Modifié par MrDavid, 29 mars 2013 - 12:40 .
