I'm getting tired of the hyperbole being thrown around about Bioware and "art"

[Dirty Hipsters]

Let me be frank, I'm getting really tired of the arguments that Bioware is somehow single-handedly destroying the credibility of videogames as art by the fact that they are changing the ending of Mass Effect 3 over fan outcry. At best this is extreme hyperbole, and at worst it is a total fallacy. What's making me even more sad about the whole thing is that normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob, are suddenly turning into raging lunatics over prospect that Bioware is somehow about to irreparably damage the reputation of gaming. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The idea that art is somehow an unequivocal expression of its creator, and that it is blasphemous to change it because of commercial disapproval seems extremely silly to me. Just think back a few centuries, art was a luxury, and it was commissioned and created to the specifications of it's buyer. Back then if the buyer did not like the artist's interpretation of his demands do you know what the artist did? He changed his art so he would get paid. Somehow this didn't prevent painting or sculpture from being considered high forms of art and expression, even if it was tailored to the wishes of it's buyer.

Changing a piece of media for "fans" isn't a new concept either. Hell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally killed off Sherlock Holmes back in "The Adventures of the Final Problem" but brought him back from the dead years later because of fan outcry and because he needed the money, effectively changing the ending of the series. Did doing this sully literature or do irreparable harm to the integrity of literature as an art-form? It certainly did not.

Think about the film industry or the music industry, not a single script, screenplay, or lyric goes unsullied by producers and corporations to create a slightly broader appeal. There isn't a single movie that wasn't altered from the writer's original vision in order to fit the screen, nor is there a single song in the world that sounds exactly as the musician who wrote it intended it to sound. Are these not works of art despite them not being direct expressions of their creators' wills?

As many people pointed out, this isn't even the first time something like this has happened in videogames, where fan outcry made a developer change their decision about the direction their videogame should go. Cole's appearance in inFamous 2 was changed back to his original form because of fan outcry, and most people only considered this a good thing, with many praising Sucker Punch for listening to fan's complaints. Bethesda also retroactively changed Fallout 3's infamously bad ending with DLC, exactly how Bioware is planning, and no one batted an eye. Only good things were said about this change, and people didn't get up in arms about stifling artistic expression.

If there was ever a time to have been angry, it should have come before now, because Bioware isn't setting a precedent here, it's just following one that has already been set. Bioware isn't doing any damage to the videogame industry buy changing the ending of Mass Effect 3, all they are doing is making their own game better, making a little money, and making their fans happier while doing it.

Honestly, would it be better or more artistic if Bioware shunned their fans and instead took the Ninja Theory approach and told fans to fuck off because they were doing everything the way they wanted and didn't care what anyone thought? Of course not, because acting that way is ASININE.

Captcha says: face the music

 

[Zhukov]

Someone still needs to define "art".

Then they can follow it up by defining "artistic integrity".

'Cause those terms are becoming pretty damn meaningless.

 

[Sentox6]

normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob

Let's not go crazy now.

Edit: to be clear, there are times I agree with MovieBob (probably less than I disagree, but they definitely happen). Nevertheless, I wouldn't call him level-headed one way or the other. He's pretty reactionary.

 

[Eddie the head]

normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob

Let's not go crazy now.

But if I went crazy maybe half the things on the Internet would make sense.

 

[DeadYorick]

The idea that art is somehow an unequivocal expression of its creator, and that it is blasphemous to change it because of commercial disapproval seems extremely silly to me. Just think back a few centuries, art was a luxury, and it was commissioned and created to the specifications of it's buyer. Back then if the buyer did not like the artist's interpretation of his demands do you know what the artist did? He changed his art so he would get paid. Somehow this didn't prevent painting or sculpture from being considered high forms of art and expression, even if it was tailored to the wishes of it's buyer.

If he was lucky to get paid

Just a few centuries ago if an artist did a bad job with a sculpture, and the King/Queen deemed it offensive they'd cut the artist's hands off. It would have been a job they spent their entire lives training toward.

 

[distortedreality]

I stopped reading at "level headed like MovieBob".

Will be back when I am able to scrape my jaw off of the floor.

 

[Screamarie]

normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob

Let's not go crazy now.

But if I went crazy maybe half the things on the Internet would make sense.

No, no. Only about a quarter of it will make sense. For half you have to go bat-shit insane. For all of it to make sense well you have to turn your brain off entirely.

As for the original topic, artists change their shit all the time, sometimes to please themselves, sometimes to please others, and if they intend to use their art to make money well... then it better be some damn good art. If you want to make your art into a product for sale, you have to be aware of what the buyer wants. There's a big difference in the art you make for personal enjoyment and the art you make for public consumption.

What I find interesting is that whenever George Lucas fucks with his own art everyone is allowed to get into a tizzy and say it's wrong and George Lucas is messing is up. I don't know how many times I've listened to people grieve over Lucas changing this or that in a movie. But then again, not a Star Wars fan so maybe I don't realize the difference.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Changing a piece of media for "fans" isn't a new concept either. Hell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally killed off Sherlock Holmes back in "The Adventures of the Final Problem" but brought him back from the dead years later because of fan outcry and because he needed the money, effectively changing the ending of the series. Did doing this sully literature or do irreparable harm to the integrity of literature as an art-form? It certainly did not.

True, but a couple points:

1: Conan Doyle did not go back to the book after he finished it and wrote it a new ending. He just ret-conned the entire thing in a different book. That is not what people who demand a change to the ending want. What they want is to have Conan Doyle go back and rewrite the ending to the book.

2: By that time, literature had been around much longer as was a much more well regarded and established artist medium. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of games.

Also,

Think about the film industry or the music industry, not a single script, screenplay, or lyric goes unsullied by producers and corporations to create a slightly broader appeal. There isn't a single movie that wasn't altered from the writer's original vision in order to fit the screen, nor is there a single song in the world that sounds exactly as the musician who wrote it intended it to sound. Are these not works of art despite them not being direct expressions of their creators' wills?

There is a difference between editing a script before a movie is completed and released to the public, and going back to something after the fact to change it around.

 

[Dandark]

The whole thing has just been blown out of proportion. The Mass Effect 3 ending was complete and utter crap but it wasn't as bad people have been going on about, the rest of the game was apparently good so even though the ending sucked I wouldn't say it was the "End of writing in videogames FOREVAH!1!1!1!1" like some people seem to think.

As for changing the ending, I don't think it's going to destroy writing in games. I would prefer they didn't change it but it's not going to be a big deal if they do, unless you make a big deal out of it that is.

 

[Loop Stricken]

I'm getting tired of reading hyperbole as 'hyper-bowl'.

The whole thing has just been blown out of proportion. The Mass Effect 3 ending was complete and utter crap but it wasn't as bad people have been going on about, the rest of the game was apparently good so even though the ending sucked I wouldn't say it was the "End of writing in videogames FOREVAH!1!1!1!1" like some people seem to think.

No, but it does manage the phenomenal feat of casting waves of suckiness back through time to tarnish the previous games. I don't actually want to play any of them again, because they'll always come down to those same pathetic endpoints.

 

[girzwald]

I did not like the ending to Lost. I wasn't the only one. With the amount of people see it I bet you I wasn't the only one either.

Chances are more people will have seen and been disappointed with that ending that they did with ME.

So where is the petitions to get the ending changed?

That is my entire problem. It isn't about artistic integrity. It is about Gamers being unable to accept their position as audience.

If we find it al right to bully a creator into changing their creation to fit our sensitivities then where is the end to that?
If we say yes to this then we say yes to change any works to fit our preferences. Should we remove violence from Mortal Combat to satisfy a more squeamish part of the potential audience?

No
It has to be the original creators choice to change it. Everything you produce will have consequences, how you deal with that should be your choice. You may want to reconcile with your audience, then it is your choice. As it should be.

For some reason Games seem to put themselves and their medium of choice in a special pen where they have influence over the Artist because they have influence within their creations.

Gamers position as audience is to be entertained. People may write or make video games for themselves, but the audience, or more accurately "customers" want entertainment. And if you promise an epic story where YOU have a "mass effect" on the universe, and then all you deliver is the same ending with 3 different colors....you have at best, failed, at worst, lied to your audience. So, the people who forgot their role in this is not the audience, its the entertainers.

Its pretty much why tons of paintings go unnoticed, shows get canceled, and garage bands break up. You may think you are awesome, your circle of friends may think they are awesome, you may even be awesome in a sense. But none of that makes a lick of difference if the audience doesn't like it. Again, an audience isn't there to service the entertainer and lap up whatever crap may spew from their heads. The entertainer is there to service the audience.

So, if someone wants to be an artist and make stuff they like but nobody else does, they can be. Just don't expect a fan base to form or for an existing one to not get pissed when they preorder what they expect to be an epic masterpiece and it turns out to be crap.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

For one, The ending being changed hasn't even been confirmed yet so all this wahhh now it's not art BS can stop.

For two apart from scale, why is this different from movies having test screenings, then changing the ending when they're told it currently has a fucking stupid one?
Or how is it different from a director's edition being released, normally they have radically different endings.

 

[Scabadus]

Wasn't there a Mass Effect book released a while back full of errors and plot-holes that is being re-written by... whoever is responsible for such things? Why is this acceptable, yet changing the end of Mass Effect 3 (an ending based off of errors and plot-holes) is somehow lessening the artistic integrity of the medium?

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

The idea that art is somehow an unequivocal expression of its creator, and that it is blasphemous to change it because of commercial disapproval seems extremely silly to me.

Every time I see one of these "but it's ART!" arguments, I recall this article from the California Literary Review [http://calitreview.com/24673], in which the author explains why, even if it is, it's bad art. A few key points about the ending:

--The reuse of art assets indicates that it was rushed
--The "underthought, overpretentious" dialogue creates significant plot holes
--Key themes of the series are disregarded
--The symbolism doesn't make sense ("If you have to ask what it symbolizes, it didn't.")
--"The inability to convey intent is the definition of failed art."

Like I said elseforum: it's actually a good thing that Bioware is being urged to fix the ending, because most artists who make mistakes like this don't get a second chance.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I was really hoping this was going to be a thread about how both sides are absolutely wrong in so many ways. How this is neither a step forward or a step back, it just fucking is. If people get their way, whoo-hoo, if they don't, who cares. In the end, Bioware made a shitty ending to Mass Effect and they might be changing it through DLC. Don't know why we are all making such a big fucking deal about this, including the outrage, the outrage against the outrage, and the eventual meta-as-fuck outrage against outrage against outrage against the outrageous.

 

[AntiChri5]

Someone still needs to define "art".

Then they can follow it up by defining "artistic integrity".

'Cause those terms are becoming pretty damn meaningless.

Becoming? I thought they pretty much started off that way.

 

[The Night Angel]

What I don't understand is that people complained about the ending, but don't want it changed. I mean, choose a position and stick with it, but don't just go after bioware for everything they do from now on because of one mistake. And OP is right, how is this any different to Bethesda changing Fallout 3's ending??

 

[RJ 17]

normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob

Let's not go crazy now.

But if I went crazy maybe half the things on the Internet would make sense.

Naaah, getting half-way to making sense of the internet demands a minimum of paranoid-schizophrenia.