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

[veloper]

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.

I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:

1. art = anything made by man
2. it's Art if it costs a fortune

 

[Uratoh]

I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:

1. art = anything made by man
2. it's Art if it costs a fortune

So by #2, the more paid DLC that ME3 gets, the more it becomes art?

 

[veloper]

I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:

1. art = anything made by man
2. it's Art if it costs a fortune

So by #2, the more paid DLC that ME3 gets, the more it becomes art?

Just one DLC will do, if EA manage to sell a copy for say, a million dollars.

 

[Fappy]

I like this thread, it understands!

Seriously though, well said.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Where is the petition to change the ending to Lost?

Was Lost advertised as offering different outcomes based on user input?

Was Lost a product of a medium that ALLOWED for different outcomes based on user input?

Was Lost a product of a medium that allows for post-release patches, expansions, and DLC that change the content and nature of the show?

I can answer all of those questions for you, if you want. Television shows are a terrible analogue for games. Movies are a terrible analogue for games. Books are a terrible analogue for games. This facile analogy has not become any more compelling since the first time you floated it out there.

But regardless, let's accept for a moment that all these things ARE the same, and simply fall under the same nebulous umbrella, which we'll call "Art". Now, I am given to understand that your perspective is that "Art" should never, ever be altered, save at the creator's whim. No form of outside influence or input can ever be permitted, or the sanctity of the "Art" umbrella has been breached, and all of the glittering Art magic leaks out into the atmosphere, never to be recovered.

As evidence for why this should be, you will reference things like "Lost" or "Sopranos" as incidences of unpopular endings that remain unchanged, whilst handwaving examples such as "Great Expectations", "Sherlock Holmes", or the popularly referenced "Broken Steel", as incidences where works were changed due to feedback. Perhaps incomprehensibly, these changes occurred without setting their mediums back decades, or demolishing the reputations of the works in question, or decimating the definition of "art".

Let me ask you this...is "Art" now a label that can be slapped on anything to render it completely impervious to all forms of criticism, rebuke, or revision? If I half-ass something completely, then sell it to an outraged public, can I then casually dismiss all censure with the simple provision that it's art, and they just don't properly understand or appreciate it? What if Bioware changed the game in such a way that it became more meaningful? Thematically richer? More profound? More emotionally engaging? Would that not better forward the cause of "Art" then leaving it as confounding rubbish? Why must we always stare down this specious assertion that ANY change to the ME3 ending will automatically result in it becoming more lowest common denominator, when, even by the admission of its most ardent defenders, it is already poorly conceived and executed?

That is where the difference is. If this method of thinking becomes common place I fear for where it could end.

You're afraid for where what will end? The changing of art in response to feedback? Something that's been around for CENTURIES? You're afraid where that will end up, are you? Because of Mass Effect 3?

As long as we're standing on the edges of our slippery slopes, peering nervously into the alarming depths below, why don't we talk about where things end up when we can justify the existence of any piece of lazy, half-baked, incomplete nonsense as "Art". Art has a pretty shifty definition, and we could spend all day arguing about what it is, but I'm pretty sure "defense of crap" shouldn't be near the top of the list.

 

[CAMDAWG]

I think the problem here is that some people really, really, really want games to be recognized as a form of art by people who don't really like the medium. Like how I feel about (most) kinds of painting. It's not really my thing, I don't understand a lot of it, and some of it I just find silly, but I still respect it as an artistic medium.

Because of the me3 ending, these people have come directly into conflict with the people who seem to be less concerned about the outsiders perception of their medium, but more concerned about the quality of the medium itself. I would have to say that I'm part of the latter crowd, although removing the negative stigma surrounding gaming would be nice.

I think the best course of action for everyone is to simply make their opinions heard calmly and rationally, and wait for bioware to make a decision...

Yeah, that was never going to happen, and thus we have the whole shit-flinging match going on right now.

 

[The Ubermensch]

I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:

1. art = anything made by man
2. it's Art if it costs a fortune

... That poo that I did this afternoon, t'was a master piece

I POOPED TODAY = What Lead Write Staff said when they finished Mass Effect 3s ending

In all honesty though, with any creative work there is a certain integrity that the artist is entitled too... IF HE ISN'T GETTING PAID, the instant he gets paid its then open to critique and changes based on the customers opinion.

And don't get me started on the marketing lies, oh the lies. You can't hide behind Art if you had PR lie to the people you sold it to.

Indoctrination Theory or GTFO Bioware

 

[veloper]

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.

I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:

1. art = anything made by man
2. it's Art if it costs a fortune

Oh god why the ignorance.

Art is anything intentionally made by man to be primarily judged on it's aesthetics(meaning no rational thought is involved in judging). Art doesn't mean deep, good, magnificent, or whatever.
It's just a word used to label certain things. Video games are art. The fact that it's even discussed on BBC baffles me. It's retarded.

Fucking hipsters.

I'm sorry, but we cannot use your definition. Games aren't made to be judged on aesthetics, rather games are made for profit and judged on entertainment value.

 

[Indecipherable]

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.

I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:

1. art = anything made by man
2. it's Art if it costs a fortune

Oh god why the ignorance.

Art is anything intentionally made by man to be primarily judged on it's aesthetics(meaning no rational thought is involved in judging). Art doesn't mean deep, good, magnificent, or whatever.
It's just a word used to label certain things. Video games are art. The fact that it's even discussed on BBC baffles me. It's retarded.

Fucking hipsters.

I'm sorry, but we cannot use your definition. Games aren't made to be judged on aesthetics, rather games are made for profit and judged on entertainment value.

Look up the definition of aesthetics. Aesthetics doesn't mean looks.

I think he understood the definition just fine.

 

[boag]

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.

adding DLC to the game wouldnt be like retconning?

 

[veloper]

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.

I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:

1. art = anything made by man
2. it's Art if it costs a fortune

Oh god why the ignorance.

Art is anything intentionally made by man to be primarily judged on it's aesthetics(meaning no rational thought is involved in judging). Art doesn't mean deep, good, magnificent, or whatever.
It's just a word used to label certain things. Video games are art. The fact that it's even discussed on BBC baffles me. It's retarded.

Fucking hipsters.

I'm sorry, but we cannot use your definition. Games aren't made to be judged on aesthetics, rather games are made for profit and judged on entertainment value.

Look up the definition of aesthetics. Aesthetics doesn't mean looks.

I think he understood the definition just fine.

I wonder how cowpoo will try to fit game balance and simulationism under aesthetics.

 

[Something Amyss]

I always thought that the special love Bioware gets for its "art" was kind of funny, given how their games are almost always rehashed plots mashed together from tropes and clichés.

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.

And pretty fanboyish when it comes down to it.

Maybe not on every issue, but he's far from the level-headed type.

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.

Oh, this again. The same erroneous concepts brought up for the fiftieth time.

*clears throat*

Actually, there's no real evidence he needed the money. There's no evidence it was directly to fan outcry, and fans were satisfied with a new adventure that took place prior to Holmes' assumed death. Clearly, he could have written within that context and still made money if that was the only issue.

You are assuming, for the sake of convenience, reasons which have no real supported evidence. This is conspiracy theory logic, and in no way furthers any real discussion on matters at hand. Citing as precedent that which may not have been actually even true is a type of logical fallacy whose name I forget at the moment.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Where is the petition to change the ending to Lost?

Was Lost advertised as offering different outcomes based on user input?

Was Lost a product of a medium that ALLOWED for different outcomes based on user input?

Was Lost a product of a medium that allows for post-release patches, expansions, and DLC that change the content and nature of the show?

I can answer all of those questions for you, if you want. Television shows are a terrible analogue for games. Movies are a terrible analogue for games. Books are a terrible analogue for games. This facile analogy has not become any more compelling since the first time you floated it out there.

But regardless, let's accept for a moment that all these things ARE the same, and simply fall under the same nebulous umbrella, which we'll call "Art". Now, I am given to understand that your perspective is that "Art" should never, ever be altered, save at the creator's whim. No form of outside influence or input can ever be permitted, or the sanctity of the "Art" umbrella has been breached, and all of the glittering Art magic leaks out into the atmosphere, never to be recovered.

As evidence for why this should be, you will reference things like "Lost" or "Sopranos" as incidences of unpopular endings that remain unchanged, whilst handwaving examples such as "Great Expectations", "Sherlock Holmes", or the popularly referenced "Broken Steel", as incidences where works were changed due to feedback. Perhaps incomprehensibly, these changes occurred without setting their mediums back decades, or demolishing the reputations of the works in question, or decimating the definition of "art".

Let me ask you this...is "Art" now a label that can be slapped on anything to render it completely impervious to all forms of criticism, rebuke, or revision? If I half-ass something completely, then sell it to an outraged public, can I then casually dismiss all censure with the simple provision that it's art, and they just don't properly understand or appreciate it? What if Bioware changed the game in such a way that it became more meaningful? Thematically richer? More profound? More emotionally engaging? Would that not better forward the cause of "Art" then leaving it as confounding rubbish? Why must we always stare down this specious assertion that ANY change to the ME3 ending will automatically result in it becoming more lowest common denominator, when, even by the admission of its most ardent defenders, it is already poorly conceived and executed?

That is where the difference is. If this method of thinking becomes common place I fear for where it could end.

You're afraid for where what will end? The changing of art in response to feedback? Something that's been around for CENTURIES? You're afraid where that will end up, are you? Because of Mass Effect 3?

As long as we're standing on the edges of our slippery slopes, peering nervously into the alarming depths below, why don't we talk about where things end up when we can justify the existence of any piece of lazy, half-baked, incomplete nonsense as "Art". Art has a pretty shifty definition, and we could spend all day arguing about what it is, but I'm pretty sure "defense of crap" shouldn't be near the top of the list.

maybe i missed it, in your very logical rant that i was reading, but people also keep forgetting to mention that you don't have to pay a lick to watch lost legally. (besides electricity and tv obviously.) while mass effect there is gonna cough you up a solid 60 dollars legally, 70 if you want the day one DLC.

i think that is another big reason as to why mass effect is worth making complaints about enough to fix. (along with everything else you said.)


Seriously, this damn backlash of "artsy" people is quite hilarious. I never knew so many for lack of a better word "gaming hipsters" were so worried about what people thought of the medium regardless of what "damage" a single game does to it.