I decided to do away with any pretense in the title that we are dealing with video games as a whole, we all know why this thread is being written, along with the hundreds of others. The difference between this thread and the others is that I will lay out several logical reasons why "artistic vision" is no defence of the immutability of Mass Effect's Ending.
1) Copies of Art are bought, not licensed.
It is interesting to relate the "artistic vision" argument by bioware to the "We will ban you from ever playing your games" strategy of EA's origin when it comes to modding. Making a change to a purchased copy of Mass Effect for private use will result in a ban from Origin, essentially locking you out of your purchase. This does not follow the artistic vision declaration. If I buy a copy of the Mona Lisa I am free to scribble all over it if it adds to my enjoyment in private use. Similarily, if I purchase a movie I am free to (admittedly poorly) add myself to the background of scenes looking bemused using editing software if I so choose, so long as it is for private viewing. Try to so much as improve the textures on Mass Effect and you will find yourself on the blunt end of a ban hammer. This is because unlike art, Mass Effect is not purchased. It is licensed from a corporation whom at any time can revoke your ability to play. The seperates Mass Effect from a piece of art which is bought and appreciated/interpreted however someone chooses in an active fashion, from a service such as cable, which is paid for and then passively recieved. I'm assuming we can all agree cable, despite having been worked on by creative human beings, is not art because noone can ever truly own cable. One of the key elements of art that make it so attractive to humans is it's ability to be owned and enjoyed, whether it be now or twenty years from now.
2) Interactivity is a quality of sports and competition, not art.
This is perhaps the most important reason for distinguishing mass effect, or any video game, from art. The ability to interact with a medium, to change, play, or compete with it, excludes it from being art. Tennis is not art, it is a sport. The people who created tennis are not artists. Monopoly is a game, not art. The people who created monopoly are not artists. Admittedly those who created the board and figurines are artists, just as those who created the landscapes and textures in Mass Effect are artists. But Mass Effect itself is not art, it is a game that uses art to immerse. Monopoly is not art, it is a game that uses art to immerse. The inevitable response is "But a violin can be played, is a violin not art?" The difference here is that when a violin is played it creates art, music which can be recorded and enjoyed later. I would relate that to someone creating machinima from a game. Both music and machinima are art, but the violin and mass effect, the tools used to make the art, are not art in themselves simply for having been the tool used to create.
3) The story of Mass Effect is not literature
The most compelling point an advocate of "video games as art" can make is to say that even if the gameplay of Mass Effect is not art, the story itself is. Their point is compelling, after all the story of this universe is both compelling and moving. In addition, it does resemble the art form of literature, using the written word to record the artistic expression of stories. However, it only resembles this art form, it is not this art form itself. The reason Mass Effect cannot be treated as an art form due to its story is the same reason that driving your car cannot be considered art, because the interactive nature prohibits an exact duplication. To elaborate, in the videogame Mass Effect not a single person will recieve the same story. This isnt just marketing "Every story is different!" bullshit, this is literal fact. It may take me twenty bullets to kill a maruader and you only 19, but that very difference launches the game away from being art and towards being just that, a game. Art must be identical to all who experience it, it must be our perception that changes it. If you classify an activity such as playing Mass Effect "art", then you must call me driving my Toyota Tundra "Art". In both cases we are using products that were worked on and designed by a hard working group of professionals who considered beauty and functionality as part of their paradigms for creation. Neither of these groups created art, they created a product.
tl;dr? the strongest logical failings of calling Mass Effect "art" are its inability to be owned and therefore permanently enjoyed, its interactive nature rendering it an activity rather than a art, and its inability to be replicated putting it on par with driving ones car.
Active discussion encouraged. If you can logically and without vitriol offer reasons why video games are art, by all means lay out your argument.
1) Copies of Art are bought, not licensed.
It is interesting to relate the "artistic vision" argument by bioware to the "We will ban you from ever playing your games" strategy of EA's origin when it comes to modding. Making a change to a purchased copy of Mass Effect for private use will result in a ban from Origin, essentially locking you out of your purchase. This does not follow the artistic vision declaration. If I buy a copy of the Mona Lisa I am free to scribble all over it if it adds to my enjoyment in private use. Similarily, if I purchase a movie I am free to (admittedly poorly) add myself to the background of scenes looking bemused using editing software if I so choose, so long as it is for private viewing. Try to so much as improve the textures on Mass Effect and you will find yourself on the blunt end of a ban hammer. This is because unlike art, Mass Effect is not purchased. It is licensed from a corporation whom at any time can revoke your ability to play. The seperates Mass Effect from a piece of art which is bought and appreciated/interpreted however someone chooses in an active fashion, from a service such as cable, which is paid for and then passively recieved. I'm assuming we can all agree cable, despite having been worked on by creative human beings, is not art because noone can ever truly own cable. One of the key elements of art that make it so attractive to humans is it's ability to be owned and enjoyed, whether it be now or twenty years from now.
2) Interactivity is a quality of sports and competition, not art.
This is perhaps the most important reason for distinguishing mass effect, or any video game, from art. The ability to interact with a medium, to change, play, or compete with it, excludes it from being art. Tennis is not art, it is a sport. The people who created tennis are not artists. Monopoly is a game, not art. The people who created monopoly are not artists. Admittedly those who created the board and figurines are artists, just as those who created the landscapes and textures in Mass Effect are artists. But Mass Effect itself is not art, it is a game that uses art to immerse. Monopoly is not art, it is a game that uses art to immerse. The inevitable response is "But a violin can be played, is a violin not art?" The difference here is that when a violin is played it creates art, music which can be recorded and enjoyed later. I would relate that to someone creating machinima from a game. Both music and machinima are art, but the violin and mass effect, the tools used to make the art, are not art in themselves simply for having been the tool used to create.
3) The story of Mass Effect is not literature
The most compelling point an advocate of "video games as art" can make is to say that even if the gameplay of Mass Effect is not art, the story itself is. Their point is compelling, after all the story of this universe is both compelling and moving. In addition, it does resemble the art form of literature, using the written word to record the artistic expression of stories. However, it only resembles this art form, it is not this art form itself. The reason Mass Effect cannot be treated as an art form due to its story is the same reason that driving your car cannot be considered art, because the interactive nature prohibits an exact duplication. To elaborate, in the videogame Mass Effect not a single person will recieve the same story. This isnt just marketing "Every story is different!" bullshit, this is literal fact. It may take me twenty bullets to kill a maruader and you only 19, but that very difference launches the game away from being art and towards being just that, a game. Art must be identical to all who experience it, it must be our perception that changes it. If you classify an activity such as playing Mass Effect "art", then you must call me driving my Toyota Tundra "Art". In both cases we are using products that were worked on and designed by a hard working group of professionals who considered beauty and functionality as part of their paradigms for creation. Neither of these groups created art, they created a product.
tl;dr? the strongest logical failings of calling Mass Effect "art" are its inability to be owned and therefore permanently enjoyed, its interactive nature rendering it an activity rather than a art, and its inability to be replicated putting it on par with driving ones car.
Active discussion encouraged. If you can logically and without vitriol offer reasons why video games are art, by all means lay out your argument.
