Logic: Why Mass Effect is not Art.

[Darknacht]

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.

I almost responded seriously to the fact that you don't know what art is but then I saw your name and post count, troll account is making a troll post.

 

[Braedan]

If people can declare a toilet bowl full of shit in the shape of Ironman to be "art" then whatever I feel like calling art can be art. To me. That's the whole point.
Including me driving home. I'm beautiful.

 

[C2Ultima]

This thread is silly.


Edit:

This thread is silly.

Whoops, ninja'd.

 

[Elamdri]

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.

Who says you have to own art for it to BE art? Property rights have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something is art. You can't go paint Michelangelo's David blue, but it's still art.

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.

Again, says who? What is it about interactivity that makes something inherently not art.

I think the flaw here is that ultimately not every video game is art. Madden is not art. Counter-Strike is not art.

But what about Shadow of the Colossus? Heavy Rain? What is it about interactivity that makes those games NOT art? You say that they aren't, but that doesn't make it truth.

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.

Again, says who? 1st, your argument about how many bullets it takes to kill an enemy is a reduction to absurdity. but regardless, who is to say that art must always be the same?

 

[Dumbfish1]

It's art if I say it is.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

-snip-

Im sick of Mass Effect talk, but you present a good argument. So ill argue point by point

1. You seem to confuse the way a product is being sold with the product itself. If I was banned from the Kindle store for editing a book file, or banned from Itunes for editing a song, would that invalidate the artistic intergrity of the product itself? Answer is it wouldnt, it'd just make it a shitty service (which I should point out that Origin is).

2. Interactivity invalidating videogames as art has been a debate thats been going on for a while. I could use the copout answer that the Smithsonian believes videogames to be art, as does the American Government, so thats that. But thats lazy, so ill try some other arguements.

My main problem with this argument is that it identifies the difference between traditional art and videogames. It doesnt see the similarities, nor does it look at the various possibilites for videogames as an new form or artistic expression. Its not forward thinking, it look backwards.Art has always been about our interpretation of the work, rather than the work itself. All videogames do is take that idea from the abstract image in our minds and makes it concrete interactivity of the game world. They can be used to add weight to an idea or theme, not by the use of language, or backdrops, but by mechanics and controls. Dark Souls is a good example of this. The fear, the loneliness, the sense of camaraderie, the journey into the unknown are expressed brilliantly in this game. It works to make you feel lost in a hostile environment. If this was done in a movie, like it was in "The Grey", it wouldnt have the same impact, due to the limitations of that medium.

3.This again talks about how videogames cant be art due to interactvity. See above.

 

[Littlenorwegians]

Oh look, people are throwing out their own subjective definitions of art, since there is really no objective way to define art. Since, you know, everyone has their definition,

Art is a meaningless term, these days, and we'd be way more productive analyzing the artistic merits and the product itself, rather than trying to define something as art or not art.

This thread is a result of this new craze to define art and it's so meaningless and just a buzzword to value or devalue something.

 

[xchurchx]

Alot of good points in this thread which is why i consider that art is matter of opinion and therefore differentiates from person to person.

However the people at Bioware are artists and have the right to change their creative work however they please, so fanboys, if Bioware change nothing; move on, I know its hard to take, believe me but im with ya, however there's going to need to be a point where we have to be the bigger man and walk away, on that note, Game Journalists; If bioware do change the ending however they want and are satisfied that the original "Artistic Integrity" is kept then please, don't rage on about how it has set the industry back 10 years as a serious medium, Bioware could have changed it of their own acord after noticing the amount of plotholes it served in the final 10 minutes

 

[TheCruxis]

Alot of good points in this thread which is why i consider that art is matter of opinion and therefore differentiates from person to person.

However the people at Bioware are artists and have the right to change their creative work however they please, so fanboys, if Bioware change nothing; move on, I know its hard to take, believe me but im with ya, however there's going to need to be a point where we have to be the bigger man and walk away, on that note, Game Journalists; If bioware do change the ending however they want and are satisfied that the original "Artistic Integrity" is kept then please, don't rage on about how it has set the industry back 10 years as a serious medium, Bioware could have changed it of their own acord after noticing the amount of plotholes it served in the final 10 minutes

Indeed. The fear of "if Bioware caves to the demands of the fans then it will harm the game industry for ever cause now its the fans that decide what developers do" is irrational. Mass Effect 3 may be art or it may not be but whether Bioware changes it or not doesn't really make it more or less art. I agree with the opinion that the masses should not decide what the artist is supposed to do or not do, but that's not really what's happening in this case. The fans wants Bioware to change the ending but they are not forcing them to do so. If Bioware eventually does it, the choice is their own.

And for the record art has been in this situation countless times during history. The regents, the church and people in general have always questioned new types of art during history and sometimes its prevented the art from being published/presented. But art has survived, art will always survive.

Oh and I also must say; what's with the constant whining of this being a "silly thread"? So the normal threads we see on forums; "Where are you from?", "How do I ask girls out" or "How will you die" etc. are not silly but this one is? This thread is very fascinating read in my opinion. It's sparks an interesting, actual and much needed debate.

 

[kingpocky]

I love how most arguments about games not being art boil down to "games have this one arbitrary quality that is different than most other things that are considered art, therefore they are not art."

If you want to argue that Mass effect isn't GOOD art, maybe you have a point there, but that has nothing to do with the larger debate about games and art.

 

[Razzigyrl]

-snip-

You've clearly put quite a bit of thought into this, and I appreciate that. I do have a bit of a question, though. You state that part of what makes something art is the ability to do what you want with it, adding, changing, enjoying as you see fit. This is interaction. Yet you also state that interactivity itself nullifies the artistic value of something. Aren't you breaking your own argument?

 

[Project_Xii]

Err.... what?

"Art" is a completely meaningless word, as it's definition is completely subjective, and varies from person to person. Therefore, arguing about what does or doesn't constitute art is as constructive as arguing over what the best color is.


SEE ALSO: What I said in the last "Games are/aren't art" thread:


In my opinion, something can't be considered art until it has badgers in it. So obviously games (and actually, most things) are not art. Unless they have badgers in them, of course.


This thread is silly.

This. Only made worse by how much time and effort seemed to have been put into the post to make it appear well thought out.

I don't think half the shit that appears in "great works of art" books is real art, but that doesn't mean it isn't. I don't make huge internet threads about it. I have better dead horses to beat.

 

[mad825]

Wait, you did not just do that OP.

Logic and Art. Are you serious? If anything art is illogical.

 

[Somebloke]

To take the cynic angle; "art(TM)" is anything that an elitist establishment arbitrarily labels such.

 

[JediMB]

I came into this thread hoping to see some compelling arguments regarding artistic integrity, or perhaps publisher meddling...

Sadly I was disappointed, as it was mostly just an opening post saying that art needs to be as it was "back in the days", and that just reeks of the same kind of thinking you hear MovieBob talking about.

 

[JediMB]

To take the cynic angle; "art(TM)" is anything that an elitist establishment arbitrarily labels such.

I posted a Facebook status [http://www.facebook.com/JediMB/posts/3537223433048] on the subject earlier:

"Art" is a great way to describe beautiful creative works. Also a terrible and elitist word when used to describe whole mediums.