It's a hot thread atm, so I clicked on Sentox6's thoughts about Moviebob's tweets re. the ME3 ending http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.355624-MovieBobs-thoughts-on-the-ME3-ending-controversy.
I don't want to open another thread on the same point, but instead open the discussion on one point mentioned by Moviebob which I've heard several other times.
Several people have claimed that if games are to be considered a valid art form, they cannot bow to commercial/community pressure, but have to stand by their original production for artistic integrity.
That's a valid argument for a small development team, where there is a direct link between a clear artistic vision and the end product ie. Doublefine's work, or development by an auteur such as Suda51.
But ME3 is a blockbuster, marketed up the arse to the masses. Moreover, it had multiple development teams working on different aspects, and teams of writers. I don't believe any of them had a strong central vision of the product and what they were trying to do with it. Hell, if they did, the ending might make some bloody sense
.
TL;DR summary:
Is it really valid to the deploy the "artistic integrity" argument in favour of committee-designed mass-market material?
And where does the "you can't criticise it, it's art" argument end? Moviebob criticises films after all. Surely this makes him a hypocrite?
I don't want to open another thread on the same point, but instead open the discussion on one point mentioned by Moviebob which I've heard several other times.
Several people have claimed that if games are to be considered a valid art form, they cannot bow to commercial/community pressure, but have to stand by their original production for artistic integrity.
That's a valid argument for a small development team, where there is a direct link between a clear artistic vision and the end product ie. Doublefine's work, or development by an auteur such as Suda51.
But ME3 is a blockbuster, marketed up the arse to the masses. Moreover, it had multiple development teams working on different aspects, and teams of writers. I don't believe any of them had a strong central vision of the product and what they were trying to do with it. Hell, if they did, the ending might make some bloody sense
TL;DR summary:
Is it really valid to the deploy the "artistic integrity" argument in favour of committee-designed mass-market material?
And where does the "you can't criticise it, it's art" argument end? Moviebob criticises films after all. Surely this makes him a hypocrite?