Logic: Why Mass Effect is not Art.

[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.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

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.

Sounds to me like the OP has a completely a arbitrary definition of 'Art'
I disagree with all of the points apart from the fact that i don't think Mass Effect is art (or it's at least not very good art)

To me the argument that "you can't change the ending because then it wouldn't be art" doesn't make sense.

Bioware stopped making art when EA stepped in and forced dumbing it down to gain a larger market share, Day 1 DLC, Online passes, DLC tie ins with other products, Some pretty stupid marketing and to top it all off enforcing obvious budget constraints and deadlines in order to rush games out as quickly as possible. Oh and the deliberately shitty ending didn't help much either.

Also they've already put in a tonne of fanservice. Garrus and Tali Romances were put it because lots of people begged for them, Liara having a large part in the story was put in because people asked for it.. So they have ALREADY set a precedent for changing the story on the whims of vocal fans.

 

[Rawne1980]

And this is why there are some of us that just can't get in on the whole "games are art" crap.

Art is subjective.

One persons "art" is anothers excrement.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

There's a sharp end on a banhammer?

For the record, I pretty much agree with all that was said, except the changing storyline part. In cases where it is the individual's values and experiences that cause the changes, I consider that synonymous with viewing a piece or art differently from another person. Everyone is given the same thing, with the same potentials, but if it is the user's mindset causes the game to become different from someone else's, then that's similar to perception in my mind. but at the end of the day, videogames have always been a product, sometimes with under/overtones or subtexts to help provoke thought, but I don't think they can be classified as art when choices are made based on money.

But then again I don't consider most modern 'art' art, so I can't really be taken seriously. ^^

 

[thememan]

I think that movie bobs point was that we as a an audience arn't ready to call it an art if we are not willing to let the artist keep his rights of his works. And that indulging a fanboy attitude only helps to accept their possessive attitude as reasonable.

But yeah you are right on the money.

Funny thing is, altering art is a time-honored tradition that goes back about as far as you can imagine.

Charles Dickens altered the ending to Great Expectations due to an extremely unpopular reaction to the original printed version. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle fundamentally altered Sherlock Holmes canon by reviving the character after he had written the character's death. Monet began painting over his earlier pointillism style paintings after having cateracts surgery performed and absolutely hated the blurriness of his lily painting and the completely wrong colors used. Shakespeare altered core elements of his plays depending upon what his current clients wanted. Even the Sistine Chapel was altered after completion, as Michelangelo's vision was not what his clients-the Vatican- wanted. Is there anyone willing to say that any of these things is not "art"? Fact of the matter is, some of the greatest works of art were alterred to the preferences of the client.

It is both baffling and incredibly pompous for one to claim that their "art" cannot be altered to fit the desires of the clients or consumers, while maintaining the mantra of "artistic integrity". It is a holier-than-thou mindset that has absolutely no place in the art world. Quite frankly, the only reason why video games are not considered art is squarely on the developer's shoulders. They choose to lazily complete an unfinished product, as is quite apparent with ME3. They choose to half-heartedly defend their poor decisions by citing "artistic integrity", without having a clue as to what it means to have any of it.

That said, should Bioware change the ending? Honestly, I don't care. I was never that invested in the series to begin with, and find the games rather forgettable. However to claim it is unprecedented for the consumer of an "art" to not only demand a change, but also expect and get one, is an absolute lie in the fullest. The true entitlement complex is coming from Bioware, who are practically unwilling to accept any criticism of their "art", instead shallowly defending it under the shield of "Artistic Integrity". They expect people to be placated with an unfinished product (Note: The entire game itself was rather hastily put together, not the end), and refuse to meaningfully defend any of their "artistic" choices. They fully expect their half-baked work to be accepted as art. Not only that, but they fully expect that their consumers will be happy with a rather uninspiring product.

Point of the matter is, any "art" that was within ME was lost when they lazily finished a product and had every intention of chopping it up and selling it in bits and pieces to make as much money as humanly possible. Which is all fine and dandy, and their choice as well. But frankly their actions and reactions are a slap in the face of actual art, and their pompous attitude towards the situation is rather sickeningly awful.

That and even if it was "art", it's pretty crap art at best.

 

[veloper]

Art or not, atleast the vast majority here can agree the ME3 ending is bad.

The art problem is a mildly interesting discussion of definitions and semantics. The most important question is always whether something is good or bad.
The most our more pretentious game enthousiasts can salvage out of this, is ME3 being bad art.

 

[thememan]

Art or not, atleast the vast majority here can agree the ME3 ending is bad.

The art problem is a mildly interesting discussion of definitions and semantics. The most important question is always whether something is good or bad.
The most our more pretentious game enthousiasts can salvage out of this, is ME3 being bad art.

Awful, nonsensical, and pointless art is a better description. The reason why the end is bad has everything to do with utilizing almost every half-bake cliche' in the plotline business, while simultaneously taking every single story telling convention and rule there is and throwing it out the window in the most lazy way possible.

Reason the end is bad:

1. Ends at the climax, without any resolution whatsoever.
2. Throws in a nonsensical twist ending that has absolutely no build up or reference within the actual story. The M-Night Effect, if you will.
3. Completely removes the relevance of the entire plot. What was the point of building the fleet if the final "decision" has nothing to do with it?
4. Completely abandoning many of the thematic elements introduced throughout the plot.
5. Having absolutely no point or relevance whatsoever to anything at all. It's a completely unrelatable circumstance that one cannot even stretch their imagination to put themselves into the shoes of the character, disconnecting one's immersion within the story.
6. Destroys previous canon, while simultaneously insults the audience by essentially forcing them to not think about the many major issues involved. The "You're just over thinking it" argument in a nutshell. It is absolutely insulting to have an ending which requires you to "not think about it".
7. To complete the crap-circle, they threw in a rather retched Disney style magical happily-every-after element in the ending. And those in support of it say that those who hate it just want a "Disney ending". Fact of the matter is, what is there is so vomit-inducingly unorginal and happy that I find that argument to be laughable.

The list really goes on. The end was bad no matter how you approach it. Any angle you come from, it is bad. Very bad.

 

[veloper]

Art or not, atleast the vast majority here can agree the ME3 ending is bad.

The art problem is a mildly interesting discussion of definitions and semantics. The most important question is always whether something is good or bad.
The most our more pretentious game enthousiasts can salvage out of this, is ME3 being bad art.

Awful, nonsensical, and pointless art is a better description. The reason why the end is bad has everything to do with utilizing almost every half-bake cliche' in the plotline business, while simultaneously taking every single story telling convention and rule there is and throwing it out the window in the most lazy way possible.

Reason the end is bad:

1. Ends at the climax, without any resolution whatsoever.
2. Throws in a nonsensical twist ending that has absolutely no build up or reference within the actual story. The M-Night Effect, if you will.
3. Completely removes the relevance of the entire plot. What was the point of building the fleet if the final "decision" has nothing to do with it?
4. Completely abandoning many of the thematic elements introduced throughout the plot.
5. Having absolutely no point or relevance whatsoever to anything at all. It's a completely unrelatable circumstance that one cannot even stretch their imagination to put themselves into the shoes of the character, disconnecting one's immersion within the story.
6. Destroys previous canon, while simultaneously insults the audience by essentially forcing them to not think about the many major issues involved. The "You're just over thinking it" argument in a nutshell. It is absolutely insulting to have an ending which requires you to "not think about it".
7. To complete the crap-circle, they threw in a rather retched Disney style magical happily-every-after element in the ending. And those in support of it say that those who hate it just want a "Disney ending". Fact of the matter is, what is there is so vomit-inducingly unorginal and happy that I find that argument to be laughable.

The list really goes on. The end was bad no matter how you approach it. Any angle you come from, it is bad. Very bad.

Yes, we know it's very bad.
But let's end this on a positive note. The bad ME3 ending has become an inexhaustable source of entertainment on online gaming forums. I can't complain too much.

 

[thememan]

Well it might be crap art, but that doesn't change that the whole idea is to have a person (or a team) express a concept.

Art is not a shield to hold up and go "It is art! you cannot criticize it", but "It is art, An expression. You cannot own it"

The issue now comes to a head in that video games are a consumer product as well. Problem is, the defence of Bioware's awful decision making policies has boiled down to "It's their vision, you can't criticize it!" Fact of the matter is, consumers of any product have every right to complain, and every right to demand an alteration if they are unhappy. It doesn't matter if the product is a vacuum cleaner or a work of priceless art. The creator of said product has every to deny these requests. History has shown time and again that this is an awful decision. But it's their right to make the choice.

I like how people drag out older works being altered as a point, but it was still the decision of the artist. The key of the artist is to relay the concept to his audience whether it being a single client or a mass audience. No matter how you twist it the audience shouldn't be in charge of relaying the concept. They should only judge the concept.

And yet there are plenty of cases where the intended audience had a very large say in relaying the concept. The point I'm getting at is that it isn't an unprecedented occasion in the art world to change your art to your intended audience's demand. If you choose not to, fine. But acting as though altering your "vision" to the demands of your audience will suddenly make what you produce not art completely ignores the history and development of art itself. Past occurrences prove otherwise.

You can call Bioware entitled all you like, but it doesn't change that they have every right to do whatever they want with their product. At no point have i heard them "shallowly defend their decisions behind artistic integrity" but at multiple time have I seen fans overstate their power over what is not their creative works.

Entirely true to the first part. They can choose to approach this however they want. They just need to shut it about the artistic integrity business. And honestly, if you look at any of their remarks about the issue it involves nothing more than "Maintaining artistic integrity", and utilizing this as a shallow defense of their "art". If they really had artistic integrity they would do what actual artists do: Defend their decisions in a clear and concise fashion, explaining why they chose the to depict their vision in the manner they did. All Bioware has done is hide behind the shield of "Artistic Integrity" without providing any sort of explanation as to why they feel the decision they made created a more complete version of their vision.

But I digress. The point of the matter is, fans have every right to demand whatever they damn well please. Some of it is ridiculous to me, but they have every right and reason to do so. Conversely, Bioware has every right to meet or deny these demands at their choosing. Point is, if they do meet them it is hardly unprecedented in the art world, and by utilizing the "artistic integrity" defense they are being childish and ill-informed. If they choose not to, and really do feel strongly that doing so would fundamentally harm their "vision", so be it. They better be prepared to actually defend their vision in a meaningful manner, however, if they want their product to be considered art. They also need to be willing to face consequences of not meeting the expectations of their consumers by maintaining their vision (See: Michelangelo, who was essentially fired for not complying with the Vatican). Point is, they have every right to do whatever they want, and I'm not arguing this point. But ultimately if what they choose makes their consumers unhappy, nobody should be surprised if there are negative repercussions for the company.

Say what you want about Biowares business practises. If you dont like the price tag they put on their particular set of skills, then dont buy it. How they sell their "product" is completely up to them. Unless you have a false sense of ownership you should just leave them be.

Frankly, my only investment in this discussion is out of pure interest in how it has developed. I honestly don't care much for the ME franchise, and find it rather uninspired in many ways. Of course, one should not just let it be if Bioware (And in that vein EA) has shady business practices. Fact of the matter is they produced some extremely misleading statements about the contents of ME3 that go way beyond some of the more shallow beliefs of hardcore fans. In certain instances they did, infact, out-right lie in order to generate hype, knowing full well that their statements were not true in any sense of the word. That said, I will most certainly debate on the issues that I find to have merit. And I will most certainly debate the issues where misleading and unrepresentative statements are made.

 

[thememan]

Yes, we know it's very bad.
But let's end this on a positive note. The bad ME3 ending has become an inexhaustable source of entertainment on online gaming forums. I can't complain too much.

And let us not forget some rather funny memes as well (Although they have been overused). And don't take my excessive ranting as complaining to hard, as largely I'm uninvested in entire debacle from a fan's point of view (I'm not really much a fan of the franchise really). I just find the entire issue rather interesting from many angles, including attempting to figure out how a relatively accredited group of writers could drop the ball that hard. It's a fascinating story really. I'm currently trying to sell the movie rights.