The games are art defense

[panzertank83]

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

You totally have the right to criticize it.
You have the right to complain, be mad, and encourage others not to buy it; hell, you can even try to get your money back (it won't happen, but you have the right to try).

What you don't have is the right to demand that they change it.
I'm sorry that you thought the ending sucked. Maybe it does. Doesn't matter. The game is what it is. Don't buy the next one (or perhaps anything else from Bioware ever if you're THAT mad about it) and move on.

 

[lord.jeff]

Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

I don't think I've been witness to that logic, art gets criticized all the time, we have professional art critics out there. Games are art, that doesn't stop them from being bad; I don't think I've ever seen anyone use that logic outside of a few idiot developers that we don't have to pay attention to because there games are forgettable crap.

 

[XMark]

The original post seems to just have straw man arguments:

Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art

Who says this? I don't think I've ever seen this argument raised. There's free art, there's expensive art, there's cheap art. In the end the price of a game is just determined by how much people are willing to spend on it.

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

Who says you can't criticize art? There are critics for every kind of art.

 

[Woodsey]

'Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art'

Uh... who said that to you, exactly? That hasn't been the core message of people arguing against 'Retake Mass Effect' at all. You can criticise it all you want, but creative decisions should not be given to the public to retroactively fit onto a game.

Either you've completely misunderstood or you've had access to one idiot and taken their word as gospel.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

snip

Okay, first off the vocal minority is something you will have to accept on the internet... a lot of people talk out their ass and want you to think it's the word of god. Don't take it all to heart.

Who said art can't be criticised? Art is CONSTANTLY being scrutinised, especially contemporary pieces... Music can be considered art, films can be considered art, BOTH are subject to criticism. As far as I can tell, the people you met are just diehards straining themselves to defend something of an obsession. Also what nonsense is this about pricing? I never heard anyone argue that the price is fixed because "ART"!.

Games can be compilations of artistic work. They are more a gallery for art, then in and of themselves art. That's not to say a game in it's entirety can't be seen as art (since a gallery can be part of the experience, not just the items on display, so too can a game be a piece of art) but due to the nature of gaming, that is being a medium of entertainment, a game can't be so subjective.

The issue cropping up at the moment is too many people trying to interject nonsense to this topic and not actually understanding what they are advocating. Art isn't an excuse for poor design, boredom or what not if a person is paying the full retail price for a game. That game should meet the minimum standards of other retail games. If you are putting it out as a product it needs to be scrutinised as a product by the market, not the subjective opinions of soft spoken men in french berets (stereotype... obviously a joke). Because of this most games sold on retail can never be consider art in their entirety, since they need to appeal to large markets and are subject to objective scrutiny, and not so much subjective opinion.

HOWEVER! Games can still incorporate art but it can't compromise the entertainment value especially if been sold at full retail price. People can and do make games in their own time and offer it for free or for a much lower price. These games offer more freedom to the author and enables them to offer unconventional experiences that can be seen as Artistic. Unfortunately games can never have a speculative business like traditional art, since the game is composed of data that is easily and indistinguishably copied, therefor a fixed pricing system is necessary. But the current pricing system for games is coming under immense flak across the industry.

Games aren't a straightforward platform... it's not just the industry. Games are a medium too and allow people to be expressive. Interaction is it's most distinguishing asset which means games can go places that other art forms can't. Art CAN be fun too. It can also be shit.

Why defend the purpose of art? I mean seriously people need to get it into their thick skull
There is a major difference between games and art.

Art is interpreted by no physical interaction, there is no reward other than expressing your feelings from the interpretation.

Games are by physical action and usually a reward is placed in front of you for archiveing a goal. the interpretation is already there

What's your background in art? Heck, what's your experience? Did you read about it in a book? At the very least I would guess you never heard of interactive art... you know, that art form that makes the interpreter a part of the piece via interaction... sort of like what games do. That sort of completely shits on your theory and blows your reasoning to pieces.

 

[Fishyash]

Games are as much art as the sky is blue. I don't really care if anyone else disagrees with that. Even if you don't think a game like CoD is art, well it's art to someone, even if it isn't art to you.

But of course it's not above criticizm. You are completely right, it's not really a good way to defend a work by saying it's art. That would also put Music, visual art and movies above criticism too.

 

[SciMal]

I'm a little hesitant to keep defending that games are able to be art, if games being art is the basis for defending every bad decision in regard to video games.

Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

This is utter tripe


I keep saying again and again that just because games can be art does not mean all games are.
Yep all the clones of modern warfare, that's art is it? The developers set out to bare their collective soul, to leave you thinking and to connect with you on a emotional and psychological level through shared human experience. What they came up with is endless cover bases shooting at people through the sights huh?

Introducing a new idea into your argument which solves everything:

Art can be utter crap.

There isn't anything stating something called 'art' has to be good. So ingrained is the notion that 'art = good' is the exception and not the rule that most people don't even recognize its existence. You have to say things like, "If all art is good, why is going to art college considered bad?"

So, yeah, BioWare can call their ending art. It is. It just doesn't prevent it from being really shitty art.

 

[Maze1125]

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

You're misrepresenting that argument.

No-one said you couldn't criticise it because it's art, as has been pointed out, all art has critics.
What people said was that if Bioware/EA caved and changed the ending, that would undermine the very idea of treating video-games as art.
Which is a completely different argument.

 

[Berenzen]

Games are not art. Games are a product. They are built to attract, and by doing so make the money flow. It doesn't matter how much fucking soul is put into the game, it can NOT be art as long as it keeps making promises to keep fans interested. It's not art if you have to promise the costumer things to get him even slightly interested.

If games can't be considered art, then neither can books, paintings, movies, plays, sculptures or anything else that is considered art. Simply put, every single one of these items is a product- the creator isn't putting it out there from the good of their heart, he/she is trying to make a profit off of doing something that they love, whether it be acting, sculpting, writing, or making videogames.

That play you went and saw and paid for? They're paying the actors, who are trying to make a living trying to act- trying to keep the money flowing and keepng their audience (consumer) interested in seeing them the next time. That book you're reading? A publisher is mass producing them in order to pay the author and their other employees.

Hell, you think Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel just for kicks? No, he was hired to do it.

Simply because it is product does not disqualify it from being art. However that doesn't disqualify it from being criticized, however, what many people in the ME3 debacle were doing were crying "change the ending" which is not criticism (which Bioware stated that they would listen to), the people that Bioware listened to were the people that said, "This ending was pretty poor- and here's why." They didn't demand the ending be changed, they criticized instead.

Games are expensive simply because it takes quite a lot of them to sell, and Digital downloads- while they should be cheaper, their retail competition would be pissed if they weren't allowed to go as low as their competitors.

 

[DasDestroyer]

Games are art, but not all games are good art, just as paintings can be art, but something I doodle in the middle of class isn't good art.

 

[BreakfastMan]

...and I say just because something is art, does not mean it cannot be crappy art. Music is an art, and there is crappy music. Movies are an art, and there are crappy movies. Literature is an art, and there are crappy books. The "It's art, therefor you cannot criticize it" is both a terrible argument, and one that has never been used (by people who actually know what they are talking about, anyway).

Seriously, if you want the people you are arguing against to stop with the strawmen, don't create one yourself.

 

[letfireraindown]

Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

I just want to focus on these two points, because there seems to be a pedestal associated with art that doesn't belong there.

Art is, at it's essence, expression. Now that makes the whatever is the product of that art, by all accounts subjective.

Price can be determined by the seller, as is their right. As this isn't a necessity, theory of free market will see that the product will go unsold, or meekly sold until it is offered at a reasonable price as the buyers actions dictate. (though looking at the revenue break down, publishers seem to take a bit too much of the lions share, in my opinion)

Can't criticize art? Since when? Bioshock was practically a line by line critic of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I can understand that the moaning around Mass Effect 3 went on a little long, and there is significant reason to say "take back ME3, from it's creators" was in a wrong mind set, but that's far from criticizing a work. I mean not Six months prior Deus Ex: HR was given a sound thrashing for the Boss fights not being in tone with the rest of the work. Hell, there was even a story on this site apologizing for those battles.

Art is an expression, it's reception is subjective, as can be the evaluation of worth and the views one holds for or against it.

 

[devilofthemist]

MAIN POINT
MAIN POINT
YOU SEE IT?!

so dude can you post it again, i think i missed it -_-

 

[lacktheknack]

By my definition of art, games are generally art.

There is BAD art, though, make no mistake.

However, my definition of art doesn't allow for defense from criticism (hence "bad" art), so I don't have your problem.

 

[Azuaron]

I'm a little hesitant to keep defending that games are able to be art, if games being art is the basis for defending every bad decision in regard to video games.

Queue: Arguments talking across the "games are art" debate instead of speaking to the "games are art" debate.

Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art

That's a really weird justification. I can buy paintings for $5 at Walmart. Games are expensive because they're expensive to make and you'll pay it (mainly because most people will pay it).

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

Hahaha. There are professionals called art critics (and the sub-professions of "movie critics", "book critics", and "videogame critics") whose entire job is to criticize art. If anyone actually says that to you I want you to laugh in their face.

That being said, I've never heard anyone say you can't criticize ME3's ending. I have heard people say you shouldn't be trying to force Bioware to change the ending, which I totally agree with. Criticizing is not the same as advocating the destruction of artistic integrity.

"Art" doesn't mean something is good anymore than "food" means something is delicious.

This is utter tripe

I keep saying again and again that just because games can be art does not mean all games are.
Yep all the clones of modern warfare, that's art is it? The developers set out to bare their collective soul, to leave you thinking and to connect with you on a emotional and psychological level through shared human experience. What they came up with is endless cover bases shooting at people through the sights huh?

Nearly all games are art. All games with a story are art simply because they have a story (drama, by default, is art), and nearly all games have a story. This is what I meant by talking across the debate: the first half of your post brings up arguments that your opponents have (maybe? I've never heard anyone actually say those things, just people complaining about "a person" saying those things), but they have nothing to do with whether or not games are art, then you use them to justify your "not all games are art" position.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

I'm a little hesitant to keep defending that games are able to be art, if games being art is the basis for defending every bad decision in regard to video games.

Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

This is utter tripe


I keep saying again and again that just because games can be art does not mean all games are.
Yep all the clones of modern warfare, that's art is it? The developers set out to bare their collective soul, to leave you thinking and to connect with you on a emotional and psychological level through shared human experience. What they came up with is endless cover bases shooting at people through the sights huh?

Are movies art? If not im pretty certain a lot of people wish to talk to you about this. You're whining about art when you obviously do not know what art is.
Your example is cod which is like bringing up crap action movies and saying that it proves movies are not art.

Your entire arguement is flawed and shows you know absolutely nothing about what you speak of.

The me3 thing you said makes no sense whatsoever and the only people saying that crap are ther "retake me3" dipshits who don't understand consumer rights. That entire thing shows just how immature you people are. "waaahhhh i didnt get a good enough ending waaaaahhhhh it doesn't makeee any sense wahhhhhh change it change it wahhh!"

Fun fact art is subjective. Video games are an art but not every game is the mona lisa of gaming and not everyone of them should be.

 

[Bad Jim]

There is a major difference between games and art.

Art is interpreted by no physical interaction, there is no reward other than expressing your feelings from the interpretation.

I'd say you made up that distinction. It has no basis in reality. Google "interactive art" and you will get lots of hits, such as this one:

http://www.cntraveler.com/daily-traveler/2011/11/Six-Awesome-Interactive-Art-Exhibits#slide=1

 

[Squidbulb]

I still don't get why people still care about this. It doesn't matter, claiming that it's art won't change a god damn thing. I don't classify games as art, yet I would view them in exactly the same way if they were. Why? Because the word "art" is a stupid, meaningless word unless you're talking about paintings or sculptures or art lessons. There are probably a ton of movie fans who have no idea that films are art. The Avengers wouldn't be any worse if it wasn't art. You can criticise art because that word doesn't mean anything!

 

[sageoftruth]

Why defend the purpose of art? I mean seriously people need to get it into their thick skull
There is a major difference between games and art.

Art is interpreted by no physical interaction, there is no reward other than expressing your feelings from the interpretation.

Games are by physical action and usually a reward is placed in front of you for archiveing a goal. the interpretation is already there

It sounds like you judging videogames' worth as art based on how museum art is judged. It is the physical interaction that makes the player a part of the art. You accept movies as art right? Does a book, a movie, or even a painting lose its status as art if it lacks subtlety? There are plenty of movies (including Shindler's List and Birth of a Nation) that make no effort to be subtle about the main point, and leave no room for interpretation, and yet we still accept them as art. Gaming is opening a new venue for new a new means of expression.

Of course, it can be a bit iffy if it's the kind of game that was made for the sole purpose of making money, but if those don't count as art, then the same can be said about numerous books, movies and even paintings.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

Games are not art. Games are a product. They are built to attract, and by doing so make the money flow. It doesn't matter how much fucking soul is put into the game, it can NOT be art as long as it keeps making promises to keep fans interested. It's not art if you have to promise the costumer things to get him even slightly interested.

Wait, what? Promising WHAT things? Do all games promise these things?

Why defend the purpose of art? I mean seriously people need to get it into their thick skull
There is a major difference between games and art.

Art is interpreted by no physical interaction, there is no reward other than expressing your feelings from the interpretation.

Games are by physical action and usually a reward is placed in front of you for archiveing a goal. the interpretation is already there

But there's lots of interactive art elsewhere. That definition simply doesn't make sense in any way. Although I guess I just can't get that into my thick skull, because obviously your opinion is an end-all.