Is gaming as an art-form damaged because of Mass Effect 3's Extended Cut endings?
Yes
7.2% (57)
7.2% (57)
No
86.1% (682)
86.1% (682)
Maybe
6.7% (53)
6.7% (53)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Did ME3's Extended Cut ending damage gaming as an art-form?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

I know it's been over a year so it's old news, but I thought I'd ask it anyway. And, the reason I ask is because long ago, MovieBob said that BioWare's decision to cave in to the Retake Mass Effect movement destroyed gaming's chances to become an art-form.

For me, I don't think so. Saying that consumers have no right to say what goes in or out of a work of art is basically adding rules to art, and the thing is is that art has no rules at all. If you're an artist, you could always listen to consumer feedback to improve upon your art, and it would still be considered art, no matter how much you cave into the consumers. Otherwise, if you don't listen to your consumers, you'll only create bad art.

In order to be damaged, doesn't something have to be an art form in the first place?

image

Yeah, I self congratulate myself on jokes, that's my thing now.

Being art doesn't man anything, it's a word some people think they can throw around that means something is infallible.

The ending of ME3 may very well have been art, but it was shit art.

To beat a dead horse, no.

Considering that much of the blame of the original ending's abruptness has been put to the decisions of higher ups rather than the whole writing team, and due to potential issues with time/budget restrictions rather than out of a sense of duty to an already thought out conclusion.

I'm more or less on board with the whole games-as-art thing, but if it comes down to a choice I'll take improvement over art any day.

That's like saying that making something to explain art to people who don't get it (or pretend not to) makes the art cease to be art.

All the Extended Cut is is reiterating information you were already told or could infer from the information you were already given, simply because a small and extremely vocal minority refused to acknowledge what happened in the previous 99% of the game unless it was repeated in the last 1%.

They didn't change the ending, they just finished it. Let's be honest here, ignoring the quality of the ending it seemed at least to me, painfully obvious that certain things that should have been explained just got completely ignored. This got fixed in the extended cut without actually changing anything. If they suddenly found a few pages of Kafkas "Der Prozess" which led to the book finally making sense, books wouldn't be damaged as an art form. So why should this damage gaming?

I've never been a fan of the games as art train of thought. I'm afraid my brain is just not wired to see them that way, though I can understand why others do think that way.

But let's say that I do think of games as art--just to answer the question. No, I don't think it damaged it. It improved the final product (in my eyes), and that's a positive thing. Artists are always quick to go, "It's my art, it's for me, not for you." No, it's not. If you make it, put it out there for the public to look at, then you better be ready for what the public thinks of it. Just because you made it doesn't mean that it's perfect. And if you are making art for the public, then you need to adjust your art accordingly. Artistic integrity does not equal get out of jail free card, not when you're making art for the public. You need to understand your audience, and that should have an impact on your art. Now, if you're making the art just for yourself, or someone asks you, "I don't know, you choose," then you are free and clear.

I would certainly say no. All other art forms after all will have a couple of works that get changed later on, often by a different artist, sure, but still changed. For example: comics and their movies get changes all the time.

Not to mention that when critiquing the ending...most anyone can see that it's fairly crap. Perhaps still better than having nothing, and still enjoyable to some, but it was still pretty crap.

As someone who doesn't think games are art anyway, and someone who didn't particularly mind ME3's ending anyway, I don't think ME3's Extended Cut really did anything save improve the ending. Why the extended cut anyway, surely the bad ending would be the bad thing?
If it's the way that Bioware catered to their fans that stops it being an art... Welcome to the 21st century! Games devs alongside film creators, musicians, art artists and others have to cater to their fans, its how they survive.

I'm with OP on this one. It's simply the choice of the artist, it's basically saying movies aren't art because they improve on things beforehand. Also, as games are interactive, I think that adds a whole other dynamic into the argument, it's kind of hard to explain in words, but because games are more interactive form of art/media, changes based upon consumer feedback are more important.

No more or less so than any other Deus ex machina ending does.

Plenty of movies and books have had poor endings, too.

I bloody well hope so.

Whenever I hear the phrase "Gaming as an artform" or "Games as art" I just break out in hives. Thankfully it hasn't been around for a while, coincidentally at around the same time the "ME3 ending" rage started to die down.

Games as art was just a catch phrase spawned by BioWare PR types to distract gamers from the fact the ending was poorly done. Within days after the ending hysteria broke out, we were arguing about whether or not a game about invincible space robots was art rather than deciding on scale of 1 to terrible were we could place the ending.

Dear god man, have you moved on from Sonic and are now obsessing over Mass Effect it seems?

GAMES ARE NOT MOVIES. It's not like a special edition where an update can take away from the impact the original had (Star Wars Special Edition). A patch or an update to a game is an expected thing, and it can be a welcome improvement when done well.

While the Extended Cut is not good by any means, it is still far ahead of the original turd. But seriously, can we shut the fuck up about "games are art too!" please? Film studios didn't stamp their feet and scream like children trying to make mommy Music and daddy Literature pay attention to them while Uncle Illustration got high on paint fumes. They just continued to do what they did and were accepted over time.

But games and game consumers are so fucking desperate to be considered a legitimate art form that we latch onto anything that breaks the mold to hoist it up and say "look! Look at us, we're important too!"

Daystar Clarion:

Being art doesn't man anything

NO, YOU DON'T MAN ANYTHING! BECAUSE YOU'RE A LITTLE LADY
image
THIS IS YOU DAYSTAR! THIS IS WHAT YOU AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARE

OT: I think the better question is "who cares?" Most things that people refer to as "art" when it comes to gaming is pretentious indie rubbish, so I'll stick with actual good games, thanks.

Yeah I'm not getting dragged into that one, sorry pal.

Aeonxan:

Soviet Heavy:

While the Extended Cut is not good by any means, it is still far ahead of the original turd.

Maybe if you actually understood the ending you would like it. You're just butthurt you didn't get an ending that you wanted. It's BioWare's story, not yours. Stop hating on something you don't understand.

There's nothing not to understand. It's not a complicated ending. It's just a crappy ending. Not least of all because not a single one of them could even remotely be considered a "happy" ending, and that's something a lot of people wanted, particularly given how much control you (supposedly) had controlling the outcome of the story and how invested you became in the character. You spend three games doing everything right, and that's how it all ends? Screw that. The writers were wrong. And I know this is the Game of Thrones generation and all, but that doesn't automatically make grimness and death "good". A lot of people seem to like downer endings because they think it somehow mirrors reality. What an idiotic sentiment, particularly considering the nature of ME's story.

Second of all, even if it was "art", which it's not, that doesn't automatically validate all the decisions the writers made. They're bad writers if they thought that ending would be satisfying. When they turned in that ending to their superiors, they should have been removed from the writing team and replaced with someone competent.

If you're going to insist on multiple endings, then don't alienate a huge chunk of your game's fans by refusing to include even one ending they might actually like.

I can throw my own crap against a wall, that doesn't make me an artist, and it sure as hell wouldn't make me a good one in any case.

No, because gaming isn't an art form. Neither is film or music. People are too quick to attach the word "art" to whatever they feel like, and it's lost its meaning.

Ah yes, the good 'old games as art' vs 'games as a product' discussion. Yup, it was Bioware's vision and to a certain degree, it was their prerogative to see it through their way. However, it's just bad business to lie point blank to your customers as to what to expect with said art.

I may not like the Mona Lisa but:

- I'm not purchasing it
- I'm not being told what to expect and then getting something completely different
- there's no part of it that is nonsensical in the context of its whole

EternalNothingness:
For me, I don't think so. Saying that consumers have no right to say what goes in or out of a work of art is basically adding rules to art, and the thing is is that art has no rules at all. If you're an artist, you could always listen to consumer feedback to improve upon your art, and it would still be considered art, no matter how much you cave into the consumers. Otherwise, if you don't listen to your consumers, you'll only create bad art.

J.R.R. Tolkien went back and re-wrote a few things in The Hobbit after he wrote LotR, to smooth out the continuity a smidge and to place a bit of extra emphasis on the moment Bilbo finds the ring and Gandalf's reaction to it. I don't think I've heard anybody say The Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings are any less because of this post-print change.

And yes, I realize it is a bit silly of me to compare Mass Effect 3 to the Lord of the Rings, but it's the same line of logic and it's just as silly in both instances. I suppose it can be argued that Tolkien's decision was creatively driven and the decision with ME3 was to appease customers, but once you begin to study art and especially contemporary art you learn pretty quick that it is very difficult to make an absolute decision on whether or not something is "art." Difficult, and rather pointless really. I don't believe anybody who doesn't consider games to be art was any more or less convinced of their opinion by ME3's ending than any other games they've encountered. If somebody doesn't believes games as a whole are even capable of being art, it's not going to be one game that led them to that conclusion. It's their overall understanding of what games are and what games do that leads them to feel that way.

Xarathox:
No, because gaming isn't an art form. Neither is film or music. People are too quick to attach the word "art" to whatever they feel like, and it's lost its meaning.

Music isn't an art form?

Art is supposed to be about self expression. I'd say music and many films very much fit that description.

everythingbeeps:

Aeonxan:

Soviet Heavy:

While the Extended Cut is not good by any means, it is still far ahead of the original turd.

Maybe if you actually understood the ending you would like it. You're just butthurt you didn't get an ending that you wanted. It's BioWare's story, not yours. Stop hating on something you don't understand.

There's nothing not to understand. It's not a complicated ending. It's just a crappy ending. Not least of all because not a single one of them could even remotely be considered a "happy" ending, and that's something a lot of people wanted, particularly given how much control you (supposedly) had controlling the outcome of the story and how invested you became in the character. You spend three games doing everything right, and that's how it all ends? Screw that. The writers were wrong. And I know this is the Game of Thrones generation and all, but that doesn't automatically make grimness and death "good". A lot of people seem to like downer endings because they think it somehow mirrors reality. What an idiotic sentiment, particularly considering the nature of ME's story.

Second of all, even if it was "art", which it's not, that doesn't automatically validate all the decisions the writers made. They're bad writers if they thought that ending would be satisfying. When they turned in that ending to their superiors, they should have been removed from the writing team and replaced with someone competent.

If you're going to insist on multiple endings, then don't alienate a huge chunk of your game's fans by refusing to include even one ending they might actually like.

I can throw my own crap against a wall, that doesn't make me an artist, and it sure as hell wouldn't make me a good one in any case.

I'm going to give you a heads up. Mac Walters and Casey Hudson were the ones who came up with the ending by themselves. They deliberately locked the rest of the writing team out of the process, and they didn't even know about it until after the game launched.

Keep in mind, Mac Walters is the lead writer for BioWare these days, after Drew Karpyshyn jumped ship. Casey Hudson is Executive Producer. Both of them are the head honchos of their respective teams. The only people who would've seen what they came up with would've been those "under" them who, in no way, were in any position to say "Nope, we're not going with that pile of shit. Re-write it."

Xarathox:
No, because gaming isn't an art form. Neither is film or music. People are too quick to attach the word "art" to whatever they feel like, and it's lost its meaning.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about mate.

OT: ME 3 as a whole damaged video games as an artform, the extended ending just made it worse.

EternalNothingness:
I know it's been over a year so it's old news, but I thought I'd ask it anyway. And, the reason I ask is because long ago, MovieBob said that BioWare's decision to cave in to the Retake Mass Effect movement destroyed gaming's chances to become an art-form.

For me, I don't think so. Saying that consumers have no right to say what goes in or out of a work of art is basically adding rules to art, and the thing is is that art has no rules at all. If you're an artist, you could always listen to consumer feedback to improve upon your art, and it would still be considered art, no matter how much you cave into the consumers. Otherwise, if you don't listen to your consumers, you'll only create bad art.

No. The point of a game is to deliver what is presented, first and foremost. Any claim to "artistic integrity" can be made after you ensure you've achieved the main goal.

Does anybody look at a game like Shadow of the Colossus and suddenly expect they'll be playing a portion where you're fighting goblins with an enchanted shotgun? No.

Does anyone look at all previous story and gameplay of Mass Effect leading to the conclusion and expect a sub-par written ending with a character that was never discussed, and the exact opposite options of what the devs said they would be presenting? Well, if you were I must congratulate you on your stunning ESP.

Artistic integrity should never be used as a shield for poor art. Period. If we begin attaching "art" to everything under the sun, where will the excuses end? Just because someone wrote down some words and animated some avatars doesn't make it art any more than me drawing a single green line on a canvas with a crayon and naming it something like "The Human Condition" would be art.

The entirety of Mass Effect 3 damaged gaming as an art form.

No; the fact people felt entitled to an extended cut DID, the fact that Bioware made the decision to give them one DIDN'T. An artist can modify their work in response to criticism, that's what every artist has to do when they're first starting out - it's only damaging to the piece of art if they make changes that alter the fundamental nature of the art, purely to please fans/critics - these changes did not do that, they were improvements to what was already there. The only thing damaging to the art form that came out of the situation was the sense of entitlement the fans had - fair enough, express your anger to Bioware, but don't ever claim you have the right to the ending you wanted.

Taste is not a democracy; the artist puts out whatever art they want, responds to whatever criticism they think is valid, but is not governed by their critics entirely.

Anybody else cringe whenever they read "Gaming as an art form"?

OT: No. Wasn't true back when Moviebob first said it, isn't true now.

Xarathox:

I'm going to give you a heads up. Mac Walters and Casey Hudson were the ones who came up with the ending by themselves. They deliberately locked the rest of the writing team out of the process, and they didn't even know about it until after the game launched.

Keep in mind, Mac Walters is the lead writer for BioWare these days, after Drew Karpyshyn jumped ship. Casey Hudson is Executive Producer. Both of them are the head honchos of their respective teams. The only people who would've seen what they came up with would've been those "under" them who, in no way, were in any position to say "Nope, we're not going with that pile of shit. Re-write it."

That's pretty disappointing actually. But Mac and Casey still had superiors, even if those superiors were at EA.

I guess the lesson is "don't lock your goddamn writing team out of the process".

In Search of Username:
No; the fact people felt entitled to an extended cut DID, the fact that Bioware made the decision to give them one DIDN'T. An artist can modify their work in response to criticism, that's what every artist has to do when they're first starting out - it's only damaging to the piece of art if they make changes that alter the fundamental nature of the art, purely to please fans/critics - these changes did not do that, they were improvements to what was already there. The only thing damaging to the art form that came out of the situation was the sense of entitlement the fans had - fair enough, express your anger to Bioware, but don't ever claim you have the right to the ending you wanted.

Taste is not a democracy; the artist puts out whatever art they want, responds to whatever criticism they think is valid, but is not governed by their critics entirely.

We had a right to the endings we were promised.

so much for that whole, "They won't just be stock A, B, and C endings. They'll all hinge on your choices."

Okay...I chose Red, I guess that's a choice.

You can't even really call them endings, as the original literally had nothing different about them than a color and Shepard's death animation. Even the extended cuts used the same stock photos, just recolored.

Goofguy:
Ah yes, the good 'old games as art' vs 'games as a product' discussion. Yup, it was Bioware's vision and to a certain degree, it was their prerogative to see it through their way. However, it's just bad business to lie point blank to your customers as to what to expect with said art.

I may not like the Mona Lisa but:

- I'm not purchasing it
- I'm not being told what to expect and then getting something completely different
- there's no part of it that is nonsensical in the context of its whole

You explained exactly what I feel about the matter in much easier terms to understand.

No!

MovieBob can sneer all he likes from his imagined ivory-tower, as can that pudgy-faced, smug git from Penny Arcade "news" who also looked at those who called the ending out on it's BS as vermin to be ignored.

As an artist (in the broadest sense of the word), if someone commissions me for a colour picture and I serve them up a half-coloured line-drawing, they have every right to slap me (verbally!) and tell me to go away and finish the job as I said I would do in the first place. Quite frankly if I were to sneer at this and say they just didn't appreciate my artistic vision, I would deserve a good kick in the nuts and BioWare / EA deserved no less.

The EC might not have been perfect but it was a damn-sight better than the post-biscuit-game HobNob we were given initially!

In Search of Username:
No; the fact people felt entitled to an extended cut DID, the fact that Bioware made the decision to give them one DIDN'T. An artist can modify their work in response to criticism, that's what every artist has to do when they're first starting out - it's only damaging to the piece of art if they make changes that alter the fundamental nature of the art, purely to please fans/critics - these changes did not do that, they were improvements to what was already there. The only thing damaging to the art form that came out of the situation was the sense of entitlement the fans had - fair enough, express your anger to Bioware, but don't ever claim you have the right to the ending you wanted.

Taste is not a democracy; the artist puts out whatever art they want, responds to whatever criticism they think is valid, but is not governed by their critics entirely.

I'll go ahead and put myself in the minority again and say "this".

People are free to not like things and criticize as much as they want, but once they start talking about what they "deserve" it's crossing a line. All you deserve from Bioware/EA is what you paid for, and you paid for the game that was released in the condition it was released in.

Legion:

Xarathox:
No, because gaming isn't an art form. Neither is film or music. People are too quick to attach the word "art" to whatever they feel like, and it's lost its meaning.

Music isn't an art form?

Art is supposed to be about self expression. I'd say music and many films very much fit that description.

Meh, I don't view the entire medium of film or music to be art. There certainly are songs/albums, films and even games I consider art, but not every song/album, film or game is art.

Art isn't something that can be universally defined. Self expression is one of many ways art can be defined, but it's not the only way. Many paintings, for example, are considered art. But, many of them are points of observation, not expression.

Anywho, this is just my personal opinion on the matter.

GameChanger:
The entirety of Mass Effect post the first game damaged gaming as an art form.

^fixed

In Search of Username:
No; the fact people felt entitled to an extended cut DID, the fact that Bioware made the decision to give them one DIDN'T. An artist can modify their work in response to criticism, that's what every artist has to do when they're first starting out - it's only damaging to the piece of art if they make changes that alter the fundamental nature of the art, purely to please fans/critics - these changes did not do that, they were improvements to what was already there. The only thing damaging to the art form that came out of the situation was the sense of entitlement the fans had - fair enough, express your anger to Bioware, but don't ever claim you have the right to the ending you wanted.

Taste is not a democracy; the artist puts out whatever art they want, responds to whatever criticism they think is valid, but is not governed by their critics entirely.

OP: 1. Stop talking about ME3's ending.
2. Art does not act like a life bar. Whether or not something is "art" cannot be decreased or increased; it is binary.
3. Your question is stupid. You came very close to me extending my judgment to you as well.

Xarathox:

Legion:

Xarathox:
No, because gaming isn't an art form. Neither is film or music. People are too quick to attach the word "art" to whatever they feel like, and it's lost its meaning.

Music isn't an art form?

Art is supposed to be about self expression. I'd say music and many films very much fit that description.

Meh, I don't view the entire medium of film or music to be art. There certainly are songs/albums, films and even games I consider art, but not every song/album, film or game is art.

Art isn't something that can be universally defined. Self expression is one of many ways art can be defined, but it's not the only way. Many paintings, for example, are considered art. But, many of them are points of observation, not expression.

Anywho, this is just my personal opinion on the matter.

Out of curiosity what would make you decide one piece of music is art and another not?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here