03-24-2012, 06:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2012, 06:41 PM by [wcip]Angel.)
Video games is as much art as it isn't - it all has to do with how you define 'art' (obviously). What separates e.g literature from video gaming? Quality? Popularity? One is interactive, the other is not. One is malleable, the other is constant. Both are an expression of the auteur's idea or message. Is Counterstrike art? No. But what about these "cinematic" or other gaming narratives. They contain the same elements that make up other, more accepted forms of art such as novels and short stories: characters, setting, narrative techniques, turning points, climax, theme and message. Other than interactivity, what seperates gaming from other forms of art?
If we ignore this particular part of the discussion and characterise ME3 not as "art", but simply as a form of entertainment, does that mean that consumers are more entitled to force game designers into sacrificing their ***istic vision due to valid criticism?
In what other industry is this applicable? You may return a rotten piece of fruit to your neighborhood grocer or complain to your car dealership that there is a tyre missing on the Prius you ordered, but these absurd metaphors don't really apply as ME3 is perfectly functional throughout the game, i.e the game doesn't crash before or during the infamous ending; it doesn't give us a bluescreen of death, nor does it crash your computer in any way.
There is nothing rotten, ruined or missing here that refuses you to complete the game. The game is functional. It would have been a diffierent story if Bioware had released a game that was fundamentally broken and (for some reason) could not be fixed via patches. I could see the claim for a refund in that case. But there is nothing fundamentally broken about the ME3 ending. There are many issues that we may take with it, but surprise endings and disappointing narratives are all part of the game (both the proverbial game and the actual one), which is something a consumer needs to accept should he/she choose to buy a video game or any other piece of a**.
If we ignore this particular part of the discussion and characterise ME3 not as "art", but simply as a form of entertainment, does that mean that consumers are more entitled to force game designers into sacrificing their ***istic vision due to valid criticism?
In what other industry is this applicable? You may return a rotten piece of fruit to your neighborhood grocer or complain to your car dealership that there is a tyre missing on the Prius you ordered, but these absurd metaphors don't really apply as ME3 is perfectly functional throughout the game, i.e the game doesn't crash before or during the infamous ending; it doesn't give us a bluescreen of death, nor does it crash your computer in any way.
There is nothing rotten, ruined or missing here that refuses you to complete the game. The game is functional. It would have been a diffierent story if Bioware had released a game that was fundamentally broken and (for some reason) could not be fixed via patches. I could see the claim for a refund in that case. But there is nothing fundamentally broken about the ME3 ending. There are many issues that we may take with it, but surprise endings and disappointing narratives are all part of the game (both the proverbial game and the actual one), which is something a consumer needs to accept should he/she choose to buy a video game or any other piece of a**.
