|
|
|
|
|
|
by MattGrommes
5198 days ago
|
|
|
I think I assumed a little more than I should have about how much people would know about Ebert's argument. No, the customer changing the art has nothing to do with it. The audience complaining is what this was in reference to. The argument Ebert made is that if the ending of a game is up to the player it's not the result of an artist's vision. This is even one more step from that, not only do your actions as a player affect the ending, the players don't like the ending they got and the company is going to change it. I don't know how I would personally feel about Michelangelo changing the Sistine Chapel in response to tourists complaining about it, which is more like what this is. Obviously this is not black/white and everybody has their own definition of Art, I was just pointing out how this connects to the pretty major controversy from Ebert's pronouncements last year. |
|
|
The justification for that kind of mindless definition just makes no sense at all. The artist sets the parameters and all possible different endings (if they exist at all, most games don't have something like that) are obviously part of the artistic vision. Someone had to make those endings. The player certainly doesn’t. Why can the artistic vision only encompass a single way of experiencing a work? What’s the reasoning for that? Why can’t the artist offer multiple ways of experiencing a work and let a player (in this case) pick? Because doing stuff like that didn't used to be possible? Why add something as ridiculous as that to the definition?
It boggles the mind.
(Oh, and I was picking the pope because he is the customer - just like in this case customers of the game are complaining and potential customers say they want things changed before they buy. Talking about tourists in this context makes no sense at all.)