[Flipside]

There's also the Copyright vs Patent thing, coding techniques are patented, though written code is copyrighted, you could possibly argue that all intellectual property is Art, since it is born of the mind of a 'creator', without getting too metaphysical, I've always considered 'art' to be an expression of the element of us that dreams of being a God.

[Ransom]

But see you've pointed out the problem, end user opinion will always vary.  There is a group of yuppies that look at paint haphazardly thrown onto a canvas and see art.  I'm willing to bet you can find uncultured neobarb who would listen to 1812 and think it was a cacophony of old geezer music.  I can look at a well forged sword and appreciate the artistry of the smith, somebody else would only see an instrument of death.  The only opinion that isn't an interpretation, that isn't shaped by perceptions is that of the artist.  That doesn't mean you need to appreciate all art just because it is art, crap is crap and you're entitled to your opinion.  But if the developers of a game look at their creation as art that they've invested their imagination, skill and talent into making it, then what qualifications does a third party to tell them its not?

Intent is all well and good, but it's only half of the equation. Good art inspires.

The fact that audiences have a whole medley of reactions is precisely the point. Anybody can create something that speaks only to them. The purpose of art is to create something which speaks to others. Anything less is just intellectual masturbation.

[swashmebuckle]

The purpose of art is to create something which speaks to others. Anything less is just intellectual masturbation.

Gotta disagree here.  While the desire to communicate with others can be a good reason to create, making art for yourself isn't necessarily any less valid a practice, and it certainly isn't automatically a shallow act of self-gratification (which is what I assume you mean by intellectual masturbation).  Making art for an audience involves a wide variety of compromises and concessions, and one of those compromises is knowing that your artistic process will be affected by the anticipation of what people are going to think of the art, and by extension what they are going to think of you.  You can try to circumvent this by releasing your work anonymously, but the fact remains that you know going in that people are going to be judging your creation.  That can be a healthy thing for certain types of art and certain artists--it can encourage you to refine your craft or appropriate parts of other successful works to strengthen yours.  It can also sabotage your art by stifling your most honest instincts--history is littered with incredible talents crippled by self-doubt.

The alternative is to make art for yourself and never show it to anyone else (you can burn or delete it or just not put it down).  It's pretty counter-intuitive because we always want to be praised for our accomplishments, so if it helps you can think of it as working on the artist rather than working on the art.  It can take a long time to relax all the creative baggage you've built up and "get over yourself", and there's always the danger that somewhere deep down you're actually doing it just to prove to yourself that you're a new-age superdude (in which case it really is intellectual masturbation!), but it can also free you to work as selflessly as possible and give you unique insights into your own creative process.  I'm not trying to say one way of doing things is better than the other, in fact I think both can lead to really rewarding and transformative experiences.  Just don't count out that art can be extremely valuable to the artist even in the absence of an external audience.

Apologies if this was too post-modern for the Jackson Pollock haters

[Ransom]

That's not quite what I mean. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm saying that interpretation, not intent, is an artwork's most valuable commodity—obviously that can apply regardless of whether or not the artist was creating for an audience. StarSlayer seemed to be saying that something can be art even if the only person who thinks so is the artist. My point wasn't that the output of an artist creating for himself is automatically worthless, but that art must reach more minds than its creator's if the term is to have any meaning at all.

It's a very good point that works lacking an audience can still have value, and I agree. But I wouldn't consider them capital-A Art. Art is culture; if it's a solitary thing, it's not cultural, it's personal. I don't mean to devalue that. I just don't think it sits in the same category.

[StarSlayer]

That's not quite what I mean. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm saying that interpretation, not intent, is an artwork's most valuable commodity—obviously that can apply regardless of whether or not the artist was creating for an audience. StarSlayer seemed to be saying that something can be art even if the only person who thinks so is the artist. My point wasn't that the output of an artist creating for himself is automatically worthless, but that art must reach more minds than its creator's if the term is to have any meaning at all.

It's a very good point that works lacking an audience can still have value, and I agree. But I wouldn't consider them capital-A Art. Art is culture; if it's a solitary thing, it's not cultural, it's personal. I don't mean to devalue that. I just don't think it sits in the same category.

We will probably have to agree to disagree then, I tend to put more stock in the creation phase rather then the deployment to end users as the more important part of the art development life cycle.  When I'm pushing the limits of my imagination and talent to create some concept art for Diaspora thats the rewarding part the sense of accomplishment, getting feedback from others is the gravy.  If Leonardo DaVinci decided to be a snarky git and kept the Mona Lisa all to himself does that then cease to be art?    Not to mention what qualifications does a third party meet in order to judge something as Art?  Do you need an art degree?  Any random person on the street?  There is art that was ahead of its time and wasn't appreciated till years after it was made.  Was it not art until culture developed enough to officially stamp it as such?

[Mongoose]

Not to re-open a can of worms here, but I stumbled across this (rather brief) podcast offering a somewhat-different take on the direction Other M took the Metroid franchise.  I don't know who this guy is, but he raises some interesting points.  I was curious as to what someone who may have actually played the game thinks of his opinion.

[Scourge of Ages]

Not to re-open a can of worms here, but I stumbled across this (rather brief) podcast offering a somewhat-different take on the direction Other M took the Metroid franchise.  I don't know who this guy is, but he raises some interesting points.  I was curious as to what someone who may have actually played the game thinks of his opinion.

You're right, he does raise some good points, but it doesn't really sound like he's actuallly played the game either. It does sound like he handily addressed the so called "fan-wangst" though.

I've been thinking about this some, trying to be objective, and I've come to a conclusion:

-It's not that you need authorization to use your equipment. It's just that it doesn't make any sense, story-wise, to withhold really useful stuff so much. ESPECIALLY the Varia and Gravity suit functions, and grapple beam; those pose exactly 0 danger to the mission or other characters. Whatever. It's a gameplay thing.

-It's not that the controls were horrible and uncontrollable. It's just that it would have worked much better if they had just let you use the nunchuk. You can get used to the controls as they are, and toward the end of the game it's generally not a problem.

-It's not that they tried to add a rich story, full of symbolism. It's that they sucked at it. The story itself was fine, but the presentation was overdone in almost every way. The cutscenes were fine, but overacted and just felt weird; I think it was the animation and writing style.

-It's not that they tried to give Samus more characterization. It's that, again, they failed in the presentation of it. The monologues were overdramatic and corny (and not in a good, fun way). Her flashbacks were similarly corny and just felt off (see above point).

-And finally, it's not that she has Ridley-induced PTSD. It's that the scene where they introduced it was just offensively badly done, and not clamactically dramatic as was probably intended. They could have handled it well, but the way they did just didn't fit. (also another style failure, see above points)

In conclusion, it's not that the game was terrible. It's that all parts of the game had flaws, sometimes small, sometimes slightly bigger, but all very conspicuous. And as we know, flaws are much easier to focus on and rant about than the good points. And when every aspect of an experience is tainted with flaws, the overwhelming impression of the experience is that it is... flawed.

I hope that made sense

[mxlm]

The last panel is the best.