@Decessus You probably didn't read my whole post, if you're making that question. Everything you do in life starts with a vision. By those standards, everything would be art. What I said, and am repeating myself here, is that there's a clear difference between something that was meant to simply be observed (sculpture, movie, painting, etc) and something that's meant to have practical use for the consumer (a vehicle, a house, a game, etc). I also said, on my first post, that I never played any of the ME games, so I don't have any formal opinion on wether this game's particular ending should be changed or not. I'm simply talking about the principle of the thing. Allow developers to do whatever the hell they want, with complete disregard for the target audience, under the subterfuge of "it's art" (or whatever) is a bad sign. We already have paid DLC shoved down our throats, leading developers to no longer release full games, but rather, half games for the sake of forcing players to pay more than the RRP. It's about time gamers start using their brains and stop excusing the trend that's taking over the gaming industry. No videogame is art. As someone said below, it's a consumer product, and its purpose is to satisfy a consumer wants and needs - unlike, you know, art.
I'm surprised with the number of people, both on the pro and anti sides, who have no clue what "art" is, including the author of the article. What defines something as art, or not, is its PURPOSE. The fact something has 3d models and audio only means there are artistic elements in it, but they don't define the whole product. The purpose of the product, in the end, is what defines it as art or not. Your house can be art. Just ask any architect. But, usually, practical issues come first, like what's confortable for the people who are going to live in it. Having ambient music or plasma tvs on every wall doesn't, suddenly, turn it into art. It just adds artistic elements to the product. The purpose of art is to show a vision to an audience. As a member of said audience, you can appreciate passively, or leave it alone if you don't like it. It's quite simple. A videogame, however, is a service that the designer team is doing to a target-audience. The service envolves entertainment, challenge, and interaction. Like the automobile example I gave in a message below, it's meant to be improved upon, for the benefit of the target audience. So, saying videogames are art just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
There are things that are meant to be passively appreciated, and others meant to be actively used. Examples like books, paintings or music should NOT be changed because they are an artist's creation, meant to be passively appreciated. The public has no say in the matter. However, if I buy a car, it doesn't matter if the designer made art with it... it's meant to be actively used, and if something about it isn't right (like an aerodinamic detail that causes too much wind noise at average speeds which hurts the confort of the passengers, then I expect the car manufacturer to make a recall or, at least, launch a restyling soon, correcting said error. Now, I haven't played any of the Mass Effect games, so I don't have a passionate view on this particular subject, but I do know that videogames are not passive art. In fact, if there's one thing wrong with the gaming industry these days is that they're trying too hard to make "movies" rather than games, and we get more cutscenes and on-rails gameplay we should. That said, videogames are not art. They have artistic elements, like visual and audio, but they are not, in themselves, art. Rather, they're a piece of hardware/software meant to be actively used and manipulated by the consumer. To whoever wrote the above article... get your facts straight.
Star_Gem's comments