• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

The Worthlessness of The Artist's Vision

OP
OP
Nepenthe

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,811
#51
OP specifically said that it could apply to any hot-button situation.
Fuck me for assuming people would read that.

For the record. I have never played any From Software game.

I have no interest in their library.

I guarantee you I will never buy and play Sekiro.

I mentioned this topic because Jim Sterling touched upon the concept of the artist's vision in his Sekiro/difficulty setting vlog, and it's something I've argued about before ResetEra ever existed, primarily in the context of Overwatch.

And also because I'm an animator and this conversation is important to me on a personal level.

If you're bringing your baggage from Sekiro difficulty arguments into this, do not. I'm not responding to your hurt feelings.

Read the OP again.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,506
#52
If we want games to be treated as art, devs and designers need to be respected as creators. Most of them didnt join the industry to make cookie-cutter pop culture monetized curios that will be forgotten in 6 months. Many of them make games because they have a vision, or want to provide something to people like themselves that stand apart from the pack. Yeah yeah "collaborative art" blah blah but look at the games with STRONG leadership and an UNCOMPROMISING vision and tell me the medium would be better without them. Should all games be hyper-accessible checklists of popular features? Or can we all just admit that Sekiro isnt for everyone and either practice enough to beat it or move on?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,125
#53
Agree here with these points. OP, your reasoning also sounds as if the consumer should be the co-creator of the next work. The constant feedback loop of listening to the audience (all or most of the time) runs the risk of any original work; a game for everyone yet pleasing no one. We have seen this happening.
I feel like you're missing the point here. The OP is not advocating for creators to take every consumer feedback to heart and follow them willy-nilly. It's advocating for us, as consumers, to not automatically dismiss another consumer's criticism just because it goes against what we perceive as the creator's vision.
 
Oct 28, 2017
580
Manchester, UK
#54
Having a vision or idea doesn't preclude the vision from changing by the very nature of how games are made. Things get thrown out or changed daily. Lots of things don't even make it past the concept stage.
You should consider that not every artist or team creates the way you did in your first short film or whatever. Things can change as projects progress, and it's a decent point that it's impossible for us consumers to know how they changed or what the original vision was. But some products are built on a very solid vision/concept that doesn't change, because it's strong and the artist/leader believes in it.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,724
#55
Gross.

The idea that in the year 2019 video game consumers are somehow unable to voice their opinions, or that developers are somehow insulated from the mass discussion of their work is literally insane.

You claim that somewhere, somehow, people's opinions on videogames are being silenced. You're posting this on a message board dedicated to debating videogames which runs 24-7-365, which you moderate.

You claim no one should "white knight" for game developers, when in reality should any developer venture online they risk confronting an endless toxic echo-chamber which will literally reach out and try to ruin their actual IRL lives should they land on the wrong side of whatever argument is being had.

Your point is muddled, since you seem to deride the impossibility of "artistic vision" in your personal work while upholding some nebulous "goal" of making things "enjoyable."

Strong artistic vision (be it from an individual or collective) is what gets you to the best works, in all mediums, always. Lack of artistic vision is what gets you Anthems.

Re: Sekiro, you're never getting an easy mode. And for the entitled consumers out there claiming this is somehow bad business, you need to understand that staying true to their artistic vision is precisely why From is financially successful. Not every consumer product is intended for every consumer.
The perfect post. Wow. OP is out of touch and you nailed it, dude.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,035
Florida.
#56
And also because I'm an animator and this conversation is important to me on a personal level.
You'd rather people not use the phrase "artistic vision" as a means of deflecting criticisms towards thematic elements, or other elements, right? I think people sometimes use that line as a way of saying that the artist has no obligation to address the criticism that's being made, in other instances it's just a means of deflecting a criticism they don't agree with. I guess I don't really see it as artists being put on a pedestal; I see it more as a tool people use to make arguments.
 
Oct 27, 2017
151
#57
I get the point of your post as another addition to the “Sekiro needs an easy mode” debate. (Even if not committing to directly saying so)

But we’re 6 games in with no easy mode and From keeps tossing complaints from people who don’t like how they design their games over their shoulders. After 10 years it’s time to let go.

I don't think an artist's vision is worthless. Unless games aren't art and are just toys and products...
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Nepenthe

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,811
#58
Or can we all just admit that Sekiro isnt for everyone and either practice enough to beat it or move on?
Again.

I don't give a fuck about Sekiro.


Yeah yeah "collaborative art" blah blah but look at the games with STRONG leadership and an UNCOMPROMISING vision and tell me the medium would be better without them.
Your idea that vision is uncompromising is what I fundamentally disagree with.

Any collaborative work does not go from idea to tangible thing without shit getting thrown out. Sometimes the vision itself changes and you get a whole new work altogether. I threw out my short in the beginning. It's part of the process. You have to check your ego and emotional connection to individual ideas and details at the door. This doesn't mean you cannot defend your work. I'm working on a project right now and have been immovable on certain details and tones.

But I'm not telling the people critiquing me that my vision is on a pedestal and cannot be open to criticism in and of itself.
 
Oct 27, 2017
58
Los Angeles
#59
Weird because every time someone decides to say that a work is degrading to minorities I see a bunch of people telling them to stop because it's censorship.
Yes, and those people are idiots, and everyone is still having the discussion.

Yeah. I moderate this place. It means I'm keen to the bullshit rhetoric gamers pull on the daily.
I don't doubt it, and I sincerely appreciate your work here.

You missed the point. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. Having a vision or idea doesn't preclude the vision from changing by the very nature of how games are made. Things get thrown out our changed daily. This idea that details are sacrosanct and is -honestly- some bullshit gamers made up to defend violence and sexual objectification of women. It's a facade.
As a struggling creator, I understand intimately that an initial creative vision can change during development, and that iteration shapes execution. But similar to your point above, you seem to be laser focused on trying to reverse engineer an attack against some pretty gross and probably bad faith arguments.

I feel like you've equated defending "artistic vision" with defending violence against women & minorities, white supremacy and rape. Given the context that you moderate a video game message board, I completely understand why. I do.

That said, just because bad people use "artistic vision" arguments to defend things we don't like, I'm not willing to then say there's no merit to the argument at large. There is.

I don't give a fuck about Sekiro.
Fair.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,359
London, UK
#60
Totally agree with this.
I work in a creative industry. The best creative directors are the ones that foster a great team of people around them and are open to their ideas.
It’s never about one person
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,051
#61
Totally agree with this.
I work in a creative industry. The best creative directors are the ones that foster a great team of people around them and are open to their ideas.
It’s never about one person
Obviously. But OP was talking about audiences' ideas and wants, which the artist can choose to care or not care about, depending on their goals/desires. And when talking game design, truth of the matter is most of the general audience doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,148
#62
If we want games to be treated as art, devs and designers need to be respected as creators. Most of them didnt join the industry to make cookie-cutter pop culture monetized curios that will be forgotten in 6 months. Many of them make games because they have a vision, or want to provide something to people like themselves that stand apart from the pack. Yeah yeah "collaborative art" blah blah but look at the games with STRONG leadership and an UNCOMPROMISING vision and tell me the medium would be better without them. Should all games be hyper-accessible checklists of popular features? Or can we all just admit that Sekiro isnt for everyone and either practice enough to beat it or move on?
Maybe you should reread the OP and address the actual arguments, which is that the notion of UNCOMPROMISING VISION is an illusion largely divorced from how anything actually gets made.

The nerd-rage in this thread is insufferable. How dare Nepenthe imply a point conceptually related to criticisms leveled at the works of the great tensai, Miyazaki-sama!?
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,344
Nothing
#63
I’m really tried right now and got a cold. I read the OP and I gotta say. I agree with it. I may not be in a artistic industry (Marketing and MIS) but there is one constant across both of those industries that I’m sure is a constant in every other industry. That is constant collaboration and feedback are the best ways to approach development of projects. Not unflinching visionary plans with no room to adjust.
 
Dec 12, 2017
413
#64
I feel like you're missing the point here. The OP is not advocating for creators to take every consumer feedback to heart and follow them willy-nilly. It's advocating for us, as consumers, to not automatically dismiss another consumer's criticism just because it goes against what we perceive as the creator's vision.
Such discussion has been hampered both ways, even on this forum

I'm still firmly in agreement with a developer's decision to not implement static difficulty modes in a game if the desire, potentially allowing greater curation when designing a games trials or obstacles that players encounter.

Games are more social then ever, and I also enjoy a experience that all players share due to having to options to adjust difficulty.

I'm not against discussing such subjects, and I'm open to people disagreeing with me for upholding such ideals, especially considering that they may deny the whims of a significant portion of disabled gamers.

I'm honestly grateful, as someone pursuing a career in game development, I've been recently pondering how I may approach implementing accessibility options without including static difficulty settings or cheats.

However, I've lost count of the obscene number of drive by posts in the recent threads that have included discussion of potential difficulty modes in From Software games that dismiss my thoughts as hollow praise of artistic vision, gate keeping, or labeling me as an elitist or even ablest.

There's a great deal of people clearly not interested in approaching these discussions in good faith from either side, often looking for a 'gotcha' moment or any way possible to paint the opposition in a unnecessarily negative light.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
3,506
#66
Again.

I don't give a fuck about Sekiro.



Your idea that vision is uncompromising is what I fundamentally disagree with.

Any collaborative work does not go from idea to tangible thing without shit getting thrown out. Sometimes the vision itself changes and you get a whole new work altogether. I threw out my short in the beginning. It's part of the process. You have to check your ego and emotional connection to individual ideas and details at the door. This doesn't mean you cannot defend your work. I'm working on a project right now and have been immovable on certain details and tones.

But I'm not telling the people critiquing me that my vision is on a pedestal and cannot be open to criticism in and of itself.
Nobody is saying that anyone is above critique or that consumers arent allowed to have opinions about things they buy. The problem is we aren't dealing with car stereos, these are people's expressions as artists, designers, writers, etc and if you or me or a critic or a producer tells someone that they made an incorrect choice regarding their work as a game designer, the devs have every right to ignore you and move along. We aren't talking about feedback like adding subtitles to the Spyro collection or correcting the FOV in The Witness, this is about creative decisions and intent. They arent dedicating their lives to pleasing a bunch of ungrateful gamers, they do this because they love it and they should be able to do it the way they want.

And it doesn't matter if you dont give a shit about Sekiro, because it perfectly encapsulates the discussion. The game doesnt have easy mode, the devs CHOSE not to include one because it is not a part of their design philosophy and goals. Are people owed something they deem necessary even if the artists dont agree?
 
Oct 28, 2017
5,965
#67
I mean, I understand the sentiment, and you make good points, and everything you say is true except for your actual title/premise.

Just because artists can make mistakes, are subject to criticism, and have to meet the target needs of their audience doesn't make their vision worthless. It's still the core of any major project.

I think what you're trying to say is that the white knighting, the defense of artists as infallible and victimized, is wrong. That because they are tailoring their work to market trends and such, that they are essentially no different from any other employee. So I think what you are really saying is not that the artist's vision is worthless, but that it isn't a holy bubble that's the do-all, be-all, end-all, and that they work just as hard as anybody else, and are held to similar expectations.

The artist's vision IS a sacred thing. The artist themself is also a human employee and should be held to certain standards. But that doesn't mean we should devalue their vision or process or ideas. They are as special as they have ever been.

That's just my two cents.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,634
#68
This has been an argument brewing in various forms ever since Sekiro came out, and when the question of respecting an artists vision is brought up, it's treated as assumed that an artists vision has to be respected.

And it doesn't. You can make a strong argument that Miyazaki's should, but as blanket excuse, not really. It has to be taken as a case by case basis.


Remember, Tommy Wiseau's The Room was created as pure, unfettered, unobstructed artistic vision coming through how he wanted it to. It basically serves as living proof that sometimes, the artist's vision is just wrong.
 
Oct 28, 2017
580
Manchester, UK
#69
This has been an argument brewing in various forms ever since Sekiro came out, and when the question of respecting an artists vision is brought up, it's treated as assumed that an artists vision has to be respected.

And it doesn't. You can make a strong argument that Miyazaki's should, but as blanket excuse, not really. It has to be taken as a case by case basis.


Remember, Tommy Wiseau's The Room was created as pure, unfettered, unobstructed artistic vision coming through how he wanted it to. It basically serves as living proof that sometimes, the artist's vision is just wrong.
You can respect an artist's vision and their right to follow it, and you can also disagree with that vision and criticise it. It's not one or the other.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,634
#70
the devs have every right to ignore you and move along
This is another thing. The idea that we are denying artists their creative autonomy.

It's a pure strawman argument. Any artist can make any decision regarding a creative work. You want to ignore how many plotholes your story has, fine. You want to write sloppy worldbuilding that buckles under scrutiny, go ahead. You want to write racist, nazi propoganda, you can do that to. No one is going to stop you.

The process of criticism is always only ever "Taking this thing or changing this thing would make for a better artistic piece." You can debate the accuracy of that and if you really feel strongly about it, you can ignore that criticism, but that has actual bearing on how right or wrong it is.

But nothing in place here ever stops artists from doing what they want.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,345
#71
I'm not sure there's a mass silencing of critique. Fans are often some of the most critical of an auteur's changes over time. Is there push back to criticism? Absolutely, but that's not strange or surprising.

If the OP's message is to keep an open mind, that's a fair one, but admiring a director's flair and wanting some adherence to it isn't worthless in a media piece driven by fiction and creative design.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,847
#72
There are certain areas where I feel the artist's vision has to step back -chief among them promotion of bigotry and disability accommodation- but in other areas, I still see merit in the "artist's vision".

Sometimes it's simply true that people want a game to be something other than what that game was designed to be, and in that case vision becomes a legitimate argument. Too often, people conflate things they wish the game had with things the game is weaker for not having. Exclusion, in certain respects, is a legitimate design decision; many of the arguments I've seen against the idea of the artist's vision deny this outright and that's where the "vision is pointless" argument hits a wall for me.

Even if the artist themselves didn't have a cohesive "vision", the game itself still does and a game isn't any weaker for refusing (to an extent) to diverge from its vision. That vision can still be critiqued, but "Because the artist wanted it to be that way, this work of art just isn't for you" is still a valid answer to most critiques of artistic vision, and a game doesn't have to justify why it is a certain way just because it should be expected to cater to more people. However, again, I believe accessibility and avoiding bigotry transcends this argument.

edit: Hell, if the vision wasn't important, there'd be nothing to criticize in a game or talk about. The vision is the essence of the game, and even if changes a lot, I don't see how it could be called "worthless" by any metric. Is the vision successful or not? How could it be better conveyed through the detailed aspects of the game? These are the exact questions that all game criticism revolves around.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
723
#73
I agree that videogames aren't exactly the product of a single artist's vision, but that's just you taking the analogy too literally. The point is that the people creating the thing can and should be doing more than designing by focus group. The entitlement to profess one's criticism is matched equally by the entitlement of the creator(s) to ignore that criticism when making their game.

Art criticism has always occupied a funny corner in the creative space. Art critics are not artists, and what differentiates the latter from the former is the ability to filter out the noise and separate the productive from the unproductive. I don't want art made by art critics.

With that in mind, I'm going to the echo the sentiments of others in saying that I do not feel that criticism is being silenced. People are merely pointing out that creators have no obligation to integrate their concerns into games and that any claim to the contrary is an overstep.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,105
#74
Remember, Tommy Wiseau's The Room was created as pure, unfettered, unobstructed artistic vision coming through how he wanted it to. It basically serves as living proof that sometimes, the artist's vision is just wrong.
Are we seriously going to talk shit about the cinematic masterpiece that is The Room
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,634
#75
You can respect an artist's vision and their right to follow it, and you can also disagree with that vision and criticise it. It's not one or the other.
Except this is framed incorrectly as a choice.

Okay, lets back up for a moment here. Lets say that I am fundamentally, 100% for Sekiro having an easy mode and outright demand that Miyazaki bend his will to my desire.

What do you think is acutally gonna happen here? Nothing. Because the artists have a right to their artistic vision and there isn't anything I can do about it. This is consistently framed as if gamers have a way to force developers into doing something, but that isn't actually true. If Miyazaki wants his game to be difficult, I can't do fuck all about it except say that I want it to be easy. Miyazaki doesn't need me to respect his artistic freedom because he already has it and I couldn't take it away from him if I wanted to.

Obviously, I don't want to, but until we frame the debate properly, it's never actually going to be resolved. THe audience is only ever free to respond to an artistic vision, not dictate it, and the artist is then free to respond to the audience's response.
 
Nov 1, 2017
228
#76
If an artist dismisses all criticism, the art will probably be bad. If an artist listens to all criticism, the art will also probably be bad.

Some criticism is worth listening to, and some is worth dismissing. It's up to the artist and their vision to choose which critiques they listen to and which to ignore. There's no right or wrong in which critiques they decide to take into account when developing a game, or any piece of art. There's a balance to be struck, but the artist's vision is still incredibly important.

On top of this, there can be unintentional flaws in a game that are due to budget, time, lack of knowledge, bugs, etc. And since we can't read minds, it's hard to tell what was the artist's vision vs a mistake, unless the artist goes on record about it after the fact.

My point is people are free to criticize a game for any reason, but the developers of a game are also free to dismiss whatever criticism they'd like. Nothing is sacred and we don't have to treat the artist/developer's vision as the word of god, but that vision is still very important in the creation of the game.
 
Dec 12, 2017
413
#77
This has been an argument brewing in various forms ever since Sekiro came out, and when the question of respecting an artists vision is brought up, it's treated as assumed that an artists vision has to be respected.

And it doesn't. You can make a strong argument that Miyazaki's should, but as blanket excuse, not really. It has to be taken as a case by case basis.


Remember, Tommy Wiseau's The Room was created as pure, unfettered, unobstructed artistic vision coming through how he wanted it to. It basically serves as living proof that sometimes, the artist's vision is just wrong.
Many who argue in favor of From Software's decision to not include difficulty modes realize that, which makes it incredibly frustrating how much discourse of artistic vision in video games revolve around difficulty settings.

On one hand, I will defend a developer's decision to not include difficulty modes till the day I die.

On the other, being a victim of sexual assault twice over makes me feel physically ill that a game like Rapelay even exists, and I would do anything possible to deny it the light of day.
 
OP
OP
Nepenthe

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,811
#78
Obviously. But OP was talking about audiences' ideas and wants, which the artist can choose to care or not care about, depending on their goals/desires. And when talking game design, truth of the matter is most of the general audience doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
I was mainly discussing a potential artists' point of view to the act of deriding criticism on a moral ground of censorship or invading the artist's personal space. Using the existence of a "vision" as a shield against suggestions that may change a work to me runs counter to the reality that visions change all the time during production. You cannot work on a large scale project and get as emotionally attached to all of the ideas and details that gamers do. It would literally be impossible.
 
Oct 26, 2017
723
#79
I was mainly discussing a potential artists' point of view to the act of deriding criticism on a moral ground of censorship or invading the artist's personal space. Using the existence of a "vision" as a shield against suggestions that may change a work to me runs counter to the reality that visions change all the time during production. You cannot work on a large scale project and get as emotionally attached to all of the ideas and details that gamers do. It would literally be impossible.
The purpose of the allusion to the "artist's vision" is just to suggest that no matter how poignant you may feel that your criticism is it's entirely within the scope of the job description of an artist (or a studio, since we're talking about games) to feel differently and ignore it.

It's not about getting attached to ideas, it's about perspective.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,634
#80
I was mainly discussing a potential artists' point of view to the act of deriding criticism on a moral ground of censorship or invading the artist's personal space. Using the existence of a "vision" as a shield against suggestions that may change a work to me runs counter to the reality that visions change all the time during production. You cannot work on a large scale project and get as emotionally attached to all of the ideas and details that gamers do. It would literally be impossible.
Honestly, imo, you can tell how much the artistic vision argument tracks just by introducing someone tho an art example that they happen to not like. Jar Jar Binks was a very intentional artistic design decision made. In fact, one that succeeded in it's intended purpose (to entertain kids). But I never see anyone saying "Jar Jar should have been in more SW movies because that was Lucas' vision"

Great OP btw.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,506
#81
Except this is framed incorrectly as a choice.

Okay, lets back up for a moment here. Lets say that I am fundamentally, 100% for Sekiro having an easy mode and outright demand that Miyazaki bend his will to my desire.

What do you think is acutally gonna happen here? Nothing. Because the artists have a right to their artistic vision and there isn't anything I can do about it. This is consistently framed as if gamers have a way to force developers into doing something, but that isn't actually true. If Miyazaki wants his game to be difficult, I can't do fuck all about it except say that I want it to be easy. Miyazaki doesn't need me to respect his artistic freedom because he already has it and I couldn't take it away from him if I wanted to.

Obviously, I don't want to, but until we frame the debate properly, it's never actually going to be resolved. THe audience is only ever free to respond to an artistic vision, not dictate it, and the artist is then free to respond to the audience's response.
Yeah maybe that was the case in 1996 or something, but we live in the Twitter age where word-of-mouth and lack of community responsiveness can be an absolute death sentence for a game that does things people dont agree with. Traditionally, producers are the literal embodiment of outside forces dictating an artists vision through critique where often there is no choice but to compromise artistic vision. To say devs can always ignore criticism is just incorrect.

But I never see anyone saying "Jar Jar should have been in more SW movies because that was Lucas' vision".
He absolutely should have been in more stuff, he was a great character that was mishandled in The Phantom Menace. He was in multiple episodes of The Clone Wars and they expanded his character alot.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
580
Manchester, UK
#82
Except this is framed incorrectly as a choice.

Okay, lets back up for a moment here. Lets say that I am fundamentally, 100% for Sekiro having an easy mode and outright demand that Miyazaki bend his will to my desire.

What do you think is acutally gonna happen here? Nothing. Because the artists have a right to their artistic vision and there isn't anything I can do about it. This is consistently framed as if gamers have a way to force developers into doing something, but that isn't actually true. If Miyazaki wants his game to be difficult, I can't do fuck all about it except say that I want it to be easy. Miyazaki doesn't need me to respect his artistic freedom because he already has it and I couldn't take it away from him if I wanted to.

Obviously, I don't want to, but until we frame the debate properly, it's never actually going to be resolved. THe audience is only ever free to respond to an artistic vision, not dictate it, and the artist is then free to respond to the audience's response.
The choice is how we respond. What criticisms we make, what we "demand" from creators. Of course it's all futile, but our whole discussion about games is all academic anyway.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,634
#83
Yeah maybe that was the case in 1996 or something, but we live in the Twitter age where word-of-mouth and lack of community responsiveness can be an absolute death sentence for a game that does things people dont agree with. Traditionally, producers are the literal embodiment of outside forces dictating an artists vision through critique where often there is no choice but to compromise artistic vision. To say devs can always just ignore criticism is just incorrect.
Oh, no no no no. You can't package that artistic visions can only happen under the condition that they are successful. Artistic vision isn't about success, it's about artistic vision, the process of the artist making the art they want, whatever problems it has. It's neither guarenteed nor owed success. If that means they don't get backing from producers or twitter gets mad or makes it so that their work doesn't sell, well that's still up to them whether to make the artistic choice to keep doing what their doing. If they want to change their work for money, that's on them.

And also, what your talking about was NEVER the case. Producers were the determining factors of how massively expensive media were made since forever. Dahl wanted Charlie to be a black kid way back when in 1964 but his agent told him to make him a good white boy so they could sell more books to the rich white audience, so that's what it became. There was never a time where artists didn't have bills to pay.

He absolutely should have been in more stuff, he was a great character that was mishandled in The Phantom Menace. He was in multiple episodes of The Clone Wars and they expanded his character alot.
No, that "Mishandling" is how Lucas intended for him to be written as. You can't decry that, Jar Jar of TPM is how he was meant to be, by decree of his original creator. By your argument, it's the inherently more legitimate creative intepretation of him than whatever clones wars ended up doing with him.

Remember, artistic vision has nothing to do with quality, it's about whether hte artist did what he wanted with him. Lucas did.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,623
#85
Again.

I don't give a fuck about Sekiro.
Perhaps not, but this seems like a horribly lopsided view of critical analysis. We don't have to take authorial intent as sacred, but we damn sure can evaluate if the end product works towards those goals rather than deciding it's all trash in the face of any criticism.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,506
#86
Oh, no no no no. You can't package that artistic visions can only happen under the condition that they are successful. Artistic vision isn't about success, it's about artistic vision, the process of the artist making the art they want, whatever problems it has. It's neither guarenteed nor owed success. If that means they don't get backing from producers or twitter gets mad or makes it so that their work doesn't sell, well that's still up to them whether to make the artistic choice to keep doing what their doing. If they want to change their work for money, that's on them.

And also, what your talking about was NEVER the case. Producers were the determining factors of how massively expensive media were made since forever. Dahl wanted Charlie to be a black kid way back when in 1964 but his agent told him to make him a good white boy so they could sell more books to the rich white audience, so that's what it became. There was never a time where artists didn't have bills to pay.
Ok but you literally cant make a AAA video game without millions of dollars, you can write a book for free. The medium requires the capital and the workforce. A dev can tell a producer to go pound sand, yeah. But they'll just fire them and cancel the game and it's over. Dahl's choice was his because he wanted money, not because he had 12 artists, 40 programmers, 5 sound techs, and 3 writers depending on him for their paycheck
 
OP
OP
Nepenthe

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,811
#87
The purpose of the allusion to the "artist's vision" is just to suggest that no matter how poignant you may feel that your criticism is it's entirely within the scope of the job description of an artist (or a studio, since we're talking about games) to feel differently and ignore it.

It's not about getting attached to ideas, it's about perspective.
Of course artists can deny criticism. That's addressed in the OP.

I'm addressing the use of the artist's vision as a concept to shutdown discourse in general. You may also see it as "they can make whatever they want" whenever any criticizes something.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,623
#88
Ok but you literally cant make a AAA video game without millions of dollars, you can write a book for free. The medium requires the capital and the workforce. A dev can tell a producer to go pound sand, yeah. But they'll just fire them and cancel the game and it's over.
Sometimes yes, other times no. This wave of arguments was started by a game that was generally the opposite of design by boardroom.

The idea that a AAA game can't be art because it costs money seems fallacious in the face of all the very discussions we're now having. What does a batter job of moving the boundaries in the discussion of what art is and what it should do than art?
 
Nov 14, 2017
8,384
#89
wow Sekiro surely sparked alot of controversy on gamming websites huh, wasn't expecting that From surely will think twice with their next game
 
Oct 27, 2017
805
#90
How is any one shutting down discussion on here when we literally had a thread last week mostly about this that went 100+ pages. Whoever is shutting down this conversation isn’t doing a good job. Like I genuinely don’t get who is being censored
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,634
#91
Ok but you literally cant make a AAA video game without millions of dollars, you can write a book for free. The medium requires the capital and the workforce. A dev can tell a producer to go pound sand, yeah. But they'll just fire them and cancel the game and it's over.
Again, that doesn't actually change the situation of the developer. They still have the choice to enforce their creative decision or not. The fact that decision has consequences is, again, their problem, not critics or even producers.

Plus, even that isn't strictly true. A theoretical developer can be rich, for instance. That's what Tommy Wiseau was and how he was able to do The Room. Or, they can be Curt Shilling and make a game using fortunes he made playing baseball. They ended up not making very good art, strangely enough.

Dahl's choice was his because he wanted money, not because he had 12 artists, 40 programmers, 5 sound techs, and 3 writers depending on him for their paycheck
Both of these are wanting money. In fact, they're wanting money for the same purpose, even. Dahl didn't have people working under him, but the money he was getting was for his living expenses.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
987
#92
Of course artists can deny criticism. That's addressed in the OP.

I'm addressing the use of the artist's vision as a concept to shutdown discourse in general. You may also see it as "they can make whatever they want" whenever any criticizes something.
It certainly hasn’t shutdown discussion of Sekiro, though people seem to continue to act like it is.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,692
#93
Great OP and I fully agree! Given the fact that I only ever see the "Artist's Vision" card pulled is when it comes to things like defending racism,sexism, etc or is used as a Gatekeeping tool by "real gamers" the whole thing has always seemed like a bunch of bullshit to me.
 
OP
OP
Nepenthe

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
4,811
#94
How is any one shutting down discussion on here when we literally had a thread last week mostly about this that went 100+ pages. Whoever is shutting down this conversation isn’t doing a good job
It's almost like I'm using shutdown to mean dismissive and not to mean that you guys have magical moderation powers to close a thread whenever artist's vision is uttered.
 
Oct 25, 2017
980
Brazil
#95


That's a really, insightful, thoughtful, progressive and well made thread.

I think we're far from starting to reach the multiple layers of the medium's elitism, especially considering how the public mostly assumes rather knows how these products are made. But man, this is a hell of a first job.

I'm impressed, thank you.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,419
#96
Obviously. But OP was talking about audiences' ideas and wants, which the artist can choose to care or not care about, depending on their goals/desires. And when talking game design, truth of the matter is most of the general audience doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
You can still learn from those that don't "know what the fuck they're talking about". Feedback doesn't need to be taken at face value, sometimes the value is found when you think about the problems a little deeper or differently than the feedback portrays them. "I want an easy mode." Do they, or do they feel limited in their ability to apply micro adjustments to the difficulty?
 
Jan 21, 2019
228
#97
Great OP and I fully agree! Given the fact that I only ever see the "Artist's Vision" card pulled is when it comes to things like defending racism,sexism, etc or is used as a Gatekeeping tool by "real gamers" the whole thing has always seemed like a bunch of bullshit to me.
So the artists vision argument has no basis because internet assholes use it to defend shitty things?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,634
#98
It's almost like I'm using shutdown to mean dismissive and not to mean that you guys have magical moderation powers to close a thread whenever artist's vision is uttered.
I wouldn't even say you used it dismissively. "Shut down the argument" is an accurate way to describe someone who sits on "it's the artist's vision" as their only point of contention and doesn't alter it following replies.

"The game should be how the artist wants it to be, because it's their vision."
"Okay, but what if they can give more people accessibility if"
"It's their vision"
"But this one part is just really poorly done by any metric and"
"it's their vision
"....this part right here is just offensive to-"
"It's their vision"
"But-"
"It's their vision"

Anyone remember that one lawyer guy in an early episode of Better Call Saul that just stonewalled Jimmy trying to make a deal with "Petty and a prior" no matter what he said? That's shutting down the debate too.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,498
#99
What if the fans like those ideas and think those ideas are worth preserving? You seem to be operating on erroneous presupposition. The only reason I am interested in Miyazaki's "vision" is because I think it is worthwhile. The only reason I don't want his vision to be compromised is because I think it is FAR better than the alternative.

I criticize artists all day long. We all do. When people support a specific vision it is because they think that vision is inspired. We aren't automatons. People are coming to a conclusion.
 
Oct 25, 2017
485
Any discussion about "vision" is silly and besides the point.

The only thing that matters is if something winds up being good.

There's examples of good things coming from one single leader. There's examples of good things coming from a group of people. There's examples of good things coming from developers listening to fans. There's examples of good things coming from developers not listening to fans.

Trying to come up with some sort of Grand Bargain which nails down "And So We Shall Decree That This Is Good And This Is Bad" is some navel gaze-y nonsense which ignores the fact that every instance is different.