While I don’t like neutering an artist’s vision in the name of conformity or commercial pressure, it’s generally a wise business practice to avoid deliberately offending your potential audience. I suppose a healthy gaming franchise needs new users to thrive, and maybe toning down the excess will broaden the game’s appeal.
I agree that neutering an artist’s vision is almost always a mistake, but I wonder if the artist’s vision has changed with the times as well? Furthermore, with patches, updates, downloadable content, and expansion packs for games, at what point is a game, as a work of art, complete?
How do you even begin to preserve a work of art when it is constantly changing and evolving?
I went off on a weird tangent about game preservation after my initial question, but that’s what I meant with my “I wonder if the artist’s vision has changed as well.”
If the artist’s views have changed, and they are either supportive or the driver of a change like this, is it neutering their vision? It’s certainly straying from the original vision, but I wouldn’t call it neutering.
When I think of neutering, or really, betraying an artist’s original vision, I think of something more akin to Terminator 2 (James Cameron was pushed to give the movie an open-ended ending), or, more recently, 2003’s Dumb & Dumberer.
While I have no clear opinion on this, it’s hilarious that people who have had over 11 years to purchase the game, often at extreme discounts or in bundles, are rising up to proclaim that they won’t be buying this game. Damn dude! I’m sure the developers are sweating bullets!
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !gaming@beehaw.org
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
While I don’t like neutering an artist’s vision in the name of conformity or commercial pressure, it’s generally a wise business practice to avoid deliberately offending your potential audience. I suppose a healthy gaming franchise needs new users to thrive, and maybe toning down the excess will broaden the game’s appeal.
That video you shared was great!
I agree that neutering an artist’s vision is almost always a mistake, but I wonder if the artist’s vision has changed with the times as well? Furthermore, with patches, updates, downloadable content, and expansion packs for games, at what point is a game, as a work of art, complete?
How do you even begin to preserve a work of art when it is constantly changing and evolving?
If an artist’s vision is sexualized children, maybe that artist needs an eye exam.
I went off on a weird tangent about game preservation after my initial question, but that’s what I meant with my “I wonder if the artist’s vision has changed as well.”
If the artist’s views have changed, and they are either supportive or the driver of a change like this, is it neutering their vision? It’s certainly straying from the original vision, but I wouldn’t call it neutering.
When I think of neutering, or really, betraying an artist’s original vision, I think of something more akin to Terminator 2 (James Cameron was pushed to give the movie an open-ended ending), or, more recently, 2003’s Dumb & Dumberer.
While I have no clear opinion on this, it’s hilarious that people who have had over 11 years to purchase the game, often at extreme discounts or in bundles, are rising up to proclaim that they won’t be buying this game. Damn dude! I’m sure the developers are sweating bullets!