3 ms·

A lot of creatives have a hard time understanding the product side of art. Games are far more products like movies than they are "art". There have been a bunch

A lot of creatives have a hard time understanding the product side of art. Games are far more products like movies than they are "art". There have been a bunch of recent examples lately that showcases the minds of masses. Spiderman No Way Home did supremely well by giving the masses what they wanted, and not straying too far from the marvel formula. Sonic the Hedgehog Movie had a awful original art direction. The fans complained and the director reversed course, and now its a beloved and highly rated movie. Top Gun 2 is another great example. The tone, direction, spirit of the original movie is captured supremely well and is on track for a billion dollars. Pixar's Lightyear is a disappointment at the box office. Honestly who wanted a "realistic" version of Buzz from Toy Story. The tone, spirit, and art direction are too different. I think Ron made a horrible directorial mistake, and while he shouldn't be attacked for it. He does deserve criticism, and people should be allowed to voice their dislike for a product and its direction. As people on other sites have mentioned, this whole project has the feeling of the George Lucas Star Wars Prequels. George Lucas needed some honest feedback, and collaboration with other people like Kasdan. Ron Gilbert should have gotten some opinions from the original Monkey Island artists/Lucas Arts Crew.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing that the art direction can't be criticized[0], just that Ron doesn't deserve abuse for it. Unfortunately "Gamers" includes a group of extremely entitled and vocal internet asshats who frequently do things like hurl death threats at developers for missing deadlines. Now they have chosen to harass a legend who shaped the very genre because he has offended their aesthetic sensibilities. It's ridiculous and no one should have to put up with that crap. [0] honestly I'm also a bit put off by it, but that might just be because it is unfamiliar, which isn't the same thing as bad. Besides, since I consider graphics to be one of the least important things in games I don't think it will affect my enjoyment that much.
regentbowerbird 4y ago
> Games are far more products like movies than they are "art" Says whom? You demonstrate your points by showing that blockbusters make money, which says nothing about whether they are art. They're entirely different dimensions of the same work, and hard to compare. Obviously the accounting department will have a different point of view than the creative director. You're also arguing that people making new films on an existing franchise should stick to giving the fans what they want. But who's to say the fans even know what they want? They might not care, they might be mistaken, they might misremember things. For example, people clamoring for World of Warcraft Classic or a back-to-the-roots Sonic game back in the day weren't really hoping for a product per se, but rather to go back to a time when the product was more culturally relevant (and they were younger). A new direction can also capture a new audience, which might make fans negligible. For instance the Star Wars prequel are still divisive but a large, younger portion of the fandom likes them very much. And what fans are we talking about anyway? You give Spider-man as an example. But there have been thousand of pieces of Spider-man media, with wildly different art styles and tones. Which one is "what the fans want"? Disney went with the Marvel formula precisely because it's a lowest-common denominator style of film, accessible to non-fans. And finally another obvious problem with your thesis is that nothing new can be made if it is required to give to the masses what they want for sure. Almost by definition, it is unknown whether any new concept, style, tone, or property are what people want. At the same time it is known that the public at least somewhat values originality, so companies take risks and release films such as Pirates of the Caribbean or games like Assassin's Creed.
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  Top gun is probably the best example. It was a love letter to the fans, and made a billion dollars Video games are expensive too make. Many triple A games cost more than movies. Comparing them to movies is an extremely fair comparison.
mikkergp 4y ago
> people should be allowed to voice their dislike for a product and its direction. Why? By "allowed to voice their disklike", I assume you mean outside of the privacy of their own home.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago

I don't think anyone is arguing that the art direction can't be criticized[0], just that Ron doesn't deserve abuse for it. Unfortunately "Gamers" includes a group of extremely entitled and vocal internet asshats who frequently do things like hurl death threats at developers for missing deadlines. Now they have chosen to harass a legend who shaped the very genre because he has offended their aesthetic sensibilities. It's ridiculous and no one should have to put up with that crap. [0] honestly I'm also a bit put off by it, but that might just be because it is unfamiliar, which isn't the same thing as bad. Besides, since I consider graphics to be one of the least important things in games I don't think it will affect my enjoyment that much.

regentbowerbird 4y ago

> Games are far more products like movies than they are "art" Says whom? You demonstrate your points by showing that blockbusters make money, which says nothing about whether they are art. They're entirely different dimensions of the same work, and hard to compare. Obviously the accounting department will have a different point of view than the creative director. You're also arguing that people making new films on an existing franchise should stick to giving the fans what they want. But who's to say the fans even know what they want? They might not care, they might be mistaken, they might misremember things. For example, people clamoring for World of Warcraft Classic or a back-to-the-roots Sonic game back in the day weren't really hoping for a product per se, but rather to go back to a time when the product was more culturally relevant (and they were younger). A new direction can also capture a new audience, which might make fans negligible. For instance the Star Wars prequel are still divisive but a large, younger portion of the fandom likes them very much. And what fans are we talking about anyway? You give Spider-man as an example. But there have been thousand of pieces of Spider-man media, with wildly different art styles and tones. Which one is "what the fans want"? Disney went with the Marvel formula precisely because it's a lowest-common denominator style of film, accessible to non-fans. And finally another obvious problem with your thesis is that nothing new can be made if it is required to give to the masses what they want for sure. Almost by definition, it is unknown whether any new concept, style, tone, or property are what people want. At the same time it is known that the public at least somewhat values originality, so companies take risks and release films such as Pirates of the Caribbean or games like Assassin's Creed.

norwalkbear 4y ago
Top gun is probably the best example. It was a love letter to the fans, and made a billion dollars Video games are expensive too make. Many triple A games cost more than movies. Comparing them to movies is an extremely fair comparison.

mikkergp 4y ago

> people should be allowed to voice their dislike for a product and its direction. Why? By "allowed to voice their disklike", I assume you mean outside of the privacy of their own home.