By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - EA: We rejected offline play for SimCity because "it didn't fit with our vision."

Munkeh111 on 18 March 2013
Ssenkahdavic said:
Munkeh111 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
Munkeh111 said:
Ssenkahdavic said:
So, EAs vision is to make incredible games that you cannot actually play.

EA = Biggest Tease in Gaming?


Why can't you play it?

Cannot stay connected.  Have yet to put in over an hour without losing the connection.  Hell, atleast now I can actually get connected.


And its not my internet.  Been gaming for 4 hours today and been part of a steam voice  chat without issue that entire time.  There are 3 people I know how are playing this as well and none of them are having much luck staying connected either.

When you are clearly having bad luck, I have managed 34 hours with very minial disruption, I can't be the only one


Looks to have cleared up.  All it took was a good health dose of bitching!  Game is awesome.

Good too see! I know there are AI bugs, but the game is generally very very good I think



Around the Network
Dodece on 18 March 2013
Fifaguy360 said:
Dodece said:
Artists aren't exempt from criticism. Especially when their art is offered up for public consumption. Such art is actually designed to engage a audience. If the goal of a artist is to elicit a reaction from the audience. Then it goes without any question that some of those reactions will be negative. Any creative act is a form of art. My writing this post is in fact a creative act on my part. Thus it is a work of art. Even if I am not so self aggrandizing as to call myself a Artist. Am I not subject to peer review. For the content of what I post, or the underlying message I am putting forth. That should be the case, because I am obviously engaging in a relationship with other posters.

Just as the studio in question is seeking to engage with potential customers for their products. If they don't want to deal with criticism. The obvious choice to avoid that was to not provide their game for public consumption, but that is what they did, because they want to be paid for their art. They want patrons to support their art. Artists have rights, but the patron has rights too. The right to not pay for art they find obscene is one of them. Further more as any big Artists from the Renaissance will tell you.

What the customer wants comes first. A Artist is free to pursue any art they want on their own time, and obviously at their own expense, but if they are filling a order. They need to bend their creativity to the desires of another. They don't have to make art for a Patron, but if they need or want money. Then they need to fulfill the needs of their client foremost. Art isn't a excuse for a service provider to not provide the service expected. A waiter cannot just choose what they are going to serve you. A mechanic cannot decide to repaint your car, because they didn't like the color. A Barber cannot decide to give you a Mohawk when the customer asked for a trim.

That isn't the way the world works. Your artistic license isn't a license to do whatever you feel like. If you want to make money from your artistic skill. In this case Electronic Arts is offering up just plain bad art, and at the core of that art is a pretty unethical view. That the consumer needs to be treated as if they were a thief. That the consumer exists solely to service them, and that means they should gear themselves towards the most vulgar exploitation they think that they can get away with.

Well as far as art goes. I wouldn't buy a picture of a brute of a man skull fucking a infant to death, and I don't intend to buy another game from Electronic Arts. After all they are basically the same thing after all. This is the same tired just plain nauseating excuse that is offered up for every misdeed that Electronic Arts perpetrates. As if claiming Artistic intent elevates them beyond the reach of the rabble. It speaks to a sense of them feeling that they are superior, and that we are nothing compared to them. Well they are just fucking wrong on that account.

It doesn't make them look more sympathetic. It only makes them look sardonic. We should feel more outraged by such a slimy excuse for why they shouldn't be judged. Art is never a acceptable excuse to behave unethically towards others.


You're wrong. Studios have no  obligation to follow the leads and wishes of the public. They aren't filling an order to the specs of the public. They can create their 'art' entirely in their vision. It is up to the public to vote with their money if the 'art' is worth it. THAT is how the world works.

No you are wrong, and despite that you missed the point. The point I was making is that once they intentionally made their art known. They were no longer in any way exempt from criticism. Artists cannot claim to be entitled to a special privilege that exempts them from the peer review that we are all subject to for our own acts creative or otherwise. My point about patronage is that if an Artist intends to sell their work they need to take into account the wants and needs of their client or perspective client.

When art is made for a commercial profit. By the very nature of that transaction the art is already compromised to meet the expectations of the artists patron. You can argue all day that an Artist can create whatever they want, but they will never survive as a business, and that is how the world works. Electronic Arts by the way is a business first and foremost, or at least that is what they bill themselves as. In business there is such a thing as ethics, and good customer service. Art isn't a mask they just get to put on when they don't want to be judged.

Anyway it isn't up to the public to vote. This isn't an either or proposition. Where the publics only options for commentary are to buy, or not to buy. We have the same rights as Electronic Arts, and we can express ourselves as we see fit. How dare you question my art while we are on the subject. I am declaring myself to be an Artist, and as such your only choices are too approve of what I have to say, or stand in mute silence.

Art isn't a excuse for a absence of debate. It is a excuse to have a debate. Art is about someone conveying emotions, ideas, and interpretations. When someone creates art that is meant to be seen. They are inviting open discussion between the appraiser, and the artist. To claim otherwise is a terse acknowledgement that the purveyor has no real intention to create a work of art.



http://live.xbox.com/member/Dodece

johnsobas on 18 March 2013

i was just watching videos of this today and thinking about buying it, until i saw this. This is BS, will not support.



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

Fifaguy360 on 18 March 2013
Dodece said:
Fifaguy360 said:
Dodece said:
Artists aren't exempt from criticism. Especially when their art is offered up for public consumption. Such art is actually designed to engage a audience. If the goal of a artist is to elicit a reaction from the audience. Then it goes without any question that some of those reactions will be negative. Any creative act is a form of art. My writing this post is in fact a creative act on my part. Thus it is a work of art. Even if I am not so self aggrandizing as to call myself a Artist. Am I not subject to peer review. For the content of what I post, or the underlying message I am putting forth. That should be the case, because I am obviously engaging in a relationship with other posters.

Just as the studio in question is seeking to engage with potential customers for their products. If they don't want to deal with criticism. The obvious choice to avoid that was to not provide their game for public consumption, but that is what they did, because they want to be paid for their art. They want patrons to support their art. Artists have rights, but the patron has rights too. The right to not pay for art they find obscene is one of them. Further more as any big Artists from the Renaissance will tell you.

What the customer wants comes first. A Artist is free to pursue any art they want on their own time, and obviously at their own expense, but if they are filling a order. They need to bend their creativity to the desires of another. They don't have to make art for a Patron, but if they need or want money. Then they need to fulfill the needs of their client foremost. Art isn't a excuse for a service provider to not provide the service expected. A waiter cannot just choose what they are going to serve you. A mechanic cannot decide to repaint your car, because they didn't like the color. A Barber cannot decide to give you a Mohawk when the customer asked for a trim.

That isn't the way the world works. Your artistic license isn't a license to do whatever you feel like. If you want to make money from your artistic skill. In this case Electronic Arts is offering up just plain bad art, and at the core of that art is a pretty unethical view. That the consumer needs to be treated as if they were a thief. That the consumer exists solely to service them, and that means they should gear themselves towards the most vulgar exploitation they think that they can get away with.

Well as far as art goes. I wouldn't buy a picture of a brute of a man skull fucking a infant to death, and I don't intend to buy another game from Electronic Arts. After all they are basically the same thing after all. This is the same tired just plain nauseating excuse that is offered up for every misdeed that Electronic Arts perpetrates. As if claiming Artistic intent elevates them beyond the reach of the rabble. It speaks to a sense of them feeling that they are superior, and that we are nothing compared to them. Well they are just fucking wrong on that account.

It doesn't make them look more sympathetic. It only makes them look sardonic. We should feel more outraged by such a slimy excuse for why they shouldn't be judged. Art is never a acceptable excuse to behave unethically towards others.


You're wrong. Studios have no  obligation to follow the leads and wishes of the public. They aren't filling an order to the specs of the public. They can create their 'art' entirely in their vision. It is up to the public to vote with their money if the 'art' is worth it. THAT is how the world works.

No you are wrong, and despite that you missed the point. The point I was making is that once they intentionally made their art known. They were no longer in any way exempt from criticism. Artists cannot claim to be entitled to a special privilege that exempts them from the peer review that we are all subject to for our own acts creative or otherwise. My point about patronage is that if an Artist intends to sell their work they need to take into account the wants and needs of their client or perspective client.

When art is made for a commercial profit. By the very nature of that transaction the art is already compromised to meet the expectations of the artists patron. You can argue all day that an Artist can create whatever they want, but they will never survive as a business, and that is how the world works. Electronic Arts by the way is a business first and foremost, or at least that is what they bill themselves as. In business there is such a thing as ethics, and good customer service. Art isn't a mask they just get to put on when they don't want to be judged.

Anyway it isn't up to the public to vote. This isn't an either or proposition. Where the publics only options for commentary are to buy, or not to buy. We have the same rights as Electronic Arts, and we can express ourselves as we see fit. How dare you question my art while we are on the subject. I am declaring myself to be an Artist, and as such your only choices are too approve of what I have to say, or stand in mute silence.

Art isn't a excuse for a absence of debate. It is a excuse to have a debate. Art is about someone conveying emotions, ideas, and interpretations. When someone creates art that is meant to be seen. They are inviting open discussion between the appraiser, and the artist. To claim otherwise is a terse acknowledgement that the purveyor has no real intention to create a work of art.


No one says artists are exempt from peer review. But artists control their own decision on what their art is going to be. They MAY take into consideration their target audience, but they will also make choices based on their vision and what they want the world to see or experience as they imagined it.



Fayceless on 19 March 2013

Are we seriously basing a debate on the assumption that something that comes out of EA can be considered art? SOME video games are art. EA games are just products.