McStormy1 said:
Everything you said holds true for cinema as well, yet cinema has established itself as a valid artfom. There are many movies that are not big budget that you have probably never heard of by directors more interested in expressing their artistic visions than making a box office smash. Only 5% of books break even yet there are many literary classics and more released each year,, another medium established as a valid artform. 90% being crap holds true for every media format, not just video games. It doesn't mean that the small minority is not worthy of recognition. |
Now I can see what you're talking about, you do make more sense. I will agree with the premise that a tiny minority of games are "art". However, I don't believe that Xbox 360 and PS3 are a better platform for the 'art' games. There are far more original IP, exclusive games on Wii which have small budgets and small dev teams (due to lower dev costs) and the market is present for these games whereas the HD consoles' audience is primarily the hardcore who want shooters and epic RPGs. Look at de Blob. Look at No More Heroes. Look at Madworld. Look at Okami. Look at Endless Ocean. All of these are original games that weren't expected to sell well but had artistic vision. All of them will make a profit on Wii that they probably couldn't have on the other consoles.
PS3 and Xbox 360 do indeed have better-looking games, but they are aimed at the masses for profit and have big budgets, big development teams and are milked for sequel potential if they sell. They cannot be considered art because the development teams lack the freedom to do things for art instead of revenue.
