The Videogame industry is backwards. Blockbusters are art, low budget isn't

[The_vagabond7]

thekitchensink said:
I see where you're going, vagabond, but there's a fatal flaw in your argument: budget and artistry are not mutually exclusive.

For example:
Scarface is lauded for being a highly artistic representation of gangster life for its' time. Same with the Godfather. If those movies can be considered art, why can't GTA? It's in the exact same genre, just a different medium.

On the other hand, I guess you're right. Low budget games are always artful. Excuse me while I go critique the most underappreciated gem of our time, Carnival Games

 to quote myself earlier in this topic   

"Also I should throw in that blockbuster and art aren't mutually exclusive, but they are usually at a conflict. A movie like "American Beauty" can do well commercially and still be loved by critics. However in investing millions of dollars the desire to play it safe and give people what they want becomes the overwhelming drive. And playing it safe stifles innovation. Shadow of the Colossus wasn't a budget title, but it was still artistic (though did poor commercially)."

Also, I obviously don't think low budget equates art, that is a gross strawman simplification of what I was saying.

Also a strawman, is that my problem with GTAIV isn't it's setting. Also Gangster isn't a videogame genre, sandbox is though. I don't think it having to do with gangsters makes it non-artistic, it's that it's just a clone of it's earlier iteration made a little better. There isn't any innovation there that wasn't made many years ago. It doesn't do anything new or brilliant, but is heralded as the greatest game of all time (well #2 or whatever game rankings what have you lists it as, I don't care).