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

You guys mentioned indie films but do you guys play indie games? I focus on the indie industry for a large portion of my gaming needs. Just about every other game I play can be considered art. ssj12 and the_bloodwalker touch on some games.

Indie games tend to have no budgets yet reach a high artistic value. Take cactus ( http://www.cactus-soft.co.nr/ ) for example. I'd say every game he makes is art.

If you open your eyes to indie you may find you have no reason to complain.

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).

 

thanks for pointing out that website, Gling. I'm Dling the Cactus Arcade right now to get a glimpse of it.

"The GTAIVs, the Zelda's, the Halos, The Killzones, they are the pinnacle of our medium. The top talent makes them technical marvels using the latest technology, program tools, and methods. They finely craft remarkable cities, dungeons, enemies, water effects, and environments. They put the best voice acting, musical composers, directors and polish them to a high gloss. And they are completely trite, formulaic, unsurprising, and yes, fun."

I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I hardly consider Zelda to be in that standing that you just named. Do you honestly consider the original Zelda, LA, MM, and WW (just off the top of my head) to be trite, formulatic, and unsurprising?

Anyways besides that, I don't think you can compare the movie industry to the videogame industry so directly. There are plenty of blockbuster games like Super Mario Galaxy that I hardly consider to be trite, formulaic, etc. Sure there are big budget games that play it safely, but that doesn't mean every single one does.

There are big budget games that are truly unique and amazing, as well as formulaic ones. The same applies to low budget games.... Petz anyone?

wfz said: "The GTAIVs, the Zelda's, the Halos, The Killzones, they are the pinnacle of our medium. The top talent makes them technical marvels using the latest technology, program tools, and methods. They finely craft remarkable cities, dungeons, enemies, water effects, and environments. They put the best voice acting, musical composers, directors and polish them to a high gloss. And they are completely trite, formulaic, unsurprising, and yes, fun." I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I hardly consider Zelda to be in that standing that you just named. Do you honestly consider the original Zelda, LA, MM, and WW (just off the top of my head) to be trite, formulatic, and unsurprising? Anyways besides that, I don't think you can compare the movie industry to the videogame industry so directly. There are plenty of blockbuster games like Super Mario Galaxy that I hardly consider to be trite, formulaic, etc. Sure there are big budget games that play it safely, but that doesn't mean every single one does. There are big budget games that are truly unique and amazing, as well as formulaic ones. The same applies to low budget games.... Petz anyone?

  

Alright, I'll be polite and simply reiterate what I've said previously rather than critisize for not actually reading my posts.

 For one, I didn't say all Zeldas. I even said that Zelda did innovate on more than one occasion, but Twilight Princess among others just follow a safe formula.

 Two, read my previous post. I state again, innovation and budget are NOT, I repeat INNOVATION AND ART ARE NOT mutually exclusive. In the movie industry the same applies, a movie can have big budgets, great actors and producers and be artistic. NOT having a budget doesn't garauntee art. I never said those things, I have said just the opposite on more than one occasion.

The_vagabond7 said: 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).

Sorry, man, you're right.  I was under some stress when I posted that and didn't quite get your point.  I fully agree with you

 

Although, I'm not fully seeing your point--you're saying that some games with big budgets are artistic, while some aren't, and some games with small budgets are artistic, while some aren't...

thekitchensink said: The_vagabond7 said: 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).   Sorry, man, you're right. I was under some stress when I posted that and didn't quite get your point. I fully agree with you   Although, I'm not fully seeing your point--you're saying that some games with big budgets are artistic, while some aren't, and some games with small budgets are artistic, while some aren't...

 thanks, I'm glad this topic is staying so civil.  
Anyway, my point is  that It's not that some games are artistic, but rather the educated gamer ignores the artistic games in favor of the blockbusters just as much as the uneducated average gamer does. That the critics and hardcore alike deem high budget blockbusters that show little inspiration or innovation as being the pinnacle of gaming while ignoring, or critisizing lower budget, or games with a budget that take a unique or less traveled roads, artistic games as being inadequate.

 

The_vagabond7 said: wfz said: "The GTAIVs, the Zelda's, the Halos, The Killzones, they are the pinnacle of our medium. The top talent makes them technical marvels using the latest technology, program tools, and methods. They finely craft remarkable cities, dungeons, enemies, water effects, and environments. They put the best voice acting, musical composers, directors and polish them to a high gloss. And they are completely trite, formulaic, unsurprising, and yes, fun." I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I hardly consider Zelda to be in that standing that you just named. Do you honestly consider the original Zelda, LA, MM, and WW (just off the top of my head) to be trite, formulatic, and unsurprising? Anyways besides that, I don't think you can compare the movie industry to the videogame industry so directly. There are plenty of blockbuster games like Super Mario Galaxy that I hardly consider to be trite, formulaic, etc. Sure there are big budget games that play it safely, but that doesn't mean every single one does. There are big budget games that are truly unique and amazing, as well as formulaic ones. The same applies to low budget games.... Petz anyone? Alright, I'll be polite and simply reiterate what I've said previously rather than critisize for not actually reading my posts. For one, I didn't say all Zeldas. I even said that Zelda did innovate on more than one occasion, but Twilight Princess among others just follow a safe formula. Two, read my previous post. I state again, innovation and budget are NOT, I repeat INNOVATION AND ART ARE NOT mutually exclusive. In the movie industry the same applies, a movie can have big budgets, great actors and producers and be artistic. NOT having a budget doesn't garauntee art. I never said those things, I have said just the opposite on more than one occasion.

That's my bad then, I only read your first post and that's what I gleamed from it. I really should have read the rest. From reading your first post it seemed as thought you were implying all Zeldas. Also you were mentioning that big budget movies aren't seen as the greatest forms of art in the movie industry, and I was just showing that  some of the bigger budget titles in the videogame industry can indeed be great pieces of art.

 

Anyways I suppose none of this applies anymore since you later corrected the misunderstandings? I guess it's time I read through this thread more. =P 

Kasz216 said: ssj12 said: darthdevidem01 said: Lord of the rings & Titanic are I thin THE ONLY 2 MOVIES with a HIGH Budget that won LOADS of awards what? are you serious? StarWars? Narnia? The first 3 Star Wars movies had low budgets to my knowledge.

Just the first one. And even then, $10 million was still a bit more money back then. Would be about likely $50-$70 million compared to today's blockbuster budgets.

The next two cost around three times as much as the first one.