Why is Vidya more Creative than Hollywood?

Is there something inherent to the gaming industry that makes it more creative than Hollywood and television? Why is it that the latter two industries are creatively bankrupt and produce soulless nihilistic garbage, while gaming still manages to produce awe-inspiring and unique works with great stories that leave good long-lasting impressions on their viewers, and even challenge them with deep themes and armor-piercing questions?

Even Triple-A companies like Nintendo and Blizzard are experimenting with new IPs like Splatoon and Overwatch, and there's a thriving ever-innovative indie market that's produced titles like Minecraft, Super Meat Boy, Undertale, Hollow Knight and many more. Yes, some of them were bad, but at least they weren't the same old trite garbage that Hollywood churns out on a daily basis. They were more like experiments. Some succeeded, others failed, and the industry benefited from that process of trial and error.

And that's not to mention how gaming manages to outdo the animation, music, and comic book industries at their own game. You've got CGI set pieces in trailers, prologues, and cutscenes that put Dreamworks and Pixar to shame, and even better 2D animation like that of Hollow Knight. Then you have a variety of memorable original soundtracks ranging from orchestras to traditional Japanese music to electronic music that isn't insipid, all of which makes you want to listen to them one more time.

So, what's the secret to vidya's ever-present creativity? What is the key the gaming industry holds that makes it resistant to the same corporatism, centralization and nihilistic tendencies that have infected the aforementioned industries?

Shit tier

1: There's no Hollywood in Japan.
2: Far fewer (((you know whos))) in the video game industry.

That's just the pallet of the mind, user. That's where all the colors of your imagination live. It's up to you to mix those lovely colors and use the brushes of technique to put them on the canvas. Doesn't matter what form that canvas takes, what matters is that you put love in your little painting.

video games can be a LOT longer than movies, allowing you to make a better story and allowing for better immersion than movies can have, provided that nobody interrupts you
video games let you decide where the plot goes… or at least some of them do
video games cost far less to produce than movies, and you dont have to make sure that theyre good enough to get into a movie theater; you can put it on the PC if none of the consoles will let you use their devkits
video games also cost more than movies, making it even easier to profit off of video games
video games can not only be fun to watch, but fun to play too, unlike movies
video games don't have to have amazing real-life-quality graphics in order to have god graphics
video games also otherwise have more creative freedom than movies, which are obliged to either be a such a masterpiece that even normalfags like it(but not necessarily recognize it) or simply appeal to the lowest common denominator a.k.a. the bottom of the barrel so they can at make some sort of profit, whereas video games can pander to a much, MUCH higher common denominator and be deemed a success for years and years to come

You become successful in Hollywood by being a social cocksucker. Whereas vidya usually attracts introverts who have more time to think.
Also

Fuck you, now I have to watch an episode of Bob Ross

Give it a few more years, and if we stay on the track we're on, they'll be the same.

Videogames are made to entertain and have you interact, your experiences are earned which allows devs to go crazy with what they want you to do, which you can't do in movies. In movies you sit and consume with a predetermined path that ends in lesser time than even a mediocre sleep. That's it.

BIG Western movies are mainly made by the same group of ~25 directors, so it eventually becomes trash. Games are more varied because AAA titles don't drown out the smaller ones and there is a huuuge diverse list of who's working on what, unlike jewllywoods movie titans stomping out the smaller ones.
Imagine if gamed were like movies, and you could only play a pre-selected tiny pool of games made by westerners, and you had to wait months for any other projects to come to your country, and when they do, they aren't even in theatres.

You don't go in a movie theatre and choose a big list of what you want. You get a small cherrypicked list of what you should watch by the man.
The answer lies in the mindset of the project makers. I'm sure there are people who have extremely original ideas and don't get support because they don't network and they're willing to sacrifice their ideals.
You have to think that gaming isn't nearly as old as Hollywood is either, they have these things due to not being restrained by peer pressure from other yids.
Take Paper Mario Color Splash for instance. It came out bad not because of Miyamoto, but because the dumbass Tanabe played it safe and wanted so bad to appease his daddy, Hollywood is the same way. It is filled with pretentious shmucks who wouldn't DARE thread from YET ANOTHER pool of tiny ideas, because it's what the public is used to, it's a "Monkeys" situation, where it's always been done around here, which can't be said for videogames.

This guy covered it.

Those fucking voice actor faggots are certainly trying their best to make it that way, though. Still waiting for some eccentric AAA dev to tell voice actors to fuck themselves and make a best selling game with little to no voice acting in-order to send a message. They need to know they aren't necessary, and that they can easily be replaced.

I miss devs who just voice acted their own games, like Lorne Lanning.

Sure, I'd say resistant but definitely not immune.

This is a neat question.

So imagine if every show or movie was direct to video.
The analytics known as the box office and the nielsen ratings would not exist.
You don't get the people who go to theaters with two different groups of people or repeat viewers in general.
All you have are the video sales figures to look at.
And similarly to videogames, videos aren't as cheap as a subscription to basic cable, online streaming or a movie ticket.
Things that don't even exist in this hypothetical.
When you make things cheap they often sacrifice quality i.e. the mobile game boom.

The other thing that harms creativity is rating boards.
I'd say the MPAA wouldn't mean as much in a direct to video world.
"Unrated" would be a selling point for edgy marketeers.
Say there is a Castle Wolfenstein movie.
It gets rated R.
Does that really hurt sales?
Some people even seem to be itching for a movie about violently killing Nazis.

I'd say the indie scene in movies is far different from games.
There are not many actors in general let alone bad actors in indie games, only bad creators.
I'd rather play a derivative indie side scroller than watch 90 minutes of handicam footage trying to be the next Blair Witch.

Then you have accessibility.
Not being able to deliver your product to people is a pain, having to be beholden to some monopolistic platform's sensibilities to turn a profit is fairly creatively stifling.
People who make games are more technologically savvy and can make their own platform.
Steam tried to not sell Hatred because it triggered assclowns.
Still more games aren't able to be sold on there.
I've played Unteralterbach, Inma No Ken, Eroico, Parasite in City and dozens of others.
Tobihime took the gameplay of Angrybirds/Crush the castle and made what I would call an actual game out of it that I played for hours and hours on every difficulty.
None of those games will become popular especially because Steam doesn't allow them, but at least I can enjoy them.

Were they movies they would be highly illegal and difficult to produce, assuming they are animated you are still left with a passive medium instead of an engaging interactive one.

Games have fail conditions, that is what makes them exciting.

There are 4 patrons I check up on every so often.
I'd like to see David Goujard finish Behind the Dune, a porn game based on Dune.
I'd like to see Sunsetriders7 finish Something Unlimited, a game about mind controlling and exploiting female DC superheroes.
I'd like to see DarkCookie finish Summertime Saga, a game that doesn't have very good art and is mostly about incest, but promises specific scenarios.
Lastly I'd like to see Team Nimbus finish Cloud Meadow, a game that seems to be all over the place in gameplay but with good art and fuckable monsters.

They get roughly 6 thousand, 8 thousand, 17 thousand and 14 thousand dollars a month respectively.
Little annoyed David Goujard gets the least while DarkCookie gets the most.

Man, people in general are itching for movies about violent killings. It's part of why Deadpool and Logan were such huge successes. They're immensely violent and didn't compromise any of it for a PG-13 rating. And in a way, people in video games even want to bring it back to the 90s/early 2000s. One of NuDoom's big selling points to a lot of people was it was unapologetically just as violent as the original(albeit without persistent gore, but still just as much gore).
I really want media to go back to how it was in the 80s/90s in regards to violence and sexuality. In the 80s and 90s there were great action movies where people were being shredded so spectacularly and seeing breasts and sex acts was an average affair. I want that for video games.

OP, I…

The same thing that once insulated films from much the same thing: decentralization and a low bar to entry.
The 'Great American Film Industry' is only 4 fucking production companies: Universal, Disney, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Bros.
Next time you go to a movie, you will see the logo of one of these companies, if not in the credits of the film itself, then in at least 3/4 of the posters in the theater lobby unless it's a French arthouse.
Compare that to vidya's "juggernauts" (EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo) and the difference is huge, since it is feasibly possible to go years without seeing their logos preceding a game you're playing.

This is all before factoring in vidya simply not being as expensive to produce and publish as film making indies commercially viable.
While the sky-high polycounts of games like Crysis may take a lot, getting to a level that will be described as "good-looking" just takes style, which is free, and gameplay is probably the least expensive element of vidya, since all that takes is the time and skill to program in player interaction.

Just compare the steam top sellers page with the next theater lobby you're in.
The difference is astounding
It may miss a significant chunk of the pc games market, but its storefront serves very much the same purpose as a theater lobby, so the comparison is valid.

...

What a fucking hack.

The kiиo audience moved on to games after Hollywood died back in the 80s

...

Most of the answers here involve pointing fingers a certain group of people, in this case, the executives, as the cause of all the bad shit in Hollywood and gaming, and if you could remove these nasty people, and replace them with good ones, vidya and film would be infinitely more creative and would render degeneracy and anticonsumerism nonexistent.

Little do most people know, the true cause of all the degeneracy, anticonsumerism, and corporate fuckery is not the executives, but the web of incentives that governs their actions.

The reason the gaming industry is able to keep innovating, and stay creative over all these years in spite of the attempts at centralization by Triple-A publishers is because of a decentralized distribution system that has very low barriers to entry. Any studio can get together from any place in the world, (and in some cases, the devs aren't working in the same country.) make their own games, publish them on worldwide marketplaces like Steam, Gog and other digital distribution services, and circumvent the ESRB, and other bureaucrats. If their games failed, they'd be forgotten, if they succeeded, they'd incentivise their competitors to stay innovative and creative, including Triple A publishers.

With the film industry, it's a whole different story. Here you have an industry that has extremely centralized means of distribution, intrusive unions that tremendously raise costs of film production, and a rating system that divides consumers into blocks based on age, race, sex, and nationality. All these aspects are a result of lobbying by the big studios to secure their oligopoly and crush potential competition.

And one of Hollywood's most damaging lobbying schemes is the disinformation campaign and extension of copyright, which is the root cause of the anticonsumerist practices of Triple-A publishers. Copyright, is not a right, but a state-grant monopoly on ideas. And when someone's the only provider of a good or service that's high in demand, they're not going to care whether or not they please their customers, as he's the only one they can buy from. Is it any wonder why Ubisoft, EA, and Activision, and their ilk still engage in such shitty practices despite the massive amount of criticism against them? Their consumerbases are still buying their games, even though they hate their business practices, because they'd rather buy the latest installment of franchises their emotionally attached to, in spite of the bullshit than get nothing.

If however, copyright was abolished, the Triple-A publishers will care about the concerns of consumers, because should they fuck up, any franchise they previously "owned" could be done far better by competitors and they'd lose their consumerbase to them. The consumers choices would not be a matter of who's selling X, but who's selling the best X. This also applies to SJW complicit publishers. Sales show that social justice doesn't sell, but executives allow it because they fear they'd lose potential consumerbases.