Spoken like someone who isn't thinking hard about how art actually works, frankly.
Artistic techniques don't all magically exist forever. They have to be developed. You have to know they're possible. You have to have the tools and paints and so on to make them work.
In the modern era, we have way better tools, way more options, we can be way more precise in what techniques we apply and how and why than anyone in the Renaissance period. You might have a personal fondness for some Renaissance piece or w/e, but if you like say, really realistic art? We can do that better now. Because we have better and more techniques. We everything they had and more.
Art is hard work. Art requires techniques and skills. You're writing as if just flows magically out of an artist's arse!
The comparison to art is fine - if you acknowledge art is supported by technique and knowledge, and that an artist now has more choices, more options, more possibilities than, say, an artist in 1589. You might not like the decision that a lot of modern artists make, but they're making decisions because they have decisions that they can make.
That's not the comparison though, is it? See above. It's amazing if you are a classically-trained artist that you're having difficulty with this, because you must necessarily be aware that you can make choices neither Botticelli nor Matisse had available to them - in part because Botticelli and Matisse existed BEFORE you in chronological time.
Do you understand what I am getting at here? Because I'm seeing you express fondness for a particularly artistic piece, but I'm not really seeing you arguing against my actual point re: tools, techniques, modes of thinking and so on. Which is the core. We have more techniques. We have new techniques. We have new materials. We have entirely new mediums.
If we apply this to games, now we can choose what kind of game we want to make, and how it works in ways that simply we could not (or not without hard-innovating) in the past.
