If it’s the one that got them their recognition, it’s little more than arbitrary; luck, place and time; things that don’t have to do with how good the work is. Some “masterpieces” weren’t considered such until they were exposed to people over and over again, like The Mona Lisa at the Louvre or It’s a Wonderful Life on TBS. I’d have a hard time calling a number of games masterpieces that I didn’t care for, because this isn’t objective.
A masterpiece could just refer to a piece of art from a master. It could refer to the quality of an engineering project, or the skill involved in the work’s creation. Are these not objective qualities?
I don’t really think the Mona Lisa is a great image, personally (it’s a boring portrait), but I can still recognize that it was masterfully done.
This gets trickier with games, because an experienced game designer can, for instance, look at the UI design and graphics programming of a Ubisoft open world slopfest, and say those parts were masterfully done (even if the overall game isn’t so fun). And, even the best of video games have bits of them that weren’t as good.
None. There’s no such thing as an objective master piece. Games are art which is, by definition, subjective.
Edited to add, well this was way more controversial than I thought it would be.
“Masterpiece” comes from the art world, and there are absolutely works everyone seems to agree qualify, such as:
It’s usually the best work by an artist, or at least the one that got them their recognition, and it stands out among other works in the field.
If it’s the one that got them their recognition, it’s little more than arbitrary; luck, place and time; things that don’t have to do with how good the work is. Some “masterpieces” weren’t considered such until they were exposed to people over and over again, like The Mona Lisa at the Louvre or It’s a Wonderful Life on TBS. I’d have a hard time calling a number of games masterpieces that I didn’t care for, because this isn’t objective.
deleted by creator
I think the word you are looking for is pedant.
Better vocabulary will help get your point across better. Without also sounding like an edgy atheist teen.
deleted by creator
It’s low-grade trolling, chill bro. They’re not serious.
deleted by creator
A masterpiece could just refer to a piece of art from a master. It could refer to the quality of an engineering project, or the skill involved in the work’s creation. Are these not objective qualities?
I don’t really think the Mona Lisa is a great image, personally (it’s a boring portrait), but I can still recognize that it was masterfully done.
This gets trickier with games, because an experienced game designer can, for instance, look at the UI design and graphics programming of a Ubisoft open world slopfest, and say those parts were masterfully done (even if the overall game isn’t so fun). And, even the best of video games have bits of them that weren’t as good.
Right… So what game gets the most of those bits the most right?
That’s how you start to separate out the best. Not that complex.
Games are not Art, they are Games.
Videogames can also be art, but they are also games and ‘games’ (note: not ‘videogames’) are not art.