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.
I always loved ARC - Attack, Retrieve, Capture - originally from Hoopy Entertainment and then PopCap. You joined an ad hoc team and piloted a little flying saucer around a maze, shooting at the other team’s saucers. It was super simple to learn and wonderfully addictive. Probably not around anymore. I knew the two guys who created it.
bin.pol.social
Gorące