FA+
Shop
How are these videogames considered masterpieces?
3 months ago
General
I'm so tired of hearing about these games just because they're called a "masterpiece," when they all follow the same formula.
Souls-like games, Undertale/Deltarune, Silksong, and so on, they all stick to the same structure.
You roam through a world where you easily defeat simple mobs (or sometimes you can just ignore them entirely), giving a false sense of fulfillment. Then you reach the boss that you will never beat on the first try, because they always have some cheap move set, a second phase, or some other gimmicks.
And when you do beat a boss on the first attempt, it’s usually because you either had plenty of resources to start with, you got lucky, or the boss was simply easier than a previous one.
The only thing you actually learn from these fights is the boss’s moveset and how to counter it. There isn’t much real skill involved; you just die, memorize a move, die again to learn the next one, and repeat over and over. On top of that, the stories are usually childish, stale, or copied straight from other games and movies.
"B-but, take a look at <Insert Nickname here>! He’s a player who can beat the whole game without ever being hit!"
Yeah, someone who spent 20 hours a day playing the same game for the past year/s.
I can’t even force myself to play these games; I just watch a playthrough and see it’s always the same thing with slightly different details. It honestly just makes me turn my nose up.
Can someone enlighten me on how these games are actually considered good?
Souls-like games, Undertale/Deltarune, Silksong, and so on, they all stick to the same structure.
You roam through a world where you easily defeat simple mobs (or sometimes you can just ignore them entirely), giving a false sense of fulfillment. Then you reach the boss that you will never beat on the first try, because they always have some cheap move set, a second phase, or some other gimmicks.
And when you do beat a boss on the first attempt, it’s usually because you either had plenty of resources to start with, you got lucky, or the boss was simply easier than a previous one.
The only thing you actually learn from these fights is the boss’s moveset and how to counter it. There isn’t much real skill involved; you just die, memorize a move, die again to learn the next one, and repeat over and over. On top of that, the stories are usually childish, stale, or copied straight from other games and movies.
"B-but, take a look at <Insert Nickname here>! He’s a player who can beat the whole game without ever being hit!"
Yeah, someone who spent 20 hours a day playing the same game for the past year/s.
I can’t even force myself to play these games; I just watch a playthrough and see it’s always the same thing with slightly different details. It honestly just makes me turn my nose up.
Can someone enlighten me on how these games are actually considered good?
There are just so many BAD games these days i suppose, it doesnt take much at all to get people excited when finally, there is something that actually works and isnt just a franchised cash-grab.
It's never been how ya get your butt beat in most video games it's what you do when you come back. I find the moment an enemy you're struggling with is defeated due to either you fully understanding the fight or managing your resources perfectly to be just good fun. Folks don't like those sorts of games because they are hard or unfair ect. That's fine those games aren't for everyone. They are indeed for a lot of people. Just as if someone will be buying the new sports game or the new call of duty someone will be enjoying those lil indie gems made from a small team and wanting to tell big stories.
And no, I'm not arguing with you on this, just genuine curiosity and insight! <3
I honestly feel like developers just jump on the train on whatever game is popular at the moment and make a copy of it, be it a 3d, 2d, moba and so on.
LoL had an explosion in popularity? We got Heroes of the storm etc...
Overwatch? We got paladin and etc...
Souls likes? We got like 6 game franchise copying them and slightly/barely changing mechanics.
And critique seems to praise anything an indie developer just releases. Even shit on a plate is good for people nowadays.
FReplying to your question:
The firsts MGS, Infamous, Read dead redemtpion (1 the 2 was horseshit), Rockband pro mode, and so on and so on, all games that had wonderful mechanics, good story (or skill level when talking about rockband )and decent graphic (for their time).
A masterpiece has to be innovative, not just bring what is already there and make a small twist and call it a day.
LoL was based on DoTa, which was based on AoS.
Overwatch inspired by TFT.
Souls like.. maybe by ninja gaiden? (difficult game with mechanics that fight against you)
The point I'm making these games take something from another game and try to perfect it (assuming good faith, i.e. not just trash CoD every year). In order to make a masterpiece, in my honest opinion, it must be a perfection of a genre, a class, an idea that has unlocked the highest potential for that genre. A game that starts a genre is a classic, and very well could be considered a masterpiece right off the bat, but every iteration of that genre tries to perfect it (again, assuming good faith). Therefore, a masterpiece for me would have to be a new innovative take on a genre (even new genre) that has very clean mechanics, stays true to its genre, and fleshes out a unique experience that pushes the player to reflect on what they experienced.
So I suppose we both have a somewhat similar definition of what makes a masterpiece (that similarity being innovation, no one wants to play the same game with different graphics). I believe that the term "masterpiece" is too casually thrown around, just like how every movie is "movie of the year", not every game is a complete masterpiece and it tarnishes the prestige of actual masterpieces out there. So I'm with you there if that's where your thoughts are going.
However, I think the main heart of the matter is that everything is super subjective. What is a masterpiece to someone could be a pile of shit for you. We all have our own opinions and, ultimately, doesn't matter what you or I think. Who would be arbiter of what defines game "x" being a masterpiece or not? Simple as, honestly.