The game for this blog is one that I had recently played in the past week called “Shovel Knight” on the Wii U. The game itself is a side-scrolling adventure where you, as the knight wielding the shovel try to defeat a group of evil knights known as the “Order of no Quarter” to rescue his beloved “Shield Knight.” The game primarily allows the player to traverse different areas where along the way they visit stores and places for items and loot. The game itself follows mechanics from other games such as duck tales where the shovel is used in place of a cane but can also be used as a sword. The game also features unique variations depending on what version the game is played on. If you play on a Nintendo system such as a 3DS or the Wii U, you have the ability to play with a touch screen along with obtaining multiplayer modes and challenge stages. Other consoles such as the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox one, have a unique boss with their own unique stage. The game has many other platforms to play on allowing anyone to play on a system of their choice.
The game itself was created by the people at Yacht Club Games who are independent developers that essentially succeeded in crowdfunding this project. Which bring us into the whole idea of who really owns the authorship of this game. The creators Yacht Club Games would be considered the ones who came up with the game but without help of the crowdfunding backers there game would not even have life. Not to mention the composers such as Jake Kaufman and Manami Matsumae who are freelancers known throughout the gaming world that helped in creating the music found within the game. This brings me to my belief on who possibly owns this game authorship. Like the theorist Howard Becker, I see the authorship of the game being placed in the hands of all who developed it. Becker would explain it that those who didn’t have the ability to create the game as “less rare, less characteristic of art, less necessary to the work’s success, less worthy of respect“(Art Worlds and Collective Activity,1982). The quote itself shows that those who did not directly work on the game affected one of its people in a unique way are still part of what they game became. The big thing is that people who gave made this game include smaller people who gave up something to make sure this game came out, whether its money or time in supporting the studios work. The credit sequence within the game mentions many people as well outside of the initial groups mentioned as to show that without them they would not have been able to create the game. Most games do this as they clearly know that one person did not create the game without some outside help or influence by another person. Yacht Club games even go far as to have a level dedicated to the backers of the game who really believe in them and gave more money of course to the crowdfunding.
The framework of the game was created by Yacht Club studios, while the game itself would not be created without the many backers, influences( such as “duck tales”), composers, and support from the families of the company. Personally, I believe create something that becomes a huge success as Shovel knight requires many people as a whole.
Howard Becker, “Art Worlds and Collective Activity.” pp. 17.
Video Games and/as Art 
When you say that “The game itself follows mechanics from other games such as duck tales where the shovel is used in place of a cane” most readers have no idea what you’re talking about. Use images!
As for the writing itself, be careful of your paragraphs. What is the purpose of each paragraph? Is there anything there that goes outside of that one purpose? Then either chop it out or move it. If you don’t your rhetoric will not be understood. You have three paragraphs here that are doing the work of many more. Gameplay, EVERYTHING, and a summary. Put up your argument, which is that with the kickstarter system the backers are the key (and I would say that with nostalgia driving a lot of games on kickstarter that’s even more true), then prove it in pieces/paragraphs, not all at once.
LikeLike
I thought it was interesting that this game was developed after receiving crowdfunding. Would Becker consider these crowdfunders to be artists as well? I think so, and while I personally disagree with Becker’s extremely liberal view of who should be considered artists, it is a really interesting question to bring up in that discussion of who should be considered artists. And where do you draw the line between those who preorder a game through a larger game studio and those who contribute to a crowdfunding campaign? On another note, as a Wii U owner, I am definitely now interested in this game, I had heard it mentioned a couple times before but your post has got me interested.
LikeLike