Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End, A mix between Game and Art

Video Games have gone a long way from becoming simple electronic games, today’s video games have evolved from abstract obstacle courses to storylines that resemble almost as a cinematic movie. Since this is the last blog entry blog dealing with video games in general I have decided to use a recent video game that almost makes the blur between movie and game. In fact, I would say it is a clear mix between movie and game, but most importantly it is an example of today’s modern games.

So, the game I will be writing about is Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment, which came out a year ago. Uncharted 4 is technically an adventure game and is to my point of view a very fascinating game to play. Unlike other games that I have played, the story line of Uncharted 4 is set in a cinematic style, almost appearing as if it was movie. The story in

Nate in the ship yard

Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End is about two treasure hunting brothers Nate and Sam drake who try to find the lost treasure of a famous pirate known as Henry Avery while trying to fend off some private military force and their rich boss Rafe Adler. Throughout the game the player is set in various locations around the globe in an effort to find the exact location of the much-desired lost treasure. What I love about this game is that it touches on different genres of games such as action/war and puzzle solving games.

 

The structure in which this adventure game has been automatically makes it a game. Why? The answer is very simple, despite the fact that Uncharted 4 has a story it is also a game and in the words of Raph Koster author of A Theory of Fun for Game Design, state:

Games are not stories. It is interesting to make the comparison, though:

• Games tend to be experiential teaching. Stories teach vicariously.
• Games are good at objectification. Stories are good at empathy.
• Games tend to quantize, reduce, and classify. Stories tend to blur, deepen, and make subtle distinctions.
• Games are external- they are about people’s actions. Stories (good ones, anyway) are internal-they are about people’s emotions and thoughts. (Koster,88)

Therefore, Uncharted 4 which forces the player to participate in the story by figuring out certain puzzles in order to advance to the next level basically makes it a game. In addition, to figuring out puzzles, the player must deal with situations where he or she must get around or the character dies, basically a stumbling block to get around. This goes accordingly to Koster’s idea of quantification while playing. Furthermore, Uncharted 4 multiplayer missions set the player to pair up with an online friend and defeat waves of military contractors and pirates, or go against each other in teams. According to Roger Caillois author of The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games, categorizes this type of gameplay as Agon. What is Agon? Well, in the words of Caillois “Agon. A whole group of games would seem to be competitive, that is to say, like a combat in which equality of chances is articially created, in order that the adversaries should confront each other under ideal conditions, susceptible of giving precise and incontestable value to the winner’s triumph” (Caillois). It is these competitive and puzzle solving activities that makes Uncharted 4 a game, however what makes this game even more interesting is its artistic structure.

Unlike past games where the aesthetics of old games pretty much appeared very geometrical, today’s videogames are now created with such realistic details that sometimes it appears as if it was a film itself. This can be seen in Uncharted 4 where body movements, facial expressions, geographical environment looks very enticing to observed. Similarly, such was the ideology of  who was very appreciative of Greek art. Winckelmann believed that Greek art was very fascinating, but also believed that artists had to go beyond such ideology of aestheticism (Winckelmann, 30-32). So, in games such as Uncharted 4 where the aesthetics do present that realistic outlook, it proves that Winckelmann’s idea of going beyond still detailed art was right. The aesthetics seen in Uncharted 4 make the player appreciate the environment and enjoy the game at the same time, it provides a cinematic view that allows the player to enjoy the story. Also, aesthetics is not the only artistic part of this wonderful game.

In a murky sense of art, Uncharted 4 invites the player to participate in the story (obviously), but not in the perspective of playing. During various missions the player is given the choice of saying some “smart” answer, or have a conversation with one of the protagonists. Furthermore, finding archaeological objects is also a choice which can reward the player with cheats or modification embedded in the game. This artistic point of view goes with Roland Barthes’ Death of the Author, where the viewer or participant not the author must participate in order to create a meaning out of the artistic object. Just as in the words of Barthes, “…the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the author” (Barthes, 6). While there are many artistic aspects that are present in Uncharted 4 I believed these two make the game a piece of art.

Nate Drake

In conclusion, Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End is both a game and work of art. The structure of the game such as its story, gameplay, aesthetic detail, and participation of the story is what makes this videogame very fascinating and one I would recommend. It is a mix of game and art, basically an art game, which is a product of today’s society’s art.

References

Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana, 1977.

Caillois Roger. “The Definition of Play and The Classification of Games” inGame Design Reader. Edited by K. Salen and E. Zimmerman(2006): 122-155.

Winckelmann, Johann Joachim. “Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works inPainting and Sculpture.” In The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, edited by D. Preziosi.Oxford: Oxford University Press (1998): 27-34.

Koster, Raph. Theory of Fun for Game Design. Scottsdale, US: Paraglyph Press, 2004. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 31 January 2017.

 

Who gets the credit? The creators behind the Star Wars: Battlefront series

 

Star Wars: Battlefront a video game that throws the player into the battlefields of the Star Wars universe is one of LucasArts best video game series ever produced. The first of the Star Wars: Battlefront series was released in September 21, 2004, which turned out to be a

cover of StarWars: Battlefront II

major hit. The following year Star Wars: Battlefront II the game that I will
be writing right now was released in November 1, 2005, and did much better than the first in terms of sales and gameplay. Furthermore, a new Star Wars: Battlefront was released in 2015, which interestingly had mixed reviews regardless of its commercial success. Yet despite the success of the Star Wars: Battlefront series there is one important question, who receives credit for the creation of such a great game? Even though it is known that LucasArts produced the entire game series, many forget the other participants that helped in creating Star Wars: Battlefront.

 

Every time that a new Star Wars game pops out the name LucasArts soon follows. However, if we take into consideration Howard S. Becker’s idea of collective activity where a group of skilled participants work together to create a piece of art, music, or film then we begin to question the real creators of Star Wars: Battlefront II (Becker, 35). LucasArts for the most part is credited for creating the game series, but very little is mentioned about the game developer Pandemic Studios which also participated in creating both first and second Star Wars: Battlefront games. Sadly, Pandemic Studios which belonged to Electronic Arts was suddenly shutdown by the videogame company and the game developer simply disappeared into history.

First Star Wars: Battlefront

Why does this matter? The sad end of Pandemic Studios proves Becker’s idea of the big name (LucasArts) taking all the credit for the creation of something successful such as a film or video game. Despite the fact that LucasArts is the main reason why the game was created, it is necessary that the game developer should also receive recognition since it was Pandemic Studios that did most of the legwork for Battlefront II to become a reality. This idea goes accordingly to Becker who states “Nothing in the technology of any art makes one division of tasks more ‘natural’ than another, although some divisions are so traditional that we often regard them as given in the nature of the medium” (Becker, 9-10). In addition, given that Pandemic Studios was a game developer that solely worked on war and shooting games it was their effort for providing such a great battlefield environment and experience for plyers and Star Wars fans.

Furthermore, Becker’s idea of collective activity correlates with Roland Barthes notion of “death of the author”, which basically means the participant not the artist gives meaning to the work of art. Barthes states that “The reader has never been the concern of classical criticism; for it, there is no other man in literature but the one who writes” (Barthes, 6). By using Barthes interpretation of the “author” we can see that even though LucasArts is the producer, Pandemic Studios was the developer and the place where the game got its look and style making Pandemic the author of Star Wars: Battlefront II. It was Pandemic that gave that first person/third person shooter style and gave the player that sense of immersion into the Star War universe.

1st person view

 

3rd person view

In conclusion, LucasArts may be the producer of Star Wars: Battlefront II, but Pandemic Studios is the creator or artist of the game. It is simply wrong to name one company or individual the creator of a good piece of art when it takes an entire group of skilled individuals to create something wonderful. In truth, it is wrong to say that LucasArts is not the creator since the company was the one that put Pandemic Studios to work on the project. I believe it is safe to say that both groups are the true creators of the game not just one, but since I cannot stay neutral it is best to side with Pandemic.

Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana, 1977.

Becker,Howard. “Art Worlds and Collective Activity.” in Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press: pp 1-39

 

How is Grand Theft Auto Art?

Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto series is perhaps the greatest game that the company probably ever produced. The Grand Theft Auto videogame series is one of kind where it has literally blurred the line between virtual and reality, and is so controversial that it has come into question whether if it is a game or not. It is this very reason that I picked one the Grand Theft Auto games to answer the question, how is it art?

So, how is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas a video game that children and teens admire while parents despise be called piece of art? Well, if we analyze the videogame from the perspective of George Wilhelm Hegel’s philosophy in that art is an ideal or a constant progress one in which the negative and abstract form the concrete or a new style of art, then GTA (short for Grand Theft Auto) is a product of an ideal.

During the many times that I inserted GTA: San Andreas into my XBOX and began to play it may seemed nothing more than just another videogame. However, when I analyzed and paid close attention in search of its artistic side I discovered that GTA correlates with the ideas of Roland Barthes. According to Roland Barthes’ article The Death of the Author, it is necessary for the perspective of the author whether it be in a work of art or piece of literature to die and the reader to give a personal meaning to his or her work. This does not mean that the reader should take the work of a critic, instead the author’s work should be open to the interpretation of the reader. Yet in order for the reader to have story or meaning to the author’s work the individual must participate. Basically, in the words of Barthes “The birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the Author” (Barthes, 148). Thus, in GTA the reader which in this case the player gives the game its own story.

The player is free to take any action that they desire

How? The act of free will, the player is given the opportunity to avoid completing the mission and carry on with what he or she desires to do, whether it be destroying cars or walking around the city. In addition, GTA in an unorthodox manner connects with Walter Benjamin’s idea of art.

 

According to Walter Benjamin’s article The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, in era where everything is reproduced through machinery the connection between art and the human touch is severed, the loss of the “Aura”. Basically, in Benjamin’s own word “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, it unique existence at the place where it happens to be” (Benjamin, 298). So, what does this have to do with GTA? Being that GTA is a videogame it obviously means that it was copied and sold to different places and people, yet if Barthes philosophy is taken into account then the GTA copy which I own becomes into its own piece of art.

My version of CJ

Unlike films or pictures where everything is stabilized, GTA has the freedom of movement. The player gives life and differentiation in the manner he or she plays. For example, every time I play GTA: San Andreas I choose to insert cheats and customize the character to my will, thus establishing a connection between me and the game, and through this action the aura is restored. The players individualize the game by playing it at their whim, and in this Hegel’s philosophy of art presents itself. The player becomes the character, and the gameplay is the story that the player creates. The actions one takes in GTA is a representation of the self without the fear of consequences, which eventually forces the player into self-exploration of one own personality. The art (game) and individual (player) have connected establishing artistic progress of the self. This is how GTA is art.

Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image, Music, Text. London: Fontana, 1977.

Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Art of Modern Culture: An Anthology to Critical Texts, edited Francis Frascina and Johnathan Harris, 297-307. IconEditions. 

 

Hegel, G.W.E. “Philosophy of Fine Art.” In The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, edited by D. Preziozi, 80-88. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1998

Flow, Is It a Game?

For the last week and a half, I have played a video game called Flow on the PS4. Unlike most video games where the objective is to get from one place to another or compete against somebody else, Flow is one of just growing. The objective of this game is to just eat some amoeba looking creatures and evolve. After analyzing what constitutes an activity to be a game, the question has come around, Is Flow a game? The problem with Flow is that the way it was structured blurs the meaning between game and play, however Jesper Juul’s clarification of what institutes a game pretty much suggests that Flow is not a game at all. Why? According to Juul “Play is mostly taken to be a free-form activity, whereas game is a rule-based activity” (Juul, 28). Based on Juul’s definition of game Flow cannot be a game, however it is a video game. The problem with defining a video game as a game is that video games can be an activity that is playful or that are simply governed by rules. Since Flow does not have any rules to which the player must abide by then the person is just simply playing. In addition, the player is given the choice of either eating the creature and grow bigger or just simply wonder around the environment. Clearly, if Flow was a game then the player’s movement would be governed by rules that would force him to follow in order to achieve a certain goal.

Interestingly, the creator of the game Jeneva Chen created Flow as a project for his master’s thesis. The intention of Chen’s game was simple and that was to test the concept of dynamic difficulty adjustment or DDA. The concept of DDA is that a game will adjust itself (level wise) to the behavior of the player. However, Chen’s version of DDA, which he calls EDA (Embedded Difficulty Adjustment) is a little different from the practical concept. According to Chen “In EDA, the difficulty changes based on player’s subconscious will. It does not change by system or designer” (engadget.com).  Furthermore, if Juul’s definition of game is taken into account and use it to analyze Flow, the video game would not meet the requirement for one simple reason. According to one of Juul’s six features that makes a game states “4. Player effort: The player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome. (Games are challenging.)” (Juul, 37). In contrast, Chen’s EDA concept which is embedded in Flow gives the player the option of avoiding a challenge, thus making it easier to pass the level without breaking a sweat. This is supported by Chen himself who said:

Basically each level has different difficulties. It’s not a linear progression. I want to see if the player can adjust by himself. I think by level 5 there’s this ring monster that is really hard to defeat. Lots of people tell me, “oh it’s really hard!” but what they did is skip it, or return to previous level to eat more and grow bigger, then return to fight the ray monster. It’s not like in traditional games where you have to beat one level after another (engadget.com).

While video games are playful activities that are meant to entertain us for a while, not all video games are “games”, it requires a challenge and a goal to which one must strive. A video game such as Flow provides too much freedom to the player thus dictating the outcome without really making much effort.

Jesper Juul. “Video Games and the Classic Game Model” in Half-Real: Video Gamesbetween Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005. pp. 23-54.

Ross Miller. “Joystiq interview: Jenova Chen” http://www.engadget.com, 2006. https://www.engadget.com/2006/09/18/joystiq-qanda-jenova-chen/

The “Fun” experience Playing Pac-Man

There is the old saying “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”, so for the first game I decided to play Pac-Man, a game I have played several times. It has been for some time that I have not played as the old yellow fellow and wondered whether I was still the master of this old game. In the first-round I felt like an old rookie basketball player, I knew what to do and how to maneuver, but the little critters somehow cornered me. Unfortunately, I died when I got to the second round, I had wasted my three lives in the first, however that did not stop me and started the game again. The old familiar feeling of being rushed felt good, it gave me the impulse to survive and avoid the colorful creatures. In order to avoid a boring description on the first day let’s just say I got better and boy was it fun to play again. The impulse of getting better is what I believe made it fun, I’m very competitive when it comes to games whether it be physical or mental and I often push myself to win. This need to compete even against myself is what perhaps gives this game a sense of “fun”.

After playing Pac-man several times and breaking my previous “record” several times I began to feel a lack of playing the game. By day four I could say that I lost interest in playing Pac-man and the sense of “fun” was lost. Since I had reached level five with different high scores the previous day, my performance plateaued and instead of having fun it felt like work. After playing for three hours I saw no purpose to play the old arcade game and simply stopped. This is due to the fact that the game simply became too repetitive and the objective simple, while there were some changes such as getting different fruits for extra points it was basically the same thing over and over. At this point I agree with Raph Koster’s idea that “When a game stops teaching us, we feel bored”, Pac-man certainly stopped teaching me something (Koster, 42). While I do have to say that Pac-man serves as a good pass time game when there is nothing to do, playing it repeatedly certainly kills the fun out of the game. Therefore, just like Koster states “Games grow boring when they fail to unfold new niceties in the puzzles they present” (Koster, 42). If I played against a friend or relative as a form of competition in who gets the top score, then perhaps there would be a stimulus to play Pac-man again, but since the competition is against myself and no other the purpose of playing the game will simply die out. This does not mean that I do not like Pac-man, I play it from time to time and only when I absolutely do not have any other game to play. Pac-man maybe a classic, but sometimes classics eventually become boring until there is a need to play it again. Just like Koster describes music “When you feel a piece of music is repetitive or derivative, it grows boring because it presents no cognitive challenge” (Koster, 42). Perhaps by not playing Pac-man for a while will the game be fun once more.

 

Koster, Raph. Theory of Fun for Game Design. Scottsdale, US: Paraglyph Press, 2004. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 31 January 2017.