No Right Answer: Is Anita Sarkeesian Wrong?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Quadocky:

Magenera:
You're are hurting your cause, you're trying to justified the ability to be racist and sexist against men and white people.

You've heard it here first folks...

Feminism: Trying to Justify the Racism and Sexism against White Men since 1894!

You are hurting your cause. You pretending that you can't be racist against whites, or you can't be sexist against men, is bullshit. All I'm seeing you guys want to be say sexist shit about men, and racist shit about white people, but you don't want to be called out on be racist and sexist. So you make up these arbitrary rules saying it's not racist, it's not sexist to spew your bile, so you can remain cleaned. The only thing you shown that you're racist against white people, and you're sexist against men, and you don't have balls to admit it, because that means you're a bigot.

This is my perspective on things.

How these comments page go.

"Anita is wrong. There's nothing wrong with gaming today."

And the next comment is.

"She's a stupid **** who should shut up."

I admit, I can't blame her for refusing to let free discussion go on under these sorts of circumstances.

JoJo:

The Enquirer:

JoJo:
Huh, that was surprisingly well-thought out and measured, well done guys. Now... inb4 shitstorm, because let's be honest we all know what's going to happen at this point, I'll be in my secret underwater base if anyone needs me...

Can I take shelter with you?

Sure, come on in, just don't press any buttons, they may link to doomsday devices. Also watch out for the orphans, they sometimes bite >.>

Hmmmm have the orphans absorbed any radiation from said doomsday devices? Perhaps if one bites me I shall gain the superpowers of an orphan...

Aardvaarkman:

Seeing as I don't read comments on YouTube, but I do on The Escapist, I can't really vouch for what the comments on YouTube say. Do you have any examples of such comments? Because it might be entirely possible that you are the victim of a transmitted meme that you can't talk about Sarkeesian without being labeled hateful or misogynistic - but might have little basis in fact.

It also might be the case that the people were labeled hateful and misogynistic for making hateful and misogynistic comments, rather than just for disagreeing with Sarkeesian. It would really help if you had examples, because I certainly haven't seen any around here do justify this is fear.

Normally I would be more than glad to provide such proof but with the way the YouTube comments section is these days it would be rather difficult, tedious and all around irritating to find something that could just as easily be faked. If you want proof you should certainly look in the comments yourself.

Verlander:
Fed up of the discussion on money: "What did she need $6000 for?"

How about anything? A Big Mac doesn't cost what they charge for it, nor does a car, nor does a football performance, nor does a lecture. She went for an amount of money that she decided was reasonable for her time, considering the subject at hand. To throw into perspective, in my industry it's standard to charge about US$1650 (equivalent, I'm not in America)for every hour spent working for a client. People don't just do 3 hours per week either, I'm talking solid 9 hour days, everyday, and that's not even close to what top earners are on.

Is $160,000 a lot? Sure. However arguing whether she deserves it, or whether people are getting what they paid for, is stupid. People knew what they were getting, and they paid for it. If they didn't know what they were getting, they deserve to loose their money, because she was very clear about what she was going to deliver.

The problem with what you is that it's not stupid for people to expect more from this. She asked for $6000 but there doesn't seem to be any different in quality, nevermind $160,000. She's never addressed what she plans to do with the extra money either so the backers do have a right to be pissed and question what's going on.

Stalydan:
The problem with what you is that it's not stupid for people to expect more from this. She asked for $6000 but there doesn't seem to be any different in quality, nevermind $160,000. She's never addressed what she plans to do with the extra money either so the backers do have a right to be pissed and question what's going on.

Maybe she needed the $6,000 the money to buy the games, or take time off work to make the videos, or for better software/hardware that you might not be able to really notice. As for $160,000, what the hell do people complaining about this want her to do? She set three damn stretch goals going up to 26,000, to include extra videos and equipment/quality upgrades, what is she supposed to use all that extra money for when it's a video series on youtube?

This is, of course, assuming that you and all those people who constantly bring up this rather hollow complaint are backers, because they're the only ones who really have the right to be angry about her use of the money they gave her knowing that she had already received way more than she needed. Though, I've yet to see her backers come out in protest of her not somehow forcing $160,000 into the videos, just random people who will use any excuse to whine about that evil feminist.

cerebus23:
snip

It does but it is heavily weighted to the hot blonde in tight clothes or the bikini clad girl, even news channels they always have eye candy on set.

Is it though?

I mean, it might be, I honestly don't know or care (as I say, sex sells, I don't see why it's a bad thing), but anecdotally, I'm watching TV as I type this, next ad break I'll make a list of the adverts shown:

edit:

There was an advert for Muller Yoghurt involving a hot man running up a beach. An advert for thomas cook family holidays which was in no way sexualised (it did include both men in tight swimming shorts and women in bikinis, including a "hot" guy, whom the dad of the family group compared himself to), adverts for South Park and Two and a Half Men, an advert for the film "Walter Mitty", and a music magpie advert showing both men and women selling their old stuff, again not sexualised.

So, anecdotally, there was one "sex sells" advert, and it was aimed at women. However, I admit this is from one set of adverts off telly as I watched it, and is utterly meaningless.

But the heavy reliance on sex to sell stuff in general, they heavy use of sex in pop culture to sell jailbait music and pedal that look to young girls with pre packaged garbage music to boot.

I agree with you, but I reject the premise that this stuff is being sold to adult men. Let's use Miley Cyrus as an example - I know plenty of adult men who've perved over Miley since she decided to go for the "slag" persona she's doing these days, yet as far as I can tell, her 'music' is not aimed at us.

It might be that I dislike pop music in general, but I honestly think these sexualised sugarry pop-starlettes are being aimed at young girls.

Now, that's not something I think is right, in fact I think it's a fucking disgrace. However, as a male in my late 20s with no children, I can't turn around to the mother of the little girl next door and tell her that I think it's horrendous that she lets her daughter listen to BBC Radio 1 on a morning before school.

Well, I could, but what would the point be? All that'd do is make an enemy of my next door neighbour (who is actually a lovely woman), and the little lass would still be listening to Miley bloody Cyrus on her way to school every fucking day.

Its not just the games industry that needs to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask itself cannot we not do better?

To be honest. I think you and I are actually in agreement.

However, I also add the proviso that, until the majority of Women take a long hard look in the mirror and decides to come up with an answer to: "I dress like Glamour magazine tells me to dress, Diet like Heat magazine demands I diet, and act like the whore on the music station suggests I should act - Why is my gender not being taken seriously?", then these industries will not begin to try to do it better.

I'm sure that last paragraph is opening me up for a lot of abuse. I know that many, many, many, many, many (possibly even a MAJORITY) of women in the Western World don't give a fuck for the teachings of Heat, Glamour, OK!, and their ilk, but enough of them do that this is still how industries view "Women".

TL;DR: The main enemy of women, in my opinion, is the way media is currently aimed at women (by women, for the consumption of women). This needs to change.

Props for being up front with simply pandering. I mean that's refreshingly honest at least, so I'll comment.

Still don't care about Anita Sarkeesian in any way, shape or form. She can yell and complain as much as she wants, won't effect my gaming.
Good for her.

LifeCharacter:

Stalydan:
The problem with what you is that it's not stupid for people to expect more from this. She asked for $6000 but there doesn't seem to be any different in quality, nevermind $160,000. She's never addressed what she plans to do with the extra money either so the backers do have a right to be pissed and question what's going on.

Maybe she needed the $6,000 the money to buy the games, or take time off work to make the videos, or for better software/hardware that you might not be able to really notice. As for $160,000, what the hell do people complaining about this want her to do? She set three damn stretch goals going up to 26,000, to include extra videos and equipment/quality upgrades, what is she supposed to use all that extra money for when it's a video series on youtube?

This is, of course, assuming that you and all those people who constantly bring up this rather hollow complaint are backers, because they're the only ones who really have the right to be angry about her use of the money they gave her knowing that she had already received way more than she needed. Though, I've yet to see her backers come out in protest of her not somehow forcing $160,000 into the videos, just random people who will use any excuse to whine about that evil feminist.

You mean aside from already proving that she was wealthy enough to travel the world before this whole controversy and instead of using secondary sources(IE the games) she could of actually interviewed publishers, developers and marketers to understand the narrative, the design and the intention of the games created?

The fact that after the controversy instead of actually doing what would of been a much more insightful departure to understand the actual people involved in the creation and selling of video games. She instead was hired and paid by said game companies to lecture their employees which is quite obscure that if you are asking for funds to do research meaning that you shouldn't have a conclusion from the thesis you created. She was instead selling herself as an authority figure to the very people she should be asking questions to gain said understanding.

LifeCharacter:
Maybe she needed the $6,000 the money to buy the games, or take time off work to make the videos, or for better software/hardware that you might not be able to really notice. As for $160,000, what the hell do people complaining about this want her to do? She set three damn stretch goals going up to 26,000, to include extra videos and equipment/quality upgrades, what is she supposed to use all that extra money for when it's a video series on youtube?

This is, of course, assuming that you and all those people who constantly bring up this rather hollow complaint are backers, because they're the only ones who really have the right to be angry about her use of the money they gave her knowing that she had already received way more than she needed. Though, I've yet to see her backers come out in protest of her not somehow forcing $160,000 into the videos, just random people who will use any excuse to whine about that evil feminist.

Well the quality of the videos seems unchanged, the only two differences I could give are new visual animations for the opening and visual demonstrations in the episodes and that her background went from red to blue. They hardly seem to be at all different apart from maybe she's purchased an updated Adobe collection (although her video on how "sexist" the ads on torrent sites makes me believe that "purchased" might not be true).

As for purchasing games, if she did, I'd like to know why she's not recording her own gameplay footage rather than taking others. For some older games she uses, I can understand that finding a copy can be difficult so using Let's Play footage is easier but for many of the newer games she mentions, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

And with $160,000, this series can become much bigger than it was originally intended to be. Set up interviews with game devs and other feminist gamers who want to share their opinion. Have discussions with the audience at live events. Even for $6000, the show feels the exact same way as it did before and with even poorer research on many of the games she is discussing.

Am I a backer? No. I hadn't even heard of her until her Kickstarter went viral and I didn't see a point to donate as the show wasn't one of my interests at the time. I've since watched her videos to have insight and my opinion of her is that she isn't really all that interesting herself but happened to gain a lot of attention. Of feminist critique, she's kind of lower mid-ground because many of her subjects are poorly researched and tend to just be repeats of what more interesting people and critics have previously said.

Hagi:

shephardjhon:
Just because YOU don't know of such things doesn't mean the don't exist.
Nancy Drew games, Hidden object games, new point and click adventure games, even dating sims for girls exist. All of these are made almost exclusively for girls. The Escapist doesn't cover it, it is their fault. The same is true for most gaming that you go to.
Extra credits did a very good episode on it recently. I don't even think the Escapist gave Papers Please the coverage it deserved.
I even played a Nacny Drew game once and it was really really good and I would have ignored it were it not for some mishap due to which it ended up as the game on a disk I bought instead of the game I bought. Escapist, IGN and sites never give coverage to such games then the some idiots claim those kinds of games don't exist.

Good for you and I do appreciate you keeping it civil, calling people idiots really turns conversations sour quickly.

Now, if you'll notice all the examples I gave from other media had one thing in common.

They're things everyone knows about and their audience was for the vast majority female. Things that go for none of the examples you list. Hidden Object games as well as point-and-click adventures are usually about as gender-neutral as you can get. Only said dating sims would likely have an audience that's for the vast majority female and there certainly isn't a big name there that just about everyone has heard about.

That's what I think this industry could really use to shake things up. Not small series that even you only came across by complete accident and then played only a single one from plus citing the very act of playing it as something rare enough to be described with 'even ... once' as if it was some not-soon-to-be repeated event.

I think it'd be great if a game with the cultural impact of Twilight came along. I think that would give publishers, developers and gamers a bit of a needed culture shock to start seeing things in a different light. Even if that means there's less games that I personally enjoy I think overall more variety would be a good thing.

I wasn't referring to you as an idiot, I was talking about MovieBob, Jim Sterling and Anita herself. People in the limelight who want to argue about these things and THEN ignore an entire sub-genre of games because they never heard of them. You are not in the game journalism business, they are and they have an obligation to know about and cover these games as well.

And I completely agree with you about the shakeup but it is not the publishers or developers that need to do it. It is games journalism. When was the last time you saw a Nancy Drew game even mentioned on the Escapist? But when was the first time you saw Twilight or similar movies mentioned on Youtube or IMDB?

PS: Hidden object games are not gender neutral and they do have stories. Go watch the Extra credits episode if you don't believe me.

JoJo:
Huh, that was surprisingly well-thought out and measured, well done guys. Now... inb4 shitstorm, because let's be honest we all know what's going to happen at this point, I'll be in my secret underwater base if anyone needs me...

I honestly thought you said "I'll be in my secret underwear" there for a minute.

NOW I MUST HAVE SOME FOR MYSELF.

I feel like drug junkie when it comes to Anita
I always say to myself "This is the last time", "No more" and so on
But every time I keep writing comment saying to myself "Only this one time and then I'm done"
And then someone respond to my comment, I answer to response and before I know everything escalates to 6h 50 post discussion and in the end I receive warning for some tasteless joke :/
So time for another dose, I guess :(

Anita isn't dangerous or provoking
She is annoying
I don't know why things happened, but I suspect calculated effort from her behalf
And this time it isn't my paranoia that signals it (or at least not only paranoia)
She exploited both sides- threw a bait to trolls&chauvinists, and then milked white knights&feminists (although it isn't exactly "milking" when cows throws milk your direction on their own)
And it payed off.
She got money, people talk about her, her name is recognized by many people
But can we just forget her please?
There are better women in gaming sphere to talk about things that Anita talks about (one particular example that comes in mind is Leigh Alexander)

And now excuse me, I will go and try to find some rehab clinic that will help me to get rid of addiction.

P.S. Also- only 800 posts to go, keep it up people!

Tenmar:
You mean aside from already proving that she was wealthy enough to travel the world before this whole controversy and instead of using secondary sources(IE the games) she could of actually interviewed publishers, developers and marketers to understand the narrative, the design and the intention of the games created?

And where did it say on the kickstarter page that she was interested in finding out the intentions and views of developers and marketers? If you're analyzing a work, there is no need to go ask the creator for their opinion, and you shouldn't be penalized because you dared not to ask the creator their opinions on whether what they did was sexist or not.

Stalydan:
Well the quality of the videos seems unchanged, the only two differences I could give are new visual animations for the opening and visual demonstrations in the episodes and that her background went from red to blue. They hardly seem to be at all different apart from maybe she's purchased an updated Adobe collection (although her video on how "sexist" the ads on torrent sites makes me believe that "purchased" might not be true).

I'm not familiar with the tech needed to make videos nor their price (though Dan did mention how the equipment for No Right Answer was several thousand dollars), but her kickstarter page does mention that she was working with crappy equipment prior to the kickstarter and the original amount was going to cover some upgrades, with the first stretch goal covering a bunch of them.

Some of the upgrades I'd like to invest in are: a wireless lavallière microphone (which will vastly improve the audio quality), a better studio lighting kit (so I will look less orange), a current generation editing computer/system, harddrives with expanded storage capacity (HD video takes up a lot of bytes), and I would also like to integrate some small After Effects animations to make the videos even more engaging. Achieving this stretch goal will help make this series even more awesome.

And, watching one of her older videos alongside one of the newer ones makes it pretty easy to tell the difference. There are more animations, the lighting is better, the sound is better, and they're also roughly three times as long. It all certainly looks and sounds a hell of a lot better.

As for purchasing games, if she did, I'd like to know why she's not recording her own gameplay footage rather than taking others. For some older games she uses, I can understand that finding a copy can be difficult so using Let's Play footage is easier but for many of the newer games she mentions, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

I'm not really familiar with video capture software/tech (which doesn't seem all that cheap), but maybe she didn't like using it? I'm glad you're not taking the usual route of "She took videos from Let's Plays, so she obviously didn't play the games!" but maybe it's just her being pragmatic? If you had a huge amount of games to play and videos to make, would you be spending your time replaying games just to get that one scene when you could just take it from a video on youtube? I will say that she should have credited the people she took the videos from, but that's about it.

And with $160,000, this series can become much bigger than it was originally intended to be. Set up interviews with game devs and other feminist gamers who want to share their opinion. Have discussions with the audience at live events. Even for $6000, the show feels the exact same way as it did before and with even poorer research on many of the games she is discussing.

Again, you can tell the difference when watching the old and the new, and criticisms of her research I'm wary of accepting without an argument. As for the rest, this is supposed to be a look at tropes vs. women in video games, not the developer's opinions nor the opinions of feminist gamers. Maybe when she's done she'll do live events or another project involving such things, but that's not the point of this series and it's rather petty to say that she has to expand the entire thing just because people gave her extra money.

Am I a backer? No. I hadn't even heard of her until her Kickstarter went viral and I didn't see a point to donate as the show wasn't one of my interests at the time. I've since watched her videos to have insight and my opinion of her is that she isn't really all that interesting herself but happened to gain a lot of attention. Of feminist critique, she's kind of lower mid-ground because many of her subjects are poorly researched and tend to just be repeats of what more interesting people and critics have previously said.

So you're not a backer, but you're going to claim that the backers are pissed at her for not making the series 25 times better to scale with the money. I've never seen a backer complain about it, unless all the anti-feminists who constantly rage against Sarkeesian are in the closet about the whole thing. And, while I agree that she's not the feminist messiah nor infallible, I'm not going to take potshots at her series because of this or that petty reason.

Stalydan:

Verlander:
Fed up of the discussion on money: "What did she need $6000 for?"

How about anything? A Big Mac doesn't cost what they charge for it, nor does a car, nor does a football performance, nor does a lecture. She went for an amount of money that she decided was reasonable for her time, considering the subject at hand. To throw into perspective, in my industry it's standard to charge about US$1650 (equivalent, I'm not in America)for every hour spent working for a client. People don't just do 3 hours per week either, I'm talking solid 9 hour days, everyday, and that's not even close to what top earners are on.

Is $160,000 a lot? Sure. However arguing whether she deserves it, or whether people are getting what they paid for, is stupid. People knew what they were getting, and they paid for it. If they didn't know what they were getting, they deserve to loose their money, because she was very clear about what she was going to deliver.

The problem with what you is that it's not stupid for people to expect more from this. She asked for $6000 but there doesn't seem to be any different in quality, nevermind $160,000. She's never addressed what she plans to do with the extra money either so the backers do have a right to be pissed and question what's going on.

ok who is actually pissed about it? I mean I have never once heard any of the backers actually get pissed I only hear people who are complaining about her that are pissed.

Oh and before you say "I'm a backer and i'm pissed" I'm gonna need proof that you are a backer and not just a concern troll.

It seems the people who did back her are happy with what she has produced.

Her kickstarter said what she needed the money for and she said exactly what you would get for it. I don't understand how this is even an issue.

LifeCharacter:

And with $160,000, this series can become much bigger than it was originally intended to be. Set up interviews with game devs and other feminist gamers who want to share their opinion. Have discussions with the audience at live events. Even for $6000, the show feels the exact same way as it did before and with even poorer research on many of the games she is discussing.

Again, you can tell the difference when watching the old and the new, and criticisms of her research I'm wary of accepting without an argument. As for the rest, this is supposed to be a look at tropes vs. women in video games, not the developer's opinions nor the opinions of feminist gamers. Maybe when she's done she'll do live events or another project involving such things, but that's not the point of this series and it's rather petty to say that she has to expand the entire thing just because people gave her extra money.

I feel the same way that Chris did here in that Anita knows that $6000 turning into $160,000 means she has to expand. Interject her videos with discussions with other female gamers to both give examples of a point and why it may or may not be harmful and to interview developers to find out why certain choices were made.

Much like a certain arachnid superhero, with great power comes great responsibility. In Anita's case, it should be to expand this project to where it feels like $160,000 went into it.

Am I a backer? No. I hadn't even heard of her until her Kickstarter went viral and I didn't see a point to donate as the show wasn't one of my interests at the time. I've since watched her videos to have insight and my opinion of her is that she isn't really all that interesting herself but happened to gain a lot of attention. Of feminist critique, she's kind of lower mid-ground because many of her subjects are poorly researched and tend to just be repeats of what more interesting people and critics have previously said.

So you're not a backer, but you're going to claim that the backers are pissed at her for not making the series 25 times better to scale with the money. I've never seen a backer complain about it, unless all the anti-feminists who constantly rage against Sarkeesian are in the closet about the whole thing. And, while I agree that she's not the feminist messiah nor infallible, I'm not going to take potshots at her series because of this or that petty reason.

Well I don't deny that I've not seen many backers getting pissed about it, I believe that they have the right to be as much as anyone else has the right to question her about what she'll do with the extra money. It's only natural for people to enquire what she intends to do in this situation. Yes, she has justified where the original $6000 went but there's still $154,000 people would still like to know about.

bobleponge:

DrOswald:

bobleponge:

It's like two plumbers debating the best way to build a bridge. Sure, they might have read up on it, and they might be smart guys, but wouldn't you rather have an actual bridge engineer (aka someone who knows what they're talking about) be part of the conversation?

(also for this example, imagine that people debate how to build bridges a lot, while bridge engineers are almost never consulted)

Maybe, but that doesn't fit the comparison you drew with your initial statement. Being a victim of racism/sexism hardly qualifies an individual to make informed and useful contributions in those fields.

To extend your analogy, just because you fell off of a faulty bridge doesn't mean you are qualified to build a better bridge. You can talk about how much it sucks when a bridge breaks, but that is the end of your special expertise.

And besides, there have been highly successful reformers have not been in the actual group of the oppressed or been formally trained in the field of social reform. Richard Pankhurst, for example, was a major (and highly successful) advocate of women's rights.

The ultimate point is that dismissing a person's view solely because of their race/sex is an inherently racist/sexist thing to do.

You're missing the point. You aren't being dismissed because of your race/sex, you are being dismissed because you don't have the experience of being a different race/sex. You don't know what it's like to be a woman/different race, so why would you think you're qualified to talk about their experiences?

Your metaphor only proves my point further. The person falling off the bridge doesn't know how to build bridges, so why should we listen to them when they tell us how to build bridges? On the flipside, the bridge engineers don't know what it's like to fall off a bridge, so why should we listen to them when they try to argue that falling off a bridge isn't that bad?

And yes, there have been plenty of men advocating for women's rights. You know why? Because they listened to the women who actually had the experiences. They didn't discuss what to do about the issue with their guy friends, then decide that, whatever, they didn't see what the big deal was.

You've heard of Qualitative studies correct? The entire basis a number of scientific theories are set upon is made up of first hand accounts of the affected population. So while a scientist, or even sociologist can't literally "walk a mile in someone else's shoes" they very easily can discuss with that person what walking in their shoes is like.

It is then that "expertise" that they draw from to then argue certain points outside their inherent skillset.

So I'm sorry, but I do think that given the proper research I can very easily argue what it must be like for a woman in a rather male-dominated society, or a foreigner living abroad.

bobdole1979:

Stalydan:

Verlander:
Fed up of the discussion on money: "What did she need $6000 for?"

How about anything? A Big Mac doesn't cost what they charge for it, nor does a car, nor does a football performance, nor does a lecture. She went for an amount of money that she decided was reasonable for her time, considering the subject at hand. To throw into perspective, in my industry it's standard to charge about US$1650 (equivalent, I'm not in America)for every hour spent working for a client. People don't just do 3 hours per week either, I'm talking solid 9 hour days, everyday, and that's not even close to what top earners are on.

Is $160,000 a lot? Sure. However arguing whether she deserves it, or whether people are getting what they paid for, is stupid. People knew what they were getting, and they paid for it. If they didn't know what they were getting, they deserve to loose their money, because she was very clear about what she was going to deliver.

The problem with what you is that it's not stupid for people to expect more from this. She asked for $6000 but there doesn't seem to be any different in quality, nevermind $160,000. She's never addressed what she plans to do with the extra money either so the backers do have a right to be pissed and question what's going on.

ok who is actually pissed about it? I mean I have never once heard any of the backers actually get pissed I only hear people who are complaining about her that are pissed.

Oh and before you say "I'm a backer and i'm pissed" I'm gonna need proof that you are a backer and not just a concern troll.

It seems the people who did back her are happy with what she has produced.

Her kickstarter said what she needed the money for and she said exactly what you would get for it. I don't understand how this is even an issue.

I'm already discussing this in the posts below the original and above this one. I'd see those so I'm not wasting either of our time reposting what's already there.

Stalydan:
The problem with what you is that it's not stupid for people to expect more from this. She asked for $6000 but there doesn't seem to be any different in quality, nevermind $160,000. She's never addressed what she plans to do with the extra money either so the backers do have a right to be pissed and question what's going on.

So? She has a right to not divulge budget spendings, every Kickstarter is the same in this regard. I do not recall people clamoring for every cent to be accounted for in Double Fine's $2+ million Kickstarter fundraising. Or the Ouya, or Wasteland 2, or any other project to my recollection. After all I'm sure you could make a game, or any other project, for far less than whatever they got and people have.

Stretch goals were put in reaction to the blowup of money. Not sure what the hell anyone would do with 160k, hell if I know what I would do with that money.

I'm not quite sure if people understand that a budget is not fed into a budget machine and product comes out.

Jumplion:

Stalydan:
The problem with what you is that it's not stupid for people to expect more from this. She asked for $6000 but there doesn't seem to be any different in quality, nevermind $160,000. She's never addressed what she plans to do with the extra money either so the backers do have a right to be pissed and question what's going on.

So? She has a right to not divulge budget spendings, every Kickstarter is the same in this regard. I do not recall people clamoring for every cent to be accounted for in Double Fine's $2+ million Kickstarter fundraising. Or the Ouya, or Wasteland 2, or any other project to my recollection. After all I'm sure you could make a game, or any other project, for far less than whatever they got and people have.

Stretch goals were put in reaction to the blowup of money. Not sure what the hell anyone would do with 160k, hell if I know what I would do with that money.

I'm not quite sure if people understand that a budget is not fed into a budget machine and product comes out.

Well I'd argue that with the projects you referenced, people were getting products back from it that would eventually go on sale with more usually added when the funding reaches past certain marks. With Anita's campaign, the product would go on to YouTube for anyone to watch it for free. Like argued above, more should be put into the series than is currently being done. For $13,000 an episode, it lacks it in the content.

Quadocky:

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. You see, Anita is expressing basic Feminist ideas, and even those seem to throw gamers into a tizzy. See the problem yet?

The problem is taken down to the very basics applying those principals. They don't apply well to real life. That's not to say here I'm against equal rights as I'm not the issue is there's a reason equal rights ideology can't be truly broken down that far and still be sensibly applied to real life. Feminism is applicable to real life in due to the added complexity round the main principals. just quoting Feminism 101 without trying to apply it to the real world just pointing at the world and going "change this it's wrong" is more problematic because you're then saying it's wrong without trying to understand the reasoning for it. Also by not looking into solutions for it you can overlook the fact it's the way it is for a reason and while it may not be great there's very little else practical that can be done.

If you boil equal rights down to the core idea its that everything must appeal to everyone. In a real world that's not possible and would only work if everyone were the same. That shows the problem with boiling ideas down to their core. The reason the ideas work is because of extra understanding and additions to the core ideas to make them applicable.

If you look at some other peoples writings you'll see they've actually got a grasp upon the real world. The idea that Men and Women might want to buy different products for example and shockingly the idea that's actually not a bad thing. Equal rights shouldn't be about turning everything into a shade of grey and everything being designed for everyone. Equal rights should have an understanding that people are all different and to provide something for them in some to the same level or a level appropriate to the required demand.

Holy shit guys! More of this!! You ACTUALLY openned up honest conversation about her in an intelligent way!!!!

To those who defend her lately(me included) it's been less about "I completely agree with her" and more about "lets discuss what she brought to the table" because threatening to rape and kill her, flagging her videos for no reason, making fun of her as a person, and generally shutting down her comments sections on her videos does not allow for intelligent conversation.

She is right about a LOT of things, but she's also plenty wrong. I agree that nintendo has kind of jumped the shark on this front. I have no problem with Princess Peach, but then you bring up starfox adventures and it's roots, and Zelda never getting to be a bad ass unless she LITERALLY looks like a guy and suddenly it is a little on the nose. That isn't to say any of those games are actually bad(well I really didn't like starfox adventures honestly) but rather that missed opportunity is rife.

On the other hand, she makes the argument excessively one sided, she plays the worst parts of certain things, she doesn't bring up any examples of HOW to do it in the video(and it's not like their aren't quite a few, if she spent time talking about what beyond good and evil and mirror's edge did right then she'd have a full argument.) and she ignores cultural issues in her examples(sorry peeps, but japan is WAY more Chauvinistic than the USA, that's one of the only thing they do worse than us...), she also used other youtubers footage without crediting the source. There ARE things that don't make sense about the whole thing too.

The thing is, when so many people violently lash out, you really bring home a bit of this "boy's club" mentality and make her look way more legitimate than she possibly is. She isn't a devil, or an evil person(at least not from what she's done, with some of it ONLY being questionable at best.) and honestly I'm personally TIRED of trite two-dimensional female characters in my games. It's only getting better and that's great, but meeting the argument in the middle benefits all, while drawing lines in the sand has mostly benefited only her.

Let's keep it civil and talk this out.

Stalydan:
Well I'd argue that with the projects you referenced, people were getting products back from it that would eventually go on sale with more usually added when the funding reaches past certain marks. With Anita's campaign, the product would go on to YouTube for anyone to watch it for free. Like argued above, more should be put into the series than is currently being done. For $13,000 an episode, it lacks it in the content.

In your eyes, at least, it lacks content. Not sure what anyone would do with a sudden influx of cash like that, but whatever she wants to do with it is her business. Budget is not split up evenly into "1000 for sound, 1000 for lights, 1000 for graphics..." and to do it like that would be finance suicide, though certain general allocations could be estimated, sure. This idea of "every episode is $13k, and I don't see $13k worth of work done!" is egregious in its assumption on how projects and made.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, it doesn't matter what you felt the project should have been, it matters what Sarkeesian wanted to do with the project. I'd say you missed my point on the other projects, as my point wasn't whether they'd get enough funding, the opposite infact, but the fact that nobody questions their sudden flood of cash and where it goes. Whether it ends up as a free project to view or a paid product does not matter.

LifeCharacter:

Stalydan:
The problem with what you is that it's not stupid for people to expect more from this. She asked for $6000 but there doesn't seem to be any different in quality, nevermind $160,000. She's never addressed what she plans to do with the extra money either so the backers do have a right to be pissed and question what's going on.

Maybe she needed the $6,000 the money to buy the games, or take time off work to make the videos, or for better software/hardware that you might not be able to really notice. As for $160,000, what the hell do people complaining about this want her to do? She set three damn stretch goals going up to 26,000, to include extra videos and equipment/quality upgrades, what is she supposed to use all that extra money for when it's a video series on youtube?

This is, of course, assuming that you and all those people who constantly bring up this rather hollow complaint are backers, because they're the only ones who really have the right to be angry about her use of the money they gave her knowing that she had already received way more than she needed. Though, I've yet to see her backers come out in protest of her not somehow forcing $160,000 into the videos, just random people who will use any excuse to whine about that evil feminist.

To record her own footage or to adequately pay those providing footage ?

To fully research topics brought up ?

Sorry but you did ask and I'm going with incompetence as to the reason for certain omissions over deliberate bias here on her part.

Believe me you can see a jump in the quality of productions I've made before with just £30 ($50) more funding. Sure to push it further more cash is needed up $160,000 should still show some jump.

ShadowHamster:
Holy shit guys! More of this!! You ACTUALLY openned up honest conversation about her in an intelligent way!!!!

To those who defend her lately(me included) it's been less about "I completely agree with her" and more about "lets discuss what she brought to the table" because threatening to rape and kill her, flagging her videos for no reason, making fun of her as a person, and generally shutting down her comments sections on her videos does not allow for intelligent conversation.

She is right about a LOT of things, but she's also plenty wrong. I agree that nintendo has kind of jumped the shark on this front. I have no problem with Princess Peach, but then you bring up starfox adventures and it's roots, and Zelda never getting to be a bad ass unless she LITERALLY looks like a guy and suddenly it is a little on the nose. That isn't to say any of those games are actually bad(well I really didn't like starfox adventures honestly) but rather that missed opportunity is rife.

Except Zelda has had her own adventure. On the CDI........ As for Star Fox here's a slight bit of information that kind of changes the context. In the very next game in the series Krystal is part of the star fox mercenary team and as such a space ship fighter pilot. Thats not to mention the fact actually Zelda is the one who defeats Gannon in the end.

If you look at Star Fox as "female fox gets taken hostage as a Damsel in distress" then yes it does look bad. If you take it as this "Person from less developed civilisation getting in over their depth against a far more technologically advanced enemy" then it makes sense. The Idea being anyone from a tribe on the planet who took up arms would have faced the same fate. If anything the fact it is a female character that took up arms should say more than her being taken hostage.

What a lot of the sexism claims boil down to are the relation of items of symbols associated with women being used.

Is Shiek still the female princess Zelda ? Well yes so its still her.

A lot of the rallying against sexism being brought out is due to the appearance of the characters.

One such thing brought up in a previous video of hers about lego was objecting to make up and the implication of cleavage being the way to identify female lego figures. Along with objecting to the fact there are now male and female figures due to their feature. Again its taking equal rights and boiling it down to the core with lego saying all the characters must be genderless things. The problem being humans themselves are not gender less and people are all different.

ShadowHamster:

On the other hand, she makes the argument excessively one sided, she plays the worst parts of certain things, she doesn't bring up any examples of HOW to do it in the video(and it's not like their aren't quite a few, if she spent time talking about what beyond good and evil and mirror's edge did right then she'd have a full argument.) and she ignores cultural issues in her examples(sorry peeps, but japan is WAY more Chauvinistic than the USA, that's one of the only thing they do worse than us...), she also used other youtubers footage without crediting the source. There ARE things that don't make sense about the whole thing too.

The thing is, when so many people violently lash out, you really bring home a bit of this "boy's club" mentality and make her look way more legitimate than she possibly is. She isn't a devil, or an evil person(at least not from what she's done, with some of it ONLY being questionable at best.) and honestly I'm personally TIRED of trite two-dimensional female characters in my games. It's only getting better and that's great, but meeting the argument in the middle benefits all, while drawing lines in the sand has mostly benefited only her.

Let's keep it civil and talk this out.

The problem is seemingly no-one can agree what a non 2D female character looks like really.

I've heard people say in all seriousness that Batman if he were female (all character still as is) would be a better female role model than Lara Croft or Samus Aran.

THANK YOU, LOGIC, FINALLY FROM THIS SITE WE HAVE LOGIC FROM THE ESCAPIST. Movie Bob and Jim, Please kindly take a lesson from these two, and then please suck it. As for you two, Thank you, you pretty much said what needed to be said to Anita

If you have an opinion on the Web, you will get backlash no matter if you are right or wrong.

Truer words were never spoken...ok there were but you get the point.

Really good vid guys.
I agree with your point, to get things done in a good way, a dialogue need to be established and she forbid it (for good reasons). She should ask for an interview with guys like you. Or you can ask her, why not ?
Without dialogue, nothing will change and everything she tries to do will fail and be forgotten.

I just think, fairly, that her groups should use their resources to supportes causes with more important and valuable consequences, like helping teenage mothers abandoned by their families and so on. But it's just my opinion of course, so no more valid than anyone else here or anywhere...

PS: God, i pushed the red button... It's horrible !!!!

Stalydan:
I feel the same way that Chris did here in that Anita knows that $6000 turning into $160,000 means she has to expand. Interject her videos with discussions with other female gamers to both give examples of a point and why it may or may not be harmful and to interview developers to find out why certain choices were made.

Much like a certain arachnid superhero, with great power comes great responsibility. In Anita's case, it should be to expand this project to where it feels like $160,000 went into it.

She doesn't "have" to do anything just because someone who unironically uses the term white knight said she should. The point of the series was to analyze sexism in video games through their use of tropes, not ask people how they feel about sexism and tropes in video games. She shouldn't have to change her entire damn plan just because she got more money than she asked for.

She's doing exactly what she wanted to do and said she would do. You want her to change her project because you don't see $160,000 in what she's doing, even though you have no idea what she's actually doing. She might have interviews and the extra bits people are complaining about her not having that just haven't shown up yet, it's not like the series is anywhere near over. Or maybe she has an animated short film in one of the episodes that she paid for. I'm not going to assume that she hasn't used the money just because I can't see a $13,000 price stamp on each episode.

Well I don't deny that I've not seen many backers getting pissed about it, I believe that they have the right to be as much as anyone else has the right to question her about what she'll do with the extra money. It's only natural for people to enquire what she intends to do in this situation. Yes, she has justified where the original $6000 went but there's still $154,000 people would still like to know about.

So ask her about what she'll do with the extra money, don't just say that, because her videos don't look like they're worth $13,000, she needs to force that money into the project. Maybe she'll donate it to a charity. Or maybe she'll put it towards a project after this one because she should finish what the people actually gave money for before going onto something new; there are already enough people bitching about how slow she is in releasing videos.

Or maybe she'll keep it and buy a nice car for herself, making everyone who used every petty reason to take potshots at her feel validated for their efforts.

The_Kodu:
To record her own footage or to adequately pay those providing footage ?

I've already answered why she might not record her own footage, but the latter part deserves mention in the Let's Players (?) are not entitled to anything more than a credit (which I feel she should have given them). They're not paying the developers to use their entire game for their video, so why should she pay them to use a clip of them using the developer's game for her video?

To fully research topics brought up ?

Yes yes her research is awful, her points are wrong, you don't like her, and your opinion on the quality of her research and videos are something everyone should take into consideration.

Believe me you can see a jump in the quality of productions I've made before with just £30 ($50) more funding. Sure to push it further more cash is needed up $160,000 should still show some jump.

There's a noticeable improvement in video quality since the kickstarter, but I'm pretty sure there's a point where some subtle improvement just isn't worth the expensive price tag. I don't know how much her current setup costs, nor do I know how much a setup that would be a noticeable improvement over her current one would cost, so I'm not going to be petty and demand that she get the most expensive thing she can just because she has the money for it.

The biggest problem with Anita honestly is the misguided belief, both by her and some of the audience, that she speaks for women on the whole. She doesn't. She does not speak for me or any of my girlfriends. Most of don't even agree with 90% of what she claims in the video series. And for me, that is the most frustrating issue. Are certain tropes played out to this day? Of course. Are we exclusively cannon fodder for them? Hell no. Are they all negative? No. But most importantly, could the point have gotten across in a far better fashion without throwing gamers and women that don't agree with her own view uder the bus? You bet your ass.

Her videos weren't well structured, weren't open to debate, and broke some of the cardinal sins of discourse. She cherry picked like crazy, ignored current trends in exchanged for dated examples, and sang to the choir on numerous occassions. This is not how you do a good video series. If you want to know how a good series is handled, check out PBS Idea Channel on YouTube, a group that actually does their research and argues BOTH sides.

LifeCharacter:

Stalydan:
I feel the same way that Chris did here in that Anita knows that $6000 turning into $160,000 means she has to expand. Interject her videos with discussions with other female gamers to both give examples of a point and why it may or may not be harmful and to interview developers to find out why certain choices were made.

Much like a certain arachnid superhero, with great power comes great responsibility. In Anita's case, it should be to expand this project to where it feels like $160,000 went into it.

She doesn't "have" to do anything just because someone who unironically uses the term white knight said she should. The point of the series was to analyze sexism in video games through their use of tropes, not ask people how they feel about sexism and tropes in video games. She shouldn't have to change her entire damn plan just because she got more money than she asked for.

She's doing exactly what she wanted to do and said she would do. You want her to change her project because you don't see $160,000 in what she's doing, even though you have no idea what she's actually doing. She might have interviews and the extra bits people are complaining about her not having that just haven't shown up yet, it's not like the series is anywhere near over. Or maybe she has an animated short film in one of the episodes that she paid for. I'm not going to assume that she hasn't used the money just because I can't see a $13,000 price stamp on each episode.

Well I don't deny that I've not seen many backers getting pissed about it, I believe that they have the right to be as much as anyone else has the right to question her about what she'll do with the extra money. It's only natural for people to enquire what she intends to do in this situation. Yes, she has justified where the original $6000 went but there's still $154,000 people would still like to know about.

So ask her about what she'll do with the extra money, don't just say that, because her videos don't look like they're worth $13,000, she needs to force that money into the project. Maybe she'll donate it to a charity. Or maybe she'll put it towards a project after this one because she should finish what the people actually gave money for before going onto something new; there are already enough people bitching about how slow she is in releasing videos.

Or maybe she'll keep it and buy a nice car for herself, making everyone who used every petty reason to take potshots at her feel validated for their efforts.

The problem is that she does have $160,000 and she should use it on the project. Whether it's through marketing her videos, increasing production values or going the extra mile to research her topics, she's socially obligated to use that money that people invested into the series which is releasing at a snail's pace. And yes, people have invested into it and only two parts of a twelve (IIRC) part series have been released, neither of which have presented facts that weren't already on wikipedia or gaming news websites, accessible with a quick google, and sometimes inaccurately.

Stalydan:
-

There was backers on 4chan who was upset about Anita based on several things.
A)She's fucking late in getting those videos out. People were actually shitting a brick when she missed her deadline by several months to get her video out.
B)Her video didn't look all that much different from the usual set up.
C)Misrepresenting facts from your examples or getting shit wrong, and the infamous killing your possessed girlfriend who's the final boss leads to actual domestic abuse. Also sounds like she read shit out of T.V. tropes.

Honestly I stopped paying attention to her because of the second vid, and also because it takes her forever to get the videos out.

I think she's okay. Maybe not the best at presenting, but ok.

Stalydan:
The problem is that she does have $160,000 and she should use it on the project. Whether it's through marketing her videos, increasing production values or going the extra mile to research her topics, she's socially obligated to use that money that people invested into the series which is releasing at a snail's pace. And yes, people have invested into it and only two parts of a twelve (IIRC) part series have been released, neither of which have presented facts that weren't already on wikipedia or gaming news websites, accessible with a quick google, and sometimes inaccurately.

She's socially obligated to make the video series she promised her backers, not to meet the demands of every random commentator who keeps going on and on about how her series doesn't look like a $160,000 series. Her backers didn't give her all that money on the condition that she significantly expand beyond her original intention, they gave her the money to make the video series she promised and to just flat out give her support. Interviewing developers is not a required part of analyzing a video game's use of tropes, and I doubt doing such things actually cost money, unless all these news sights that interview developers are paying them for it. And, again, you have no idea what the rest of the series looks like; the next episode could have cost $50,000 to make for all you know.

But, iff you have a problem with her arguments, talk about the arguments, don't get petty and complain that her series doesn't look expensive enough for all the money people who aren't you gave her. Because that's exactly what this and the Let's Play issue are, petty little gripes that have no bearing on her actual arguments and only serve as little wins for detractors to celebrate.

Anita Sarkeesian is not a real gamer:

She's not a gamer, that's all there is to it. She's a pop culture critic.

ShadowHamster:
and Zelda never getting to be a bad ass unless she LITERALLY looks like a guy and suddenly it is a little on the nose.

I've always felt that to be one of her weakest examples. Is she really suggesting that Nintendo are implying, intentional or otherwise, that simply "looking" like a man is enough to make a woman more capable? It also comes off as disingenuous as it implies "Sheik" is able to avoid capture on his skill whereas "Zelda", a girl, can't avoid capture at all, ignoring the elephant in the room that Sheiks "skill" wasn't preventing the capture but rather the disguise itself, hence when the disguise was discarded capture was easy.

Moral of the story if you're a princess[or prince for that matter] trying to avoid capture dressing up as the opposite sex is probably a good idea.

Ok one point I've seen over and over again is that with Kickstarter you're not allowed spend the funding on other projects and all that kind of stuff. But the fact is, she is spending that 150 grand on something somewhere. You say she doesn't need to expand the project or maybe invest the money in another project with some kind of transparency to show that the money is going to the cause. But would that be more morally dubious than using that money for personal spending really?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here