Support NeoGAF

[ixix]

I'm not sure how rejecting authorial intent makes it impossible for irony to exist. All New Criticism says is that it doesn't matter what the author's intent was, what matters is what the fiction achieves. The reader/critic can see an ironic/satirical portrayal of something like sexism or ultraviolence and appreciate it as ironic without ever knowing the author's intent, and even without the author intending it to be so. You're arguing that irony can't exist without knowledge of the author intending it to, which sort of flies in the face of the definition of irony.

I didn't say that rejecting authorial intent makes it impossible for irony to exist. I just said it makes satirical depictions effectively identical to serious ones. A satirical depiction can still be interpreted as satirical, but it can also be interpreted as a completely by-the-numbers depiction of what it is satirizing, with both interpretations being valid.

I don't think this is a particularly controversial statement.

 

[tkscz]

This is the same reason that it is considered impossible to satirize sexist tropes, as she alludes to in one of those interviews. Any satirical depiction is effectively indistinguishable from an entirely serious depiction in postmodern thought.

Here lies one of the problems I had in one of her videos (Straw Feminist). When she pointed out Family Guy, and South park, I just could no longer take anything she said serious. Shows like that spoof everything. They aren't trying to be mean, or say this is the way that feminist really are, they are purposely making a character like that as a joke. In a sense, making fun of the troupe and not supporting it as she makes it seem. Let's not forget that at the end of that powerpuff girls episode, they learn what real feminist are like and simply through that straw feminist in jail. Strangely she missed that.

Maybe it's because comedy is a passion of mine, but I feel that if she can't take a joke, or look at all sides of an argument, that she shouldn't really be analyzing something as sexist as video games. Again, I'm afraid she's going to find something that was never meant to be sexist, that was all in fun, and make it seem awful.

 

[plagiarize]

Postmodernism rejects authorial intent outright; that something was never meant to be sexist doesn't mean that it isn't sexist. It also posits that all portrayals are part of emergent systems, so there's not really such a thing as a minute portrayal of sexism. A completely ancillary background character inserted into a work with the intent of being either benign or even empowering which embodies elements of overarching sexist portrayals is sexist; the intent of the creator and the importance of the character within the work as a whole is irrelevant.

This is the same reason that it is considered impossible to satirize sexist tropes, as she alludes to in one of those interviews. Any satirical depiction is effectively indistinguishable from an entirely serious depiction in postmodern thought. This is the clause that gets Lollipop Chainsaw in trouble, and is what I was alluding to earlier when the discussion briefly turned to it and No More Heroes.

well, yes that's all true... but my brain doesn't work in post modernism, and i don't react in post modernism, and the fact that Lollipop Cheerleader is being embraced by a section of women certainly suggests that, sexist or not, there is more to it than a game that is just out and out sexist.

the creator's intent may be irrelevant to the final product, but do you seriously believe that we don't end up with less sexism in games if we have less sexist people making them (not suggesting that everyone making games is sexist, just making a hypothetical point)?

 

[tiff]

Of course it was possible. It just costs more bytes. And if you broke the 128k limit, then you would have to put more ROM in there.

And the one you linked to is boobs and face. If you cut the boobs, it could possibly be also a man (it was the 80s, you know). And using the linked one instead would have made the situation worse.

Just a face and making it obvious that it's a female would have been pretty hard, especially because you couldn't use lipstick (would be sexist) or eye-liner (would be sexist again). I mean why should Samus have make-up on? For whom? She was just on a space mission alone? So it would be obvious make-up meant for the player. I'm just using the logic of some people ITT.

Sorry, I guess I was looking at it from a reasonable perspective as opposed to one where I looked for every available opportunity to be offended. That does make sense, yes.

 

[Black_Stride]

You missed the point of one or more items here.
Either you misinterpreted the point of the scene you posted
Or you misinterpreted the point of the post you quoted.
Maybe both.
But either way your wrongness is entertaining.

 

[JessicaPadkin]

Alice: Madness Returns is probably the best example I can think of, of a game written by a man that goes against pretty much all the negative, cliched, stereotypes. Alice's character design is attractive but in no way sexualised. she is not defined by her relationships with men. we explore her personality (and solve her problems) by delving into her subconciousness (which SHOCK! isn't remotely drawn with such cliched brushstrokes as repressed sexuality), and HUGE SPOILER

Spoiler

the entire game is her resisting being sexualised by her psychiatrist who wants to turn her into a child prostitute.

it's also a great game.

Incidentally, American McGee posted on Facebook today that he'd backed this KickStarter campaign.

 

[Klyka]

Looks like she's gonna buy herself a nice new car or two with that money soon.
You go, girl!

 

[GungHo]

Samus is Kathy Griffin.

 

[ixix]

Let's not forget that at the end of that powerpuff girls episode, they learn what real feminist are like and simply through that straw feminist in jail. Strangely she missed that.

At the risk of sounding a bit like a broken record, I don't think she missed the ending of that episode of the Powerpuff Girls. The ending just doesn't really matter in terms of postmodern criticism. The important thing is that it has a character who presents ostensibly feminist viewpoints while being portrayed negatively, and this character is consistent with other depictions of negatively portrayed characters presenting ostensibly feminist viewpoints. This episode of the Powerpuff Girls is therefore part of an emergent system which stigmatizes feminist viewpoints by portraying them unfairly, quod erat demonstrandum.

Remember that the thing being criticized is not an episode of the Powerpuff Girls, the thing being criticized is a portrayal of feminist characters across various media. The Powerpuff Girls are pretty much entirely ancillary to the discussion, and only serve as a single example of the trend under discussion.

the creator's intent may be irrelevant to the final product, but do you seriously believe that we don't end up with less sexism in games if we have less sexist people making them (not suggesting that everyone making games is sexist, just making a hypothetical point)?

Just so we're on the same page here, are you addressing this question to me, or is it rhetorical?

 

[PBalfredo]

It's interesting watching this thread and seeing Samus, once a feminist icon for being the pioneer of strong capable women as the main protagonist of a high profile game early in the lifespan of video games, to suddenly being a sexist plaything for men because she wore a bikini that one time.

 

[CaptainSchwann]

Looks like Carrot Top.

Lol I saw that and thought "I didn't know Carrot Top got a game!"

 

[7Th]

It's interesting watching this thread and seeing Samus, once a feminist icon for being the pioneer of strong capable women as the main protagonist of a high profile game early in the lifespan of video games, to suddenly being a sexist plaything for men because she wore a bikini that one time.

Other M is the Spiderman 3 of Metroid.

 

[conman]

This is the same reason that it is considered impossible to satirize sexist tropes, as she alludes to in one of those interviews. Any satirical depiction is effectively indistinguishable from an entirely serious depiction in postmodern thought.

Using a subject-less phrase like "it is considered impossible..." should tip you off to the fact that no one actually "considers" any such thing. And I think your conclusion is actually backwards. The upshot of poststructural/deconstructionist/postmodern thought (1970s/1980s) is that all representation is citational, satiric, and ironic, not the other way around. And that's not to mention that these are all outdated modes of criticism anyway.

I'm not sure how rejecting authorial intent makes it impossible for irony to exist. All New Criticism says is that it doesn't matter what the author's intent was, what matters is what the fiction achieves. The reader/critic can see an ironic/satirical portrayal of something like sexism or ultraviolence and appreciate it as ironic without ever knowing the author's intent, and even without the author intending it to be so. You're arguing that irony can't exist without knowledge of the author intending it to, which sort of flies in the face of the definition of irony.

Not quite. New Criticism (1940s/1950s) wasn't interested in individual reader response. It had to do with how specific techniques, words, phrases encode specific meanings within texts. In other words, for the New Critics, texts have inherent meanings independent of authors or readers. So, no.

Also, I think it's funny that the two of you are using historically incompatible critical frameworks to argue against one another.

trope has come to mean what it means in reference to story because we needed a better word than 'cliche' which has inherantly negative connotations. when a word is needed, sometimes another will be reappropriated, and that is what has happened here. a word, barely used anymore, has come to mean what it is now mainly used for, so much so that some dictionaries have started recognising the new meaning, even if the OED has yet to.

it doesn't make her sound uneducated.

It's one thing to use a word in its popular sense in conversation or in an entertainment outlet, but as soon as she claims that she intends her project to be included in classrooms, the expectations change. You'll find "a whole nother" used all the time, but you can't expect to put it in a professional, educational document in a serious way and expect not to be seen as uneducated. Same thing when you misuse the word "trope." It's one thing when a popular entertainment website uses it (like TV Tropes), but it's another if part of her Kickstarter pitch is for educational purposes.

Also, we don't need another word for what she means. We already have them. The word she means to use is "motif," "theme," "conceit," "convention," or "stereotype." "Trope" already has a specific meaning in textual analysis. I mean, try telling a carpenter that a "hammer" isn't just a hammer, but that it is also a screwdriver. It's one thing for non-carpenters to use a term in multiple ways, but when you start moving into the carpenter's area of expertise, technical specificity matters.

 

[Platy]

Ok. I have never seen this breakdown before. I had just seen the video thought it was cool, thought what the boys on 4chan was doing was uncool, but I'm starting to see why they might be pissed here.

When I was playing the original Metroid on NES. I did not know initially that Samus was even a female, I also did not know until the end of the game that they would show her in her Bikini. From my recollection, none of these games have ever said.

"Hey guys, you'll really want to play and beat this game to see Samus Arans sexy body"

That was never advertised to me when I was around six or eight years old. I played and beat the original Metroid because it was an awesome game. I had no inkling they would show a sprite in a bra and panty, my reward was the experience of the design of that game. Just my God now. Someone please rationalise this for me in a different light that I am not seeing please.

They never advertised that if you touched that mushroom you would get the reward of being more powerful

Yet, it is a reward

exactly. whether you are aware of it or not, Metroid definately presents Samus being shown in a bikini as a *reward* for higher levels of play. i cannot think of any high profile game where an image of a semi naked man is presented as a reward. can you?

...if you beat Street Fighter VS Tekken with Zangief and Bob they get thing and handsome.
...but it is played for laughs, not fanservice

Trolling indeed, but there is some truth in there...

The only truth I see is the fact that people love silent protagonists =P

True but you forget that Metroid

a) was made in 1986

b) and that a lot of Japanese games over-sexualise women. Not to say that Western games don't.

a) So this only means eh was one fo the first =P

b) What does the region of the developer has anything to do with this ?

A major problem is how the developers and PR/Marketing teams view us, the gamers.

They assume that we will be paying close attention to Mileeena's booty, to how much skin Bayonetta will show, Cammy's ass e.t.c.

Personally I find that offensive and insulting. It's as if they think we are all a bunch of teens, filled with raging hormones, ready to fap at the thought of pixels.

I see that you never saw the Cosplay thread ....

Of course it was possible. It just costs more bytes. And if you broke the 128k limit, then you would have to put more ROM in there.

And the one you linked to is boobs and face. If you cut the boobs, it could possibly be also a man (it was the 80s, you know). And using the linked one instead would have made the situation worse.

Just a face and making it obvious that it's a female would have been pretty hard, especially because you couldn't use lipstick (would be sexist) or eye-liner (would be sexist again). I mean why should Samus have make-up on? For whom? She was just on a space mission alone? So it would be obvious make-up meant for the player. I'm just using the logic of some people ITT.

If you take out all the rewards for each time, you could have more than enoght space for a better drawing.

...or you could just write something along the lines of
"Space log 8763:
Finally finished my mission.
The Military dude who wanted the bounty hunter on Mother Brain congratulated me and gave me a medal... i'm the first woman ... no, first human being to have this medal"

It's interesting watching this thread and seeing Samus, once a feminist icon for being the pioneer of strong capable women as the main protagonist of a high profile game early in the lifespan of video games, to suddenly being a sexist plaything for men because she wore a bikini that one time.

The problem is only in the ending.... but you could say that she IS a feminist icon because she was "the best that you can get" ... wich is EXACTLY the same Poison example that i gave before =P

Poison is one of the best examples of transgender chars simple because she ..... exists =P

 

[ixix]

Using a subject-less phrase like "it is considered impossible..." should tip you off to the fact that no one actually "considers" any such thing. And I think your conclusion is actually backwards. The upshot of poststructural/deconstructionist/postmodern thought (1970s/1980s) is that all representation is citational, satiric, and ironic, not the other way around. And that's not to mention that these are all outdated modes of criticism anyway.

Firstly, the humor in you criticizing me for using a subject-less phrase while explaining a system of thought which explicitly makes no distinction between subjects and objects is not lost on me, I assure you. And if you weren't actually making that joke, well, I guess we're both lucky that that doesn't matter.

Secondly, I don't even know how to respond to your statement that my conclusion is backwards. The conclusion you seem to be referring to is my statement that in postmodern criticism satirical representations can be interpreted as serious, and serious representations can be interpreted as satirical, and that both interpretations are considered valid. You seem to be saying that I got it backwards and it's actually the case that serious representations can be interpreted as satirical, and satirical representations can be interpreted as serious. In which case, okay, I guess that's cool. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Also, I think it's funny that the two of you are using historically incompatible critical frameworks to argue against one another.

Seriously, what are you going on about? We weren't arguing, and I'm not using postmodernism as a critical framework. I gave a very basic overview of postmodern feminist media critical techniques in direct response to a poster who asked a question about them after watching Anita Sarkeesian's videos about tropes versus women. I explained as best I was able. We had a pleasant conversation. I can't speak for anyone else, but I found it edifying.

Now you're jumping in and saying that the conclusion that I didn't make was wrong because the truth is a slightly reworded version that is functionally identical. And that I'm forwarding an argument based on postmodern principles, even though I'm not. And that postmodernism is an outdated mode of criticism because I guess your post just wasn't quite nutso enough so let's throw in a vague and completely unelaborated-upon pejorative broadside against an entire school of thought!

I'm entirely willing (though, admittedly, far from eager at this point) to have a discussion about postmodern feminist media criticism, specifically as it pertains to the work of Anita Sarkeesian, the subject of this thread. I am not particularly interested in having such a discussion if you intend to continue spewing seven shades of crazy all over me, on the grounds that I just changed my pants.

 

[conman]

I think your thermostat is a little on the fritz. That wasn't meant as an attack, merely a (slightly tongue-in-cheek) correction to your redaction of "postmodern thought" and to the other poster's similarly incorrect redaction of New Criticism.

Though if my tongue were truly in my cheek, it may not be "cheeky" at all. I may just be worrying a sore spot on the inside of my mouth since I've been clenching my teeth so tightly while reading this thread. Honestly in shock over the vile defensiveness her work has brought out in people. If nothing else, she struck a nerve.

 

[Fuchsdh]

You know, whether or not you agree with the lady (I think she's got lots of good points, although her overall "solutions" are flawed), looking at the Kickstarter I just realized something that disturbs me:

She could make out like a bandit.

12 videos for $147,000? You can make full-length indie documentaries for far less and I don't see where she needs all this cash to do the videos she's been doing all along (yes, I get that she didn't ask for that much coin.)

I really hope she's going to donate a huge chunk of that to charity or something similar because if she said that all that money went into the videos, I'd say it's pretty much self-enrichment via scammy means.

 

[ixix]

I think your thermostat is a little on the fritz. That wasn't meant as an attack, merely a (slightly tongue-in-cheek) correction to your redaction of "postmodern thought" and to the other poster's similarly incorrect redaction of New Criticism.

Though if my tongue were truly in my cheek, it may not be "cheeky" at all. I may just be worrying the sore spot on the inside of my mouth since I've been clenching my teeth so tightly while reading this thread. Honestly in shock over the vile defensiveness her work has brought out in people. If nothing else, she struck a nerve.

Fair enough. I'm not really fond of postmodernism in general, and discussing it isn't something I particularly enjoy. I do not much care for the fact that Lollipop Chainsaw, of all things, has gotten me to break my proscription against discussing vague philosophies on the internet.

I genuinely did enjoy your "subject-less phrase" joke, for what it's worth.

 

[Kinyou]

You know, whether or not you agree with the lady (I think she's got lots of good points, although her overall "solutions" are flawed), looking at the Kickstarter I just realized something that disturbs me:

She could make out like a bandit.

12 videos for $147,000? You can make full-length indie documentaries for far less and I don't see where she needs all this cash to do the videos she's been doing all along (yes, I get that she didn't ask for that much coin.)

I really hope she's going to donate a huge chunk of that to charity or something similar because if she said that all that money went into the videos, I'd say it's pretty much self-enrichment via scammy means.

I wouldn't say it's scammy. People could see at anytime how much money the project already has. They saw that she already had reached her goal and still donated. Their choice.

Also, I assume that she isn't going to sell those videos? Because then the kickstarter money would also include her payment.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I wouldn't say it's scammy. People could see at anytime how much money the project already has. They saw that she already had reached her goal and still donated. Their choice.

Also, I assume that she isn't going to sell those videos? Because then the kickstarter money would also include her payment.

I know what you mean, I'm not trying to make her sound like some conniving con artist. My point is that there is no defensible reason for spending $150 grand on 12 videos. So I really hope she does something good with that extra coin and doesn't just pocket it.

 

[tiff]

not that i exactly support what she's doing by any means but I don't see why people keep calling it a scam. i don't think anyone really believes that she needs $150,000 for a dozen Youtube videos, they're forking over their money because they support what she's doing. I wouldn't in a million years give her money but it's not like the people who are are being hoodwinked into this.

 

[LunaticHigh]

Of course she's going to make money. That's the entire point. You don't work for nothing.

 

[Suairyu]

She's also developing a school syllabus out of this. She'd have to license the game footage she uses for this. It wouldn't be cheap.

I think a lot of people are (understandably) ignorant about how much proper research and licensing costs.

 

[Fuchsdh]

She's also developing a school syllabus out of this. She'd have to license the game footage she uses for this. It wouldn't be cheap.

I think a lot of people are (understandably) ignorant about how much proper research and licensing costs.

Most routes towards getting your syllabus into schools would involve comp (I only know of a few avenues myself, but her stuff seems geared towards secondary and higher ed where that is more the norm, even if you dev and pitch the stuff.)

I guess I'd feel marginally better if it were going to a 501(c)3 as opposed to a single individual.

 

[Platy]

damn .. doyuble post !

So.... theoricaly she could prevent licensing costs because of "for education" porpueses .. but yeah, there are lots of costs that people are ignoring

 

[Zoe]

She's also developing a school syllabus out of this. She'd have to license the game footage she uses for this. It wouldn't be cheap.

I think a lot of people are (understandably) ignorant about how much proper research and licensing costs.

That would be on the school running the program, not her. Is she already a teacher somewhere?

 

[Platy]

12 videos for $147,000? You can make full-length indie documentaries for far less and I don't see where she needs all this cash to do the videos she's been doing all along (yes, I get that she didn't ask for that much coin.)

No

$26,000 for 12 videos (2 hours total if she goes by the 10 minutes each that she used for her Tropes vs Women... she said "from 10 to 20 minutes so it could be 4 hours) + research + buying games + time playing to capture the exact vido you want + script writing + shooting + time to make it all + making a dvd + burning all the dvds + etc

Not that bad if you ask me.

Of course you could make then with less money .. but then again you could work for free =P

edit :

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.

 

[Fuchsdh]

No

$26,000 for 12 videos (2 hours total if she goes by the 10 minutes each that she used for her Tropes vs Women... she said "from 10 to 20 minutes so it could be 4 hours) + research + buying games + time playing to capture the exact vido you want + script writing + shooting + time to make it all + making a dvd + burning all the dvds + etc

Not that bad if you ask me.

Of course you could make then with less money .. but then again you could work for free =P

edit :

Thanks... but does she say what she's doing with the rest of the money? Didn't see it on the site but I'm discovering Kickstarter is not quite as user-friendly as I first thought.

edit: Well, first things first her audio quality would be better with a wired shotgun as opposed to a lav She needs to hire a producer if she wants top quality.

 

[Steaks]

As a heads up a 23 minute television show can cost in the range as much as 200k for something reasonably low budget. Think about that. Without the cost of sets and actors...

140k or whatever isn't that inappropriate for a really well polished video series at all assuming she uses good production quality.

If it doesn't end up with high production values, then it might be a bit disappointing for how much money she got though

 

[Fuchsdh]

As a heads up a 23 minute television show can cost in the range as much as 200k for something reasonably low budget. Think about that. Without the cost of sets and actors...

140k or whatever isn't that inappropriate for a really well polished video series at all assuming she uses good production quality.

If it doesn't end up with high production values, then it might be a bit disappointing for how much money she got though

The difference is a television show has to pay and feed dozens if not hundreds of cast and crew

 

[cm osi]

she probably wasn't even ready to do something "big" since she asked for 6k

 

[Gsak]

Of course she's going to make money. That's the entire point. You don't work for nothing.

"Work"? As in a "job"?

In a job you earn your money. You don't get them from donation and kickstarters.

In a job you don't start doing it for free and at some point start asking from money.

Feminism is a social issue, not "work".

In a job you get your payment on a steady basis. I doubt this is gonna happen monthly for her.

Finally, by your logic, then ALL the people on Youtube should start making kickstarters in order to make videos. What makes her so special that she deserves the money by "working"? Please, there are people that are making much, much better videos and they didn't ask for a dime.

No

$26,000 for 12 videos (2 hours total if she goes by the 10 minutes each that she used for her Tropes vs Women... she said "from 10 to 20 minutes so it could be 4 hours) + research + buying games + time playing to capture the exact vido you want + script writing + shooting + time to make it all + making a dvd + burning all the dvds + etc

Not that bad if you ask me.

Of course you could make then with less money .. but then again you could work for free =P

edit :

ALL of the above costs LESS than $6k. As for the time she puts into it, well I don't see why should that translate into money from other people's wallets.

 

[Nert]

"Work"? As in a "job"?

In a job you earn your money. You don't get them from donation and kickstarters.

In a job you don't start doing it for free and at some point start asking from money.

Feminism is a social issue, not "work".

In a job you get your payment on a steady basis. I doubt this is gonna happen monthly for her.

Finally, by your logic, then ALL the people on Youtube should start making kickstarters in order to make videos. What makes her so special that she deserves the money by "working"?

There are a lot of people who study social issues as their job, including how women are represented in media. Sociology is a professional field, you know.

Also, Kickstarter projects do not inherently fall under the umbrella of charity. I'm sure that all of the people using Kickstarter to create coffee filters, iPhone docks, and video games plan on selling what they make to a wider market for profit. Similarly, startups that are looking for investors for new projects don't get payments on a regular basis until they actually have a finished project that they can monetize in some way.

ALL of the above costs LESS than $6k. As for the time she puts into it, well I don't see why should that translate into money from other people's wallets.

The donors who chose to fund this project after the goal had already been reached will probably not feel ripped off.

 

[Suairyu]

ALL of the above costs LESS than $6k. As for the time she puts into it, well I don't see why should that translate into money from other people's wallets.

plus living expenses. Research (not just playing the games) takes a lot of time.

Also she wants to raise the production values now. For a broadcast-quality camera you can be looking at $30000.

Plus licensing footage (in my experience, US companies like to charge on average $60 per second of footage) if she wants to make it into something she can sell to schools.

There are a lot of ways to invest the extra money in the series.

 

[Gsak]

plus living expenses.

Ummm... Get a job like the rest of us?

Or didn't she have living expenses up until now? How did she pay for them?

 

[Fuchsdh]

Ummm... Get a job like the rest of us? Or didn't she have living expenses up until now? How did she pay for them?

I'm guessing she's prolly a grant baby/income from speaking engagements. If you're good with writing and a hustler you can make out okay.

Her CV doesn't list her as currently having a teaching position, which I found surprising (that's what most people actually get their postgrad degrees for.)

 

[Zoe]

Plus licensing footage (in my experience, US companies like to charge on average $60 per second of footage) if she wants to make it into something she can sell to schools.

That's not really how curriculum works. I asked this before, is she already associated with a program somewhere?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I will never understand why people respond towards successful, seemingly overfunded Kickstarter campaigns as though they are some huge scam.

 

[Nert]

I will never understand why people respond towards successful, seemingly overfunded Kickstarter campaigns as though they are some huge scam.

I think some people still perceive Kickstarter as a charity service and not as a tool that allows individuals to crowdsource requests for investment. This can be seen in the comments in this thread about how there are more deserving causes for this kind of money, like feeding starving children.

Tim Schafer and co. are not making a video game to save the world, and they're going to absolutely going to sell it to more people than just their backers.

 

[Gsak]

I will never understand why people respond towards successful, seemingly overfunded Kickstarter campaigns as though they are some huge scam.

People do not respond as though "they are some huge scam.". In this case it's just a matter of common sense: Asking for money, to do something you have done so far for free and for something that thousands of other people do - better or worse- for free.

I think some people still perceive Kickstarter as a charity service and not as a tool that allows individuals to crowdsource requests for investment. This can be seen in the comments in this thread about how there are more deserving causes for this kind of money, like feeding starving children.

Tim Schafer and co. are not making a video game to save the world, and they're going to absolutely going to sell it to more people than just their backers.

Indeed. But feminism and its study are not a product.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Tim Schafer and co. are not making a video game to save the world, and they're going to absolutely going to sell it to more people than just their backers.

But, in the mean time they're starving while living in the street, right? Or they're working second jobs? The people that donated did so in order to get a new adventure game, not so the devs could buy lunches.

People do not respond as though "they are some huge scam.". In this case it's just a matter of common sense: Asking for money, to do something you have done so far for free and for something that thousands of other people do - better or worse- for free.

And when she asks for money for this clearly unworthy endeavor, people are free to not give her any money.

Indeed. But feminism and its study are not a product.

I don't know what this is even supposed to mean.

 

[smr00]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

This is kinda scamy, to be honest.

More then kinda.

Personally i cannot stand her videos and find her extremely annoying, don't get me wrong i have nothing against her as a human being and i completely understand where she is coming from it's just she rubs me the wrong me the wrong way, like Alex from Giantbomb.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly why.

 

[Nert]

Indeed. But feminism and its study is not a product.

She's not creating "feminism." She outlined a specific project that she wants to pursue and people backed her. A video series and a course curriculum is more concrete than "feminism" and you know that.

And, as stated earlier, a lot of people make careers out of studying and discussing social issues. See: sociology.

Other people that make a living by selling their perspectives on social issues and media: every professional critic of film, television, games, books, and music that has ever existed, and anyone that has ever sold a book about social issues or culture, or anyone that's a columnist that writes about social issues or culture, or...

 

[Gsak]

She's not creating "feminism." She outlined a specific project that she wants to pursue and people backed her. A video series and a course curriculum is more concrete than "feminism" and you know that.

And what's the subject of said video series and cc again? Also her handle on Youtube is "feministfrequency". That's where she and her work comes from.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I will never understand why people respond towards successful, seemingly overfunded Kickstarter campaigns as though they are some huge scam.

I think some people still perceive Kickstarter as a charity service and not as a tool that allows individuals to crowdsource requests for investment. This can be seen in the comments in this thread about how there are more deserving causes for this kind of money, like feeding starving children.

Tim Schafer and co. are not making a video game to save the world, and they're going to absolutely going to sell it to more people than just their backers.

This person is an individual, not a company. Investment in a project doesn't quite equate the same thing as investing in a company's product.

What people do with their money (as far as prioritizing where they throw it) is entirely a judgement call, and I'm certainly not going to play the "feed starving kids in Africa instead" card because you can play moral arbiter about *anything*.

My point is that with an individual as opposed to a nonprofit or even a game development studio, there are far less checks involved in seeing that the money people invested actually goes to what it was supposedly raised for, and this problem only scales with the success.

I can bet Schafer can put every cent into game development, because it's fantastically expensive. With what the lady in question has raised and her scope, however, I think it's perfectly reasonable to wonder exactly how it's going to be spent.

Extreme example: you could argue anything getting 'overfunded' is going to support the person's goals, but would you feel cheated if the extra money you donated to produce a video series instead went to a pile of drugs and a car?

I do think the charity vs. investment dichotomy is interesting, but saying one way or another ignores the fact that Kickstarter, Indie Go-Go are nothing like traditional venture capital efforts.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

And what's the subject of said video series and cc again?

I... what? I go to the store and buy The Idiot's Guide to Conducting Debate on the Internet. What product did I buy? My assumption is that I bought a book. A book that happens to be about presenting cogent arguments on the internet. What do you think I bought?

 

[plagiarize]

But, in the mean time they're starving while living in the street, right? Or they're working second jobs? The people that donated did so in order to get a new adventure game, not so the devs could buy lunches.

well, technically, we DID invest so that the devs could buy lunches. the wages of the people making the game are clearly part of the cost we covered. if we didn't buy the devs lunches, they wouldn't work on the game. they'd go find work that paid them enough that they could buy something for lunch.

one of the things Tim Schafer said was a relief when the kickstarter project took off, was not having to worry about letting staff go any time soon.

so yes, had that kickstarter failed, some of the staff that are still employed today would likely have been out looking for other jobs, either because they'd been fired, or because they weren't getting paid enough.

 

[Gsak]

I... what? I go to the store and buy The Idiot's Guide to Conducting Debate on the Internet. What product did I buy? My assumption is that I bought a book. A book that happens to be about presenting cogent arguments on the internet. What do you think I bought?

Thing is, her videos are studies with a very particular theme. And it appears to come from a feministic point of view. So, what do you think is the basis of her videos, if not feminism?

 

[spacerumsfield]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

This is beyond confusing to me. Let's say the 6K goal was a proper estimation of the cost of the project. Where is the remainder of the 150K total going? There can't possibly be $144,000 of rewards to dole out, can there? Sorry if there's some obvious answer to this as I'm not familiar with kickstarter, but if there is I'm not seeing it (and I'm hoping it isn't "this woman just keeps the money").

 

[Steve Youngblood]

well, technically, we DID invest so that the devs could buy lunches. the wages of the people making the game are clearly part of the cost we covered. if we didn't buy the devs lunches, they wouldn't work on the game. they'd go find work that paid them enough that they could buy something for lunch.

Just so we're clear, I think it's fair for people to get paid for stuff via Kickstarter. I was merely pointing out that I don't understand this reaction people have for certain products that they deem can be accomplished by individuals in their spare time. There's this suspicion that if there isn't complete transparency -- or at least the ability to understand the expenses of the project -- then clearly the excess funds will be blown on fancy cars and better living accommodations.