Serious question for feminist critique of video games

Uhura

This ain't no hula!
Aug 30, 2012
418
0
0
@Yuuki

Anita didn't have the option to shut down donations after the initial funding goal was reached, because Kickstarter doesn't allow it.
Kicstarter
If a project reaches its funding goal before time expires, projects continue to accept pledges until the funding deadline. There is no option to end a project early.

http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/creator+questions?ref=faq_subcategory#WhilYourProjIsLive
I thought this was common knowledge.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Uhura said:
@Yuuki

Anita didn't have the option to shut down donations after the initial funding goal was reached, because Kickstarter doesn't allow it.
Kicstarter
If a project reaches its funding goal before time expires, projects continue to accept pledges until the funding deadline. There is no option to end a project early.

http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/creator+questions?ref=faq_subcategory#WhilYourProjIsLive
I thought this was common knowledge.
That's rather interesting actually. I personally think the option to say "Thanks, this is all I want" should be there. If only as an option.
 

Uhura

This ain't no hula!
Aug 30, 2012
418
0
0
Vegosiux said:
Uhura said:
@Yuuki

Anita didn't have the option to shut down donations after the initial funding goal was reached, because Kickstarter doesn't allow it.
Kicstarter
If a project reaches its funding goal before time expires, projects continue to accept pledges until the funding deadline. There is no option to end a project early.

http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/creator+questions?ref=faq_subcategory#WhilYourProjIsLive
I thought this was common knowledge.
That's rather interesting actually. I personally think the option to say "Thanks, this is all I want" should be there. If only as an option.
Yeah, I agree, it should be an option. Especially because overfunding seems to be more of a curse than a blessing for some projects (= delays and other troubles). The reason why Kickstarter doesn't allow it is that they take a certain percentage of the money and hence ridiculously overfunded projects mean more profits (and publicity) for them.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
Redd the Sock said:
senordesol said:
Redd the Sock said:
Honestly, when I eat out I expect that what is on the menu is what I'm allowed, and I'm on my own for anything other than minor alterations. ie: I'm allowed to ask for no onions and extra pickles at McDonalds, I'm not allowed to ask them to make me spaghetti. Now, I'm within my rights to suggest a pasta menu, but if I'm told no, and I keep asking, I'd be a spoiled brat. Other faults would involve vilifying burgers and those that ate them, or if I do get some pasta, complaining it isn't exactly right.

I don't mean to entirely malign critics or criticism, but I started in the thread by pointing out there's a whole modding community making what they want, and kickstarter making small projects possible on one side, and a movement of people on the other that wants to make videos, blog posts, and forum comments to try and get others to build for them, and the point of the topic was to question why group B doesn't take group A's actions more often, and I've yet to hear anything that isn't in one form or another some variant of "I expect someone else to do for me."
To say 'I expect someone else to do it for me' implies some duty that one has decided to shirk (i.e. My rent's due, but I don't expect to have to pay). That is not the case here. Ms. Sarkeesian, so far as anyone is concerned, is mute unless you voluntarily make the decision to click on one of her videos (or a thread dedicated to the response of her videos). As such, she is no different from the Nostalgia Critic, Angry Joe, or Linkara wherein they make their commentary and you can choose to agree with their analysis or not.

She has no direct leverage over anyone in (or responsibility to) the games industry.

Now don't get me wrong, had she built and sold her own game or mod at some point (or even worked on a game as an employee or contractor); she'd be much more qualified to talk about the state of the industry. Her word would carry far more weight, and that's fine. But whether she has or hasn't doesn't invalidate any salient point or legitimate complaint she might have that's worth discussion.
I don't limit my views to Anita, though for the record, I have no issue with the thesis, but find the presentation very lacking. Some of those guys are the reason why. Linkara gives decent background researche history and performs a very lengthy analysis for a single issue, and shows up every week to do so. In his case, most have little to do with the modern industry and just serve to laugh at something old and it's conventions that aren't acceptable anymore and really aren't trying to change anything.

But then, that's the thing, I'm talking about the whole of the debate, right down to people talking on forums. Why have a discussion instead of trying to build yourself? Talk isn't action, and for all the talks on any issue in the world, someone eventually has to start doing something. If it's that important to get it, why do you only want to "talk" not "do". Expecting others may not be the right phrase, but wanting others isn't wrong wither. People see a problem and think their role should be to make a noise and talk, on some level because they'd prefer to avoid the work and risks of doing for themselves.

We didn't get an airplane because the Wright Brothers complained about not having one, or wanted to talk about making one. They went out and made one. If it's that important to you, take active steps, or at least show a willingness to do so, or else it probably isn't that important to you.
Much can be accomplished through talk as well. While, yes, action is what leaves the lasting impact; talk can inspire to action. MLK didn't write or ratify the Civil Rights Act, but he sure as hell talked and demonstrated and speechified about the inequality of minority races in America (not that Sarkeesian and MLK are comparable, just as an example).

There is value in discussion. Talk can change minds, expose people to new ideas, or simply serves to challenge the beliefs you hold. "Why do we do the things we do?" "What would happen if, instead, we did this?" These are questions worth asking as, in their asking, we come to understand more about ourselves.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Master of the Skies said:
How about before you *demand* that someone try that solution you give good reasons to think it's worthwhile and lay out exactly why they are *obligated* to do it. There's a difference between arguing that an option might be worth trying and condemning someone for not trying it.
Me? Demand anything? Surely you jest!

Either point me to where I demanded anything, or apologize for deliberately attacking my integrity.

Those are your options. I'm not playing games with you, and frankly, I've had it up to *here* with your attitude. Put your money where your mouth is, or keep your mouth shut.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Yuuki said:
EternallyBored said:
I'm not sure why I keep seeing people who expect her to have made a video worth 150 thousand dollars, when her original kickstarter goal was only about 6 thousand, which she wanted so she could buy a lot of video games to do her research. Just throwing money at something doesn't automatically make it better, giving someone a hundred times what they asked for and then expecting them to instantly know how to use that money in the best possible manner is foolish. She's not going to magically become a better video maker just because she got more money, and most professional producers and documentary style makers will require a hell of a lot more than 150K to turn out a professional product.
You do realize Anita had the option of closing-down donations as soon as she had reached her goal? Alright so she would've been happy when it hit $6000, really excited when it hit $10,000, super-amazed when it hit $20,000...and at no point did she think "hey I think that's over 3x more than what I asked for, lets stop it here, thank you so much"?. Nope, she went ahead and gave entire presentations with elaborate collections of all the hate-messages she had received.

Then Anita had the nerve to steal gameplay footage from other players, I highly doubt she has plans to even spend $500 on the actual project. She's taking up to 3 months at a time to release 25 minute videos which are incredibly dull to watch.

Pretty much 99% of the Kickstarter money is hers to do whatever she wants...the nail in the coffin is that she's not even donating a single OUNCE of that money to actual Indie developers who need it.

Now the latest defense I'm hearing people say is "so she's a greedy *****, but her points are still valid!". Yes, her points (I would actually say "point", she only has one) are valid, the gaming industry has gender equality issues just like everything else in the world. Except the "issues" here are purely regarding fictional characters, but apparently the "issue" of Princess Peach, Lara Croft and Dragon's Crown is even more discussion-worthy to some people than the issue of women being discriminated/brutalized/raped in 3rd world countries.

Awesome.
As was already pointed out you're blatantly wrong on her being able to stop the kickstarter prematurely. Yes, she could have donated the money to an indie project or charity after it was over, right now she claims to be spending it to get animations, a professional editor, and merchandise for her videos, and if the picture of her with that giant stack of games is accurate, as well as the reports of her spending money to go out and give talks about her videos and the whole tropes vs. women thing, then your second point is also blatantly wrong as she's spent well over $500 on her videos or at least on promoting her videos, as boring as we both think they may be (and yes I agree they are very boring, she should probably invest some of her money in a public speaking class).

Your last point is entirely nonsense, I've seen 10 times what she made on her kickstarter donated to those African women's rights issues raised in a single city, in a single night. Her kickstarter is a microgram compared to what's raised for "real" women's issues just in the U.S. every year. Of course, this comes back to the point that just throwing money at a problem is not always the best answer, just like giving 150k to a woman who asked for 6k isn't going to make her videos better, giving more money to women in Africa isn't necessarily going to improve their situation any. Also, I don't know about other countries, but here in the U.S. there aren't any charity police that try to stop you from donating to multiple causes, many of her kickstarter supporters are still perfectly capable of giving money to better causes while still donating to a video series they want to see made, appealing to "greater causes" just comes off like a cheap appeal to emotion, people are perfectly capable about caring about petty things and still giving greater attention to the bigger issues.


Which brings me back to the entirety of my original point, I made no comment about the ethics of her not donating that money, if you want to go off on a tangent about how terrible she is for not giving away money that was knowingly given to her with the stated expectation of using 6k to make a video series and no stretch goals that's your business. Frankly, I agree with you that there are much better ways to use that money if she wants to make an effective public statement. That doesn't change the fact that expecting her to make a 150k video just because that's what was given to her is also a foolish expectation, that's also coincidentally why I agree with you that she would be better served by using the money to make a public statement rather than hold on to it in the hopes that throwing money at it will improve her video series.
 

Panda Mania

New member
Jul 1, 2009
402
0
0
Being an semi-academic feminist media critic is her job. Well, she may not get paid for it, but she's decided it's a regular part of what she does. There are lots of other semi-academic (and fully academic) media critics that do the same thing, whether it's from a feminist standpoint or Marxist or psychoanalytic or whatever. And usually they're not a part of the industry of whatever media they're critiquing. They write/speak in the hope that their analysis will engage people and get them thinking about stuff. And yes, nudge producers of media in the right direction, whether indirectly (through audience demand) or directly (through engaging with their analysis).

Anita should get together with those Extra Credit guys--they seem to share some interests as far as furthering games' potential goes.
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
People are trying. It's just like people from that frat house in Borat (which I still refuse to believe is unscripted and real) also happen to be in the games industry. And that sucks.

But the industry is big, like... probably millions of indie games alone get released every year, thanks to Unity, RPGMaker - known for easy user-friendly, with good help, easy scripting, ect ect ect - and GameMaker. Whether or not this just pours XLIG with absoloute shit - which is does - or not is up to you.

Point is, unless pretty much every AAA company started making changes, nothing will actually change.
 

Robert Marrs

New member
Mar 26, 2013
454
0
0
Smilomaniac said:
Let's assume this isn't just an Anita Sarkeesian thread..

In general, I do think that people who have a legitimate issue with something should either set an example or do what they can to make a difference.
On that topic, I don't think it's unfair to involve yourself in some way, even if it's only symbolic, before you get to make demands of others. You can state your opinion, you can argue for it and you can point out the consequences and/or benefits of changing the way things are, but you can't demand squat if you're not doing anything yourself.

When it comes to feminism, the weapons used are getting attention, guilting, antagonism and clawing for every advantage you can get. I have yet to meet a feminist or a sympathizer who are able to calmly debate or discuss anything without resorting to the above. It's in the god damn name; "Feminism" a group that fights for themselves, often in the name of equality and the rest of the time they're blunt about it.
So when I see Sarkeesians videos, I don't see solutions, arguments or progress, I see someone who feels very strongly about their opinion but doesn't offer me any incentive to give two shits about it. I can sympathize, sure, but it's obviously just someone grabbing for attention about what they perceive is an issue that should be resolved, because they feel strongly about it.

That's not doing what they can, that's just whining with big words.
Bingo. After hearing so many of the keywords they like to throw around and constantly being bombarded with arguments (which is what they always devolve into with feminists, there are no debates because every point is dismissed with more of those keywords they love until it gets nasty) I have actually become numb to the whole thing. I just tune out as soon as I hear it because my mind is expecting totally biased bs. So instead of people just dismissing it as "oh she is not a real feminist" they need to call this kind of stuff out because its damaging their brand. They are not doing anything about the problem they are just apologizing for it. Mainly because, though they might never admit it, these people are real feminists and they do represent the tenets of feminism. I really just don't care anymore, like a lot of people, and its because of the hyper-sensitive social justice warriors.
 

Knows_Nothing

New member
Sep 24, 2013
6
0
0
So you don't criticize or complain about anything you can't personally do? When you order an expensive meal and the food sucks, you say, "Oh well, it's not like I could do any better myself! I can't cook. I gave them my money and I got what was coming to me"?

You don't have to be an expert in something to see that it is objectively (or in this case, subjectively) good or bad. Most movie critics don't direct their own movies, but they know what makes a movie good or bad and they know the tropes and cliches of the industry. People have are entitled to their opinion about the portrayal of marginalized groups in a piece of literature, and the fact that Sarkeesian doesn't develop games does not diminish the validity of her opinion on their stories.
 

Knows_Nothing

New member
Sep 24, 2013
6
0
0
How exactly is stating her opinion on a popular video website and drastically raising awareness of feminists' concern about the roles of women in games "doing nothing?" You claim that she merely complains and doesn't change anything herself, but isn't making gamers and developers aware of this issue a pretty significant development? I mean, before her video exploded (for better or worse) how many gamers were debating the roles of women in games?
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Master of the Skies said:
You're defending those demanding, your argument had better apply to them.
As hard as you might find it to believe, I am not here to "defend" anyone, I'm here to discuss things of my own accord, on my own terms, and for my own reasons. So no, you don't get to do that. Figure out something that isn't a cheap cop-out instead.

And apologize for attacking your integrity? I recall your lack of it when speaking to you before where you refused to admit that you were wrong in attacking something I had not said: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.823309-Dont-Be-That-Guy?page=9#19940557
I don't recall your apology for claiming I argued something I blatantly did not, so I'm not sure why I should ever make an apology in regards to your integrity.
Ah yes, the "I was talking to someone else, why don't you go take your senseless crusade elsewhere" post. I'm actually still waiting for an apology for that one, too. A "bloody" one, even, as my very next post states.

Ironically, you got rude to me because (from that post) it seems you felt upset because I "butted in" on the discussion you had with someone else. Hey, guess what you just did.

And please, it's ridiculous to try and order me around.
Of course. It only applies if you're here for a proper discussion[footnote]Cause if you are, you don't pull stuff like that.[/footnote], naturally.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Master of the Skies said:
You respond to something that applies to one of them then yes, unless you're going to wildly ignore context again, it should. Or else what are you talking about? That it COULD help? Yes, amazingly it could. I don't think anyone is denying that, they deny that that's sufficient basis to say she should do it or should be condemned if she does not.
And that relates to anything I said, how exactly, assuming you make no dubious leaps of logic you need to make in order to make this about me and insinuating I'm "demanding" something? Especially odd since you singled me out instead of people who actually were "demanding" something, if any?

I'm not the topic of discussion here, yet you keep talking about me. But okay, I suppose this is about you and me now, baby.

Funny, where do you read me saying that you shouldn't jump in because I was talking to someone else? I said specifically that you had no fucking clue what I was talking about, apparently, because you criticized something I didn't say if you bothered to look at the context.
So waiting on an apology for you jumping in without checking what was being said first.
Sorry about jumping in without checking what was being said first back there. [footnote] Also sorry for not doing what you hoped I'd do just now.[/footnote]

Ball's in your court, chief.

If you're complaining about the phrase 'both ways' you better fucking look at what I was replying to to check what 'both ways' are. Hint: They weren't that crap that you assumed they were.
Funny you should say that, considering what you said in the last post of yours.

In other words you admit that you're not here for a proper discussion and are just going to complain that I don't apologize for your mistakes. Great.
No, in other words I'm saying I see no value in discussing anything with you, because you seem more focused on asserting some kind of superiority over other people than actually discussing things. You're not here to discuss things, you're here to "prove you're better" than other people participating, and you do so by being snide and condescending while very rarely bringing an actual point to the table.

That's what I get from the tone and diction of your posts; and that is not something I simply have no inclination to put up with. Seeing as you've got my apology; that's all out of me. Must say you kind of remind me of someone tho.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
Knows_Nothing said:
So you don't criticize or complain about anything you can't personally do? When you order an expensive meal and the food sucks, you say, "Oh well, it's not like I could do any better myself! I can't cook. I gave them my money and I got what was coming to me"?

You don't have to be an expert in something to see that it is objectively (or in this case, subjectively) good or bad. Most movie critics don't direct their own movies, but they know what makes a movie good or bad and they know the tropes and cliches of the industry. People have are entitled to their opinion about the portrayal of marginalized groups in a piece of literature, and the fact that Sarkeesian doesn't develop games does not diminish the validity of her opinion on their stories.
I completely agree with you, at least on the first count. No, you don't need to be a master of X in order to be a legitimate critic of X. Most restaurant and food critics are only average cooks themselves. Most film critics couldn't draw a storyboard or use a camera. Not all art critics are artists. The "You don't like it? I suppose you could do better?" argument needs to be taken out back and shot because it's worse than useless.

However, a few caveats. This doesn't mean anyone with an opinion is qualified to be a critic. For that you need quite a breadth of experience and perspective. You'd need to have an appreciation of the history of the medium, be able to weigh up a piece objectively, differentiating intentional abstractions or simplifications from errors, and likewise not confusing limitations inherent to the medium with errors. In my opinion the real litmus test for a critic is, can they make valid and practical suggestions on how a piece could be made better? Because if not, what you're giving is criticism, not critique.

This is where I think Sarkeesian's legitimacy as a critic breaks down. She doesn't acknowledge the limitations inherent in storytelling and interaction in games, and worse, completely bypasses Hanlon's Razor in her apparent eagerness to paint the games industry as bigoted, exclusionary and lazily misogynistic. Her eventual pitch for a non-patriarchal, fem-positive game (as voiced by Jennifer Hale) falls foul of her own criteria (it's a simple inversion of the existing damsel trope which, Sarkeesian says, reinforces the original through reference; it features a protagonist who adopts masculine traits in order to become useful, etc). Basically, not only does Sarkeesian lack a broad enough understanding of games to call herself an authority, she also lacks objectivity, and makes criticisms of tropes and storytelling that are so broad that she herself can't suggest a game that doesn't infringe her own rules. Anita Sarkeesian is a fairly successful polemicist and an increasingly prominent political feminist, but a legitimate gaming critic? No way.
 

Brainpaint

New member
Sep 28, 2011
108
0
0
TekMoney:
You don't know what radical feminism is. Anita Sarkeesian is extremely far off from it.
ClownBaby:
Pussy Riot are radical feminists. Sarkisian adapts academic feminist theory and applies it to media.

So you either don't actually know what a radical feminist actually is or never actually watched her work.
I've watched WAY too much of her work to be honest. It's why I believe she has radical feminist traits at least.