This issue is about a young girl somewhere in the world picking up video games for the first time and not having the same amount of options for representation as a boy would. And how that harms us all sociologically.
Totally. I suppose that my point is that while raising awareness of the issue sure is a good thing, it's still remains a tiny, tiny fraction of the solution.
That's why I really wish that more energy was spent actually making these so-called empowering games, rather than pointing fingers at the bad ones. With the time and money that the KS campaign provided her, there's really no reason for K to not start making her own game prototype. Doing things makes the world move forward ; wishing that others did things differently doesn't.
That's why I really wish that more energy was spent actually making these so-called empowering games, rather than pointing fingers at the bad ones. With the time and money that the KS campaign provided her, there's really no reason for K to not start making her own game prototype. Doing things make the world move forward ; wishing that others did things differently doesn't.
It would be nice to turn this thread towards how to make games that women and girls can enjoy.
I would just rather we focus on making good games. period.
Doing what you suggest just makes it sound like girls can't enjoy mainstream games but rather need games specifically made for them in order to find enjoyment, and that just seems very counter to the movement.
Skankzero, but "good games" is pretty broad. I think a discussion about how to make games and design elements that appeal more to certain demographics that would be great for discussion.
Or discussing possible design and story elements that can be used as an alternative to the repeatedly used design and story elements that are already found in the majority of games.
Essentially, this thread could because a good starting point on the discussion of how to accomplish more diversity as a whole into game development.
Doing what you suggest just makes it sound like girls can't enjoy mainstream games but rather need games specifically made for them in order to find enjoyment, and that just seems very counter to the movement.
Actually I just suggested the exact opposite of making games specifically for them:
"Here is my general approach. Treat women like humans. Make games on topics that are appealing to humans. "
Are there any mainstream games that are enjoyable anyway? I haven't found any in a long time... maybe Civ 5, if that counts.
Skankzero, but "good games" is pretty broad. I think a discussion about how to make games and design elements that appeal more to certain demographics that would be great for discussion.
This seems insulting to me. Not that I'm personally offended, but I can imaging people feeling insulted by that.
It's like saying, 'hey jesse, you're hispanic, we're going to make a game targeted directly to you. It's got a mexican main character fighting for the rights of his people!'
I would honestly just be like, 'ok... can't I just play Halo or Saints Row or something?'
I don't need a game targeted at me in order for me to enjoy it. I need a game with awesome game mechanics. That will make me enjoy it. Main characters aside. That won't make me enjoy a game.
Back in NES days, characters were defined by their palettes and stories were no more than 'NINJAS KIDNAPPED THE PRESIDENT', and we fucking LOVED those games.
Or discussing possible design and story elements that can be used as an alternative to the repeatedly used design and story elements that are already found in the majority of games.
This is where it's at. That's where the discussion should be. Not 'This is what women want to play. Let's cater to them!'
Actually I just suggested the exact opposite of making games specifically for them:
"Here is my general approach. Treat women like humans. Make games on topics that are appealing to humans. "
Are there any mainstream games that are enjoyable anyway? I haven't found any in a long time... maybe Civ 5, if that counts.
It can be taken both ways, but the way you worded it, I didn't get that.
Mainstream games not being enjoyable is a whole other issue with our industry. A much larger one than trying to cater to any one demographic if you ask me. Without a healthy mainstream, our industry is pretty much fucked.
Mainstream is a such vague word these day. that titles should be given to the likes of angry birds. which is no way can be offensive to certain demographic.
I'm not meaning to offend at all, I'm just saying demographics can be a big point of developing a "good game."
What you find "good" about Saints row, someone of a different age group, gender, or other group might not really enjoy, and then is it still a good game?
I was more saying "okay so what sorts of things does this group enjoy?"
Then ask "are these types of things implemented into games much?"
Also, I'm not just talking about what different groups find appealing in games. Every area has cultural differences, and they find different things to be fun, such as different activities to do for socializing, play, work, etc...
It's more of finding what different people enjoy and seeing if we can unlock some diversity in gameplay that can use that new form of "fun" into your game.
I'm not sure if this is really making too much sense. But yeah demographics are a big point anyways. Just because you find Saints Row to be a great game, that doesn't mean a 12 year old girl will find it amazing too.
Now that I think about it though, I feel like that type of discussion is a bit more broad than Tropes vs. Women. That would be more like a "Finding Diversity For Games" thread.
This seems insulting to me. Not that I'm personally offended, but I can imaging people feeling insulted by that.
It's like saying, 'hey jesse, you're hispanic, we're going to make a game targeted directly to you. It's got a mexican main character fighting for the rights of his people!'
This does happen though, and it does make sense. The most obvious examples are how the Asian, Japanese, US and European games markets differ. There's a good reason games aimed towards a predominantly Chinese market differ dramatically from those aimed at Europe. Despite a very similar set of games being sold, there are also marked differences in how games are presented and marketed between the US/EU, and the numbers differ too.
It's not as daft as 'this game is for hispanics', but there are very pronounced markets both geographically and culturally.
Hey guys.. just thought I'd ask.. Does anyone here follow Extra Credits? They've already done a bunch of episodes on diversity in games, mainly episodes Race in games,Sexual diversity and True female characters. A ton better job at figuring out what's wrong with female characters (and diversity in general) in games than what I've heard Sarkeesian say..
This does happen though, and it does make sense. The most obvious examples are how the Asian, Japanese, US and European games markets differ. There's a good reason games aimed towards a predominantly Chinese market differ dramatically from those aimed at Europe. Despite a very similar set of games being sold, there are also marked differences in how games are presented and marketed between the US/EU, and the numbers differ too.
It's not as daft as 'this game is for hispanics', but there are very pronounced markets both geographically and culturally.
you telling me that i won't get to play myself in a game now? a mexican fighting for his rights to get a visa so i can get a new truck so i can stop going to that damn home depot to get picked up to work for the day?
lol... a fun fact... did you know that movie games sell best within the hispanic comunity?
After that... amm... I think audience has a lot to do with games being developed. Here at 1p we have a core audience. For example, a certain title is targeted to maybe girls between the ages 5 and 9 with a second audience that might appeal to girls up to the age of 12. Now... we have a curriculum that we want those girls to learn in that range. If you go and play that game, chances are, that the game will not be appealing to you or older players. So there is a target. So this should be taken into consideration. Thats why it sucks when you see your game reviewed with a 3 out of 10 and them bashing on the repetitive gameplay, because some 30 year old is trying to critique a game that was not designed for him hahaha its always nicer when you get comments on the game profile of parents telling you that the game is very entertaining to their kids, or that they play with their kids and enjoy it.
Also... we have to keep in mind that as that video says... games are made for profit. Just like books... just like movies. Sure they might try to make an impact and say something. But if it doesn't promise to make people money back, chances are it won't get funded or published. Games need to sell a certain amount of units for publishers to justify funding the game. Guitar Hero had a market... it suffered from the exploit and there is now no interest, so GH is canned. Same goes for CoD. It is a very good selling game, so publishers will make sure that there is CoD every year to get in the profit. So there is a market... and that is not being taken into consideration at all in her videos.
I liked some of the other facts that video posted. It tells a lot of truths with facts, and its amazing to see how much research one can do to spin things around. I do believe that her videos are not well researched, and she needs to do justice to the amount of money that was given to her to fund this. Overlooking a lot of games premise, or conclusions just because she didn't play the entire game. Whats up with that? Does she really play games? is she a gamer? so that means she knows what she is talking about based on facts instead of opinion? She can have an opinion, i am not debating that, but its her presentation on "facts" that makes me feel like her videos are just propaganda. I am curious to know if she thinks that being a pop culture critique makes her a gamer.
Anyways... also people need to stop scrutinizing and complaining to other artists for the work they do. There is such a thing as respect, and i would like to believe that Polycount promotes that since its a place where you can share your work, and overall LEARN the trade and get better at what you do. Not just get told that your work is over sexualized and there is now no place for your work in this forum.
Already posted the video. Double Dragon Neon looks fun. Is it available for pc? I think I played the arcade one back in the day. Final Fight I played a lot though and it had the same plot.
Oops sorry. Why doesn't she try to come up with a idea for a feminist game and try to raise funds for it on kickstarter. She got a ton of money just for a youtube video. So it would go to show she should be able to raise enough for a simple indie game. Than we will see if there is a market for that type of game.
Where did the money go in the making of the video? Even the lighting isn't that great and the camera could be better.
I feel like there are a few reasons she wouldn't do a game personally.
But in terms of where the funds are going the only conclusion I could come up with is that lots of it went into her trips to speak at the TED talk she did, maybe some of it on games even though the image of her research could largely be found for cheap online or in those bargain bins, the cost of that fancy intro graphic that says "Feminist Frequency" and then possibly a nicer camera.
I am a bit surprised as the quality being lack luster though. The camera never moves, so she could technically set that up herself. The lighting seems the same as her old videos and rest of the graphics always just in a square on the side of her face, save for a few cuts to gameplay I think which are the most basic cuts. Oh, a nice microphone might also have been a cost as well, microphones can get pretty expensive, and if the audio is recorded separate from the video then you would also need an interface/preamp to connect to a computer.
This is however only the first video out of a series, so same as most projects go, the later videos might improve in quality and might require more funds. Such as if she gets into newer games and spends money to fly to different studios to interview different developers on their opinions, etc...
I also forgot to mention that in another discussion I was in about this whole thing, we also figured that some money also might go to her having a lawyer, I'm not sure what the cost would be for that, but it sounds expensive.
Also I think to embed you just put the URL and it auto does it for you.
This seems insulting to me. Not that I'm personally offended, but I can imaging people feeling insulted by that.
It's like saying, 'hey jesse, you're hispanic, we're going to make a game targeted directly to you. It's got a mexican main character fighting for the rights of his people!'
I would honestly just be like, 'ok... can't I just play Halo or Saints Row or something?'
I don't need a game targeted at me in order for me to enjoy it. I need a game with awesome game mechanics. That will make me enjoy it. Main characters aside. That won't make me enjoy a game.
I think what you just described can be seen as 'segregating', where what we should be looking for is 'encompassing'. I think the main issue being raised is that mainstream games unnecessarily segregate women (on varying levels) by the portrayal of the characters alone.
No need to make girly games for girls, by just making deeper female characters, I believe games would go a long way. And that doesn't apply only for gender, the world has such a huge cultural spectrum that can be used to the medium's benefit.
That Feminism vs Facts video wasn't very good in my opinion, it seemed a superficial analysis that unfortunately resorted to almost personal attacks on her from time to time. Not the best way of responding to her views.
I feel like this video (though a bit older already) does a much better analysis and staying objective:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI"]Anita Sarkeesian Part 2: Burqa Beach Party - YouTube[/ame]
Part 1 is also interesting, but more about her master thesis.
But in terms of where the funds are going the only conclusion I could come up with is that lots of it went into her trips to speak at the TED talk she did, maybe some of it on games even though the image of her research could largely be found for cheap online or in those bargain bins, the cost of that fancy intro graphic that says "Feminist Frequency" and then possibly a nicer camera.
I am a bit surprised as the quality being lack luster though. The camera never moves, so she could technically set that up herself. The lighting seems the same as her old videos and rest of the graphics always just in a square on the side of her face, save for a few cuts to gameplay I think which are the most basic cuts. Oh, a nice microphone might also have been a cost as well, microphones can get pretty expensive, and if the audio is recorded separate from the video then you would also need an interface/preamp to connect to a computer.
This is however only the first video out of a series, so same as most projects go, the later videos might improve in quality and might require more funds. Such as if she gets into newer games and spends money to fly to different studios to interview different developers on their opinions, etc...
At least that's what I'm hoping happens.
Quoting this great post from another forum for all the posts addressing the money aspect.
This general idea seems just absurd to me. Nobody in this forum complains when someone takes a game that's already had a lot of preproduction or even production done and starts a Kickstarter campaign to get money to finish it, though they'd done the work up to that point for free. Nobody complains when a game project requests $100,000 and gets a million. I doubt anybody would complain if Mike Stephenson started a NetHack improvement Kickstarter and got a large pile of money from fans, though he's released many complete versions of the game for free. We'd all most likely say, "it's great that he got a large financial reward for doing what he did."
So why is it different for Sarkeesian's project? She took her passion to the Internet and found an audience of fans willing to reward her well for doing what she likes doing. Yet a bunch of people are running around yelling that there's something terrible about her and her fans both doing something they want to do and getting something they want for that. It looks like it's the subject matter of the project that's the issue here, and I don't think you need to be a feminist of any kind (I don't think I'd be considered a feminist, though I have sympathy for their general aims) to say that this smells strongly of misogyny.
Questioning what the money is being used for = hating women and girls. Nice logic you got there captain.
I think the argument is that when you apply a different standard to one group, then that is discriminatory.
Anyway, it's pretty funny people talk like she got this huge pile of cash. After taxes it will be around 100K. She lives in the bay area, and if you want to have a small 1-bedroom apartment, rent alone is $25K/year. That leaves 75K for bills, food, car, etc, website, travel (often work related), AND video production software and equipment.
So if she's really frugal she may be able to live a whole 18 months on that money.
It also has a lot to do with the dozens of great videos (of various types) being produced for cheap by passionate people all around youtube, being significantly better (in my own subjective opinion) and much more personal than any of the stuff she does/did.
Now I am not saying that everything should be made for free or just out of passion with no compensation ; she sure has every right to use any means necessary. It's just a bit of a shame that she ended up cornered that way : no matter how good her next videos are, she'll still be remembered as "the one who got 158K from Kickstarter to do a bunch of vids" and that can hurt her and her cause a lot in the long run. Especially since there are ways to make money off youtube without asking for backing. It could also be argued that all she needs is a microphone.
Again, I am not saying that she did the wrong thing - just trying to understand the overall perception of the matter by the public. I, personally, don't care much about it at all
I think that picture she released with all those games doesn't help much either. There were plenty of games in those stacks that didn't have any human characters at all in them.
I'd be interested what she plans to say about a game like Blur.
I think the argument is that when you apply a different standard to one group, then that is discriminatory.
Anyway, it's pretty funny people talk like she got this huge pile of cash. After taxes it will be around 100K. She lives in the bay area, and if you want to have a small 1-bedroom apartment, rent alone is $25K/year. That leaves 75K for bills, food, car, etc, website, travel (often work related), AND video production software and equipment.
So if she's really frugal she may be able to live a whole 18 months on that money.
"BUT WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO???!!!!"
I understand, but I do feel like a little explanation can help at least take it off as a focus. Here are some questions that pop up to me personally about the money aspect though I already posted about where I think lots of money could have gone, which I feel justifies a bit of her expenditure well enough.
"How has she been able to afford living in such an expensive area already and make the other videos before her kickstarter?"
"If she spends this money on living in order to work on this project full-time, how come the amount of research and the argument given aren't as tight or aren't more detailed than her earlier videos before the kickstarter?"
Those are the main two I can think of, granted I can and I hope I can be answered when she gets into the rest of her videos that seem less of a recap with deeper research and better point, though her presentation as a speaker was definitely better this time around. I'm also hoping she learns to edit better, but that is less on the matter and more on production value more than anything else. Though it's not like the kickstarter is her only source of income either, she gets donations from her website and revenue from her youtube channel, which is generating quite a bit of views as of late.
Maybe it's just that so many people make videos that are edited better, on a lower paycheck in a shorter period of time, that it's easier to try to hold her on a higher standard than say an independent team making a video-game for the amount of money obtained.
The 'you hate women if you disagree with her usage of the money invested in her for the project' is used to shut down debate. It contains no logic nor explain how that is the hatred of women.
If she could afford to live in the expensive area before the kickstarter why would she have to use the money now? She should have stated that she need more money for life in an overpriced area. Although I have a feeling she would not get as much. But you never know with the internet.
So after having her watch Sarkeesian's videos, a few rebuttals, and her reading this thread in detail, my wife - who hunts big game with a bow, works on her own Jeep, programs complex webpages, and is a distinguished alumni of a major state university in our region - stated, matter of factly, that Ms. Sarkeesian is a closeted vaginal supremacist.
When the most empowered minority woman I know and somebody I look up to immensely thinks Ms. Sarkeesian's arguments are a load of bunk, I pretty much take that as the final word on the subject, at least in our household.
The 'you hate women if you disagree with her usage of the money invested in her for the project' is used to shut down debate. It contains no logic nor explain how that is the hatred of women.
If she could afford to live in the expensive area before the kickstarter why would she have to use the money now? She should have stated that she need more money for life in an overpriced area. Although I have a feeling she would not get as much. But you never know with the internet.
More to the point, if she couldn't afford to live in that area before, and (a year?) after the kickstarter, then why the hell was she asking for only $10k?
As for the quote on Poop's post, most of the quality kickstarters I've seen generally have something of note if/when the money exceeds the goal.
Star Citizen - more voice acting, missions, systems, tablet app, an orchestra etc
The idea being, that if the creators have more funds, they can do more and do it better; either more people or time to get it in, get it right and polish polish polish. Every single designer (don't know about artists/programmers, but probably them too) will end up with a long list of 'one day' gameplay elements or things to test during the project, this is a ripe chance for having a crack at them.
For backers and people watching, it's clear that the money pledged for the project (going to the creators) is being spent ON the project.
What she's apparently done is ask for $10k, get $150k, and as far as anyone can tell $140k has vanished. Surely this handful of youtube videos was not her full-time occupation for the last year in the same way Double Fine Adventure would be Schafer and Co's occupation, so subtracting primary income related living expenses isn't really a fair call.
Comparing the cost needed between making a videogame and filming yourself ranting with some sony vegas/ Premiere effects is ridiculous, not to mention comparing what more funds can add to game vs an online web series based around discussion.
Honestly, unless you actually donated money to her, I don't see why anyone would really care what she did with it. Without seeing her expenses, and without the benefit of hindsight, ie: seeing everything she plans to produce/has produced but hasn't released on the topic, its all just speculation.
Clearly, people thought she deserved it, otherwise they wouldn't have donated. If you donated and you feel ripped off, stand up and say so, but whining about what someone did with someone else's money... It seems like you're just trying to find a reason to complain about it.
Comparing the cost needed between making a videogame and filming yourself ranting with some sony vegas/ Premiere effects is ridiculous, not to mention comparing what more funds can add to game vs an online web series based around discussion.
I'm comparing the cost of any project, really. There's going to be a difference between a $10k project and a $150k project, and it's quite reasonable to assume that should be the case.
In a game it'll be more levels and higher quality, and while I don't know much about "filming people ranting into vegas/premier/effects", a tenfold increase in budget would certainly mean something could be done where otherwise it couldn't.
Welcome to Kickstarter. What they do with the money after/beyond reaching a goal is up to them.
This whole line of criticism of production value versus funds available has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with this thread.
If you don't like the results of some Kickstarters, start thread about the flaws . Otherwise keep to the dialog and discussion of where you think she is wrong or right.
*has a special word for women with bad personalities*
Well, you can call a guy a "dick" too, which is using his reproductive organ as a negative to reinforce how bad of a man he is, same for women. It is very hurtful, without dicks/ there would be no humans and without bitches there would be no puppies. I see you say cows are better but honestly, puppies win this, and we need bitches for puppies: I think I'm out now. This is way too much for my facetious mind to handle. Equality for all, peace and love.
Well, you can call a guy a "dick" too, which is using his reproductive organ as a negative to reinforce how bad of a man he is, same for women. [/SIZE]
I was once called a Dick AND a Honkey in the same day, it was devastating!
Replies
Totally. I suppose that my point is that while raising awareness of the issue sure is a good thing, it's still remains a tiny, tiny fraction of the solution.
That's why I really wish that more energy was spent actually making these so-called empowering games, rather than pointing fingers at the bad ones. With the time and money that the KS campaign provided her, there's really no reason for K to not start making her own game prototype. Doing things makes the world move forward ; wishing that others did things differently doesn't.
EXACTLY
Praise the Lord! That's the smartest thing in this entire thread.
Here is my general approach. Treat women like humans. Make games on topics that are appealing to humans.
I think the main thing is to not casually alienate possible players for no reason.
I would just rather we focus on making good games. period.
Doing what you suggest just makes it sound like girls can't enjoy mainstream games but rather need games specifically made for them in order to find enjoyment, and that just seems very counter to the movement.
Or discussing possible design and story elements that can be used as an alternative to the repeatedly used design and story elements that are already found in the majority of games.
Essentially, this thread could because a good starting point on the discussion of how to accomplish more diversity as a whole into game development.
Actually I just suggested the exact opposite of making games specifically for them:
"Here is my general approach. Treat women like humans. Make games on topics that are appealing to humans. "
Are there any mainstream games that are enjoyable anyway? I haven't found any in a long time... maybe Civ 5, if that counts.
It's like saying, 'hey jesse, you're hispanic, we're going to make a game targeted directly to you. It's got a mexican main character fighting for the rights of his people!'
I would honestly just be like, 'ok... can't I just play Halo or Saints Row or something?'
I don't need a game targeted at me in order for me to enjoy it. I need a game with awesome game mechanics. That will make me enjoy it. Main characters aside. That won't make me enjoy a game.
Back in NES days, characters were defined by their palettes and stories were no more than 'NINJAS KIDNAPPED THE PRESIDENT', and we fucking LOVED those games.
This is where it's at. That's where the discussion should be. Not 'This is what women want to play. Let's cater to them!'
It can be taken both ways, but the way you worded it, I didn't get that.
Mainstream games not being enjoyable is a whole other issue with our industry. A much larger one than trying to cater to any one demographic if you ask me. Without a healthy mainstream, our industry is pretty much fucked.
What you find "good" about Saints row, someone of a different age group, gender, or other group might not really enjoy, and then is it still a good game?
I was more saying "okay so what sorts of things does this group enjoy?"
Then ask "are these types of things implemented into games much?"
Also, I'm not just talking about what different groups find appealing in games. Every area has cultural differences, and they find different things to be fun, such as different activities to do for socializing, play, work, etc...
It's more of finding what different people enjoy and seeing if we can unlock some diversity in gameplay that can use that new form of "fun" into your game.
I'm not sure if this is really making too much sense. But yeah demographics are a big point anyways. Just because you find Saints Row to be a great game, that doesn't mean a 12 year old girl will find it amazing too.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1797255#post1797255
Male Tropes?
Also, wow at this thread. I thought it was pretty bad at the start but this is just getting hilarious.
This does happen though, and it does make sense. The most obvious examples are how the Asian, Japanese, US and European games markets differ. There's a good reason games aimed towards a predominantly Chinese market differ dramatically from those aimed at Europe. Despite a very similar set of games being sold, there are also marked differences in how games are presented and marketed between the US/EU, and the numbers differ too.
It's not as daft as 'this game is for hispanics', but there are very pronounced markets both geographically and culturally.
you telling me that i won't get to play myself in a game now? a mexican fighting for his rights to get a visa so i can get a new truck so i can stop going to that damn home depot to get picked up to work for the day?
lol... a fun fact... did you know that movie games sell best within the hispanic comunity?
After that... amm... I think audience has a lot to do with games being developed. Here at 1p we have a core audience. For example, a certain title is targeted to maybe girls between the ages 5 and 9 with a second audience that might appeal to girls up to the age of 12. Now... we have a curriculum that we want those girls to learn in that range. If you go and play that game, chances are, that the game will not be appealing to you or older players. So there is a target. So this should be taken into consideration. Thats why it sucks when you see your game reviewed with a 3 out of 10 and them bashing on the repetitive gameplay, because some 30 year old is trying to critique a game that was not designed for him hahaha its always nicer when you get comments on the game profile of parents telling you that the game is very entertaining to their kids, or that they play with their kids and enjoy it.
Also... we have to keep in mind that as that video says... games are made for profit. Just like books... just like movies. Sure they might try to make an impact and say something. But if it doesn't promise to make people money back, chances are it won't get funded or published. Games need to sell a certain amount of units for publishers to justify funding the game. Guitar Hero had a market... it suffered from the exploit and there is now no interest, so GH is canned. Same goes for CoD. It is a very good selling game, so publishers will make sure that there is CoD every year to get in the profit. So there is a market... and that is not being taken into consideration at all in her videos.
I liked some of the other facts that video posted. It tells a lot of truths with facts, and its amazing to see how much research one can do to spin things around. I do believe that her videos are not well researched, and she needs to do justice to the amount of money that was given to her to fund this. Overlooking a lot of games premise, or conclusions just because she didn't play the entire game. Whats up with that? Does she really play games? is she a gamer? so that means she knows what she is talking about based on facts instead of opinion? She can have an opinion, i am not debating that, but its her presentation on "facts" that makes me feel like her videos are just propaganda. I am curious to know if she thinks that being a pop culture critique makes her a gamer.
Anyways... also people need to stop scrutinizing and complaining to other artists for the work they do. There is such a thing as respect, and i would like to believe that Polycount promotes that since its a place where you can share your work, and overall LEARN the trade and get better at what you do. Not just get told that your work is over sexualized and there is now no place for your work in this forum.
Sorry for the long wall of text.
Where did the money go in the making of the video? Even the lighting isn't that great and the camera could be better.
Buying expensive camera/lighting equipment and knowing how to use them are two very different things.
But in terms of where the funds are going the only conclusion I could come up with is that lots of it went into her trips to speak at the TED talk she did, maybe some of it on games even though the image of her research could largely be found for cheap online or in those bargain bins, the cost of that fancy intro graphic that says "Feminist Frequency" and then possibly a nicer camera.
I am a bit surprised as the quality being lack luster though. The camera never moves, so she could technically set that up herself. The lighting seems the same as her old videos and rest of the graphics always just in a square on the side of her face, save for a few cuts to gameplay I think which are the most basic cuts. Oh, a nice microphone might also have been a cost as well, microphones can get pretty expensive, and if the audio is recorded separate from the video then you would also need an interface/preamp to connect to a computer.
This is however only the first video out of a series, so same as most projects go, the later videos might improve in quality and might require more funds. Such as if she gets into newer games and spends money to fly to different studios to interview different developers on their opinions, etc...
At least that's what I'm hoping happens.
What are the tags for embedding video here?
Also I think to embed you just put the URL and it auto does it for you.
I think what you just described can be seen as 'segregating', where what we should be looking for is 'encompassing'. I think the main issue being raised is that mainstream games unnecessarily segregate women (on varying levels) by the portrayal of the characters alone.
No need to make girly games for girls, by just making deeper female characters, I believe games would go a long way. And that doesn't apply only for gender, the world has such a huge cultural spectrum that can be used to the medium's benefit.
This is a good example: http://kotaku.com/5988935/im-a-mormon-pop-culture-often-mocks-my-faith-but-fallout-treated-it-right
I feel like this video (though a bit older already) does a much better analysis and staying objective:
[ame="
Part 1 is also interesting, but more about her master thesis.
Quoting this great post from another forum for all the posts addressing the money aspect.
I think the argument is that when you apply a different standard to one group, then that is discriminatory.
Anyway, it's pretty funny people talk like she got this huge pile of cash. After taxes it will be around 100K. She lives in the bay area, and if you want to have a small 1-bedroom apartment, rent alone is $25K/year. That leaves 75K for bills, food, car, etc, website, travel (often work related), AND video production software and equipment.
So if she's really frugal she may be able to live a whole 18 months on that money.
"BUT WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO???!!!!"
Now I am not saying that everything should be made for free or just out of passion with no compensation ; she sure has every right to use any means necessary. It's just a bit of a shame that she ended up cornered that way : no matter how good her next videos are, she'll still be remembered as "the one who got 158K from Kickstarter to do a bunch of vids" and that can hurt her and her cause a lot in the long run. Especially since there are ways to make money off youtube without asking for backing. It could also be argued that all she needs is a microphone.
Again, I am not saying that she did the wrong thing - just trying to understand the overall perception of the matter by the public. I, personally, don't care much about it at all
I'd be interested what she plans to say about a game like Blur.
I understand, but I do feel like a little explanation can help at least take it off as a focus. Here are some questions that pop up to me personally about the money aspect though I already posted about where I think lots of money could have gone, which I feel justifies a bit of her expenditure well enough.
"How has she been able to afford living in such an expensive area already and make the other videos before her kickstarter?"
"If she spends this money on living in order to work on this project full-time, how come the amount of research and the argument given aren't as tight or aren't more detailed than her earlier videos before the kickstarter?"
Those are the main two I can think of, granted I can and I hope I can be answered when she gets into the rest of her videos that seem less of a recap with deeper research and better point, though her presentation as a speaker was definitely better this time around. I'm also hoping she learns to edit better, but that is less on the matter and more on production value more than anything else. Though it's not like the kickstarter is her only source of income either, she gets donations from her website and revenue from her youtube channel, which is generating quite a bit of views as of late.
Maybe it's just that so many people make videos that are edited better, on a lower paycheck in a shorter period of time, that it's easier to try to hold her on a higher standard than say an independent team making a video-game for the amount of money obtained.
If she could afford to live in the expensive area before the kickstarter why would she have to use the money now? She should have stated that she need more money for life in an overpriced area. Although I have a feeling she would not get as much. But you never know with the internet.
When the most empowered minority woman I know and somebody I look up to immensely thinks Ms. Sarkeesian's arguments are a load of bunk, I pretty much take that as the final word on the subject, at least in our household.
More to the point, if she couldn't afford to live in that area before, and (a year?) after the kickstarter, then why the hell was she asking for only $10k?
As for the quote on Poop's post, most of the quality kickstarters I've seen generally have something of note if/when the money exceeds the goal.
Star Citizen - more voice acting, missions, systems, tablet app, an orchestra etc
The idea being, that if the creators have more funds, they can do more and do it better; either more people or time to get it in, get it right and polish polish polish. Every single designer (don't know about artists/programmers, but probably them too) will end up with a long list of 'one day' gameplay elements or things to test during the project, this is a ripe chance for having a crack at them.
For backers and people watching, it's clear that the money pledged for the project (going to the creators) is being spent ON the project.
What she's apparently done is ask for $10k, get $150k, and as far as anyone can tell $140k has vanished. Surely this handful of youtube videos was not her full-time occupation for the last year in the same way Double Fine Adventure would be Schafer and Co's occupation, so subtracting primary income related living expenses isn't really a fair call.
Clearly, people thought she deserved it, otherwise they wouldn't have donated. If you donated and you feel ripped off, stand up and say so, but whining about what someone did with someone else's money... It seems like you're just trying to find a reason to complain about it.
*Not referring to anyone specifically here.
I'm comparing the cost of any project, really. There's going to be a difference between a $10k project and a $150k project, and it's quite reasonable to assume that should be the case.
In a game it'll be more levels and higher quality, and while I don't know much about "filming people ranting into vegas/premier/effects", a tenfold increase in budget would certainly mean something could be done where otherwise it couldn't.
This whole line of criticism of production value versus funds available has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with this thread.
If you don't like the results of some Kickstarters, start thread about the flaws . Otherwise keep to the dialog and discussion of where you think she is wrong or right.
Well, you can call a guy a "dick" too, which is using his reproductive organ as a negative to reinforce how bad of a man he is, same for women. It is very hurtful, without dicks/ there would be no humans and without bitches there would be no puppies. I see you say cows are better but honestly, puppies win this, and we need bitches for puppies:
I think I'm out now. This is way too much for my facetious mind to handle. Equality for all, peace and love.
I was once called a Dick AND a Honkey in the same day, it was devastating!
(since this is the internet, that was sarcasm)
I'm out, too (again). See you next time there's a new video or something less depressing to discuss in here.