I am a huge adventure game fan. One of the companies that I grew up with and have fallen in love with was Sierra On-Line. You know, the people behind the classic King’s Quest and other quest titles. Which should come as to no surprise that I’ve been chomping at the bit to see a documentary on this pioneering gaming company. Unfortunately, fans have been burned too many times with the promise of a great release only to get nothing.
Back in June 2012 and again in July 2013 one man had a vision to do just this but after silence and outrage from the diehard and passionate backers I thought that it was the end for this dream. Well, as of now we’re witness to a third attempt by someone not from Molotov Angel. Quest: The Story of Sierra On-Line just launched on IndieGogo courtesy of Jordan Owen; but just as quickly as it went live controversy hit. And, just like before I find myself in the middle of the maelstrom. Frankly, even without the couple bombshells dropped on Sierraphiles there’s a lot of red flags involved with this campaign.
First off, Quest: The Story of Sierra On-Line is running on IndieGogo with flexible funding and a somewhat high goal of $60,000. Most certainly ambitious for a small team with pretty much no equipment and the film makers previous project The Sarkeesian Effect: Inside The World of Social Justice Warriors looks horrible just from the trailer I saw. The first major issue that I with the whole campaign was with the choice of payment. I personally never use flexible funding for the sole purpose of it’s way too much of a risk even for crowdfunding. Whatever is pledged goes to the project creator right away. If they only get a grand pledged they still get that grand.
In addition to the use of flexible funding, which alone is enough to get myself and plenty of others to shy away, all we get are promises that this’ll be a great documentary on one of the most beloved adventure game companies and a short interview with Al Lowe. While the film maker briefly talked about where the budget is going it’s in rather vague terms and when I brought up my concerns in the Sierra Gamers Facebook group Jordan kept on deflecting my questions. And I’m far from the only one asking questions.
Funding and the lack of information aside, Quest: The Story of Sierra On-Line continued to make waves in the Sierra community as the link circulated in several Facebook groups. Fans of the games are pretty much between “I’ll back purely on the merit that this is Sierra” and “This guy’ll make a mockery of our childhood” groups. I can’t really comment on his “The Sarkeesian Effect” documentary but based solely on the trailer I don’t see anything good coming from Jordan.
The final tipping point, for myself and several others, was in a post by Corey Cole (of Quest for Glory fame) announcing that he and Lori are pulling out from the documentary. The full conversation can be found here, but the gist of it can be seen in the image above. Suffice it to say that it was enough for me to see at least two Sierra alums say they don’t want anything to do with the project to sell me on staying as far away from it as possible. In fact, the only one that seems to have agreed to do anything with it was Al, shown in the pitch video. Which means that unless others are confirmed Quest: The Story of Sierra On-Line is doomed to failure just based on lack of participation.
(1/20/16 Update – Note from the editor: Jordan Owen, the creator of Quest: The Story of Sierra On-Line, reached out to me to express concern with this article. I invited him to send along a rebuttal. Here’s what Jordan submitted:
“My thanks to Greg Micek for giving me an opportunity to respond to Ms. Nelson’s claims.
First and foremost, I would like to clarify a number of the claims from Ms. Nelson’s article:
- 1) At no point in her correspondence with me did Ms. Nelson inform me that she intended to use my responses to formulate an article about the project. Using false pretenses to gain information is a severe breach of journalistic ethics and, in some cases, actionable as “misrepresentation.” Ms. Nelson has attempted to refute this charge by saying that she has never “interviewed” me. Well, Ms. Nelson, that’s the point. You did not inform me that my responses to you were going to form the basis for this article. So no, it was not an interview.
- 2) I initially attempted to answer Ms. Nelson’s questions on the Sierra Gamers page, which mostly centered around what I would do with the money if I didn’t receive all of what I was asking for. I detailed explanation of my intentions and motivations for choosing flexible funding are outlined below. After a point Ms. Nelson’s questions were taking on a pattern of, in essence, asking “well if that doesn’t work then what will you do?” to every question that I asked and, ultimately, my answers were the same as what you’ll read in point 3, repeated over and over again. I felt like the parent that goes mad hearing their child ask “why?” to every response they give, so I let it go. If I’d known I was being queried for a press statement, I would have requested we correspond directly and privately.
- 3) I chose flexible funding because in preparing for this project I looked at the Luke Yost/Moltov Angel failed Sierra doc and noticed that (among many other errors) Mr. Yost attempted two Kickstarter campaigns in which he asked for and failed to receive a grandiose amount of money of which he only reached $20,000. My team and I reasoned that if we only received that much money, it would cover most of our principal photography and so we chose to do a flexible fundraiser on Indiegogo because then if we got half ($30K) of our total requested about ($60k) we could complete the principal photography and return to ask for additional funding as well as seek out private investors. This was essentially how my previous film was funded, so I saw no reason not to do it again.
- 4) There was a misreading of the Indiegogo page circulated on the Sierra Gamers Facebook forum which claimed that we were asking for $60,000 but then admitting in the text of the campaign that we could do the whole movie for $30,000. Commenters said things like “ah- Hollywood math” and “it’s all about the overhead” to suggest that there would be some misappropriation of funds. The reality is that the text of the campaign stated we could finish principal photography for $30,000. For those not aware of the terminology, prinicpal photography is the part of filmmaking where the movie itself is shot. It has nothing to do with pre or post production. The rest of the money would need to go to cover post production, the soundtrack & special Sierra covers EP along with the cost of backer rewards and a certain amount of promotions and ad campaigns. Additionally, the $60,000 factored in taxes and Indiegogo’s share. Our actual target was $50,000, about what we’d be left with once those factors were covered.
- 5) As Ms. Nelson became more and more hostile, she began asking me what was to stop me from taking the money and running. Simply put, we have begun to see major class action lawsuits on bogus crowdfunding campaigns and if I failed to deliver I would be responsible for $60,000 of felony wire fraud. That places considerable pressure on me to either deliver the project or refund to the backers.
- 6) But more importantly, I have a greater and more proactive justification for why the backers can place their trust in me: I have delivered on all of my previous crowdfunding efforts, something Ms. Nelson was informed of but fails to acknowledge in her article. In 2013 I requested emergency crowdfunding to pay the medical bills of my 6 month old kitten, who ultimately passed away. I promised backers of the effort two albums of music for free to the public at large. They are “Nightscapes” and “Noiseworks” and can currently be heard on my YouTube channel. Additionally, I launched a fantasy web series called The Vessel Chronicles which had five installments, after which I decided to adapt it into a novel, which I intend to shop around to publishers. In 2014 I crowdfunded the Sarkeesian Effect to the tune of $54,000 and ultimately finished the project despite considerable setbacks. In other words, I have an established history of fulfilling such obligations and, as such, I deeply resent being found guilty of things I have never done purely on the basis that it might be possible for them to be done.
- 7) This trend has continued even as I tried to end the project, with users chivying me for information as to why I was still running an Indieigogo campaign even after the project was ruined. Well, the first couple of days I was still assessing the damage done by Mr. Cole’s posts. After that I found that it was not possible to end a campaign for “flexible funding” once it began. This led to a particular user named badgering me about how I better “be getting out my checkbook” to refund all that money and others saying “he’s going to get nearly a thousand dollars for doing nothing!” Well, the would-be backers are pulling their funds presently and the campaign has been marked as a dead end that is simply waiting out the clock. Nevertheless, I have been messaged by users wanting to know why I have not simply refunded the money outright, one saying that it would be a good “integrity move.” Well, for whatever reason I don’t have a button that says “refund order” which, according to tech support, I am supposed to have. I am currently in the process of trying to get them to understand that I do not have this button and am desperately in need of it.
- 8) Technical problems aside, I will be refunding any backer money which comes into my possession. In the unlikely event that this happens, I will attempt a refund through paypal and if this is not possible I will contact the donors to find out how best to refund their money. If I am unable to get ahold of them after a reasonable period (say 30 days) I will donate their money to charity, most likely the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The only money I will retain will be that which donors have communicated- in writing- that I may keep to help pay back the costs of shooting the proof of concept footage with Al Lowe.
The inevitable question will, thus, arise: how do we KNOW you’re going to do that? Well, simply put, you don’t. You’re just going to have to wait and see. Sorry if that’s not good enough.
If I sound bitter it’s because I am. Since this all happened I have gotten a steady tide of “now you know how it feels to be Anita Sarkeesian!” No, really I don’t. Anita has had four years to finish her Kickstarter campaign and in that time she has responded to all reasonable requests for accountability in a very rude and dismissive manner (see YouTube user and TVWiG backer LEOpirate’s video) along with a mile-long list of ethical breaches and questionable business practices- something that was explored at length in The Sarkeesian Effect, which neither Ms. Nelson or Mr. Cole bothered to watch and instead based their conclusions on a short trailer which, somehow, compelled Mr. Cole to consider my opinions as bad as “rape, genocide and slavery.”
I, on the other hand, have been in thumbscrews since the day after this project was announced and the simple reality is that because of paranoia and ideological strife that has nothing to do with my intended production, we now have the fourth failed attempt at a Sierra documentary.
If Mr. Cole is at all interested in hearing the effect this has had on some of the gaming community, he can view it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ustPaKH5ys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zcA77B_q4w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9BpxeqkrK8
Last point I want to emphasize is that Ms. Nelson asserts that the Sierra documentary would be of a poor technical quality on the basis of the quality of The Sarkeesian Effect. She has seen, as have most people concerned about this matter, the pitch video I put together which demonstrates that I now command a higher level of technical ability as a filmmaker than I did when created the Sarkeesian Effect and the Sierra movie would have reflected this. For Ms. Nelson to evaluate my current filmmaking ability on the basis of my last film while ignoring what’s already been shot for the new film would be akin to a gaming reporter being shown the first level of Super Mario World and declaring that the Super Nintendo will have 8-bit graphics because that’s what the NES had.
I will be editing the Al Lowe interview into a feature on the man and his work so that everyone can get an idea of what might have been.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
-Jordan”
Yeah not been a fan of flexible funding, i mean look here “We anticipate being able to finish filming the entire project even if we only raise half ($30,000) of our desired goal”
So what happens if they only get say 10k ?
I asked the exact same question in the Sierra Gamers group. He kept deflecting the question. I gave a $5k number and all he said was that it was enough to film a couple locations.
Why is that a problem? I told you that if we didn’t get enough money we’d film what we could and run another crowdfunder, which is what I did with the Sareesian Effect and finished it.
Jordan clearly answers this question:
https://youtu.be/RsSqlFPO1MY?t=17m44s
Principle photography is 30k. Post production, backer reward, animations, et al., would cost 60k.
As he has already proven with his 2 different youtube patreon accounts……what he says and what he actually does must be viewed with the upmost of caution.
There is no way anyone will be able to verify the actual cost of those things you list……we just have to go on his word as absolute fact. And anyone who goes purely on his say-so is a total sucker.
I never once interviewed Jordan. I asked a legitimate question in an open forum asking about funding received through a channel that very few people use and I briefly bring it up in my article. And, for the record, I believe in journalistic integrity. I held back a lot of what I was really thinking in order to state facts. Facts that seem to have been buried in sensationalism and attacks on someone that might or might not deserve it. I’m no fan of Sarkeesian but I’ve seen a couple of his videos and what he claims me of doing he’s doing the exact same thing. I’ve been able to keep my cool throughout all of this, even with a personal attack such as was levied against me in this video, while he goes on a rant about how evil Corey and myself are. If he’s this thin-skinned over honest commentary then he doesn’t deserve to make this documentary.
He’s getting like this because he can’t make the documentary. He’d be more thick skinned if he was getting more positive feedback in making it.
He has a camera and a voice. He certainly can make the documentary. And maybe if he puts in the effort to produce good, free content for awhile, he’ll have earned back some of the trust he squandered with his last disaster. You know, there was someone else who produced slick, professional video content for awhile before asking for crowdfunding, and it worked out pretty well for her. Can you guess who?
Nope, can’t think who. I don’t think you understand this whole thing. Owen can’t really make the documentary now. Why? It might be because every time he tries to make a documentary on anything people like you will try to give him a bad name. If enough people do that you know what happens? No one wants to support him. I really don’t think you understand the ramifications of all this. Imagine if the role was reversed and your god Anita was in the same position. Pretty unfair and cruel no?
“My god Anita”? Good lord, the fact that I refuse to hate this woman with the white-hot, irrational, idiotic passion you do does not mean I see her as a god. Get over yourself. What I see her as is a person who has been made a folk-demon by the worst parts of gaming culture. You don’t treat her fairly, and frankly its disgusting. This is about YOU, not her.
And I don’t have to “imagine” what it would be like if people were endlessly working to give Sarkeesian a bad name. That is reality right now. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING RIGHT NOW.
Seriously, you’re a disgusting human being.
How about any replacing any references to Anita with Jordan in your last post? Who then is the disgusting human being?
That reminds me: if I’m worshiping Anita as my god, does that mean you’re worshiping Jordan Owen as yours? I’d say I’m getting the better deal here if so.
Yeah I’m sure you’re getting a better deal if she didn’t already have a boyfriend who’s pulling her strings. I don’t worship Jordan and understand when he acts stupid but I know the difference between hopping onto the bandwagon against someone who hasn’t done something wrong. And yes I mean Jordan not Anita.
At least my god knows how to put a damn video together.
Of course I don’t actually like those video all that much, but they are well made. Now please, come back with more baseless idiocy about how much I worship somebody because I pointed out your lies about her.
That’s just it. Her videos aren’t well put together. She steals game footage from other people and gets her facts wrong about the games she’s critiquing so don’t tell me her videos are better.
YES. You put me on record for this article without telling me. And rather that point fingers YOU need to start tacking responsibility for your actions. Believing in journalistic integrity is great- try practicing it.
You should try practicing journalistic integrity as well. People in glass houses…..
Serena I don’t know if you ever studied Journalism at university, or if you fell into it later in life.
Personally I studied journalism for a few years at uni and one of the critical things stressed across multiple classes aimed at preparing people for working in multiple mediums (radio, print and TV) was that you make damned sure that your source knows they are on record for publication, in fact this should be done prior to asking any questions where possible. In fact in one instance a few people in my radio broadcasting class failed their first assignment (record a news segment for broadcast, with the instructor playing the interview subject for the story) for not making the subject aware that they were on the record while recording the phone conversation (sidenote: ECU Mt Lawley has one of the best set ups for any technical field).
In your instance the bare minimum of ethical consideration would have required you to contact Jordan and directly ask, or at least inform him, that you would like to use the content of the forum post for a story you were writing.
I don’t generally like to tell people how to do journalism, given that I dropped out, but in this instance, when it is something so painfully basic as this I think it needs to be said.
It comes across like Serena thought she got the latest scoop and wrote an article telling everybody to stay away from Owen’s funding without finding out all the facts first. This of course would have been possible if he’d actually been properly interviewed in the first place.
As you can see from below, he’s more than capable of having an honest discussion and accepts criticism quite well. You just have to reach out to him.
Your problem with flexible funding is subjective and unfounded.
Ah..i don’t have a facebook account..i can’t read the convo..
It’s a public group. You should be able to at least see it.
The link directly put me on the whole “log in to facebook” when i clicked on it :/
Ah. Well, the link is basically most people thanking Corey for being upfront about their participation in the project and a couple people just continuously bashing on Sarkeesian.
Thank you so much for this article. When I first saw the post for this kickstarter I was so excited to see someone taking up the cause of a Sierra story. I quickly dove into the funding page for details and credentials… and found none. Then Google searches lead me to angry videos of this man shouting down people who disagree with his Anti-Sarkeesianism. So happy to see the community speaking up, and shutting down what can only be called fraud. We deserve a much better story teller, and at least an honest sales pitch.
I’m totally with you. I wanted so badly to see this one as legit I almost backed it myself. Thankfully I was wary enough from the previous attempts to dig a little deeper. Between the lack of credentials and his previous work I knew that we’d have to stay away from this guy.
Exactly what credentials do you need to be a “fan” of Sierra games?
You don’t need credentials to be a Sierra fan, but you do need credentials if you’re asking for $60,000 with nothing to show for yourself but some rather shady videos that I won’t even dare to waste my time watching.
How can you criticise something you haven’t watched?
That clearly hasn’t stopped you from criticizing Sarkeesian’s videos that you apparently aren’t even aware exist. You know, assuming you’re not simply lying when you say she only produced two videos as opposed to being ignorant of the easily found fact that she’s produced much more than that.
She only produced two videos in the TVWIG series this year, and really one was just a “bonus” footage bit for the first one.
So what?
No, seriously, so fucking what?
So she’s a con artist.
TIL that failing to follow a timetable placed on you not by your own agreement or promise but by people who hate you, want you to fail and have no materiel connection to the project makes you a con artist.
That’s a really stupid definition of con artist. I don’t think I’ll be adopting it.
I refer you to number six of Jordan’s rebuttal. Says it better than I could.
Speak for yourself, drone. Your god won’t always be around to wipe your ass and tell you what to think.
Whatever you say, sorry carry on if it makes you feel better.
She hasn’t bothered to fulfill her kickstarter goal, she’s a fraud and everybody except her fans know it. Deal with it.
Where are all these backers of hers that feel cheated? So far the only people I see complaining are people that never would have donated to her kickstarter anyway.
It probably has to do with the fact that she’s convinced her backers to keep donating money for her FF videos, remember she got more than she was supposed to for Kickstarter. I’m not sure how anyone can defend someone who is scamming people yet someone who does complete their Kickstarter goals gets so much hate.
I’ve watched all of her videos, and they’re all terrible. Facts wrong, deliberately misusing research to support deceptive statements that there is no actual evidence in support of.
You mean like you did, when earlier in this thread you said you hadn’t watched any Sarkeesian videos, only clips presented by Jordan in his videos?
What? I was talking about Jordan’s documentary. Jordan goes in depth about Sarkessian’s videos.
They’re only “Shady” because you’re determined to see them that way. Even a video where I was open and honest about my finances in the extreme sounds shady to you.
I like the rambling video you did in the bath: that tells me you’re a professional who cares deeply about his public image.
Any one who thinks Anita Sarkeesian isn’t a con artist really doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
I never claimed that she wasn’t a con artist. I’m certainly no fan of hers and I’ve never wanted to see any of her videos. I never backed her Kickstarter and I never would have. However, the way Jordan seemed to treat her just in the trailer is enough for me to want to stay as far away from him as possible.
If you watch the full movie, and I can understand at two and hour hours it’s long but if you stick with it he brings up a lot of interesting points not just about Sarkessian but also about the mob mentality of her followers. I want to add that the problem being that people are basing their ideas about what Owens is saying based on a trailer for a movie he did.
A lot of that is Jordan’s own fault as well. Because he locked the finished product behind a paywall……which was guaranteed to limit the audience and impact the documentary would have had,
He presented The Sarkeesian Effect as something that needed to be seen by everyone…..he actually presented it as a form of ACTIVISM. His complaint was that the media only listens to 1 side of the story and the purpose of the documentary was to try and get the media to listen to the other side.
He even said in 1 video that we should all be “out there on the streets in masses, protesting that our voices get heard” during the making of the documentary.
He even claimed that gamergate was “bigger than any one single person”.
But by locking the documentary behind a paywall……he literally killed any chance of the documentary having any impact or having any kind of mass exposure……and when you are making something for the sake of actual ACTIVISM…..mass exposure is exactly what you need.
I can understand how something like the planned Sierra On-Line documentary would be sold for a price, but something that is activism based is something that should be freely distributed.
Jordan once claimed “SJWs” were trying to shut down the Sarkeesian Effect……but he is the one who ultimately censored it the best. There are still tons of people who think Davis Aurini is part of the finished product and an associate of Jordan Owen……and Jordan is to blame for it.
Owen handled the marketing badly but also people are too blame for them not getting their facts straight. Aurini was never part of the end of the movie. He took part in the movie but the final product is Owen and people are willing to judge Owen on that.
It wasn’t just a claim- Samantha Allen ran a spear campaign on Twitter saying that the film was (among other things) racist and sexist because it was a white man criticizing a woman. Patreon got over 150 angry emails just the first day it was announced.
150 emails? Wow! However did you manage to cope?
That is a lot for one day.
Someone part of the anti-Sarkeesian mob is whining about the mob mentality of people who find their actions disgusting. Irony dies again.
Hate to sound childish but Anita started this mess with her politics. People can sit by and say yes mam to this con artist or do something about it.
“Hate to sound childish but Anita started this mess with her politics.” Because women need to NOT speak their opinions?
Congratulations – you just proved the need for her existence and videos.
Hang on you said that not me. I never said women weren’t allowed to voice their own. YOU said that.
“Hate to sound childish but Anita started this mess with her politics.”
That’s what you said.
And see that question mark? That means it’s a RHETORICAL question.
Again I never said that women weren’t allowed to have an opinion, you’re putting words into my mouth. You totally misinterpreted my sentence maybe on purpose?
“Anita started this mess with her politics.” That is what you said.
Yeah which has nothing to do with women stating their views.
(facepalm). So if Anita had not said anything about her politics, you are implying this mess wouldn’t have started.
So a recap:
You don’t understand the difference between seconds and days, why women should express their views without getting attacked, why someone who does something for love won’t ask for $160,000 to do it, you don’t read what people actually say before posting replies. and you fail at basic grammar.
You’re really bad at debating online but good at wasting time.
No, just no. You’ve misinterpreted pretty much everything I’ve said and why? Well you want to or maybe you’re too stubborn to understand. Pick one.
Obvious strawman is obvious.
“And see that question mark? That means it’s a RHETORICAL question.”
Where did you go to school? <- Tell me is this question rhetorical or not? <- how about that one?
Rhetorical questions are determined by context, not punctuation. And this doesn't stop them from being a gross misrepresentation of another person's statements, much like your strawman is.
What exactly are politics other than opinions? Again why is it wrong for her to express her opinion on political matters?
Not sure what your comment has to do with my pointing out that ALL questions, not just rhetorical questions have question marks, however from context I gather that you are suggesting that people think it is “wrong” for Anita to express her opinions, and that is just not anywhere close to what people are saying:
She lies, she’s rude, she’s trolling, she injects politics where nobody asked for any – with the intention of causing uproar, all of her ‘activism’ is just a scam / publicity stunt, her “opinions” are just woefully misinformed and badly concealed jabs at the majority of popular video games (I mean seriously, she tried to complain that Batman’s butt couldn’t be seen in the Arkham games… And then admits later in the same video, she’s basically a puritan right-winger as far as clothing and sex go, so nobody’s butt should be seen – welp, there goes all third person games)
So take your pick, but the ONE thing that you and all other Anita supporters always want people to be saying just isn’t it. I fully support her complaining about the patriarchal conspiracy to cover batman’s butt.
“Because women need to NOT speak their opinions?”
Nice strawman. Next time make sure your logical fallacy isn’t showing.
Yes, clearly the woman started it by having opinions and daring to say them. That is truly a crime of epic proportions that totally justifies the regressive obsession with her. Can’t go letting women think they’re entitled to say things now can we?
I have never had a problem with women who think they’re entitled to say things- hence my love of Ayn Rand, Christina Hoff Sommers, etc. My problem is with people who take a massive amount of money for a project that they never finish and then pretend that every legitimate criticism is some secret coded form of misogyny.
Also, I’ve never stopped or tried to stop Anita having her say.
Oh, you don’t have a problem with women saying things when you agree with them. How very noble of you.
Are you a cuckold?
…
…
What?
So you have an issue with Jordan agreeing with women as long as it’s not Anita? But Jordan not agreeing with Anita causes you frustration? Oookkaaayy.
My problem with Owen was never his disagreement. Stop lying.
Then what was it? I mean you seem to have something against him criticising someone and doing it via a documentary.
He teamed up with a literal white supremacist to make a lie-filled smear-job, and couldn’t even do that right. He brought Jack Thompson out of his well-deserved obscurity. He interviewed a whole bunch of people who have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. The editing and sound were both terrible. Etc. etc.
First sentence – Jordan wasn’t aware what a kind of person Davis was. Second sentence – So? Jack Thompson was the reason we have a ratings system for games. You’re point is? Third sentence – What issue was that exactly? I mean all the people interviewed connected to what Jordan was talking about. Fourth sentence – that’s your opinion but in my opinion turned out better than expected.
Oh, so Owen is in the habit of starting major working relationships with people he knows nothing about, is he? Even when the person in question has his own YouTube channel? I’m sorry, is this supposed to inspire confidence in Owen? Enough confidence to hand over money for a project that’s not even begun? Riiiiight.
And you’re correct, Jack Thonpson did make a serious attempt at instituting government censorship of video games stricter than the Hayes Code and the Comics Code combined. And now, thanks to Owen, he’s a gamergate hero. Good fucking job.
3. No they weren’t. 4. There’s no accounting for taste, though really if you’re the sort who still hasn’t gotten enough disingenuous bashing on a woman who made YouTube videos you don’t like I suppose you can’t discriminate by quality.
This is some seriously funny stuff. I truly hope you’re a 14-year-old who might still grow up, because if you’re this ridiculous as an adult there’s probably no hope for you.
I’m not trying to bash on Anita, I just think her views are pointless. I find it weird however how obsessive you are in defending her. Is she your hero or something? Can you not see she’s a scam artist or has that gone over your radar?
El Oh El. “I’m not the obsessive one! You are for responding to me!” Seriously though, are you fourteen?
Erm, you’re responding to me on a topic you don’t care about?
I never said I didn’t. Try to keep up.
I am keeping up. If you don’t care about a Sierra documentary why are you here?
How many fucking ways do I need to say that I do care? I’m here because I care. Nothing I’ve written indicated that I don’t. Learn to read, man.
No you said you don’t care about a Sierra doc, you’re concerned Jordan wants to make one.
So you’re on to the “just make shit up” phase of your trolling operation? Ok, we’re done here. Have fun worshiping a pathetic loser.
I will. Thanks.
Listen I know you’re her biggest fan and you don’t want to admit it but firstly some bad news: she’s taken, secondly she doesn’t give a monkeys what you think, thirdly I have nothing wrong with women having an opinion, I have issues with a con artist having an opinion.
You know, there’s a wide, wide world of hucksters and scam artists out there. You’ve decided to focus your rage on one whose so-called scam was collecting donations to make videos, which she did. So don’t expect anyone to actually believe that you’re motivated by the supposed scam. You are transparent.
Are you implying no one can reply to anything a woman says? You realize women are people?
Collecting donations? Hmmm…interesting way of putting it.
No, I’m not. And since nothing I said can be honestly read that way, I’ll thank you to knock off the dishonesty.
‘Can’t go letting women think they’re entitled to say things now can we?’
Anita is free to say whatever crap she likes, speaking nonsense opens you up to criticism. You’re implying women shouldn’t be subject to critique. Typical SJW, doesn’t understand words.
You’re clearly a misogynist.
Once again you make up my opinions for me from whole cloth without any sort of justification in what I actually said. But the really sad part about it is your apparent pride over doing so.
You’ll make a great smear-job propagandist some day. Just like Owen.
“You’ll make a great smear-job propagandist some day.” Look in the mirror one day and you’ll see it’s Anita doing that for you.
Yeah, she really smeared… uh… Hitman? I guess? When she said you could kill strippers and drag their bodies around. Which is true? So not a smear at all?
Please continue demonstrating that you don’t understand anything about the world.
Yes Hitman along with pretty much every game she’s reviewed. The funniest was the new Assassin’s Creed game. Her review made me laugh.
The fact that you apparently go out of your way to watch videos you know you won’t like made by people you hate rather than spending your time enjoying your life makes me laugh.
I don’t watch videos. Jordan does it for us. I just sit and laugh at Anita.
lol, Irony only died when you made that statement.
A totally different scenario I bring up but is has similar themes. About people and first impressions lasting a long long time!!!!
Do you remember the E3 2013 controversy surrounding the Xbox One reveal? When it was announced gamers would be required to sign in and connect to the internet every 24 hours for the console to keep functioning. DRM as its known as.
And the (then) head of Xbox division gave this response to people who do not have constant reliable internet access:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzmVcasl3ZU
It was also announced that Xbox One would need a Kinect camera device connected and switched on at all times for the system to work, you could NOT trade in used games.
It was also later revealed that the system specs were actually weaker than the Playstation 4 and that Xbox One was $100 more expensive.
Sony really went for the jugular with their PS4 reveal…..and the crowd went wild.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ufRev6mq7k
Only 2 weeks later, Microsoft reversed the DRM and used game policies, after that they got rid of Don Mattrick, 6 months later they dumped the mandatory Kinect thing, cut the price and offered amazing deals after deals after deals ever since then.
But the unforgiving gaming public in general still view Microsoft as a tyrant, despite the relentless efforts by them to give gamers exactly what they want.
Last summer the new Xbox head, Phil Spencer even went on a live interview and said that there are still so many many people out there who think Xbox One still can’t play used games. I have spoken to people who still think it has the DRM restriction!!!!
The PS4 is outselling Xbox One 2 -1 globally now according to reports. A total PS4 market domination.
Despite everything they have done to change the image of Xbox One…..the events of E3 2013 still continue to give a bad impression of the console.
I remember someone posting a quote to the effect of “in business you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression”.
I seen quite a few posts on reddit from people who immediately thought Davis Aurini was part of this new project with Jordan. Aurini has become his unshakable curse.
That’s what blows my mind- these people basing their entire concept of the movie on the trailer seem to forget there’s another 179 minutes they haven’t seen.
Yeah I don’t quite understand it myself.
How dare people not buy your movie! Once again the only things you see as “fair” are those that put money in your pocket. You’re disgusting.
What’s disgusting is the people who will judge a person based on a film they haven’t seen. Nobody is forcing anyone to watch Jordan’s film – but if you aren’t going to actually watch it, then don’t make judgments about its content.
I saw it. Pirated, of course. After all, this is a vital issue of great import, this woman making YouTube videos. Hiding that oh-so-important expose behind a paywall just isn’t right.
It was shit. In every way. Though I’ll at least give it this: the way it got gamergaters to talk about how great Jack Thompson is now, often in the same breath that they say Sarkeesian is horrible because she’s just like Jack Thompson (despite the fact that Thompson was an actual literal censor who tried to get the government to outlaw games he didn’t like ) was fucking hilarious. If Owen’s goal was to get gaters to make their ridiculous hypocrisy impossible to miss, then good bloody job.
lol, nice – a top level trolltard. You have nothing but “it was Sh*te” as your argument, and you sit around looking dumb and trying to get a rise out of people. Hope that works out for you.
Hell… even Sarkeesian gets paid to to what she does.
How much are you getting paid to shill for Owen, then?
Sorry I can’t “prove” to your satisfaction that the sound capture and basic shot framing in the movie were crap. Nor that nothing Jack Thompson has to say is worth a bucket of llama piss. Nor that there’s no reason to give the tiniest of fucks what a porn star with no connection to the video game industry whatsoever has to say about the finer points of Hitman.
“How much are you getting paid to shill for Owen, then?”
By strange coincidence, the amount that Braddoch was paid was precisely the same amount of common sense that Incogneato himself posessed: None at all.
“Sorry I can’t “prove” to your satisfaction that the sound capture and basic shot framing in the movie were crap”
Again, you attack the aesthetic over the actual content as a whole.
“Nor that nothing Jack Thompson has to say is worth a bucket of llama piss.”
Said the guy who’s statements have even less relevance than said bucket.
“Nor that there’s no reason to give the tiniest of fucks what a porn star with no connection to the video game industry whatsoever has to say about the finer points of Hitman.”
So you didn’t watch the video then. Nice to know. Either that, your your comprehension skills relegate you to burger flipping. No need for context at McDs.
“Hell… even Sarkeesian gets paid to to what she does.” I wouldn’t be surprised. You have far more patience with Incogneato than I have.
lol you guys are cool with a guy who literally tried to censor games – as in, have legal action taken against games he didn’t like – which is what censorship actually IS…(not that I expect gators to actually understand what censorship is) but a woman criticizing games from a feminist perspective is a sin worthy of constant internet obsession. (even though criticism is not censorship, it’s just another form of free speech) Please stop pretending like any if this is anything but an anti-feminist crusade, when you give jack thompson a free pass but treat anita like she’s worse than hitler.
I’m not giving Thompson a free pass but if you actually watched The Sarkeesian Effect you’d realise his views are much more different to Sarkeesian’s and slightly more acceptable.
“lol you guys are cool with a guy who literally tried to censor games – as in, have legal action taken against games he didn’t like”
I dunno where you get the idea that gg supporters are ‘cool with’ thompson… Perhaps you missed the point that Anita is even more censorious than Thompson in his own words. This in no way makes Thompson some sort of hero.
“but a woman criticizing games from a feminist perspective is a sin worthy of constant internet obsession. ”
No, but it sure is fun to watch the millions of dollars that went into Anita’s research come out as patriarchal conspiracies about covering batman’s butt.
Why is having an informed opinion so beneath you? I mean, a great example of something I thought was misogynist trash are the Gor novels… but I read six of them anyway, to make sure that I was correct in my initial impression.
Ah, now I know why I’m following this thread still. Because this comment might be the most entertaining thing you’ve ever produced.
That goes double for Owen.
Strange but con artists aren’t known for actually keeping to their kickstarter goals. When someone like your saint promises too much money to make five videos and only produces two you have to wonder who’s actually the con artist. Owen met his goals, your saint has never done.
“My saint?” What the hell? Because I noticed the lies you told about her you think I consider Sarkeesian a saint? How does that follow? Maybe I just dislike you liars and the endless stream of fecal matter you dump all over the gaming world.
And yes, you’re lying. A simple trip to her YouTube channel shows that’s she’s put out a hell of a lot more than two videos on the project. More than five, in fact. Why would you even bother telling a lie so easily and trivially refuted?
Perhaps if he had more support than people constantly criticising him like you then he could make a good doc. Think about that.
Perhaps if he wasn’t a lying shitlord who is terrible at making movies he’d have my support.
Jordan is lying when he’s been up front and truthful about what he’s done so far? For someone who’s terrible at making movies the end result wasn’t bad for a first timer.
It was very bad, first time or not. And since he’s had his YouTube channel for years now, it’s not like it’s really his first rodeo.
Oh I wasn’t aware all of Jordan’s YouTube videos were professionally made documentaries. My previous point still stands.
He wants to get paid for them, they should be professional. Instead they tend to be him sitting in a filthy room droning unprepared word-vomit into a camera with shitty sound. But hey, he provides the twenty-minutes hate that you need to get through your day, so give him all the money!
You’re saying his YouTube videos should reflect the same quality as his film work? OOOkkkaaayyy.
Yes, what a cuh-raaaazy notion it is that someone might use their YouTube channel as practice and as a portfolio when they have ambitions to be a professional filmmaker. Similarly, someone with hopes to be a professional writer should not be judged if their blog doesn’t bother with correct formatting and grammar, and a wannabe professional artist shouldn’t be judged by a Deviantart account full of crayon stick figures.
Expecting someone to actually demonstrate skill in something they want to do professionally is sooooo unfair.
Jordan sites in front of a camera talking and you expect a professionally made piece of entertainment? When you’re done please come back to the real world.
I expect a person looking for funding to make a movie to demonstrate movie-making skills, yes. Wow, what a crazy notion.
Actually, you’re expecting YouTube videos made of someone sitting in front of a camera to be nominated for an Oscar. It is a crazy notion.
What’s wrong with his “angry videos”? Have you watched any? In regards to his criticism of Anita S., they are long, well thought out arguments about a woman who doesn’t understand video games, and ultimately, is just pushing her anti-sex feminist agenda for profit. The majority of the internet (and you can look at dozens if not hundreds of youtube analyses and blog posts) see Anita S. as a joke; but instead of “games causing violence”, she sees everything as misogynist (similar to the cries of Jack Thompson over the years.)
“pushing an agenda for profit” you just described every writer, artist and pundit in existence. Watch the news sometime. Sharing your opinions and getting paid for it is neither wrong nor anything new. You just don’t like it because it’s the wrong kind of opinions in your view. You view her as unethical simply because she has opinions you don’t agree with, and that’s it.
Jack thompson was hated by pretty much everyone, there wasn’t really any controversy, no debate between gamers who are feminist or anti-feminist, because he was legit trying to censor games through legal action. Thomson is also a right-winger like a lot of anti-feminist people. Anita just criticizes games, which is her right. She’s not suing game devs or trying to create legal regulations on buying games like thomson did.
Even if she “knows nothing about games,” well neither do people like adam baldwin who just latch onto gamergate for the right-wing branding, yet you won’t call out the vampires and leeches of your own movement.
Like it or not, not everyone who’s been a gamer since childhood is an anti-feminist male. There’s feminist gamers too (as well as game devs) so please stop acting like it’s mutually exclusive. Feminists aren’t “infiltrating” games because we have as much right to be here as anyone else, and some of us have been around just as long, too. Right-wing reactionaries don’t own gaming.
“You view her as unethical simply because she has opinions you don’t agree with, and that’s it.” I think you haven’t got the actual problem people have with her yet. It’s not so much having a different viewpoint it’s the fact that her complaints are ridiculous and show she knows nothing about what she’s reviewing. The problem is then made worse by the fact that the general media who also don’t know anything about gaming agree with her which gives Sarkeesian more power. This in turn gets her authority to get involved with game developing (and yes she has now influenced some games). Anita was and never will be a gamer. Unfortunately her her mixed and incorrect views is what the general media believe. So yes she is a problem for gamers rightly so.
Has it ever occurred to you that having a penis isn’t a precursor to understanding video games…?
Has it ever occurred to you perhaps you don’t have an understanding of what I’m actually talking about?
When did I deflect your questions? I’ve been doing everything to be as upfront as possible.
Hello? Any interest in being accountable? Hello?
I don’t think that I have to owe you an explanation but out of common courtesy I will answer your question. I had brought up that I hate flexible funding. When you asked why I answered. When you bought up your spending budget I had no problem with it. I welcome such transparency. But, when I asked what if you only get $5k, which was an arbitrary number and I could have easily tossed out $500 as an example, what would happen all you said was that it was enough to fund two locations. Well, good for you. What about the project as a whole? Would you have still tried to finish the documentary on that shoestring budget? You’d get the money either way with flexible funding. What’s to stop you from taking the money and running?
And then more recently whenever someone brought up a legitimate concern you throw out the Sarkeesian card. Deflecting honest questions with an attack on someone that might or might not deserve it does not instill confidence or faith in a project at all. In addition, while others are equally at fault you never had to hit back. Asking someone to be banned for speaking their mind is no different than being a bully.
If you think my commentary here, in the article, or in the Sierra Gamers group is harsh then just know that I’ve held back a lot of what I was really thinking all in the name of journalistic integrity. And if this and what others have said that don’t praise your awesomeness is enough for you to throw in the towel and quit then you don’t deserve to do a documentary on one of the most iconic gaming companies in history.
He was also asked on twitter about budget questions and how it would be extremely unlikely he would get anywhere near $60,000.
His reply was “go concern-troll elsewhere” and he went straight for the block button.
He’s a real fast blocker. Of course, he criticizes Anita Sarkeesian for not allowing comments, but let’s be honest: That’s not as bad as only allowing comments you like.
Serena: you don’t interview someone for an article without telling them you’re being interviewed. That reflects a complete lack of journalistic integrity.
The reason I “threw in the towel” is because it was made clear to me by people on the inside that it was a lost cause to try to get anyone else for the movie.
I will answer again what I told you before and you refuse to acknowledge: if we had only gotten some of the money, we’d have worked out what we could do with that amount of money, gone out and filmed, and come back to show people what we’d gotten and do another fundraiser. I can’t “instill confidence” beyond that but that was the plan. It’s how I did my last movie and that got finished and released.
The reason I brought up Sarkeesian was that someone named Keith Somethingorother who was accusing me of plotting to steal the money and I asked why he wasn’t attacking Sarkeesian, who is four years late on her project and shows no signs of ever finishing it. In other words, why does he not care about that but he’s becoming viciously paranoid (and referring to my crew as “satanic crackheads”) at the thought of what hasn’t even happened yet?
And, once again, I shall reiterate: it is not actually that easy to “take the money and run.” That would be felony wire fraud and would land me in prison to say nothing of the civil action. I don’t know why that’s unbelievable or doesn’t register with you, but that’s why I wouldn’t do that: I don’t want to break the law.
But the main reason you can trust that I won’t take the money and run is that I finished my previous project- and at considerable expense to myself. So rather than asking me what’s to stop me, why don’t you answer a harder question: what evidence do you have that I WOULD take it and run?
Again- if you had told me you wanted to interview me for this article I would have been happy to answer your questions straight on, but as it stands you need to realize that one of the first and most basic elements of journalistic ethics is that you do not put somebody on the record without making sure they know it.
“And, once again, I shall reiterate: it is not actually that easy to ‘take the money and run.'” And, yet, Davis M.J. Aurini did exactly that.
And he fired him as a result. You’re point?
1. *your. You’re is a contraction with a verb. You asked if I am a point.
2. He took money and got away with it. All those consequences Jordan talked about – didn’t happen.
1) TheNate is being pedantic because I’m in a rush. Check!
2) He didn’t steal any money, who told you that?
1. Maybe your grammar is as bad as your math.
2. Davis Aurini? Really? You missed his GoFundMe incident?
1) Or maybe you’re complaining just for the sake of it?
2) Who said anything about Aurini. I meant Jordan.
1. And maybe you’re just trolling because you’re (see? That’s how to use “you’re”) lonely. You’ve long ago stopped trying to make a point.
2. Go back and read the thread. I’m talking about Aurini. I said that. Repeatedly.
1) No you are the one who is trolling. That much is obvious.
2) Go back and read the thread. I was talking about Jordan. Aurini shouldn’t even come into the discussion.
You her that, TheNate? Pedro here has decreed what you are allowed to speak about. How dare you confuse him by speaking about other things like you have a right!
See, Incogneato gets it now finally. Ha, ha!
Ah, so you’re just a troll. Thanks for admitting it.
But hang on, you agree with me now with what I was saying?
Trollin trollin trollin, get those doggies trollin.
You are transparent. I know you think you’re the cleverest little boy, but no.
You said it, not me.
‘Maths’
All I can/will say is this: the matter was settled privately to the satisfaction of the persons who sent the money.
The people who sent Sarkeesian money seem satisfied with what they got, but that doesn’t stop you from throwing around all sort of despicable accusations about her, now does it?
How unfair for you to be judged by the same standards who hold others to. Don’t people know what a special snowflake you are?
She’s swindled them so yeah what she’s doing is for a good cause, let’s give her more money because doesn’t matter she’s not even met her Kickstarter goals, it’s for a good cause. Does that sound normal to you?
Snarl words aside, yes. It’s very normal for Kickstarted projects to take longer than expected and it’s also normal for them to continue collecting money while the project continues.
Like, do you understand any of the basics about the things you want to talk about? Seriously, there are things that can be learned outside of YouTube. Try reading maybe?
It’s very normal for Kickstarted projects to take longer than expected? Are kidding me??? Four years! Four years and she still hasn’t complained her Kickstarter goals. Read no 6 of Jordan’s rebuttal then tell me Anita has done great work.
No, I’m not kidding. Do you literally know absolutely nothing about how Kickstarted projects tend to go? Do you know anything at all that wasn’t spoon fed to you by YouTube and reddit?
Yeah I do actually. The whole point of Kickstarter is that you have to get something funded by a date or give it back to the donator. Anita so far has held onto people’s money and not completed her Kickstarter goals. Nothing’s spoon fed, it’s common sense.
You are entirely wrong about Kickstarter and how it works. Seriously, do the tiniest bit of research.
Does it involve stealing people’s money and making a run for it like Anita has?
No matter how many times you say it, it won’t become true. And even if it somehow was true, it wouldn’t justify your obsession. Nor will the fact that you and your like obsessing and freaking out over this woman is the sole and entire cause for her current prominence and influence ever change.
You understand that, right? If idiots like you had simply ignored Sarkeesian, she’d be getting 30k hit on her videos at best. Hell, she might have moved on from making videos entirely by now. Instead she’s well on her way to getting a fucking House seat at this rate, and it’s all thanks to people like you and Owen. You ridiculous crying about her got her on Colbert and in front of the UN. You. You did that. Whatever horrible effect you think this woman is having on the world, people like you have amplified it a thousandfold.
It’s hilarious. But go on and keep “opposing”her. Do it long enough and she’ll actually have the power you pretend she does now.
Trust me, unlike you I do ignore and find her supposed comments on video games hilarious. Anita doesn’t bring change and YOU’D have to be an idiot to think that.
Yes, you both ignore her and find her hilarious. Those are totally both things that can happen at the same time.
You might be one of the few people on this planet who can actually benefit from letting Jordan Owen do your thinking for you.
I don’t need to be a YouTube subscriber for her. I’ve seen enough of her videos through Jordan to see her stupid views on video games along with her racist Twitter comments.
And you’ve decided to obsess over this particular supposedly stupid person saying things you don’t like over the other 500 million choices on the internet because…? Oh, right, because the people you’ve farmed out your thinking to told you so. That’s a good little drone! Just do what Uncle Jordan tells you and don’t think.
Well no, you are wrong yet again. I care what this stupid person is saying because all her gang of followers are spoiling things for everybody else. Should I not be concerned by this?
Where “spoiling things” means “making videos on YouTube you could easily ignore and being a market for games that aren’t solely about murder and titties.” You poor baby.
You’re the baby. You’re the one crying someone is making a documentary on a company you don’t care for. Stop being a dick.
How exactly are this gang spoiling things for people? You must be a very sensitive, special soul to be so upset by some tweets and YouTube videos.
Think of it like this: If you were rude to me and I didn’t like you as a result I could potentially spread rumours about you, some true, some false. Doesn’t matter what you say because it’s one person against a whole Internet gang supporters. Sarkessian supporters have ammo so that the next time Jordan Owen tries to get funding for a doc the supporters are there to provide as much bad rep as they can. The thing that these stupid Sarkessian fans don’t get is that it’s not only Jordan who suffers it’s more all the Sierra fans who want to see a Sierra doc made. I mean it’s all over something that has nothing to do with Anita Sarkessian, that’s what gets me.
You don’t think Jordan provided any bad rep himself (rambling porn obsessed diatribes in a bath spring to mind)?
Also, do you think Jordan has right to make this documentary? Do you think the game makers have an obligation to allow him to make a documentary about them?
Everyone has a right to make a documentary, whether Sierra personnel take part is up to them. However, it’s totally unfair for them to exclude themselves because they heard from a friend of a friend they support politically that Owen has been a terrible person. Yeah Jordan in the bath and showing what appears to be a cat growing on his chest while in a bathrobe isn’t very professional but he’s learning how to present himself to others. HE’S been making an effort to change over the past few years. I haven’t heard him talk that much about porn anyway.
Do you know for that certain that Sierra chose not to participate with Jordan for the reason you described, or are you guessing?
You can clearly see the Coles weren’t going to appear. There’s evidence above by Corey Cole? There’s a very good chance everyone at Sierra would have appeared had it not been for the negative reputation being spread around about Jordan Owen.
Do you accept that some people may view some of Jordan’s activities and some of the groups he has involvement in to be unsavoury?
You can make someone have a terrible reputation. That’s the problem with the Internet. Talk to the person directly and get to know their side of the story before judging someone. Don’t take the word of some gang of idiots who are angry Owen made a documentary about their princess Anita.
“You can make someone have a terrible reputation. That’s the problem with the Internet. Talk to the person directly and get to know their side of the story before judging someone.”
Wow, the irony. So you’ve talked to Anita Sarkeesian directly then?
We’re all guilty of not getting both sides of a story however in the case of Anita when you have someone who has that power, whose fans are ganging up on someone who really holds no power you start to question what’s going on from the other person’s point of view.
Does persistent on and offline harrasment of Anita sound normal to you?
She says.
I take it you believe she’s lying and or overreacting?
Yes.
Do YOU have any interest in being held accountable? Because you seem to think that it’s not fair for people to judge you by your despicable actions.
What despicable actions? Your side can’t comprehend that its okay to challenge Anita Sarkeesian so you turn me into some kind of malevolent thug.
It’s not ok to lie about anyone, Owen. Like the way you lied about being capable of professionally producing a movie and then churned out amateur hour nonsense which was apparently just as excuse to meet your favorite porn stars.
You turned yourself into a malevolent thug. Excuse the rest of us for refusing to pretend otherwise.
You’re an asshat, he did well to finish that project with all the hassle he had from Aurini. As for ‘lying’ you might want to have another look at Anita.
Yeah but Incogneato is probably basing all his opinions on the two minute trailer.
Nope. Wrong again. You must be going for a record.
Okay well when you do eventually watch the whole film write a nice, constructive review to Jordan instead of banging on about his poor editing skills.
I’m really sorry this project didn’t get off the ground, Jordan; the trailer looked excellent and you were exactly the right person to make the documentary given your history and love for Sierra games. It’s a horrible reality, but there are some black hearted, mean spirited, talentless and jealous people around who have nothing to offer but to dump on those who have the ability and drive to create something. Don’t be conned into justifying yourself to nobodies.
Your integrity isn’t in question for me; you’re clearly a good man with honest intentions who’s already proven that he can complete a project despite setbacks that would have defeated most. It was immediately clear to me how much your skills had improved from previous work in this trailer, so you have gained something.
I wish you all the best; you deserve way better than this.
Thanks for the article. I’m glad the Coles have pulled out of the project and I hope Al Lowe does too.
There was something else that had me thinking something was off about Jordan’s crowdfunding methods.
Here is a video of his from 24th November 2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKziEfhMUc8
In this video he advertises his plan to have a Patreon system set up for each youtube video he makes. His plan was to gather up enough backers to where he gets $150 per youtube video. He also goes on to announce his plans for a brand new crowdfunder project, which as we now know was to be Quest: The Story of Sierra On-Line.
The Patreon account he advertises for his youtube channel was https://www.patreon.com/jordanowen42
This Patreon account only garnered 5 Patrons. But things suddenly get interesting.
Look in the comments section of this video, started by a user called Whatever4690:
“Just got charged another $5 dollars from the old patreon of the failed sarkeesian effect, that will teach me to make sure i close old patreon accounts.
Disgusting, but i guess its my fault for not paying attention to them making new videos on the old backing”.
It would seem that Jordan turned the old Patreon account of The Sarkeesian Effect into a new account called JO42productions……and retained backers who initially donated to The Sarkeesian Effect project……and they were automatically enrolled into giving him money for each youtube video.
http://www.patreon.com/jo42productions
His “Quest: The Story of Sierra On-Line (CROWDFUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y5XzTIu3mk was uploaded on 12th January 2016.
In the video description he links his JO42productions patreon account and NOT the jordanowen42 patreon account he advertised in his November 2015 video.
But I can not find any public announcements from Jordan that he had changed his Patreaon account for his youtube videos. It just happened quietly.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that he saw his jordanowen42 account was not getting many takers so he sneakily managed to enroll donators from his old Sarkeesian Effect Patreon into donating to him on a monthly basis under the new JO42productions banner.
Whatever4690 posts on January 2nd 2016:
[START QUOTE]
Jordan took the old sarkeesian patreon and changed it over to a new project, funding his youtube with it.
He did send message,
“Here’s how it works: I am sending this email out to all backers who donated between $1 and $10. In thirty (30) days I will be switching over to my new system, wherein I will finance my YouTube videos via the JO42 Productions Patreon. There will be five videos posted throughout December 2015 and backers will be charged on January 1st. This means that the $1 supporters will be charged $5, the $10 supporters will be charged $50, etc. All totaled, this will come to around $450 per video (adjusting for Patreon’s fees.)”
So guess its my fault for not reading carefully enough.
Feels a bit of a sneaky move, but he is claiming to offer refunds to those unhappy, if they send him an e-mail.
[END QUOTE]
The problem with many Patreon projects is that many people only support one project and only make up 1 single account for supporting that project. After that they totally forget about it. Though Jordan did send out a message outlining the plans to switch over and carry on taking their money, albeit you had to actually be a backer to receive this message……a lot of people would not have seen this message. They would have been on the assumption that after The Sarkeesian Effect ended……the payments would automatically end permanently.
Jordan NEVER went on public record to state clearly that everyone who was a repeat donator to the Sarkeesian Effect is now going to be funding him automatically for every youtube video he makes.
Wow. It’s worse than I thought. And I thought nobody could top AJ Tilley as a sneaky slippery bastard when it comes to crowdfunding.
I have done absolutely nothing “sneaky” or “slippery.” I have been 100% upfront about everything. In fact, I’m yet to hear one example of anything I’ve done wrong other than all the wild flights of fancy you people concoct regarding my intentions in selecting “flexible funding.” You really need to look into libel law before you call yourself a journalist.
So continuing to accept money for a project that is discontinued is “100% upfront”? https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/quest-the-story-of-sierra-on-line#/
You really need to look into what you do.
Maybe give the guy a chance to discontinue it before pouncing on him every five seconds?
He’s had three days. That is 72 hours. That is 4,320 minutes. That is 259,200 seconds. Let me make this easy for you: 259,200 > 5.
And he sure had enough time to post here when he could’ve, you know, clicked a button to discontinue it. Instead, he’s still taking money.
What are you talking about? He posted his video on Saturday afternoon to say he’d given up. 72 hours my ass.
Fine. 48 hours. That’s only 172,800 seconds. Oh, wait – 172,800 is STILL more than five. If you didn’t know that before, you do now.
And he’s taken at least one contributor between the announcement that the documentary is closed and now.
Why are you being so pedantic? That’s like telling me off for being one minute late.
One minute = 60 seconds. Oh, and hours later, Jordan’s IndiegGoGo is still up. Want to blame me for that?
Like I said, pedantic.
Ironically you probably got it from watching Jordan’s videos. Cause them’s some pendantic nonsense.
Indiegogo will not allow you to discontinue a campaign once it receives money to begin with. I’m in the process of contacting the current donors to advise them of the situation. I also made a post about this on the Sierra Gamers FB page before it was wiped.
Next?
But you could add an update saying that the campaign is canceled. You did know that, right? That’s being 100% upfront.
https://support.indiegogo.com/hc/en-us/articles/205154117-What-You-Can-Can-t-Edit-After-Your-Campaign-Is-Live
I did.
How is this a problem? I was 100% up front.
Lots and lots of different people create and use multiple e-mail accounts, it’s common for people to do this. And a lot of these email accounts wont always be viewed often.
I do this and I know many others do too…..because it’s often best to, when buying something from an online chemist, electronics place or and other type of online retail for the first time…..use an alternate or brand new email to avoid the risk of getting spammed the hell out of later from them or other companies that the email address gets distributed to.
I got tons of email addresses that get bombarded with spam. I know for a fact that if I was to support a Patreon campaign (something I would never EVER do) I would make a brand new email account to use for the Patreon account. Be too paranoid about constant spam and ads and offers for me to support numerous other campaigns etc.
The Sarkeesian Effect was over months ago so donators of that would not be constantly logging in and looking at that page any more and be able to see your announcement of turning it into an automatic youtube video funder.
And if they have not been checking the email address they registered their Patreon account to……there is no way they would actually know at all about the fact they are going to be charged for every youtube video you make.
Of course you got the perfect trump card for when they do finally find out…..say it was their fault for not specifically checking their account or email.
You certainly not been vocal about this change on either youtube or twitter……just limit to private message and hope they no longer look at their Patreon account or the email associated to it and see it!.
Even better if the don’t check their bank statements properly! Some people only get their statements every 3 months…..with the amount going out and coming in….might not even notice the odd $10 slipping away…..even better! See how long it can last, hey?
Sneaky indeed.
Well, I’ve offered and given refunds to anyone that’s asked for them.
I tell you what……here is an idea……
Make a Youtube video SPECIFICALLY addressed to all people who donated to The Sarkeesian Effect, and tell them that anyone who donated to that project is now going to be charged for each Youtube video you make via the JO42 Productions Patreon.
Then link the video on Twitter, Facebook and any other social media you are apart of. You know…..just to really put the message out there about whats happening, in case they may not have seen the announcement you put up on Patreaon.
Surely this should not be a problem, should it?
So Jordan says the documentary is dead, but he still has the IndieGoGo up to accept contributions. It’s about ETHICS, people. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/quest-the-story-of-sierra-on-line#/
When you start a kickstarter one day let’s all be immature like you and remind you to take it down as soon as you put it up.
Wow. Personal attacks. Way to take the high ground there, Pedro.
If I did start a Kickstarter (by the way – this is IndieGoGo, which is actually different than Kickstarter in that Kickstarter only gives funds when goals are met and Jordan’s IndieGoGo gives him all money right away, success rate be damned), I’d have a solid product with demonstrated success. Jordan did not have these things.
Do I need to explain further why he deserved to fail?
Going with what you’ve said then what’s the point of IndieGoGo if Kickstarter is better? How are IndieGoGo allowed to stay online if their system is flawed? A ‘demonstrated success’. Hmmm…
“Going with what you’ve said then what’s the point of IndieGoGo if Kickstarter is better?”
No, I did not say that. Read it again. It said it is DIFFERENT.
Perhaps he’s making a documentary because he wants to make a doc on Sierra, a company he loves?
Fucking hell pedro. Shut up.
Why don’t you shut the fuck up?
I did not say “better.” I did not say “flawed.” I said “different.” Can you understand these words? Because it doesn’t seem like you can.
As for a “demonstrated success,” I wouldn’t ask for $160,000 for a film if my previous one had a whole nine people at its theater debut.
To whom it may concern: as of today the donations on the Indieigogo have dropped to zero. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/quest-the-story-of-sierra-on-line-dead-project/x/13109417#/
Hey Jordan… If the footage of the Al Lowe interview reflects on your current skills as a filmmaker…. then we are better off not having this documentary. Go and practice another 10 years.
Well, you are quite literally the first person to tell me that. No exaggeration. I’m not claiming that its indicative of some god like skill, but pretty much everyone has appreciated it. For example, here’s a poll I ran on my twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanowen42/status/691479154613571584
FYI: I have not watched The Sarkeesian Effect simply because it is behind a paywall and the subject matter does not interest me enough to pay for it. I did watch the trailer and read several reviews that included the list of interviewees and descriptions of the film content.
I’m not up-to-date on Anita Sarkeesian’s videos, but I have watched several since they are both relevant to game designers and free. I do not understand the personal animosity aimed at Ms. Sarkeesian. She has created a number of entertaining videos covering very important subjects. Whether or not her conclusions are all correct, she has certainly contributed a great deal to discourse about games and gaming.
I do agree with Sarkeesian that women are seriously underrepresented in games and most media, and that they are frequently stereotyped when they do have a role. Women are also underrepresented in the game industry, although that situation appears to be improving thanks to the impact of indie games.
Cory-
I will Facebook PM you a link to watch the doc for free. I’ve done a considerable amount of research into Sarkeesian and her background- as is reflected in the movie itself. And I think you might come to understand the animosity towards her better after watching it.
“Whether or not her conclusions are all correct, she has certainly contributed a great deal to discourse about games and gaming.”
Well now pretty much every Sierra game is ruined forever. Tell me – How and in what universe is this true? Sarkeesian’s conclusions are not only false, but deliberate fabrications. You might as well say “Donald Trump’s statements on the involvement of China in the TPP might be wrong, but he’s contributed a great deal to the discourse on the subject” – The only difference is that Donald was talking out of his butt, and not trying to deliberately deceive people in some premeditated fashion.
“I do agree with Sarkeesian that women are seriously underrepresented in games and most media, and that they are frequently stereotyped when they do have a role. ”
Which as anyone with half a brain for fiction will tell you: Every character in every good book is a collection of stereotypes. So really what you are saying is that what made all the great Sierra games great is a bunch of sexism, and that you’ve renounced it at the feet of Anita. Nice to know, innovation, humor, and storytelling are subservient to whether or not a sex-negative regressive feminist thinks they are ok in a particular game.
” Women are also underrepresented in the game industry,”
Says the guy who’s wife has been working in the video game industry since the 90s, alongside many other women. More women work and have been working in video games than in most other industries. To suggest that “women are underrepresented” one must ask: In comparison to what?
A complete pile, that’s what this response is:
“No, I haven’t really watched all of Sarkeesians videos. Well no, I also haven’t really watched Jordan’s documentary, but it’s important to cancel being in his new one because it must be bad – Sarkeesian is right, because of these very important made up reasons.”
That’s an interesting set of straw men you’ve set up – for example, “what you are saying is…”
Nope, not saying that at all. What made Sierra games great (and some – including people who worked there at the time – might argue about that) was the combination of storytelling, graphics, music, and players getting to use their brains. Oh, and Sierra was probably the most balanced game company of the period in terms of male and female designers and other developers.
Sexism had nothing to do with it. For example, we proposed Hero’s Quest as a game in which players could choose a male or female character, not to mention a human, fairy, gnome, or centaur character. We quickly axed those plans when engineers at Sierra explained why they wouldn’t work. (Every character and much of their animation would have to be duplicated on every 360K floppy disk, since most players back then did not have hard drives.)
Roberta Williams solved the problem with King’s Quest IV by making Rosella the heroine. She received some hate mail about that, but it was also the best-selling game in the series. Players in the 90’s wanted believable female characters to play, but most games didn’t provide that option. In our case, it was for technical reasons.
Many players today want to play female characters, and few games give them that choice. Must every game allow a female avatar? Of course not. Should every game treat women as realistic and equal to men in their capabilities? Perhaps not, but it’s reasonable that most of them should.
Are Anita Sarkeesian’s videos entertaining? I find them so. I’m certainly not threatened by them, and I think she points out some common aspects of games that I might not have consciously noticed otherwise. She isn’t trying to destroy the game industry, and she’s not trying to force every game to fit her ideas. But she is pointing out real problems, and good designers should watch and learn, just as we do from other forms of media and criticism. An arrogant game designer is a bad one. If you’ve watched her videos at all, you’ve clearly missed the point. She’s trying to suggest ways to make games better, not to take away the things that make them good.
This is a great response. I’m a big fan of the early Sierra games and it is good to see someone responsible for a lot of joy during my childhood and teen years being willing to speak out on these issues.
Jordan Owen cuts a sad figure. He appears earnest in his views, but horribly misguided and somehow has allowed himself to be somewhat consumed by his insecurities and hatred, “turned to the dark side”, on other words. He seems like a creative guy and this Sierra project seemed like an attempt to use his powers for good, so it’s a shame to see it fall to pieces. But I don’t blame you for not wanting to be involved. And Jordan’s immature response – apparently cancelling the project and blaming it on “Sarkeesian supporters” shows he wasn’t really ready to put the past behind him and move on. He needs to confront his own beliefs and worldview head-on – really think long and hard about what he is saying, and trying to achieve – before he will produce anything of value.
Immature response? Someone you’re a fan of since the 80s publicly humiliates you by comparing your work to rape, slavery and genocide isn’t immature of the person and upsetting? If I was in Jordan’s position I’d be too upset to even make a video response to Cole.
“straw men”…”Nope, not saying that at all. ” Funny, because you obviously didn’t read my comment at all. I wasn’t literally saying that you said anything of the sort. What I was saying is that you’re riding the activism train because your career is over.
“Oh, and Sierra was probably the most balanced game company of the period in terms of male and female designers and other developers.”
Oh gee, you know, out of the millions of companies that were out there in the mid 90s…. Nice dodge, but still not buying it.
“Sexism had nothing to do with it. ” And this is precisely why the Corey Cole who hasn’t actually watched Anita’s videos shouldn’t be siding with her on anything when Anita’s explanation is sexism. Go watch her treatment of pacman, or better yet, how game developers go out of their way to cover male buttocks in video games.
“Many players today want to play female characters, and few games give them that choice.”
Many players do want to play female characters… and many players do, it many games. Stop re-living your former career and start living in the real world.
“Perhaps not, but it’s reasonable that most of them should.”
And there’s where you completely misunderstand art, and misunderstand even simple things like freedom of expression. It’s not reasonable for anyone to suggest that most games have realistic depictions of anything. They are games, not the matrix. They are fiction, not history books.
“She isn’t trying to destroy the game industry, and she’s not trying to force every game to fit her ideas. ”
I’m glad to see that you are now telepathic, and/or God. Because that’s just about the only way you could know this. Besides, I said her videos had deliberate fabrications in them (and they do), not that she’s trying to destroy the game industry.
“But she is pointing out real problems,”
Maybe in your own imagination. Explain for me why we should heed any of Anita’s whining over imaginary worlds. If people like the worlds, then what is the problem? And don’t give me the “it affects the real world really badly” nonsense she spouts – There is ample evidence that it doesn’t, and no good evidence that it does.
” and good designers should watch and learn”
Good designers know a little more about storytelling than you or Sarkeesian. Have a look at Adrian Chmielarz’ critique of Anita’s “research”. And while you’re at it, have a spin through @cainjw on medium. She doesn’t know anything about storytelling in general, re-defines words, misuses scientific theories, and basically ends up with videos that say “I don’t like these types of games, so they’re very bad.” (Going out of her way of course, to do it in a sidways, “no i didn’t actually say that” way – till she had trouble looking at batman’s butt in her latest video)
“She’s trying to suggest ways to make games better, not to take away the things that make them good.”
In her own subjective opinion. Plus, if she wants to do that, then where are her games? She’s certainly raked in enough money, but she just keeps spending it on pushing kids in school to watch her dumb videos.
Oh and one more thing – If you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously about Sarkeesian, then stop being an idiot when it comes to people making documentaries. You basically shit on one of your biggest fans because he disagrees with your goddess Sarkeesian.
So, you want everyone else to take Anita seriously despite disagreeing with her, but then can’t treat someone you disagree with respectfully yourself.
Hypocrite. Nuff said.
Plenty of people are taking him seriously. Just go and look at any place online where this is being discussed that isn’t explicitly pro-gamergate and you will see that the majority of the gaming community has said that Corey is sensible to have declined to work with Jordan Owen because of the Sarkeesian Effect farce.
Corey is totally within his rights to refuse to work with someone because he disagrees with their politics or the ethics of their behavior. We are taught to take personal responsibility for our actions. This means applying a moral or ethical code to our own behavior. And not working alongside people whose moral or ethical standards do not meet our own. There is nothing “disrespectful” about what Corey has done, he has simply exercised his right (some might say responsibility) to freely choose who he does or does not work with.
No one is being alienated. Go and look at Sierra messageboards and groups and you will see the community is 99% behind Corey.
“Plenty of people are taking him seriously”
Only armchair hipster activists.
“Just go and look at any place online where this is being discussed that isn’t explicitly pro-gamergate and you will see that the majority of the gaming community”
Yes, that doesn’t smack of sampling bias at all. Just ignore any pro-gamergate sources, and what you have left is a minority of activist gamers and games journalist that the industry is leaving in the dust.
“No one is being alienated. Go and look at Sierra messageboards and groups and you will see the community is 99% behind Corey”
Funny considering I did go to look, and the majority of what was said has been scrubbed. Maybe the community didn’t actually get the whole story?
“Only armchair hipster activists.”
Back up this claim with some evidence please. You will notice that in my post I used actual examples – eg the Sierra Facebook page – to stand up my claims. Please show me some evidence that people who agree with Corey on this are “only armchair hipster activists”.
“Just ignore any pro-gamergate sources, and what you have left is a minority of activist gamers and games journalist that the industry is leaving in the dust. ”
Lol, you just claimed that all gamers outside of the few GG safe-spaces (KIA etc) are “a minority of activist gamers.” Totally ignoring the fact that the numbers involved for any of those places are miniscule in relation to the total number of games that are sold, or the numbers of people who get involved with non GG-affiliated online gaming communities. Also ignoring the fact that anti-GG views are accepted and widely vocalised within the mainstream gaming and tech industries – eg Tim Schaffer’s GDC speech, which received a standing ovation, Intel working with Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn (among others) on online harassment initiatives, etc.
“Funny considering I did go to look, and the majority of what was said has been scrubbed. Maybe the community didn’t actually get the whole story?”
The whole story? The whole story is that one guy decided he didn’t want to work with another guy because he didn’t agree with the other guy’s ethical principles. That’s literally all the “whole story” there is.
“What is disrespectful is agreeing to do something, then waiting til the person you agreed to be interviewed by has all the funding and equipment, and then refusing to do an interview based on a documentary you have not seen. If not disrespectful, then it is entirely lacking in class.”
Well, I can’t question you on your own definitions of “class”, we all measure that differently – but your claim that “all the funding and equipment” was in place seems dubious, seeing as, when I looked, Jordan’s crowdfunding was nowhere near its target. But that’s beside the point – if someone agrees to an interview, he is by no means legally or morally bound to go on to take part in that interview, and has every right to change his mind at any point and not get involved. In the film/documentary world this can happen at any time up until the footage is released, often way past the “interview has been arranged” stage. Jordan, as a documentary makes, is well aware of this, and is well aware that his subjects can exercise their right to silence whenever they choose.
What is ridiculous here, is how Jordan is trying to spin this as being due to “Sarkeesian fans boycotting” his project, when it seems to be just down to one person refusing to take part. And, much as I admire Cole’s work, surely it would be possible to create a documentary about early Sierra adventures without him having to be involved? Why can’t it go ahead with Al Lowe and Roberta Williams and whoever else was supposed to be involved?
“Back up this claim with some evidence please.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA…. *whew* I’m back! I’m back. – You do realize that “armchair hipster activists” is a derogatory designation designed to insult anyone who takes Corey seriously, and thus cannot be proved or disproved, right?
“Lol, you just claimed that all gamers outside of the few GG safe-spaces”
A. No I did not claim this.
B. You cannot just say that all gamers who aren’t GG supporters accept your position by default.
“Also ignoring the fact that anti-GG views are accepted and widely vocalised within the mainstream gaming and tech industries – eg Tim Schaffer’s GDC speech, which received a standing ovation, Intel working with Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn (among others) on online harassment initiatives, etc.”
This does not demonstrate that this is the majority of the gaming industry. You are cherry picking examples and missing the counter examples where Sarkeesian’s work has been criticized by developers at major development companies. You simply do not have enough here to say the majority of the gaming industry is on one side or another, and you also forget that the vast majority of gamers and the gaming industry are on neither side, and could care less about anything other than playing or selling games.
“The whole story is that one guy decided he didn’t want to work with another guy because he didn’t agree with the other guy’s ethical principles.”
No, I’m talking about where Corey has no actual reference point for judging said ethical principles and is doing it based on politics. He never addresses any specific ethical failings in his comments here or otherwise.
“But that’s beside the point – if someone agrees to an interview, he is by no means legally or morally bound to go on to take part in that interview, and has every right to change his mind at any point and not get involved. ”
Sure, and I also have every right to insult anyone as I see fit – It’s still disrespectful and lacking in class.
“What is ridiculous here, is how Jordan is trying to spin this as being due to “Sarkeesian fans boycotting” his project, when it seems to be just down to one person refusing to take part. ”
A. It’s actually Corey and his wife refusing to take part and all the other people refusing to take part if the Cole’s refuse.
B. Corey is definitely a Sarkeesian fan. He’s outright stated that she’s tackling the “real problems” of Batman’s butt, Ms. Pacman’s lipstick, Mario rescuing his girlfriend, and video games mirroring the real world by having strip clubs. It’s a safe bet his wife, who is also refusing is refusing for the same reason.
“And, much as I admire Cole’s work, surely it would be possible to create a documentary about early Sierra adventures without him having to be involved? ”
Nope. Sierra developers are a very cliquish group apparently.
“Why can’t it go ahead with Al Lowe and Roberta Williams and whoever else was supposed to be involved?”
Again, because they refuse to be involved if the Coles are not involved – It’s almost like you just jumped in here without knowing what is actually going on. Good on you, jump in and play referee in situations you lack a basic knowledge of.
Can you link to a source which backs up your claim that everyone else refused to be involved if the Corey’s aren’t involved?
It’s almost like you’re just making up evidence to suit your own narrative.
Maybe once you back up your claims that only Corey is refusing to participate in the documentary – “It’s almost like you’re just making up evidence to suit your own narrative.”
You are asking me to prove something which would be impossible to prove without getting in touch with all of them and asking them individually.
Your claim , on the other hand, should be easy to prove – if they have all refused, then refusals must exist somewhere, and presumably you have seen them, in order to be able to claim that they are refusing.
“Your claim , on the other hand, should be easy to prove”
LOL. No harder than you proving that everyone else is willing to participate. There is no guarantee that the refusals would be part of the public record, so I say to you:
“You are asking me to prove something which would be impossible to prove without getting in touch with all of them and asking them individually.”
“if they have all refused, then refusals must exist somewhere”
Yeah, either in verbal conversations or writing between said developers and Jordan.
“presumably you have seen them, in order to be able to claim that they are refusing.”
Funny, because your claim has no actual substance to it. At least I have a video where Jordan explains the situation. But of course, as per usual, you consider your position as the default without basis.
I’m not sure about every Sierra employee refusing to take part but based on Cole’s statements towards Owen, it’s most likely he’d have trouble getting any other interviewee involved due to negative word of mouth thanks to Cole and in turn the Sarkessian fans who put Jordan in a bad light.
You’re just assuming all of that. So none of the Sierra devs have minds of their own? They will all simply refuse to talk to Owen because someone else told them to refuse to talk to him?
The Sarkeesian fans did not put Jordan into a bad light. He put himself there, all by himself, by going off half cocked on an anti-SJW crusade, hand in hand with Davis Aurini.
I don’t understand why you’re spending so much time defending him. He’s a laughing stock across the whole internet. Even if you don’t disagree with his politics, he’s clearly incompetent at film making.
You know what? If Owen had seemed remorseful or apologetic in any way about his past actions, this would never have happened. If he’d just put out a statement after the Sarkeesian debacle along the lines of “I was an idiot – I got swept up in the drama and didn’t realise how horrible the people I was association with were, and how wrong their views are” – then everyone would have understood, and I’m sure Corey Cole (and the rest) would have been happy to go ahead with his documentary.
You do realise Owen got rid of Aurini when he found out what he was really like don’t you? And yes after this I am about 75-80% certain that everyone else would turn Jordan down due to word of mouth. The Sierra group definitely have minds of their own but their a close knit group, remember they worked with each other for years. I’m sure it would be impossible to get anyone else involved after this especially the Williams.
So am I. And rightly so. If I was a former Sierra dev I would refuse to work with Jordan too, because of his past actions.
Look – Jordan is a Randian, right? So he knows, more than anyone, that one must face the consequences of their actions. So if the consequences of his actions are that people decide not to work with him, because they disagree with his politics and ethics, then he has no right to whine and cry about it. He made his bed and must lie in it.
So what you’re saying is a guy with good intentions should be damned because he worked with someone who’s racist, not realising how much of a nasty person this guy was? Damned to the point that no one should be allowed to ever work with Owen ever again? Considering it was his first doc I think Jordan did ok, yeah he messed up here and there but I think it’s been taken out of proportion.
Yes, that is more or less exactly what I am saying. It was obvious to anyone that Aurini was a nasty piece of work, he had already made plenty of very nasty videos, particularly about black people, way before Sarkeesian Effect even started.
Jordan displayed immense lack of judgement if he didn’t realize how nasty Aurini is. But, I think he knew full well, and decided to go along with it because what Aurini said about Sarkeesian fit in with his own “narrative”.
The Sarkeesian Effect I would say, on a technical level, was merely mediocre. Without all of the fuss surrounding it, it wouldn’t have been subjected to so much harsh scrutiny. It would have been just another slightly below average, low budget online documentary.
But considering they had made the claims that it was going to contain shocking, world-shattering revelations which would “blow open” the world of the Social Justice Warriors , and then all the drama of the Owen/Aurini bust-ups/make-ups/bust-up-agains – he came out of it looking utterly incompetent, and displayed terrible judgement by partnering with Aurini.
Should no one work with him ever again because of this? Well, it is often said that you only get one chance at success in life, and if you fuck it up you could end up regretting it till the day you die … so maybe this is how it will play out for Jordan. That would be sad, but not totally undeserved. Some people don’t even get one chance.
But I like to think that the world can be a kinder place than that would suggest, from time to time. I think Jordan would have to grow up a lot before anyone with any credibility outside of the narrow world of manosphere/MRA or whatever, would consider working with him.
I think he would have to rethink the way he sees the world, and decide whether it is really a nefarious, SJW-controlled cabal which is responsible for the problems of the world, or whether it is more likely to be people like him and his associates – those who preach intolerance, resistance to change and display a true love of freedom, by accepting that people should be free to live their lives as they wish, regardless of their gender or color, and that no man has the right to impose his own view of how the world works on anyone else. So no I don’t think it is impossible for him to redeem himself, but it would take a lot of introspection and a willingness to question some of his core personality traits. I am not sure he is capable of this, but I would like to believe he is.
Sarkessian is a racist and a con artist. I personally think it’s good he tried to make a documentary that exposed her and others actions. Nothing wrong with that.
And, in any case (following from my previous reply) ,wouldn’t you admit that, based on your version of events, it would be just as accurate to state that the documentary has failed because Sierra staff didn’t want to be involved, rather than “Anita Sarkeesian fans boycotting” as it has been sensationalized by Jordan?
And, going even further – can you honestly tell me that ANY reputable person would want to be involved with a Jordan Owen considering what an unmitigated clusterfuck the Sarkeesian Effect documentary turned into? Putting aside moral or ethical concerns, surely you can see that people might not want to work with him purely because he has demonstrated himself to be incompetent?
If it is “just as accurate” then it is equivalent. Classifying Corey and his wife as Sarkeesian fans is accurate even if it means nothing to you It’s still less hyperbolic than Anita’s own speech on cyber “violence” that isn’t actually violence.
And yes, I’d think that plenty or “reputable” people would donate to Jordan, especially if they were aware of his other work previous to TSE. Considering what Davis Aurini put him through, TSE is great, and still puts Anita’s videos and career in the grave. Only problem with TSE is fanbois like you and Corey won’t watch it because it contradicts your confirmation bias and those who don’t agree with Anita already know most of what is wrong with her work.
I watched it. For the record I agree that Jordan was fucked over by Aurini who is in another league entirely when it comes to being a shitbag. Like I previously said, I believe Jordan is sincere yet misguided. Aurini is a poisonous, twisted person.
I will not debate you on whether or not it is “great”, I will let that pass as a subjective judgement on your part.
What is objectively true about it is that it is NOTHING like what was it was promised it would be – a groundbreaking piece of investigative journalism that would “Blow the lid off” Anita Sarkeesian and “SJWs” in general. It promised (in the original trailer) shocking revelations and truly new evidence.
All that it ended up containing was a few talking heads saying things (almost entirely subjective opinions) which had been said repeatedly on the internet for at least a year prior to the film’s release.
I’m sorry but Sarkeesian Effect was a clear cut case of failing to deliver on a promise, and as such demonstrates incompetence.
“What is objectively true about it is that it is NOTHING like what was it was promised it would be – a groundbreaking piece of investigative journalism that would “Blow the lid off” Anita Sarkeesian and “SJWs” in general. ”
lol, I love how your opinions are “objectively true” and my opinions are “subjective judgement”. Sorry, but if it is good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.
“I’m sorry but Sarkeesian Effect was a clear cut case of failing to deliver on a promise”
In your subjective judgement, of course. Again, different standards for you, where your position is always the default, always right, and always a case of black and white. This must be awfully convenient, as nobody can have a valid disagreement (in your mind).
Is it ethical to publicly humiliate someone over Twitter, comparing their work to rape, slavery and genocide? Is that what I get for being fan of someone for years? I can guarantee that 99% you speak of are people that know someone who know someone else that hate Jordan’s work based on a trailer. Word of mouth.
I didn’t really want to get into this discussion but she is pointing out real problems? She criticised Assassin’s Creed Syndicate for not having enough black people, which would make sense since it’s a game set in Victorian London, an era and city predominantly filled with white people…
Congrats on knowing literally nothing about Victorian London.
Oh sorry I forgot Victorian London was filled with black people and there was hardly any white people living there. My mistake.
*Hops in DeLorean and NOPEs back to The ’80s*
Nelson’s article isn’t helping.
Oh, all this drama is giving me a headache. We cover videogames, people. Remember that. All this talk about journalistic ethics – it’s not like we’re talking about war crimes, here. We’re talking about a documentary about a videogame company. I think everybody is taking this all a little bit too seriously. Don’t get me wrong, there is merit to be found deep within this debate, but I feel like a little perspective would go a long way – that goes for both sides.
I’m honestly surprised that this debate is still going on. I wrote this article a couple months ago.
I noticed! It’s been at the top of the ‘Popular Discussions’ section for weeks. People can be stubborn and persistent, I guess! #MakeLoveNotWar
Irrelevant drama is the kind that lasts the longest because reasonable people have better things to do with their time than argue about it online…
Nonsense! I expect hard hitting journalism from a bunch of twenty somethings with BAs in Communications covering what amounts to digital toys.
here s a short film i made about my love for sierra on-line back in 1992
https://youtu.be/FaM-fecBszY