Radiowar

my guess is if you used any of the original audio/stems it probably triggered youtube's fingerprinting system (which would explain how it raised a flag "almost immediately"). i doubt you are at any risk of being sued at all - i'd be more worried about consequences for your youtube account's uploading/monetizing privileges, etc. (though i doubt that would be a problem either). the real lesson here is to not upload remixes (or anything that could be construed as copyright infringing) to youtube. their content identification can be a bit of a loose cannon: i uploaded a recording of myself playing a chopin nocturne on my own piano once and it got flagged.

personally i like to think of it more like i approach every piece with a question: what would happen if i did [x] - in a very general way. put another way, i had a teacher who described inspiration not as something that arrived to you in a flash, but something that arose out of some process already in motion. i have always found that the music i make which is most coherent to me was not written with any prescribed "reason" or "meaning". it's actually something i struggle with a lot, believing that if there is an idea which is real to me it will manifest itself in the music whether i will it or not, and trusting that i do not need to try to adjust or direct my ideas toward something which i perceive as being better - that's just insecurity.

i loooove mmbn and its music, though i would be skeptical of a project since the series is so massive. would it be better to approach each version individually, or cherry pick like the pokemon album? idk. generally i would prefer a more nuanced approach to scope and style (not to hate on projects which remix an entire ost)

i could probably find this out real quick by ripping the youtube audio but is there an exact bpm for this ?

uhhhhhhhhhhh YEs

this this this this this this part of understanding sexism in our society has to be a willingness to see the whole picture. it's not about who's to blame, or who's having too much blame forced upon them ("try being a straight white male" is one of my favourite sentences ever, thank you). some women benefit from patriarchy, many men benefit from patriarchy; some men suffer from patriarchy, many women suffer from patriarchy. let's not make this about how many Suffering Points you have to get before we never have to talk about it again, BUT let's also not forget that we're not talking about a level playing field: when it comes to gender (a social hierarchy based on sexual difference), society favours men; when it comes to race (a social hierarchy based on physical difference), society favours white; when it comes to sexual orientation (a social hierarchy based on attraction), society favours heterosexual. these are real, demonstrable truths about our society, and relyance, it is unfortunate that you've had such unpleasant experiences, but as blunt and wrongheaded as they may seem, they almost certainly come from a lived reality in which women, people of colour, and homosexuals are told from birth and reminded of with regularity, in ways subtle and overt, that the world is not for them. because in reality, the end goal of a movement like feminism is not equality (in the sense of achieving an "equal" social status with men, which is to say, the oppressor-class). it should be okay for a woman to say to a man that this is not a space for you. not to turn the tables on men, but to understand that if the experience of a woman is one in which her space - not only in a social sense, but in a personal sense, her body and her identity - are regularly invaded and dominated by men, a first step to correcting the imbalance is to establish a space free from their oppressors, men who have become accustomed to their privileged ability to exist in whatever space they choose in whatever manner they choose. [i can already hear you jumping all over the word "oppressor" - my post is based on the premise that gender, race, and sexuality as we understand them are social constructs. when i refer to men, i don't refer to a specific man, but in the abstract - a state of man-ness] edit: peach is dope in smrpg

shot in the dark but i think "Mrs. Male Character" is meant to be a play on the "Mrs. [husband's name]" way of referring to a married woman (ie. a woman whose entire identity is as the property of a man)

we're talking about reading media here. a video game cutscene, like any film or narrative art form, has to make a conscious decision of what it includes in its frame and the position of its figures at any given time. so yes, the staging of the god of war cutscene can - and is likely intended to be - interpreted as sexually suggestive (the revealing clothing, the struggle and submission to the male figure, the position of the bodies, and the way she is ultimately killed with the spike). christmas trees may have phallic characteristics in shape, but i think you'd have a hard time defending an interpretation of the tradition of placing angels on top of trees as sexual ritual.

what i was getting at was (specifically in response to The Coop, who seemed to be suggesting that a person/action/utterance is only as sexist as the intentions behind it) the part that i bolded: the (false) notion that racism (and by analogy, sexism) is something that is spoken or acted into existence, rather than something which is deeply, totally embedded in our societies, our language, our behavior, and so on. sure, i understand that. but to continue the thought from the article i referenced, if we can agree that sexism - or institutionalized oppression - is something which exists outside of intentional, direct, blatant acts - things which, as you say, all but the most reasonably people would be able to interpret as reprehensible without much effort - then we are left with the problem of how to illustrate the existence of something abstract, something which goes relatively unnoticed, something which indeed exists in part because of the ease with which it may be dismissed as irrelevant, exaggerated, or imagined. so, i still maintain that the incredibly thorough analysis of this seemingly mild, inoffensive pattern is a valid approach to the overall goal of the series - something which i imagine will become clearer as further videos with similar levels of detail are released.

Coop, your argument here brings to mind a passage from this article (emphasis mine): replace the words "whites" with "men", "racism" with "sexism" - or just about any other form of institutionalized discrimination - and the argument remains the same. the idea that sexism exists only in those acts or utterances perpetrated by evil, sexist people is one which mistakes the nature of sexism in the first place.

probably no mistake that it was death by penetration (lower abdomen, impaled from behind by a giant phallic implement - and far from the only sexually suggestive staging in the cutscene. "bros before hos" is just the colloquial way to sum it all up for anyone who hadnt picked up on the innuendo)

what i meant was, the "rescue" scenario created by the damsel in distress trope may be said to be problematic where a real-life scenario may not, simply by virtue of the fact that video games (as with all art) are consciously created, and are representative of far more than just the literal content they depict. well, then i would refer to an earlier post in this thread where a father customized donkey kong for his daughter who did not find it gratifying - she was tired of playing as the male character rescuing the passive female character. a more correct statement would be "The game exists to gratify men," the implication being, "at the expense of women." why must it be that way?

again, i would have to argue that subtle ≠ insignificant, and that just because "damsels in distress" is not as Punchy as "TOMB RAIDER TRAILER FEATURES RAPE SCENE", or any of a wide array of horrific things that have already received widespread attention, does nothing to diminish the point she is making in this video, nor her stated objective for the entire series.

youve been trollin this thread pretty hard since the beginning, im fine with it okay you're asking the wrong question. i don't believe that sarkeesian claimed anywhere in her video that there is anything inherently condescending, discriminatory, or otherwise problematic about the act of rescue itself. remember, we're talking about video games - depictions of real life - and not real life itself. and these are depictions in which - as sarkeesian demonstrates - both women and men may find themselves captured. when men are captured, they are able to use their intelligence or their strength to free themselves; when women are captured, they must wait passively for a man to use his intelligence or strength to free them.

if youre referring to the video here, it is a pretty good example of the supremely unfair catch-22 ish situation people like sarkeesian face: either they don't have enough evidence, and you get smug assholes like emperor charlemagne bein like "ENUMERATE THEM FOR ME."; or there's too much evidence, and they're making a big deal out of nothing. we are confronted with blatant sexism every day. you cant turn on the tv without hearing about women being denied their reproductive rights, women being paid less than men, women all over the world whose bodies and identities are being violated - what do you think makes it possible for horrible, inconceivable violence to occur against women every day? it is exactly the little things that those who have - DARE I SAY IT - the privilege to shrug it off refuse to acknowledge. i said the pattern was the problem - but a pattern is by definition comprised by smaller instances which, on their own, may appear unremarkable. what is important about these videos is that they compile these seemingly unremarkable instances - understanding that it is not that the examples are unremarkable at all, but that they are perceived as such due to a culture whose dominant class normalizes them - and suggests that while all of us in society - men, women (but particularly men, it should be said, as our conception of gender manifests itself as a hierarchy of power in which men are firmly dominant) - while not necessarily responsible for the most heinous acts of sexual violence or discrimination, implicitly support or enable these acts by performing, witnessing, and accepting acts which are not so overt, yet are undeniably cut from the same cloth.

even if it was true that, taken individually, instances of the "damsel in distress" trope were harmless, the fact that these individual instances are so ubiquitous throughout video games is indicative of a larger pattern, and it is the pattern that is harmful. does it mean people should never play mario bros. again, or feel guilty whenever they do? probably not. but like i said before, this is not about video games, it's about the kind of art our culture produces, and really getting to the bottom of what it says about us.

guys this is not about video games. video games are a symptom of a problem. these videos are not intended to suggest a "solution", they are simply critical readings of media which are largely subject to the sole perspective of males. the videos are important because (self) critical thought and discourse are important.

no please dont do this to me no

i kno youre bein rhetorical but this is actually a thing (like ab56 said about the female gamer data being too broad). it is true that many women play games and could be said to fall under the broad umbrella of "gamer", but i dont think you can argue that Gamer Culture is overwhelmingly the domain of men. we could talk about booth babes, or mutilated half naked torsos - but just look at the demographics of ocr. there are many talented artists and musicians here of all backgrounds, but i'd wager the community is overwhelmingly male. again, im not saying this as an indictment of any of the people here, or that ocr is somehow shutting out women, but as a well-established site of video game enthusiasts, i think we can reasonably take ocr as a reflection of gamer culture and realize that there is a trend here.

i think it's important that people step out of themselves a little bit in these kinds of discussions. too many men respond to this topic defensively, generally with some variation on the idea that women are accusing individual specific men of being the root of all evil in society, and that women themselves are blameless victims. the idea of patriarchy refers to an institutionalized, oppressive power structure (read: gender), rather than the individuals operating within it (@ brandon strader about women and twilight) - and that blindly accepting this system, whether out of ignorance, laziness, or outright contempt for your fellow human beings, should be unacceptable.

point taken but i think a more interesting question is whether anybody did not play double dragon because of it. it's pretty well established that men greatly outnumber women when it comes to gaming (as developers and as players), but is it because "well i guess women just dont like games hur" or is it because men have created yet another space that is deliberately exclusionary to women? to address manoo2k's question of why fuckin bother, if video games are a medium which are actively telling women to sit down and shut up (and yes the "damsel in distress trope" is key part of this), can we really shrug our shoulders and say "it just works!" ? i would go a step further and suggest that it is not an accident that the most technologically crude games this side of pong relied on this trope - for whatever reason, it was the easiest way to make a clear, direct appeal to men. and it's something thats worth addressing, because it's deep in the bones of our culture

typo. meant "classism". oops agreed (...i dont know if you are describing my post here, but if you are i think you misread my post. i definitely wasnt trying to say people need to do more good boy things like have swords and kill things and less bad girl things like get captured and look hot.)

ya i should have said "i dont wanna go BACK and watch any of his videos". i watched a bunch of his rants on various different topics awhile back and could not get that fool off my youtube recommendations for the longest time

i think the point is that capability or in other words Being A Human Person is not intrinsically tied to gender in the way that this medium's representation of people would have us believe i dont wanna watch any of his videos just to find examples of things to say but everything about his videos and his persona reeks of misogyny, xenophobia, classicism, all cloaked under the guise of intellectualism and SCIENCE

nice. looking forward to the rest of the series. judging by the negative reaction to the kickstarter this needs to be required reading for a lot of dudes out there which is kinda sad my guess is metroid is probably where nintendo comes out looking the best in terms of representation of women, though if you think about the original metroid, i think the "reveal" aspect of the ending is where it gets problematic. samus is simultaneously the agent of progress (in the androgynous/non-gendered suit) and the reward object (in the bikini), allowing the developers to sort of have their cake and eat it too. which speaks to a point that was brought up several times in the video: that women are often depicted as capable, so long as they affect or outright adopt masculinity. any expression of femininity is exploited to reinforce male power fantasy. also the amazing atheist is a big piece of shit idiot. hes the worst. people always link his videos when these kinds of topics come up and i dont know why. if we're trying to address issues of internalized and systemic misogyny why would you counter it with its most blatant, unabashed expression.