As a PSA about Porpentine and a recommendation to check out her work this article is useful but beyond that it feels kind of i dunno... Superfluous, maybe? Kinda feel like you could've just tweeted "Hey check out this stuff by this game-maker Porpentine" and it would've had the same effect. The aspects of her personality on display here seem pretty standard amongst the people i've known throughout my life.

Whatever i feel like i sound a bit rude and i dont much like sounding that way

Of course they are.

<3 DAT PORP.

The problem with creating articles like these that specifically highlight the game maker almost more so than the game(s) itself, is putting an elephant in the room and asking everyone to be civil and not comment on it.

These games are ok, fairly basic indie stuff that doesn't really draw me in one way or another. The developer seems likewise fairly standard in their commentary and motivations. It's everything outside of this very basic game-designer package which gets a bit unorthodox. Since this article presents the artist alongside the art, you immediately connect one with the other. I unwittingly followed the Tumblr link and to be perfectly honest, some of the stuff that I saw there made me a little more than uncomfortable - which in turn makes me associate that feeling with the games now and that pushes me away.

Is that rude for me to say? It really shouldn't be. As much as the developer has every right in the world to put that stuff up for everyone to see, to be shocked, inspired or offended, it is my right to actually feel offended when I do and be able to say as much. Now I wasn't offended per-se, but as I said it did make me feel uncomfortable.

The only reason I point this out more so than the content of the article itself is that I'm all for open discussion on the site, but that means being completely open about everything. This of course doesn't mean vitriolic and outright offensive comments should be tolerated, but I see so many people dancing around a point they're trying to make because they "don't want to sound like a jerk" when in fact they're just stating an opinion.

That said, Porpentine is generally inextricable from her work. She's made numerous comments about how her games and writing are literal extensions of herself. Another aspect of her work is that her games are necessarily built on creating that discomfort within her audience. By and large, I don't think Patrick could have written this article any other way. Plenty of the comments have absolutely been, "this makes me uncomfortable" - and that's a totally valid and reasonable response. However, it's not ok for people to resort to insults or to otherwise denigrate (well, anyone, but in particular the subject of the article) with dismissive namecalling. It's this last part that some folks continue to have problems with.

Porpentine is awesome, this is a good article. Also Twine is the shit. I spent like a solid week trying to make my own little non-linear mystery game that was set in Jorge Luis Borges' Library of Babel and it was more or less total garbage but it was still way fun to make. Coincidentally, Twine is a great way to get a taste for programming / creating. I've been shifting the focus of my master's degree from library science to information science, particularly with an emphasis on user interface design. Thanks Twine! Thanks Porpentine!

What she's saying, at least how I take it, is she wants to make games that may not have the broadest appeal, but they are very important to the people that it does impact. If there are ways we can build services to sustain her livelihood to create those works and not sacrifice the integrity of her work, that's important.

It's like how artists used to have patrons - somebody basically ponies up cash for you to live and eat and have shelter and stuff, so you're able to focus on your art without having to worry about making rent at the same time. In this instance, the internet becomes a collective patron instead of the Pope or whoever. Thus, "Patreon".

@patrickklepek: Can I ask who 'we' is referring to, legitimately? You say we should find a system that supports her; alright. Who is we, is it Porpentine's fans, or every video game fan, or the government or business or whom? I'd assume it's Porpentine's fans, but how is that any different from any other niche developer? I love and support a lot of niche devs, because they make things I want and I want more... Not because they're entitled to my support.

The one thing I might understand is if she's attempting to get fair-weather supporters to actually vote with their wallet. I agree with the premise that praise is sweet, but money is honey. A good review doesn't buy any bread.

Ah good. I was just about to ask the same question. Because what it seems like you are suggesting is some kind of welfare state for indie game developers, and as much i do like some indie games. I ain't down for that.

We don't require total agreement, we just ask that people not be rude. Be constructive if you want to disagree; heck, we encourage that. But a lot of people can't seem to find a way to do that without being flippantly or sarcastically dismissive, and that shit's gonna get deleted real quick. If you want to say something, make it mean something and make it longer than "lolwut?"

Establishing a system to provide patronage to individual developers will benefit more people than just Porpentine. This isn't about how artists are entitled to pay, though as producers they certainly are. This is about establishing a system that allows people to support the arts in a general sense, and further lowering the barrier to entry.

The notion of "make something worth paying for, then I'll pay you" is understandable, but can also serve to limit the talent pool. Not everyone is in a situation to make a game and then see how it does. A well established patronage system would allow people of all types to produce content in a lower risk manner.

So yes, the "we" can refer to Porpentine fans, every video game fan, governments and businesses. This type of system isn't different from almost any other type of art. I get calls and newsletters from my local symphony about fundraising events, and I'm sure they receive some grants, taxspayer dollars, patronage support, and donations from businesses and individuals.

If you like an art form, or just a hobby, you might want to consider funding its overall growth and development. You're "investing" in the future of video games by creating the financial incentive (if you want to think of it that way) to create video games.

The more people making games, the better. Right now we're limited to the daring and crazy that do it without financial support, or the established designers that have some scratch set aside. There are some middle grounds, but most of the big indie hits have taken real capital to get going.

It's time to figure out how to expand on that, for our own good.

I should start off by saying this has nothing to do with Porpy:

I check the site less often now because I know the front page is going to be SCOOPIN AND SPELUNKIN AND WORTH READING/WATCHING/PLAYING WITH KLEPEK!!!. Now I just listen to the Bombcast and check the site maybe twice a week to see if there are new Quick Looks.

Again, nothing to do with Porpy, I just don't happen to like Patrick's stuff. And that has nothing to do with him as an individual, either.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I played Ultra Business Tycoon III a while back when Patrick tweeted it or something, and I didn't really get it. The idea of this DOS-era shareware game juxtaposed with deeply personal moments doesn't really resonate with me, I guess. Porpentine seems like she's lived an... interesting life, and I can't really relate to that. I guess I should make a Twine game about being a straight white male growing up in a stable, relatively happy home environment.

@dts: I suppose the point I'm making is that we already have artists using their artistic talents in exchange for financial compensation and artists who are entrepreneurs. We already have people providing value to others in exchange for money. Lowering the barriers to entry is good, but that's just an alteration to the current market and not some new revolutionary idea.

If you love a thing, you should support it, yes. But this is exactly my point; by actively deciding that she wants to target niche markets, she is decreasing the overall market value of her work. That's fine, that's her choice, that's any artist's choice. But I find it very odd to create things that are in low demand and be frustrated that it's not financially viable. She's trading financial security for artistic agency, she's trading risk for reward. Not everyone gets to have both, a lot people don't even get to have one.

In short, it feels like she's asking to have her cake and eat it too.

Somewhat tangential; I don't like Patreon's set up, I like Kickstarter more because it has a project-based nature. Patreon to me reads like I'm hiring a person to do whatever they want. Kickstarter on the other hand; I'm hiring people to do contract work for something they want to make and I want them to give me. That's the ultimate ideal of economics; everyone producing and receiving what they want at prices and wages they want to pay or receive.

I'm glad people are making games like this, even if I don;t always connect with them. I've never understood all the complaints about not being able to relate to games. I never hear anyone say a book or a film should not have been made because they couldn't relate to the characters or story.

Also @mormonwarrior, have you ever heard of "The Shivah"? It's an adventure game about a Rabbi rediscovering his faith. (disclaimer: I haven't played they game, but heard it discussed a lot on podcasts and various articles. It's on my pile of shame)

You certainly could if you wanted to.

I just mean "we" as a general purpose term. You don't need to support her monetarily, but having a system like Patreon that makes other people have the ability to easily support her? That's pretty cool. Setting up your own website with your own payment system is not exactly easy. Patreon removes a barrier for both sides of the equation.

This kind of twee-indie tumblr folk-art is way too self-indulgent for my tastes but hey, more power to the people who find meaning in it. It's dumb to point at a medium - especially one as broad and emerging as videogames - and arbitrarily define what it can and can't be.

As far as the Patreon thing goes, if there's a market for it and people want to donate then sure, why not. No skin off my back.

There's a new Sheriff in town... with a quick-draw delete button and a bandolier full of puppy photos.

That last sentence you wrote is a crucial point to enabling productive discussions that I've been trying to get accross here for years. Thanks Rorie!

Maybe I'm missing a point or just interpreting her words differently than you, but the difference I see is that she doesn't seem "frustrated" that these games don't turn a profit. She's instead comfortable having found people who are voluntarily paying for her to be able to create what she wants.

I saw no implications of, "why can't I make more money" or "my type of games should be supported", which I would also disagree with. But it seems like the Patreon thing is just a great set up for her and her art, the folks funding it clearly agree because nothing is compulsory, and she's asking nothing more. Win-win-win!

@joshwent: I can admit I may be projecting on that angle. The phrasing gave me the impression of a 'call to action', or what game fans 'should be doing'. Whenever anyone tells me something I should do, my overwhelming reaction is 'should I?' So if I'm overreacting, I'm overreacting and sorry.

How about a system where comments are voted up or down? This "message deleted" approach seems a bit totalitarian. Let us decide which comments we want to see.

Porpentine sounds like a cool, quirky person! :D

@internetdetective: I'll be honest 60%-80% of the deleted comments on here are just spam. Which is annoying!

@internetdetective: How about we don't turn into Reddit and just let moderators delete spam and shitty posts.

Yeah, most of 'em are spam, to be perfectly honest. Only a small number are people acting up.

I'd love to make a pun... but I would never do that on porpous. :}

@humanity: I agree with your points in the article and the comments.

It's fairly standard as an article but the content will obviously raise the interest or ire of a fair number of people.

Giant Bomb had the +/- feature at launch and it was removed due to abuse. Glad it's gone.

Never heard of her, but her stuff sounds pretty cool. I'll go check it out.

On another note, what the hell happened in this thread?

Nice piece Patrick, I'll have to look into more of her stuff.