Jimquisition: Stupid Sexy Bayonetta

[Kohen Keesing]

You dislike them because almost every professional review is of the "This is what I liked and didn't like" format. So naturally they're not valuable to you.

Exactly as I said. Professional reviews need to be better.

By the way, the best way you can tell me if I'm going to like a game or not is compare and contrast it to other games in the same genre I know I like or don't like. That would require some actual experience in gaming, and doing some extra work with research. Which is beyond your average reviewer's abilities.

So what are your comparing and contrasting criteria of those games? Comparing and contrasting it to other games can only be done on a basis of what you liked or disliked about those other games you're comparing to. Let me re-quote that little bit:

By the way, the best way you can tell me if I'm going to like a game or not is compare and contrast it to other games in the same genre I know I like or don't like.

So, you're comparing this hypothetical unbiased objective statement about a game to your pre-conceived biased opinions about other games. THE OXYMORON IS STRONG.
That's what a review is: a breakdown of good or bad aspects of a game - a concept that can only be created through observations and opinions.

What are reviews meant to contain if not subjective material? There's a lot of spiel from you about what needs NOT to be in reviews, and how they "need to be more professional", but you're not giving examples of what exactly constitutes a so-called "Professional Review" that I've seen, so what DOES need to be in one? Analyzing game mechanics?

Yeah and how well the mechanics handle take up, what, 10% of the review? Because let me tell you that there are plenty of mechanically sound bug free games out there that are still boring as sin and just bad games

Now, taking into consideration that whether game mechanics are 'good' or 'bad' are subjective by nature depending on how the reviewer likes a game to be played, what's left after the functionality of the game being reviewed? All that's left is the subjective stuff, whether the art, story, characters, setting, and aesthetics are up to scratch.
Again, their quality is subjective, because you'll see plenty of "good" games that lack in one or more of those areas.

Enjoyment of a game is in itself inherently an opinion: You can't tell someone they'll enjoy a thing without opinion and subjection, because enjoyment is not objective and unbiased and unopinionated

 

[Thanatos2k]

You dislike them because almost every professional review is of the "This is what I liked and didn't like" format. So naturally they're not valuable to you.

Exactly as I said. Professional reviews need to be better.

By the way, the best way you can tell me if I'm going to like a game or not is compare and contrast it to other games in the same genre I know I like or don't like. That would require some actual experience in gaming, and doing some extra work with research. Which is beyond your average reviewer's abilities.

So what are your comparing and contrasting criteria of those games? Comparing and contrasting it to other games can only be done on a basis of what you liked or disliked about those other games you're comparing to. Let me re-quote that little bit:

By the way, the best way you can tell me if I'm going to like a game or not is compare and contrast it to other games in the same genre I know I like or don't like.

So, you're comparing this hypothetical unbiased objective statement about a game to your pre-conceived biased opinions about other games. THE OXYMORON IS STRONG.
That's what a review is: a breakdown of good or bad aspects of a game - a concept that can only be created through observations and opinions.

What are reviews meant to contain if not subjective material? There's a lot of spiel from you about what needs NOT to be in reviews, and how they "need to be more professional", but you're not giving examples of what exactly constitutes a so-called "Professional Review" that I've seen, so what DOES need to be in one? Analyzing game mechanics?

Most of the stuff should not be subjective. This would be what you do:

The battle system is similar to that of this other game. *Shows reasons why they're similar* *Shows ways they're different* *Suggests which one works better or not, gives detailed reasons why. (SUBJECTIVITY ALERT!)* *Does this for several other games* Note that these reasons will never consist of political ideology.

The reason this works is because very little of this is the reviewer telling me what they think is good or not, they use my own notions of what is good or not to guide me. This is valuable to me. Saying Tactics Ogre plays similarly to Final Fantasy Tactics and showing why is extremely valuable information to me, because I like Final Fantasy Tactics, so it's pretty obvious I'd like Tactics Ogre. If I didn't, I similarly would not like Tactics Ogre. You can even throw in whether you think Tactics Ogre plays better than FFT or not, and tell me why. If you're going to suggest that the game sucks because SRPGs are boring (PERSONAL AGENDA ALERT!), then you're the wrong reviewer for the job. Similarly, if you're easily offended by pixel boobs, you're the wrong reviewer to be given a review of Bayonetta. The farce is that Polygon's editors knew this and did it anyways.

 

[xPixelatedx]

And I've got a bit of of a secret tip for you Jim! When two sides are colliding in a very heated debate and someone is trying to appear as neutral and understanding as possible, it's important that you make it appear as though you are chastising both sides for the negative actions of some individuals in their camps, not just one side. All it would have taken is a sublet rewording of "women name here" instead of "female game developer name here", because the latter implies quite a specific thing, given the current happenings. For someone so against the harassment of women, it would just be really nice to hear you speak out against the bad eggs attacking all the women involved in this, especially the women who don't have an industry to speak out for them in an endless array of support. It is very frustrating and upsetting for them to see so many public figures ignore or find amusement in their plight; never speaking out against it.

The world doesn't need another implied condoning of harassment under the guise of not condoning it.

Food for thought indeed.

 

[Ratty]

I do wish Jim had added that death threats and harassment against ANYONE was bad. Because average people in the game development or media should not be abused for having a differing opinion either.

And there's been a lot of doxxing and harassment going on towards GGers by anti-GGers. And that's every bit as bad as any harassment that may be done by those identifying as GGers. In fact I'd say it's worse because it's often been encouraged, condoned (explicitly with encouragement or implicitly by failure to criticize) and sometimes even committed by games media "professionals" who should have higher standards of behavior. Remember there are good people on both sides who decry and actively fight against the harassment perpetrated by people purporting to be their allies. For example many GGers for have repeatedly come together to keep Anita Sarkeesian from being harassed.

 

[Stalydan]

I agree...but doesn't tie back in to other things you've talked about Jim? About whose fault controversies are?
Bayonetta dresses as her character choose. Great. Except bullshit. Bayonetta is not a person. She is not real. Someone, most likely a man, WROTE her. They wrote 'Bayonetta kills bosses by ripping her clothes off and sucking on lolipops' ...and that's just cool, because...why? Bayonetta has no agency, not identity beyond that of a sexualized woman. We don't see Bayonetta renting movies and having a relaxing night at home with some popcorn. We don't see Bayonetta filing up her car with gas, or doing her taxes or washing her clothes. We only see her as a sex object, something to be oogled and fapped to because that's all she is. That is how she, as a nonperson, was written.

Put it thing way: If Bayonetta was written in the 90s, or was a comic book character, would anyone attempt to defend her? Somehow, I doubt it.

But Bayonetta was designed by a woman as her own personal power fantasy. Someone who's sexual because she wants to be, not because there's a man she wants to bang.

 

[Kohen Keesing]

Most of the stuff should not be subjective. This would be what you do:

The battle system is similar to that of this other game. *Shows reasons why they're similar* *Shows ways they're different* *Suggests which one works better or not, gives detailed reasons why. (SUBJECTIVITY ALERT!)* *Does this for several other games* Note that these reasons will never consist of political ideology.

The reason this works is because very little of this is the reviewer telling me what they think is good or not, they use my own notions of what is good or not to guide me. This is valuable to me. Saying Tactics Ogre plays similarly to Final Fantasy Tactics and showing why is extremely valuable information to me, because I like Final Fantasy Tactics, so it's pretty obvious I'd like Tactics Ogre. If I didn't, I similarly would not like Tactics Ogre. You can even throw in whether you think Tactics Ogre plays better than FFT or not, and tell me why. If you're going to suggest that the game sucks because SRPGs are boring (PERSONAL AGENDA ALERT!), then you're the wrong reviewer for the job. Similarly, if you're easily offended by pixel boobs, you're the wrong reviewer to be given a review of Bayonetta. The farce is that Polygon's editors knew this and did it anyways.

Thank you for actually pinning down what needs to be in a professional review (with an example of a 'good' review, even better), and I'd say for the most part you are right. I had hoped this is what you were leaning toward, but the thing this example review seems to be missing is the entire artistic side of the game. It compares the combat and the mechanics of FFT to Tactics Ogre, but there needs to be details about the other 90% of the game. Where's the description of whether the story and gameplay combine seamlessly like DeadSpace managed to do, where's the mention of whether the characters develop, or if the storyline is one of those ones where you only have one objective for a 20-hour game and everything that happens is just filler up to the single quick-time event final boss (I will never forgive ME:SoM for doing that, despite me finding it a great game in most other respects)? Sure, I can assume from a comparison between FFT and TO(I've never played Tactics Ogre) that the latter has turn-based combat, probably on a grid, maybe a fair bit of physical and magical customization, but..... that's like 30% of what I pay attention to in a game. I hate turn based gaming, but I got over it for a couple of games because I found FFTA and FF7 to be engrossing on a storyline/character/artstyle level - which is something opinionated.

As you said at the start of your reply, you can suggest why a particular something in a game is better, you can even provide detailed evidence to back it up, but that's still just backing up your opinion. No amount of evidence as to why Lightning and Hope from FF13 are intriguing and engrossing characters (pffahahaha) is going to convince me that they are interesting, because it's evidence backing up a personal opinion.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Most of the stuff should not be subjective. This would be what you do:

The battle system is similar to that of this other game. *Shows reasons why they're similar* *Shows ways they're different* *Suggests which one works better or not, gives detailed reasons why. (SUBJECTIVITY ALERT!)* *Does this for several other games* Note that these reasons will never consist of political ideology.

The reason this works is because very little of this is the reviewer telling me what they think is good or not, they use my own notions of what is good or not to guide me. This is valuable to me. Saying Tactics Ogre plays similarly to Final Fantasy Tactics and showing why is extremely valuable information to me, because I like Final Fantasy Tactics, so it's pretty obvious I'd like Tactics Ogre. If I didn't, I similarly would not like Tactics Ogre. You can even throw in whether you think Tactics Ogre plays better than FFT or not, and tell me why. If you're going to suggest that the game sucks because SRPGs are boring (PERSONAL AGENDA ALERT!), then you're the wrong reviewer for the job. Similarly, if you're easily offended by pixel boobs, you're the wrong reviewer to be given a review of Bayonetta. The farce is that Polygon's editors knew this and did it anyways.

Thank you for actually pinning down what needs to be in a professional review (with an example of a 'good' review, even better), and I'd say for the most part you are right. I had hoped this is what you were leaning toward, but the thing this example review seems to be missing is the entire artistic side of the game. It compares the combat and the mechanics of FFT to Tactics Ogre, but there needs to be details about the other 90% of the game. Where's the description of whether the story and gameplay combine seamlessly like DeadSpace managed to do, where's the mention of whether the characters develop, or if the storyline is one of those ones where you only have one objective for a 20-hour game and everything that happens is just filler up to the single quick-time event final boss (I will never forgive ME:SoM for doing that, despite me finding it a great game in most other respects)? Sure, I can assume from a comparison between FFT and TO(I've never played Tactics Ogre) that the latter has turn-based combat, probably on a grid, maybe a fair bit of physical and magical customization, but..... that's like 30% of what I pay attention to in a game. I hate turn based gaming, but I got over it for a couple of games because I found FFTA and FF7 to be engrossing on a storyline/character/artstyle level - which is something opinionated.

As you said at the start of your reply, you can suggest why a particular something in a game is better, you can even provide detailed evidence to back it up, but that's still just backing up your opinion. No amount of evidence as to why Lightning and Hope from FF13 are intriguing and engrossing characters (pffahahaha) is going to convince me that they are interesting, because it's evidence backing up a personal opinion.

Well I mean, what I had there was only a fraction of the review. You'd do the same thing for the graphics, the music, the controls, yadda yadda.

Then we get to the story (and/or characters), and this is the minefield where the reviewer will be tempted to shove their agenda in, but you must hold back. You should be talking most about the *structure* of the story, and why it works or not with reasons why. Spoilers also factor in. Pacing is another good area you can analyze that's not as subjective. Talking about the writing is more objective than talking about the content/direction of the story. You give a summary of the story and its direction, because that's what the reader is interested in the most.

The real kicker here is to identify if something you're complaining about in the story or characters is likely to be shared by your audience, or if it's a PERSONAL ISSUE. If it's a personal issue, either don't mention it, or downplay the significance of this part of your critique, and then do not let it factor into your score. Mentioning it is fine, because some of your audience might agree, and it may be a deal breaker to them. But preaching at your audience will simply enrage those that don't agree. I think the characters in FF13 (aside from Sazh) are some of the worst characters ever to grace a video game, but I know that it's a personal thing. I would attack some of the writing instead, which has far more objective flaws in it than the characters. (SERAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH)

Then you bring it all together, and you don't dock points for your pathetic contrivances. I've seen reviewers claim to dock points for some of the stupidest insignificant reasons imaginable they KNEW weren't going to be shared by their audiences while already firing up the "It's my opinion you can't tell me I'm wrong" defense, and it has no place in professional reviews.

Should the review be pretty long with all this content? Yep. Probably take you a while to get it right too with all the research and content to look at. Such is life for a professional.

 

[altdoom]

Always thought the sexiest thing about Bayonetta is her glasses.

 

[Biran53]

If you're going to suggest that the game sucks because SRPGs are boring (PERSONAL AGENDA ALERT!), then you're the wrong reviewer for the job. Similarly, if you're easily offended by pixel boobs, you're the wrong reviewer to be given a review of Bayonetta. The farce is that Polygon's editors knew this and did it anyways.

I either agree with or understand most of what else you posted, but I wanted to briefly point out that this particular idea can have its slight drawbacks. Yes, there are many circumstances where it is perhaps better that a certain critic who tends to not have a liking for a certain genre or game series should refrain from professionally reviewing the piece. But a critic who os a well known fan of a certain genre or series would likely critique that piece with a bias that can be just as damaging.

It's like me reviewing BioShock. I can talk about the series to death, but please don't make purchasing decisions based on my praise. I am a relentless fanatic with those games.

EDIT: But to reinforce your point (and thr current thread of RPG talk), I must say I wouldn't make the best reviews of Final fantasy or the likes, because I mostly dislike RPGs. Perhaps critics should put disclaimers stating their preferences if they find themselves reviewing games they tend to not like so much.

captcha: Tower of Strength

The Tower of Babel? Will we all one day speak the same language with the same ideals in a paradise? And will it be torn down by God, or some great cosmic creature like Cthulu or a giant Worm?

 

[Kohen Keesing]

Bayonetta dresses as her character choose. Great. Except bullshit. Bayonetta is not a person. She is not real. Someone, most likely a man, WROTE her. They wrote 'Bayonetta kills bosses by ripping her clothes off and sucking on lolipops' ...and that's just cool, because...why?

But Bayonetta was designed by a woman as her own personal power fantasy. Someone who's sexual because she wants to be, not because there's a man she wants to bang.

This is something that always gets me, too.
Bayonetta isn't a real person. People are getting hyped up about how non-existent entities are represented in a videogame.
And why can't someone write a character that 'kills bosses by ripping her clothes off and sucking on lolipops'? It DOES sound awesome, because I want to see a juxtaposition of physical destruction and over-sexuality: it sounds like something I'd like to see, I say "like" considering I've never been able to play a Bayonetta game. Considering we have comic-book characters like this, we have film and literature characters like this, we have fan fiction and art characters also who are based on nothing but this, why NOT have videogame characters like this.

Every time someone tends to the side of the argument that "well why should this character be allowed to exist".... Well, because people want it, and people want to make it, and it's not being created explicitly for the purpose of hurting anyone physically, emotionally, or idealogically. It kind of smacks to me of those religious propaganda videos that suggested DnD and other roleplaying games are immoral because "when you play those games, you're hurting people, you monsters... ****** ***** winge winge* I don't like it so you're not allowed to have it ****** ***** winge winge*"

 

[Mr C]

I don't really see the character as anything other then a fetishistic character... i don't see anything redeemable about her... and of course being on wii u means I don't have to which is nice since I wasn't suckered into buying the dreamcast 2.. i mean.. Wii u and have no plans to.. BUT....if another player want's to enjoy bayonetta, go for it I guess.. if you can find a reason to like the game's character then good, everyone likes different things so I say enjoy.. just keep her away from me.

Dreamcast 2? You give the system too much praise young one

 

[Grampy_bone]

I just hope this isn't a repeat of when some particularly vocal individuals were getting worked up over a critic (I believe at Gamespot?) had the "gall" to bestow GTA5 with the INSULTING score of 9 / 10. All because she felt slightly uncomfortable with the game's persistent lack of concern with any form of potentially offensive subtext.

That whole ordeal had me laughing and sighing. Lighing? Saughing?

The issue with that review wasn't that the author "dared" to give it a score of 9, but rather that he devoted a large amount of an otherwise incredibly positive piece to complaining about how awful and sexist the game was. It was just weird. Its like, did he understand what kind of game he was playing? Did he expect a game about crime, robbery, and murder to have a thoughtful, respectful, and nuanced portrayal of women? When did GTA ever claim to not be sexist? Why does everything have to be so PC?

Basically, it's like complaining Madden has "too many dudes" and needs more gender representation. People cried foul because they sensed the author was showing disrespect for the medium, the product, and their time by using a bully-platform (reviewing a major game for a major publication) in order to promote his own ideological agenda.

 

[doomrider7]

I just hope this isn't a repeat of when some particularly vocal individuals were getting worked up over a critic (I believe at Gamespot?) had the "gall" to bestow GTA5 with the INSULTING score of 9 / 10. All because she felt slightly uncomfortable with the game's persistent lack of concern with any form of potentially offensive subtext.

That whole ordeal had me laughing and sighing. Lighing? Saughing?

The issue with that review wasn't that the author "dared" to give it a score of 9, but rather that he devoted a large amount of an otherwise incredibly positive piece to complaining about how awful and sexist the game was. It was just weird. Its like, did he understand what kind of game he was playing? Did he expect a game about crime, robbery, and murder to have a thoughtful, respectful, and nuanced portrayal of women? When did GTA ever claim to not be sexist? Why does everything have to be so PC?

Basically, it's like complaining Madden has "too many dudes" and needs more gender representation. People cried foul because they sensed the author was showing disrespect for the medium, the product, and their time by using a bully-platform (reviewing a major game for a major publication) in order to promote his own ideological agenda.

How was "the author was showing disrespect for the medium, the product, and their time by using a bully-platform (reviewing a major game for a major publication) in order to promote his own ideological agenda.", if I may ask? How is he promoting his personal agenda? He gave the game the score he did because he didn't like certain things in it that detracted from his enjoyment which is perfectly valid. If people don't agree with his opinion then they are entitled to that since again, the review is just the authors personal feelings on the game as most reviews(not just games, but film, book, and TV as well) are very opinion based.

 

[vorkon]

I agree 100% with Jim's stance on Bayonetta, HOWEVER his stance on never adding a caveat to a statement condemning something is absolutely unsupportable.

(See what I did there? )

Anyway, that argument has serious problems. Going by that logic, it shouldn't be alright to say something along the lines of:

"Terrorist attacks are deplorable and horrible and cannot be condoned, however the actions of a few depraved individuals are not representative of Muslims as a whole."

I happen to agree wholeheartedly with that statement, and more importantly for this discussion, I agree with the logic behind it. However that is precisely the same argument being used to attack people who support #GamerGate. No one (or, at least, very few people) are saying "Death threats against [fill-in-the-blank] are deplorable, however [fill-in-the-blank] is a b**** who deserves it," they are saying "Death threats against [fill-in-the-blank] are deplorable, but are not representative of the #GamerGate movement as a whole." Moreover, they are saying that in direct response to people saying, "If you support #GamerGate, you are supporting the people who made these death threats." Expecting people not to add that caveat is unreasonable.

 

[Rellik San]

SNIP. (forgive the snip but this will be a long post and I don't wanna make it longer than necessary, if I forget anything, by all means call me out on it)

(Quoted remarks are my paraphrasing for both berevity and clarification as to which aspect I'm responding too)

"Why do Bayonetta's writers get a free pass?"

Because of authorial intent... in my opinion at least. I view her character as being yes, sexual, but her sexuality is on a level so absurd and out there, that realistically many would be turned off by it (speaking from experience here, that's not to say sexually strong women intimidate or turn me off, but being on the receiving end of hyper sexuality especially unprovoked or unwarranted was indeed off putting and even a little frightening to me, but that's my personal experience, judge me as you will by all means) that's not to say I find such things a negative, if that's what you're into cool)... but the fact the character owns her sexuality it's all instigated by her, not at the behest of another character is what changes the context here in my opinion.

"What about the ME3 uproar?"

Well I'd dare to venture that's because of the differing narrative offered by the game, Bayonetta is a linear narrative, her personality is pre-defined, with Shepard (Femm or otherwise) her/his personality is defined by player input, so having such input render into 3 basically the same endings would remove player agency from a game series based entirely around player agency. In Bayonetta, you're along for the ride, not a part of it, thus having a lack of story agency is a different matter entirely, it's difference between reading a novel and playing a DnD character essentially... and no one likes their DnD character being railroaded.

"The Tomb Raider scene."

Having not played that game, I wouldn't dare to venture a guess about the context of the scene, you have me stumped here my friend and I'll need to look into it further to ascertain where it stands in my opinion.
That said, I maintain (as an Art Doctorate,) that no subject should be outside the purview of art, as horrendous as Rape is and no one should have to go through it, artistic and authorial intent and context are everything, if it was designed to shock for the sake of shocking... poor show all round. Regardless, I'm too ill informed to comment on this properly so forgive my answers lack of conviction here.

"Assassins Creed Unity and Women."

As others have said this is more to do with historical evidence then anything, but again having not played the game, I have no comment, as I understand it that whole thing was a fuster cluck with one team saying one thing and another saying something different, but what it comes down to is all players see themselves as the protagonist and thus all PC's in the campaign are portrayed as male to better map the movements of other players. Again, I could be wrong and I'll even admit, that sounds a little hand wavey from myself, so I'm curious as to what the in game reasoning is, until I have that, I wouldn't deign to comment further beyond a simple shrug and a "I honestly don't know."

"DOA XBV"

Again having never played this franchise despite an innate desire too play the first one when it came out (I was 17, what do you expect?), I wouldn't dare to comment beyond this: It seems in DOA whilst yes, the cheese cake is apparent and the main focus, it's the female characters lack of ability in this game that seems to drag it down, yes the girls are in bikinis, but they are there for what? To frolic in the sun to earn gradually more revealing bikini's to be dressed in with discernible reward or stat boost to gain? It's more voyeuristic than actively sexual or sexualised. Bayonetta on the other hand uses her clothes (lack there of?) as a literal weapon, it's empowering to her as a character (literally) and as such informs her personality, the way she moves, the way she fights and the way she enjoys herself, in a way the DOA characters don't seem too.

Closing off, again I'm sorry if I've missed any context here, please point it out to me if I have and I'll do my best to address it.

Dam the internet for being filled with you useless TeaJWs, Coffee is clearly the superior hot beverage, you are just trying to get attention and rushing to the defense of beverages that never asked for your help! There is no such thing as a beverage-archy, it is a silly mith perpetuated by tea drinking bleeding hearts. We will not give in to your tea drinking socialist agenda, us proud coffee drinkers will continue to publicly drink as much coffee as we like and you will just need to tolerate it. Hot beverages are an art and we can consume whatever type we like. There is simply not a large enough market for your type of tea drinkers in this country, you faux-brit tea drinking freedom hater!

<3 I was hoping someone would respond like that. Although, I'm a true Brit... such cultural white washing... DUN DELETE MY NATIONALITY. D:

OK, that "sex is always positive" line got a full belly laugh from me! What you said about sexuality being exaggerated brings to mind what Yahtzee said about that: "Just because its portrayal is "ironic" doesn't mean somebody isn't getting off to it."

I'd ask you quote me in context please: "Because when done right, sex is always positive" see the removal of the "WHEN DONE RIGHT" changes the context in incredible ways and ways that infer a lot of potential unpleasantness... so please, don't misquote me again.

Now to address your main point: Absolutely, just because something is "ironic" doesn't mean someone isn't jacking off to it, but why is that a bad thing? People are turned on by all manner of things, from girls in jeans and sweaters to men in jock straps lifting weights, the means of how someone is turned on are so varied and wild, who are we to judge what others find sexually alluring or don't?

 

[Kohen Keesing]

Now to address your main point: Absolutely, just because something is "ironic" doesn't mean someone isn't jacking off to it, but why is that a bad thing? People are turned on by all manner of things, from girls in jeans and sweaters to men in jock straps lifting weights, the means of how someone is turned on are so varied and wild, who are we to judge what others find sexually alluring or don't?

I made the "A cat is fine too" argument earlier, in respects to this, but didn't develop on it so specifically

 

[Erttheking]

I just hope this isn't a repeat of when some particularly vocal individuals were getting worked up over a critic (I believe at Gamespot?) had the "gall" to bestow GTA5 with the INSULTING score of 9 / 10. All because she felt slightly uncomfortable with the game's persistent lack of concern with any form of potentially offensive subtext.

That whole ordeal had me laughing and sighing. Lighing? Saughing?

The issue with that review wasn't that the author "dared" to give it a score of 9, but rather that he devoted a large amount of an otherwise incredibly positive piece to complaining about how awful and sexist the game was. It was just weird. Its like, did he understand what kind of game he was playing? Did he expect a game about crime, robbery, and murder to have a thoughtful, respectful, and nuanced portrayal of women? When did GTA ever claim to not be sexist? Why does everything have to be so PC?

Basically, it's like complaining Madden has "too many dudes" and needs more gender representation. People cried foul because they sensed the author was showing disrespect for the medium, the product, and their time by using a bully-platform (reviewing a major game for a major publication) in order to promote his own ideological agenda.

Ok first of all she. The reviewer was a transexual (And dear Christ did the comments remind me of that in the most appealing way possible.) Second of all, large amount? She talked about it for twenty seconds! twenty seconds of a nearly nine minute long review. For contrast, Trevor alone nearly got an entire minute. Other things that she talked about more. Micheal and Franklin. The switching between characters. The Heists. The shooting. The driving. The soundtrack. And the story. Hardly what I'd call a large part.

Uh, no it isn't. Considering that women are not allowed in professonal football but women are not restricted from being criminals. Heck, there were even a few female criminals in game. They were in support roles and had little to no character, but they were there. So I don't find your comparison appropriate.

Bully platform? You consider talking about sexism for twenty seconds to be bullying? Really? Why is it that I live in a world where expressing an opinion contrary of the mainstream is considered bullying? Showing disrespect for the medium? So is any criticism of any video game ever disrespecting the medium now? No it isn't because that argument makes no sense.

 

[Rellik San]

Now to address your main point: Absolutely, just because something is "ironic" doesn't mean someone isn't jacking off to it, but why is that a bad thing? People are turned on by all manner of things, from girls in jeans and sweaters to men in jock straps lifting weights, the means of how someone is turned on are so varied and wild, who are we to judge what others find sexually alluring or don't?

I made the "A cat is fine too" argument earlier, in respects to this, but didn't develop on it so specifically

I've seen a fair few posts comment in response to issues that have been raised in opposition to mine.

Thank you all who've kept it civil and answered more in depth than I've been able too, also thank you all who've responded in kind and either given me reading material, food for thought or just another point I hadn't considered, also thank you to most of the commentators on this thread for keeping it both smart and civil and not making me regret wading in with poorly thought out jokes and opinions.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I just hope this isn't a repeat of when some particularly vocal individuals were getting worked up over a critic (I believe at Gamespot?) had the "gall" to bestow GTA5 with the INSULTING score of 9 / 10. All because she felt slightly uncomfortable with the game's persistent lack of concern with any form of potentially offensive subtext.

That whole ordeal had me laughing and sighing. Lighing? Saughing?

The issue with that review wasn't that the author "dared" to give it a score of 9, but rather that he devoted a large amount of an otherwise incredibly positive piece to complaining about how awful and sexist the game was. It was just weird. Its like, did he understand what kind of game he was playing? Did he expect a game about crime, robbery, and murder to have a thoughtful, respectful, and nuanced portrayal of women? When did GTA ever claim to not be sexist? Why does everything have to be so PC?

Basically, it's like complaining Madden has "too many dudes" and needs more gender representation. People cried foul because they sensed the author was showing disrespect for the medium, the product, and their time by using a bully-platform (reviewing a major game for a major publication) in order to promote his own ideological agenda.

How was "the author was showing disrespect for the medium, the product, and their time by using a bully-platform (reviewing a major game for a major publication) in order to promote his own ideological agenda.", if I may ask? How is he promoting his personal agenda? He gave the game the score he did because he didn't like certain things in it that detracted from his enjoyment which is perfectly valid. If people don't agree with his opinion then they are entitled to that since again, the review is just the authors personal feelings on the game as most reviews(not just games, but film, book, and TV as well) are very opinion based.

It shows disrespect because he was judging the game by his own tastes, not his audience's. The people who play GTA don't care about sexism, so chastising the game at such length was basically insulting to them. Its really odd because it shows either a lack of understanding about what the game was about or the intent to use a platform with a guaranteed audience to "score points for feminism" by blasting a popular game with baseless criticism.

It's like a person reviewing pornography making complaint after complaint about how the movies all have naked people having sex in them. Sure, this is "just their honest opinion," but it's clearly a useless and disingenuous opinion. They are claiming to have the audience's tastes in mind when in reality they are pushing their own.

You say its all just opinions so who cares, but journalists have a specific voice and platform which makes their voice louder and more influential than others. This is what "Bully Pulpit" means. With this platform comes an implicit understanding that the author of the review is not writing for themselves but for their audience, and thus will at least attempt to avoid bias or even the appearance of it. Basically whenever someone says "hey it's just my opinion and besides being unbiased is impossible" that is just an excuse for a lack of ethics and lazy writing. The criticism of the review was the audience declaring that the author had abused their position and thus had lost the audience's trust. It's hard to trust a reviewer as a source of consumer information if you feel they are pushing a personal agenda over everything else.