I...Wow. Just...Just this
That was amazing and on point. Thank you for the break down.
Which then brings up the other issue, the reviewer in question is Polygon's reviews editor, and has a history of annoyance with the series. Being the editor, he CHOOSE to review a game he had a problem with instead of assigning it to someone else. If that doesn't scream agenda, I don't know what does.
This would be the major crux of the problem for me, personally.
Furthermore...It's Bayonetta 2. Not Bayonetta 1 or, hell, Hair and You: A Delightfully Banal Experience. If you don't know by now what you're getting in to or if you know for a fact that you dislike certain elements and that they're going to 'color' your view on it to the point where it's going to drastically impact the score... then what the hell are you doing reviewing the game?
You'd think a "reviews editor" would understand this very simple concept.
Sexism in Gaming =/= Actual Porn.
I need to point this out. That isn't argument.
I draw porn constantly and can still criticize games for sexist shit.
It's about leaving your porn at the door when you create a product as much as you can.
Bayonetta isn't porn. It's a product sold to the masses.
I may not agree that she's sexist, but that reviewer is well in there right to criticize it for sexist tropes.
Your drawing porn or something sexy is because, well, you want
to draw porn or something sexy. I do it too. It's fun!
If a developer wants
to make their game, or a character in their game, sexy or pornographic and it was their intent to do as much then what's the problem? There is absolutely no reason why a creator should be made to 'leave their porn at the door' when creating something.
By all means, continue criticizing, but to declare that a creator can't create what they want to create because it doesn't appeal to you or meet your standards of decency is just mind boggling.
Bayonetta is whatever its creators want it to be.
And, frankly, if you've invested in a porn site for a decade, it does
erode your credibility as to what should and shouldn't be considered sexist by the public you're attempting to 'educate' on the subject.
...Also, SuicideGirls is an excellent website. Tatoo-laden, pierced, and punky girls? Unf.
Ahem, moving on.
Have you ever considered that some people find it uncomfortable when people try tp inject sex into a beat-em-up videogame? That maybe some people like to keep their sexual fantasies in one realm and videogames in another? That maybe many people don't play games for masturbation material but for a difference experience? It doesn't necessarily make you a prude because you don't like sex in videogames, and in my experience, most people don't like it because they don't want sexual fantasies in the same realm as gaming. I can only speak for myself, but if I wanted porn, I'd go watch porn. If I wanted a lap dance, I'd go get a lap dance, not experience a lap dance between shooting galleries in Duke Nukem. Its the same reason that when people generally want some excitement in their life and do something, like, say, skydiving, they don't bring sex workers skydiving with them.
Well, I have to disagree with this line of thought on its basic premise, as it relates to what's being discussed.
This isn't some subversive 'gotcha' type of sexuality that is just thrown into your face in an average, off the shelf beat 'em up. It's on the box and in the promotional material. You know what you're getting here.
It's Bayonetta! An established
franchise, in which, the sexualization is an established
element/trait of the character.
Truly, it's all well and good to not be into sex in your games, but you also have to realize that some games, specifically Bayonetta of all things, aren't going to cater to your desires and that there's a large enough market for
said sex-injected titles to exist in, alongside non-sexual experiences.
That said, there are a plethora of titles, in all genres, that can and do avoid the sexificationy times! In point of fact, most
vidya doesn't contain sexual or eroticized elements.
Side Note: Er...why did you go from just "people" to "some people" to "many people" to "most people"? I'm not sure if this was a deliberately progressive inflation, or if it was unintentional.