Jimquisition: Stupid Sexy Bayonetta
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah but unfortunately I think Team Ninja have such a reputation of making animated mannequins with tits in their games that it wouldn't seem sincere were they to correct itAaron Sylvester said:So all Team Ninja need to is build their sexy female characters around wanting to be sexy and having sex-driven personalities (not just having it imposed on them), and then feminists can shut up
And?Thanatos2k said:
What's the problem? Is that not the nature of reviews? Game developers are not owed a career, no more than you or I or Mr. Sterling is.
I find it hard to believe that anyone older than 12 even cares about these "issues" in gaming. They're not issues. Everybody is blowing everything out of proportion. Play the game or don't. Like it or don't like it. But why can't people just keep it to themselves instead of trying to force their views on everybody else like they fuckin' matter one fuckin' bit? They're just games for fuck sake.
This is true of every game. Even the upcoming Hatred. Do I like it? No. Am I going to try to convince others not to like it and call them horrible people for liking it? No. I may state a few facts about why my opinion is such and such, to give context to those that might want to know what I think about it and why, but that's where it ends.
This is true of every game. Even the upcoming Hatred. Do I like it? No. Am I going to try to convince others not to like it and call them horrible people for liking it? No. I may state a few facts about why my opinion is such and such, to give context to those that might want to know what I think about it and why, but that's where it ends.
Honestly, that's kinda of where I'm seeing these conversations going. Now of course 'shut up' is too strong, but it does seem like if Tina Armstrong, or Kasumi, or Lisa just looked at the camera and said "I want this" then it'd be a perfectly acceptable game.Aaron Sylvester said:So all Team Ninja need to is build their sexy female characters around wanting to be sexy and having sex-driven personalities (not just having it imposed on them), and then feminists can shut up
Also notice when people condemn the DoA games, no one ever mentions the characters themselves. Just like Soul Calibre, the characters all have absurdly detailed backgrounds and characterization, its just no one cares because its a fighting game. And again, the argument seems to be "Its out of character for Tine to wear a bikini" and I guess its all solved if a writer put a line in her bio "Tine likes bikinis"
Then I guess DoA VolleyBall would be an amazingly progressive game.
A parody of the olsen twins from T.V., in the game they are there in the intro giving duke a blowjob just off camera and then stand around making sexual double entendres. They appear later in an alien hive having been restrained and impregnated with alien spawn, they make comments about how basically their implied "pregnancy" doesn't stop them from wanting to ride Duke again, and I think they make comments about their figure being ruined, then they explode as the alien spawn bursts from their wombs.Silentpony said:
That first bit was really disappointing, Jim. I can very easily say something like "I don't condone harassment or threats towards developers, but I do think that even in a time when a developer may be under intense harassment, their work is still open to criticism. With that said, Depression Quest is a bad game." Or "I don't condone harassment or threats towards commentators, but I do think that even in a time when a commentator may be under intense harassment, their work is still open to criticism. With that said, I think Anita Sarkeesian's videos have poor production quality not justifying her presumed budget" (Both of these are opinions I sincerely hold).
And?Thanatos2k said:
So what? Reviewers are entitled to their opinion. That is the contract Obsidian signed.
New Vegas is my favorite game ever. I have well over 1000 hours logged on it.
I have a feeling you should be reading other comments in this thread, as it has come to light in this threat that not only did he often visit said pornographic site, he has actually worked for them for 10 yearsDrOswald said:
As for him not liking the mix of erotica and gaming... while if its truly his opinion that if perfectly fine, that said its already something so deeply entrenched its like complaining about the rain in England, perfectly viable but still a waste of breath
The calling of him as a hypocrite has in fact come from others way before me and I am merely just echoing said views here for the sake of an even sided debate.MarsAtlas said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbSL2wvlq0Q
This just came up on and I feel its relevant to the on going debate
Just gonna leave this here then
This just came up on and I feel its relevant to the on going debate
Just gonna leave this here then
That is utter fucking gold, from my point of viewKuro Serpentina said:
>This totally wasn't a ripoff of Movie Bob's "The Big Picture"
I need to watch that, now, too.
There is an enormous difference between saying:
"I don't condone any of the harassment or violent threats aimed at person X however I do think that person X is wrong about Z"
and
"I think that person X is wrong about Z but I don't condone any of the harassment or violent threats aimed at person X"
Say the second one.
The first statement is a message for those defending person X telling them it doesn't matter than they are being harassed the harassers still have a point.
The second statement is a message for the harassers telling them it doesn't matter that they have a point harrassment is still unacceptable.
Compare with:
"Sexual assault is unacceptable however the victim was wearing a short skirt."
and
"The victim was wearing a short skirt but sexual assault is unacceptable."
Isn't language fun!!!
"I don't condone any of the harassment or violent threats aimed at person X however I do think that person X is wrong about Z"
and
"I think that person X is wrong about Z but I don't condone any of the harassment or violent threats aimed at person X"
Say the second one.
The first statement is a message for those defending person X telling them it doesn't matter than they are being harassed the harassers still have a point.
The second statement is a message for the harassers telling them it doesn't matter that they have a point harrassment is still unacceptable.
Compare with:
"Sexual assault is unacceptable however the victim was wearing a short skirt."
and
"The victim was wearing a short skirt but sexual assault is unacceptable."
Isn't language fun!!!
There's no problem with having those ideas, what Jim is criticizing seems to be more of a matter of phrasing and connotations. When you say "however" after a phrase like that you're taking away a lot of its impact. As a result your condemnation of harassment sounds a lot less sincere.guitarsniper said:
It's got nothing to do with liking Depression Quest or not. It's about letting your condemnation of threats and harassment ring out, showing that you stand behind said condemnation 100%.
Ug-g-gg-ghhhh.
"This is why we can't have nice things..."
One:
"Criticism is just a subjective opinion..."
No, no, for fuck's sake, no, for now and all time. If all a critic has to offer is a subjective opinion, they should lose their goddamn job.
Go to metacritic and look at an assortment of reviews. There will be a spread, but there will also be a lot of agreement, especially at the top and the bottom. Is this because of a universal conspiracy between game critics and publishers? No, it's because a lot of things, critics can agree on. If a game spreads its functions over twelve buttons when it only needed four. If the graphics look like they were shot through a camera lens coated in half an inch of Vaseline. If the save system squanders the player's time and effort. If the user interface is confusing and hides or mispresents important information.
...If the game fails to integrate features that have become standard in its genre. If its muddy textures would have been acceptable a generation before, but are inexcusable in a machine with modern levels of memory and processing power. If it's principal characters are going through the motions in a tired old story that has been done a thousand times before.
The latter sort of thing is because a critic ought to be able to give an informed opinion- because that's part of the reason you're going to a critic and not your friend Joe in the first place. The former is because certain things are, if not objective matters, at least pretty close. Objectivity and subjectivity are not absolutes. Maybe one critic has monkey-hands on their feet and has no problem at all with the intricacies of that gratuitious twelve-button interface, but the others will tell you otherwise.
A critic's "opinion" should matter; it should have some weight. If it doesn't, they should get out of the business.
Which brings us to:
Two:
Criticism is not, and should not be, immune to criticism itself.
Obligatory:
Do not threaten people you don't like. Do not do violence to people who disagree with you. In fact, try to resist the temptation to go straight for the ad hominem attack, kthanx?
That said? (Yeah, deal.)
Some criticism is narrow, ill-informed, misguided, and/or just plain irresponsible. Most of the criticism that insists that a character is representative of any and all people who share their characteristics, for a start, or that anything a protagonist does must be something the author explicitly approves. (Go read Gavia Baker-Whitelaw's critique of the "misogynist" Guardians of the Galaxy for a shining example. Just don't threaten or harass her about it, please.)
Criticism is weighted more than "just someone's opinion"; others use criticism to shape their opinion of where they'll spend their money and how the discussion will be shaped when they talk about it. Publishers use it to decide what they'll publish next time, what is worth the trouble, what their brand will be associated with. People who have never played "Grand Theft Auto" will still presume to know that it's that game that made played by misogynists, or that game that made that kid shoot his grandmother.
And criticism can be wrong.
It's all but inevitable that a critic will give their own slant to something. Maybe they lost their virginity after seeing Interview With the Vampire and have given vampire movies a pass ever since. Maybe their little brother was killed by falling stack of casual games.
But a critic worth their salt will try to be aware of their subtle biases, to make their reader aware of them and account for them. And maybe even recuse themselves if they simply can't.
A good critic isn't trying to tell you whether they liked or didn't like something. They're giving you the information as to whether you will or won't like something.
If all their weight is on the parts of their review that are the most subjective, they've failed.
Three:
Negative reaction to criticism is not automatically a sign of insecurity or irrational fear.
How many people in this topic have referred to Bayonetta as "masturbatory material"?
Most critics are a bit less obviously critical of a game's players than implying they're buying a game to indulge in solitary sexual activity (with the attendant associations.) But in the current climate...? Maybe not so much. It borders on willful ignorance to suggest that there's always a clear division between suggesting that a game is misogynistic or racist and that those who appreciate it without taking a similar stance aren't also racist or misogynistic.
That ought to be as painfully, explicitly clear as "I don't condone violence towards those who disagree with me". But it's become all too common to suggest it's the job of the aggrieved to sort themselves out when a critic uses scattershot language in their criticism. "Oh, I didn't mean you. Or maybe I did! Maybe you're self-selecting for being someone I'm talking about by showing this insecurity."
When you've managed to create that sort of self-perpetuating circuit in your logic, congratulations: you've achieved a closed mind, and become worthless to anything resembling actual discussion.
Polygon's review of Bayonetta 2 is just one of many; it's currently running at 91 on Metacritic, and I completely agree that people calling for Nintendo to blacklist Polygon are going way off their hinges.
And yes, there is and should be room for different opinions, and people are free to loathe things I like, and speak out about them.
But maybe, just maybe, the people whose job it is to drip-feed us information so we can make informed choices should take their jobs seriously enough to bear their responsibility in mind when they're considering if, how, and when they're addressing their audience.
"This is why we can't have nice things..."
One:
"Criticism is just a subjective opinion..."
No, no, for fuck's sake, no, for now and all time. If all a critic has to offer is a subjective opinion, they should lose their goddamn job.
Go to metacritic and look at an assortment of reviews. There will be a spread, but there will also be a lot of agreement, especially at the top and the bottom. Is this because of a universal conspiracy between game critics and publishers? No, it's because a lot of things, critics can agree on. If a game spreads its functions over twelve buttons when it only needed four. If the graphics look like they were shot through a camera lens coated in half an inch of Vaseline. If the save system squanders the player's time and effort. If the user interface is confusing and hides or mispresents important information.
...If the game fails to integrate features that have become standard in its genre. If its muddy textures would have been acceptable a generation before, but are inexcusable in a machine with modern levels of memory and processing power. If it's principal characters are going through the motions in a tired old story that has been done a thousand times before.
The latter sort of thing is because a critic ought to be able to give an informed opinion- because that's part of the reason you're going to a critic and not your friend Joe in the first place. The former is because certain things are, if not objective matters, at least pretty close. Objectivity and subjectivity are not absolutes. Maybe one critic has monkey-hands on their feet and has no problem at all with the intricacies of that gratuitious twelve-button interface, but the others will tell you otherwise.
A critic's "opinion" should matter; it should have some weight. If it doesn't, they should get out of the business.
Which brings us to:
Two:
Criticism is not, and should not be, immune to criticism itself.
Obligatory:
Do not threaten people you don't like. Do not do violence to people who disagree with you. In fact, try to resist the temptation to go straight for the ad hominem attack, kthanx?
That said? (Yeah, deal.)
Some criticism is narrow, ill-informed, misguided, and/or just plain irresponsible. Most of the criticism that insists that a character is representative of any and all people who share their characteristics, for a start, or that anything a protagonist does must be something the author explicitly approves. (Go read Gavia Baker-Whitelaw's critique of the "misogynist" Guardians of the Galaxy for a shining example. Just don't threaten or harass her about it, please.)
Criticism is weighted more than "just someone's opinion"; others use criticism to shape their opinion of where they'll spend their money and how the discussion will be shaped when they talk about it. Publishers use it to decide what they'll publish next time, what is worth the trouble, what their brand will be associated with. People who have never played "Grand Theft Auto" will still presume to know that it's that game that made played by misogynists, or that game that made that kid shoot his grandmother.
And criticism can be wrong.
It's all but inevitable that a critic will give their own slant to something. Maybe they lost their virginity after seeing Interview With the Vampire and have given vampire movies a pass ever since. Maybe their little brother was killed by falling stack of casual games.
But a critic worth their salt will try to be aware of their subtle biases, to make their reader aware of them and account for them. And maybe even recuse themselves if they simply can't.
A good critic isn't trying to tell you whether they liked or didn't like something. They're giving you the information as to whether you will or won't like something.
If all their weight is on the parts of their review that are the most subjective, they've failed.
Three:
Negative reaction to criticism is not automatically a sign of insecurity or irrational fear.
How many people in this topic have referred to Bayonetta as "masturbatory material"?
Most critics are a bit less obviously critical of a game's players than implying they're buying a game to indulge in solitary sexual activity (with the attendant associations.) But in the current climate...? Maybe not so much. It borders on willful ignorance to suggest that there's always a clear division between suggesting that a game is misogynistic or racist and that those who appreciate it without taking a similar stance aren't also racist or misogynistic.
That ought to be as painfully, explicitly clear as "I don't condone violence towards those who disagree with me". But it's become all too common to suggest it's the job of the aggrieved to sort themselves out when a critic uses scattershot language in their criticism. "Oh, I didn't mean you. Or maybe I did! Maybe you're self-selecting for being someone I'm talking about by showing this insecurity."
When you've managed to create that sort of self-perpetuating circuit in your logic, congratulations: you've achieved a closed mind, and become worthless to anything resembling actual discussion.
Polygon's review of Bayonetta 2 is just one of many; it's currently running at 91 on Metacritic, and I completely agree that people calling for Nintendo to blacklist Polygon are going way off their hinges.
And yes, there is and should be room for different opinions, and people are free to loathe things I like, and speak out about them.
But maybe, just maybe, the people whose job it is to drip-feed us information so we can make informed choices should take their jobs seriously enough to bear their responsibility in mind when they're considering if, how, and when they're addressing their audience.
I totally agree. The point I was trying to make (which I guess I didn't get across very well), was that when trying to honestly critique something at the same time that the thing (or the thing's creator) is coming under attack, it may be necessary to include a disclaimer of sorts in your critique to try to minimize association of that critique with harassment.Welkin said:
The phrase "I think" is implied anyway isn't it? Hedging statements weaken the tone of what you're saying but they don't actually change any of the meaning. I have no problem with saying that someone is "wrong" when discussing something purely subjective because it's obviously not being used in the same way as describing someone as "wrong" when they claim the Sun goes round the Earth.VanQ said:
I hate it when people say "in my opinion" because they always do so in a situation where it is really obvious that it's their opinion. If anyone ever says "in my humble opinion" I have to fight the urge to punch them. I can accept "in my professional opinion" because that actually adds context that might not be implied by the situation otherwise isn't unnecessary. Can't you tell when someone is expressing an opinion anyway, because I sure can?
That's incorrect. Metacritic only indexes the scores of your site if you ask them to. Not everyone's site who asks them to will get accepted, but if you don't ask you won't show up.VoidOfOne said:
I never said it was "the responsibility of reviewers." My point is that ignoring bad reviewers does absolutely nothing to stop them from negatively affecting developers. Ignoring bad reviewers is not a solution. Removing them is.
Played only the first, and while the mechanics are tight (uch) the game is just too stupid to enjoy. I know its "on purpose" but I just cant play it with a straight face. And even worse I cant play it and laugh at its ridiculousness either. I played the first while my girlfriend watched now and then. She is extremely tolerant and even liked some of the designs (a bit of a clothes-freak, women right...) she just had to facepalm regularly.
And it wouldnt help if she wasnt there either. This is the kind of game I would blush even when playing alone. And not because I have a problem with sexuality...I just have a problem with stupidity. Its the same feeling I've gotten the few times I've watched idol auditions gone wrong or something. The cringe feeling. There is zero entertainment value for me in it, I just want it to not exist.
And while I have no problem with other people liking it or wanting to play it...I really wish we didnt live in a world where that was the case :|
And it wouldnt help if she wasnt there either. This is the kind of game I would blush even when playing alone. And not because I have a problem with sexuality...I just have a problem with stupidity. Its the same feeling I've gotten the few times I've watched idol auditions gone wrong or something. The cringe feeling. There is zero entertainment value for me in it, I just want it to not exist.
And while I have no problem with other people liking it or wanting to play it...I really wish we didnt live in a world where that was the case :|