Jimquisition: Stupid Sexy Bayonetta

[K12]

"I think Bayonetta is sexist because it has gratuitous ass and crotch shots" <- Gets across that it's opinion, won't cause any issue from me.
"Bayonetta is sexist because it has gratuitous ass and crotch shots" <- Immediately earns my ire, expressing opinion as fact.

Also, the first 50 seconds of that video was the most condescending assery I've experienced in a long time. People were dicks to you on twitter, that's awful. Don't take it out on your audience.

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.

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?

 

[Thanatos2k]

There is a difference between saying "I have personal problems with Bayonetta as a character" and "Everyone should have personal problems with Bayonetta as a character, I'm docking the score to show this to you and to punish the developers, and if you think otherwise I'm deleting your comments."

And this is why game journalism needs to be reformed.

If I find a reviewer obnoxious, I just don't use his reviews as source of information when picking my games. There must be a gazillion different voices out there when it comes to game reviews.

Unfortunately that reviewer you ignore submits his score to metacritic, making or breaking the careers of game developers.

Ahem. No one submits his or her score to Metacritic. The people in Metacritic look up the reviews and take the scores and use them in their calculation for their weighted score. So it's not the review site's job or responsibility to give the scores to Metacritic.

Now as for "making or breaking the careers of game developers," that is not the responsibility of reviewers. That lies solely on the management side of developers and/or publishers. The score is there, and the companies may or may not use that to determine how they should proceed. Whether they take the scores to account, be it for good or for ill, right or wrong, has nothing to do with Metacritic or game review websites.

Also, if a game you really enjoy doesn't get high review scores, that does suck. But you can't expect everyone to enjoy the game you like. For instance, I dislike The Last of Us, the Game of the Year of 2013 across many review sites. And I don't think they're wrong in saying so. And like Jim, I'm a big fan of the Dynasty Warrior series (more so the Orochi Warrior series), of which don't get rave reviews. And I don't think the reviewers are wrong in not liking the game. That's how it goes, in any entertainment industry.

So it may mean that the games you like get made less and less. That's how it goes, once again, in any industry. But to blame reviewers for this seems misplaced, at best.

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.

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.

 

[tzimize]

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 :|

 

[VoidOfOne]

Snip

First, you still contract the statement you made, in that reviewers give Metacritic their scores. And it's Metacritic who asks.

And I take issue with what you think are "bad reviewers." It sounds to me, all this time, is you have issues with reviews that go against your own opinions. That's fine, but saying that they should be removed is irresponsible. By who's criteria should we go about in saying what reviews should go? Should we remove reviews that give what someone considers a bad game a good score? Should we remove reviews that give what one considers a great game a very low score? Your solution causes a new mess of problems, and solves nothing.

 

[themilo504]

I agree with the intro, if you want to condone harassment but you dislike the person that?s being harassed, just say that you don?t like that person but you still condone the harassment, even though it pretty much means the same thing it sounds a lot nicer than saying you condone the harassment but you don?t like the person that?s being harassed.

Speaking as somebody who is celibate bayonetta?s character doesn?t really appeal to me because of the massive amounts of fan service, but I can see why some people might like the character ignoring the obvious reasons.

I think the reason why people dislike negative reviews is because of how people view review scores, people need to start viewing reviews scores as a measurement not of the games quality but of the reviewers opinion of the game.

 

[Nion]

Personally, I think the sentence "Death threats against [person or group] are deplorable and horrible and cannot be condoned" should come without the "however" regardless of who the person or group is. Jim seems to disagree.

 

[ajr209]

50 seconds in and I already feel the need to point of that everyone that uses #gamergate/#stopgamergate has about the same amount of perspective, none whatsoever.

Post watching:
After watching the video I feel the need to point out to Sterling that when you are negatively criticizing one side's problems, but never the other side's, you come off like a supporter of the other side.

If you mean the bit at the beginning before he launched into the topic he's right, people need to knock it off with this whole "I don't condone but... now I'm going to say why the thing I just said I don't condone is actually okay" nonsense. Either a person condones something or they don't. If they do then have the guts to say so or they don't in which case they should just say so and leave it at that because anything they could add after that merely waters down or flat out undoes that condemnation.

What's more this is an editorial series. If you are so easily offended by such things you shouldn't watch them. He's under no more legal or ethical obligation to give a view he might not share equal time and validity than he has to hunt for ways ubisoft or EA aren't fucking up.

 

[Kohen Keesing]

Personally, I think the sentence "Death threats against [person or group] are deplorable and horrible and cannot be condoned" should come without the "however" regardless of who the person or group is. Jim seems to disagree.

As social parallel, there are occasions, say, with racism, where the "However..." and "But..." are necessary.

For example:

"I'm not racist, but keep an eye out for Rick, he likes stealing people's Bic Lighters"

Now, if Rick is black, and you didn't use the "I'm not racist, but...." line, there are people who would immediately assume you were being racist.

The only time the "But"s don't work is when you immediately say something fucking racist:

"I'm not racist, but keep an eye out for Rick, black people like stealing Bic lighters"

More on topic, here's an example of a threat sentence containing a valid "however":

"Death and abuse threats are not okay, however, I understand you have an unreasonable and perhaps psychotic investment in [movie/game/literature], but maybe you just need to calm the fuck down"

You have to define and acknowledge what it is about a person that is making them behave in the extremely stupid way that they are, but at the same time you have to remind them their behaviour is unacceptable.

 

[Faerillis]

Jim that 'however' lets us discuss a number of things that we can't otherwise. Sarkeesian, for example, is a complete and under utter snake oil salesman: her work is researched a little less rigorously than most High School papers, she sells herself on constant victimhood and oppression, she has repeatedly shown herself to intentionally misrepresent games to make them appear more sexist... she is a terrible 'journalist' and a fairly shit person over all; all of that said, I do not condone the death threats or harassment she receives.

See, we're barely allowed to take critical looks into any female games journalist's work at any point in time. If people don't start with that caveat of 'I don't condone the harassment', every criticism of the post is going to be "So you're with all the people harassing her!" which is a pathetic strawman and a waste of everyone's time. That 'however' is a necessity of pointing out how shit a lot of the work these people do is. Please Jim, The Escapist doesn't need another Bob Chipman doubling down on mistakes ? evolve on this issue. I know you once said we shouldn't question the quality of Sarkeesian's work because she'd been harassed too much but mistreatment, however blatant and egregious, doesn't instantly make one's work more valid.

Because, Jim, acknowledging when people are selling snake oil is not condemning their existence. Really though Jim, telling people off for trying to defend themselves from what are inevitable complaints in an episode focused on reasonable and honest discourse... interesting juxtaposition.

 

[EternallyBored]

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.

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.

By removing them, I am assuming you are talking about removing them from Metacritic, not removing them from existence altogether.

I still find this to be a negative proposition, that you are seriously proposing that we alter discourse merely to cater to a minority of publishers that might hinge some sort of bonus payment on a Metacritic score. You are basing this on an outside hypothetical that has not happened yet, and has very little chance of actually happening at any point in the future.

You are basically proposing that we eliminate critique on the remote possibility that it could negatively effect developers in the future. This is of course ignoring the fact that any consequences would be the moral fault of the publishers, not the reviewers, but we shouldn't edit ourselves because a publisher might make a questionable decision in the future.

No, I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this, that viewpoint will cause far more damage than any benefit it would provide to the industry, I do not like Polygon's reviews, but I refuse to take a stance that eliminates potential discourse simply because there's a small chance that it may hurt some unknown developer at some unspecified time in the future.

 

[arithine]

Look, we people who disagree with the feminists feel like we have to put in "I don't condone violence, but" because if we don't people are going to assume we are condoning violence, because that's the broad stroke we've all been painted under. If we don't agree with your views then we are the hate spewing trolls that send out death threats to people we don't like on the internet.

So it's either we say our dislike of violence and death threats upfront (in which case you say you won't listen to us, because we really are condoning violence, just under the banner of not condoning it [how does that make sense again?]) or we don't, in which case we get accused of condoning violence simply because we don't think this whole "sexism in video games" is as big a problem as people are making it out to be, or because we want more ethical journalistic coverage. It's a lose lose.

 

[Caostotale]

There is a difference between saying "I have personal problems with Bayonetta as a character" and "Everyone should have personal problems with Bayonetta as a character, I'm docking the score to show this to you and to punish the developers, and if you think otherwise I'm deleting your comments."

And this is why game journalism needs to be reformed.

Reviews aren't journalism, they are the reviewers personal opinions. 100% objective criticism is boring and impossible. If a reviewer has a problem with the depiction of a character in a piece of media then they should be able to include it in the review without fear of ridicule.

Agreed, and if a person wants to indulge in the pipe dream of 'objective criticism', they should stop begging to be nannied by the system and instead go over to Amazon, Gamespot, Bestbuy, every single gaming site, etc... and start tabulating and averaging every single user review and, after the 2-3 years it takes to produce a cogent 'x/10'-format score within a reasonable range of statistical uncertainty, then they'll have something that...well, still isn't objective, but might be close enough to have kept them safe from all of that dangerous SJW/Illuminati bias. Meanwhile, the rest of the consumer world will be blissfully enjoying Bayonetta 5, but those people are all just being used by corrupt game journalism, so their spending power counts for nothing in a real 'gamers' market.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Snip

First, you still contract the statement you made, in that reviewers give Metacritic their scores. And it's Metacritic who asks.

And I take issue with what you think are "bad reviewers." It sounds to me, all this time, is you have issues with reviews that go against your own opinions. That's fine, but saying that they should be removed is irresponsible. By who's criteria should we go about in saying what reviews should go? Should we remove reviews that give what someone considers a bad game a good score? Should we remove reviews that give what one considers a great game a very low score? Your solution causes a new mess of problems, and solves nothing.

I explained what makes a professional review. Those who don't do that are bad reviewers, in my opinion.

 

[Thanatos2k]

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.

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.

By removing them, I am assuming you are talking about removing them from Metacritic, not removing them from existence altogether.

I still find this to be a negative proposition, that you are seriously proposing that we alter discourse merely to cater to a minority of publishers that might hinge some sort of bonus payment on a Metacritic score. You are basing this on an outside hypothetical that has not happened yet, and has very little chance of actually happening at any point in the future.

You are basically proposing that we eliminate critique on the remote possibility that it could negatively effect developers in the future. This is of course ignoring the fact that any consequences would be the moral fault of the publishers, not the reviewers, but we shouldn't edit ourselves because a publisher might make a questionable decision in the future.

No, I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this, that viewpoint will cause far more damage than any benefit it would provide to the industry, I do not like Polygon's reviews, but I refuse to take a stance that eliminates potential discourse simply because there's a small chance that it may hurt some unknown developer at some unspecified time in the future.

I am fine with them writing another article containing all their "critique" they want of a game, including how sexist they think it is. In fact, I think we need more of those type of articles that analyze games.

Keep that out of your review though. It goes contrary to the purpose of a professional review.

 

[Toadfish1]

The "Bayonetta has agency over her sexuality...that her creator is making her do" stuff seems incredibly weak when you consider that it also covers roughly 90% of actions of female leads in "MILF" porno - the proud woman who knows what she wants (hint - the poolboys cock) and takes her own actions towards getting it. Its just another form of male wish fulfillment, the nympho older woman, but it undermines her because ultimately, she is still ruled and defined entirely by her sexuality. Her sexuality is channelled in this case, but its all her sexuality nonetheless.

 

[Jennacide]

As I assume someone has pointed out already, the problem with the Polygon review is when you actually read it. The critic was a hypocrit about it, and even admitted such. He loved the game, he loved the action, and then smashed the score down just because he felt it was sexist. That is zero journalistic or critical integrity.

Mention that it makes you uncomfortable, mention that you are worried about it's potential sexist nature, but grade it on a completely critical level. He clearly didn't do this, as reading the review he makes it apparent he really enjoyed the game, then slashed the score down a few knocks for his social and moral beliefs. At that point you are soap boxing, and not critiquing.

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.

 

[Kohen Keesing]

The "Bayonetta has agency over her sexuality...that her creator is making her do" stuff seems incredibly weak when you consider that it also covers roughly 90% of actions of female leads in "MILF" porno - the proud woman who knows what she wants (hint - the poolboys cock) and takes her own actions towards getting it. Its just another form of male wish fulfillment, the nympho older woman, but it undermines her because ultimately, she is still ruled and defined entirely by her sexuality. Her sexuality is channelled in this case, but its all her sexuality nonetheless.

But that's what gives Bayonetta and the MILF their respective characters. They're the ones driving their motivations and controlling them, and it seems relevant to their characters. Also, you're making an assumption there that these ideas are driven by male wish-fulfillment. Is it not possible that a woman watches MILF porn, as in your example, because they want to see a female intiating and leading? Your statement seems to be falling on the side of "open sexuality is bad".... in which case, I have to refer you back to Kuro Serpentina's youtube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbSL2wvlq0Q

 

[Ipsen]

A bad review is a personal opinion. A professional review attempts to be objective criticism.

What almost every single professional game reviewer out there fails to realize is their purpose.

A professional review is not supposed to tell me whether the reviewer liked the game. A professional review is supposed to tell me whether *I* will like the game. You do this by objectively analyzing the technical merits of the game, comparing and contrasting the game with others like it, and then perhaps going into what does or does not work about the story/characters/etc from a structural level. NOT injecting your own personal ideology, because your ideology is probably not my ideology and thus serves no purpose in informing me properly about the reviewed game. If you want to mention what elements of the game may be of interest or disinterest to me then so be it (ex: feminists may not like the themes in this game = ok. This game has sexist themes = not ok) but keep your politics in your pocket.

Game reviewers almost never understand this, and most go with a "This is what I liked and didn't like" review which is of limited use to anyone. That's why people in large consider game reviews to be a joke.

Escapists, PLEASE. No more objective > subjective talk.... It just...doesn't....work....

You're suggesting that 'objective review's' work by:

analyzing the technical merits of the game, comparing and contrasting the game with others like it, and then perhaps going into what does or does not work about the story/characters/etc from a structural level.

....and we're NOT going to, with 'subjective' matters cut, argue over the meaning of these 'objective' facets? If we can agree that this is at least a possibility, then at least your facets of objective review are not as objective/more subjective than you think.

I think what you want is clear-cut areas with no room for argument as the core focus of reviews. I think you want this if just only to silence the ideological babble that happens so often now. However, even eschewing the notion that this would never happen, that review won't tell us much, if the reviewer is truly dedicated to objectivity. For as soon as the reviewer starts injecting his or her own ideas....It's subjective. They subject us to their ideas, at that point, and from there, we have to agree or disagree (hell, for semantics sake, they subject us to their idea of objective reviews in that case, even).

Moral of the story? Objects/concepts strictly existing is objectivity. Subjecting shit is what we, as people, do. It's how we understand the things around us. We don't get away from this.

 

[VoidOfOne]

Snip

First, you still contract the statement you made, in that reviewers give Metacritic their scores. And it's Metacritic who asks.

And I take issue with what you think are "bad reviewers." It sounds to me, all this time, is you have issues with reviews that go against your own opinions. That's fine, but saying that they should be removed is irresponsible. By who's criteria should we go about in saying what reviews should go? Should we remove reviews that give what someone considers a bad game a good score? Should we remove reviews that give what one considers a great game a very low score? Your solution causes a new mess of problems, and solves nothing.

I explained what makes a professional review. Those who don't do that are bad reviewers, in my opinion.

And who is to say that your view is the standard that everyone should hold to? What makes you such a trusted authority?

As you said, its your opinion. That's fine. And it is also fine to criticize reviews that don't hold to your standards. I disagree with what you think makes a professional review. And we can agree to disagree.

But, once again, just because some people think a review is bad doesn't qualify for it not being used, especially in Metacritic. Otherwise, there would be no reviews, scores or not.

 

[Kohen Keesing]

-snip-

-snip-

Isn't this why reviews originally were scored on a number of merits?

i.e.
Story=/10
Gameplay=/10
Art Direction=/10
etc etc

Because there is no one true criteria to measure a game by, and gamers as a whole play different games for different reasons?
Also I too am going to call out the arrogance of suggesting that YOU PERSONALLY 'know how professional reviews should be written' and what criteria they need to test, because without knowing you and your gaming opinions personally, it can only come across as holier-than-thou, I-know-better-than-you arrogance